Mark 6

CHAPTER VI

From Matthew’s Gospel we know that the visit to Nazareth occurred after the Sermon in Parables had been delivered (Matt. 13:53; Mark 4:1–34), but we cannot determine just how soon after. Luke 4:16 gives the fullest account of this visit; Luke places it in the forefront of his Gospel but indicates in v. 23 that Jesus was then at the height of his ministry and thus agrees with Matthew and with Mark.

Mark 6:1

1 And he went out thence and comes to his native place; and his disciples follow him.

Jesus left Capernaum and the neighborhood of the sea and comes to the town where he was brought up, namely to Nazareth (Luke 4:16), which is called his πατρίς or native city. Mark adds that the disciples went along, for only three were present at the raising of Jairus’ daughter (5:37). They are again together with Jesus on this trip.

Mark 6:2

2 And Sabbath having come, he began to teach them in the synagogue. And many, as they were hearing, began to be dumbfounded, saying, Whence these things to this man? And what the wisdom given to this man, and such works of power occurring through his hand?

Jesus arrived in Nazareth possibly on a Friday and then taught in the town’s synagogue on Saturday. “Began to teach” intimates that something followed the teaching as the other evangelists also report. From Luke’s account we see how this teaching on the part of Jesus proceeded. The rulers of the synagogue permitted Jesus to address the people. He read a passage from Isaiah and showed how the ancient prophecy was now being fulfilled through his ministrations. The people were at first pleased with the gracious words of Jesus yet wondered at this son of Joseph. Then Jesus warned them against unbelief, whereupon the sentiment turned against him.

It is this hostility on which Matthew and Mark dwell. As they were listening to Jesus (ἀκούοντες, present, action simultaneous with the main verb) many (πολλοί, not all) began to be dumbfounded (inchoative imperfect). The verb is strong; these people were mentally upset. Their own words indicate in what way this is to be understood.

They ask themselves a number of questions. What they see in Jesus is entirely beyond their comprehension. First, the comprehensive question: “Whence to this man these things?” Whence did he get them? There is an implied contrast between τούτῳ and ταῦτα: this ordinary man whom they know so well and these astonishing things which seem utterly beyond him. Thus τούτῳ is derogatory because it is placed into contrast with ταῦτα.

The next question specifies regarding the wisdom and regarding the works of power. “What (τίς == ποῖος, what kind of, R. 735) the wisdom that was given to this man (τούτῳ, repeated with a derogatory inflection)?” “Wisdom” refers to the teaching of Jesus. But these people cannot bring themselves to think that Jesus has acquired it by his own efforts, somebody must have given it to him, and he is only saying what someone else told him. The agent behind the passive aorist participle δοθεῖσα is left indefinite and is not referred to God by these questioners. No wonder the great preaching of Jesus dumbfounded them when their question was so wide of the mark.

They next refer to “such great works of power,” δυνάμεις in the sense of miracles wrought by great power. These people admit that they “are occurring (present tense) through his hands.” Jesus had not, as far as we know, wrought any miracles in Nazareth (Luke 4:23), but these people had heard of the miracles that he had performed in other places, and some of them had very likely witnessed a number of them. So they know the great fact of the δυνάμεις. The phrase “through his hands” should not be stressed to mean “through the laying on of his hands”; for Jesus did not always use his hands: he laid them on no demoniac, nor on the sea and the wind, nor on many that had diseases. The phrase means “through his agency,” hands being understood in the metaphorical sense. This question regarding the wisdom and the works of power is still connected with “whence” especially because of δοθεῖσα, which implies that Jesus drew from some source.

Some prefer to make the sentence exclamatory. It is strange that these people of Nazareth admit the wisdom and the works of power and yet become hostile because they cannot solve the mystery as to how their townsman obtained these gifts. But unbelief always reasons without real reason; being abnormal, normal categories do not apply in its case.

Mark 6:3

3 Is not this man the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Juda and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us? And they were becoming entrapped in connection with him.

We now see what the derogatory οὖτος, “this man,” means on the lips of these people. Their conception of him is that he is a man just like themselves, who for a long number of years had lived with his relatives just like other people in this town of Nazareth. They knew him only too well, had never seen anything wonderful in him during all that time, and thus could not comprehend his astonishing present activity, which started after he left Nazareth.

A τέκτων, faber, is one who makes things out of hard material, but even in the papyri (M.-M. 628) always means a carpenter. Yet only one who makes utensils, furniture, and house fittings, for in Palestine all the houses are constructed of stone, the country being full of rock. There is no evidence that Joseph was a stonemason. Joseph was mentioned by some of these people according to Luke’s account, but he had died quite a while before this incident. Their more recent memory of Jesus was as “the son of Mary.” Matthew has Μαριάμ (B.-D. 53, 3), the Aramaic Miryam, for which Mark has the Hellenized Μαρία. While many regard “son of Mary” in Mark as a mere parallel to “son of Joseph” in Luke 4:22, others feel that the people of Nazareth connect Jesus with Mary in a special way when they call him her son.

Joseph was not forgotten as Luke shows; some spoke of him. Jews and Orientals usually named only the father, to name the mother separately from the father is exceptional even after the father has been dead for some years.

On the question of the brothers and the sisters of Jesus see 3:21 and 31. The brothers are named. They had moved from Nazareth to Capernaum when Jesus at the beginning of his ministry transferred the family to this more populous center (John 2:12). The sisters are not named, most likely because they had married; they were still living in Nazareth. They may have been present on this day in the synagogue and heard their relative preach.

On σκανδαλίζεσθαι compare 4:17. The verb has nothing to do with stumbling. One who stumbles may rise again. The passive means to be trapped, caught, and killed by the springing of a trap. See M.-M. 576, where the meaning of this verb is fully established. B.-P. 1209 interprets the verb: durch jemanden oder etwas zur Suende verleitet werden. The imperfect tense implies that these people in Nazareth were on the way to being trapped and caught; the aorist would mean that they had already been fatally trapped. We take ἑναὐτῷ in its original sense: “in connection with Jesus”; the connection with him appears from the narrative itself. To come in contact with Jesus, to recognize his Word and his power, is fatal for all who react to this contact in unbelief.

Mark 6:4

4 And Jesus went on to say to them, A prophet is not honorless except in his own native town and among his own kinsmen and in his own house.

What else he said is related by Luke. On the imperfect ἔλεγε see 4:11. Jesus refers to himself as a prophet because the contempt of him arose during his preaching. The saying about a prophet being honor-less in his own native town, etc., sounds like a proverbial expression which is once more verified in the case of Jesus. Mark retains the full climax: native city—kinsman—house. The more familiar people are with a prophet, the less will they believe that he is a prophet and esteem him accordingly.

Mark 6:5

5 And he was not able to do a single work of power there except that, having placed his hands on a few sickly persons, he healed them. And he was marvelling because of their unbelief.

Only the fact is stated that Jesus was able to do but a few miracles in Nazareth. Luke 4:28–38 explains this inability: the people rose up, thrust Jesus out of the city, and tried to kill him. When Matthew attributes the small number of the miracles performed in Nazareth to the unbelief of the people, this is the unbelief and its manifestation that he refers to. When Jesus healed the few sick persons is not indicated; it may have been on Friday, before the Sabbath. On the conditional sentence ἠδύνατο … εἰμὴἐθεράπευσε (condition of past reality) see R. 1013.

Mark 6:6

6 We are twice told that Jesus marvelled at great faith, we are told here that he was marvelling at great unbelief. The imperfect is descriptive. The reason this unbelief prevented his working more than a few miracles is the fact that so few came to him for help. Even when the people living in other localities did not believe in Jesus they at least brought all their sick to him. The other exception we met was in 5:17. Mark places the story of Nazareth at the end of the third subdivision of the first half of his Gospel in order by means of this narrative to show his readers the unbelief that Jesus met in spite of his mighty Word and his mighty works. Even his own town and in it his own relatives did not believe in him.

And he went round about the villages preaching is another general statement regarding the activity of Jesus which is like the longer previously mentioned ones (1:35–39 and 3:7–12), both of which marked the end of a subdivision. These marks, which are placed in his own Gospel by the writer, are indicators of the structure of his book and are far superior to other divisions which commentators have made on the basis of a study of the contents by grouping together narratives that seemed to them to form distinct sections. Whereas preaching alone is mentioned, this does not exclude miracles, for miracles are always subsidiary to the Word.

Mark 6:7

7 And he calls to himself the Twelve and began to commission them two by two.

In 3:14, etc., Mark reported the appointment of the Twelve as future apostles and now reports how they were sent out into Galilee on a trial or preliminary mission. Matt. 10:1, etc., combines these two acts; in fact, in the report of Matthew the address of Jesus to the Twelve apostles covers not only their preliminary mission tour but equally their mission to all the world. From Mark we gather that this great address was made when the Twelve were sent out on their tour. Mark reports very little of it, Luke is equally brief, Matthew has it in its entirety; that regarding their world mission was necessary in order that they might understand their work aright on their trial tour. Note that προσκαλεῖται is middle: “he calls to himself.” “He began to send them out” already points to a future sending. Because Mark secures distribution by doubling the numeral, the old grammars regarded δύοδύο as a Hebraism; but it has been found to be good Greek, R. 673.

Jesus sent out six pairs. Going two by two, each encouraged the other. The Lord made a wise provision.

8, 9) And he went on to give them authority over the unclean spirits; and he gave orders to them to take nothing for the road except a staff only, not bread, not a pouch, not silver for the belt; but having been shod with sandals, and not to clothe themselves with two tunics.

The imperfect ἐδίδου bids us dwell on the gift of authority over the unclean spirits and then the aorist παρήγγειλε asks us to note the fact of the order regarding what was not to be taken along. The supposition that the imperfect introduces the less important and the aorist the more important is a fancy that is unknown to the grammars. The ἐξουσία is both the right to do a thing and the power to exercise that right. The genitive is objective: “authority over the unclean spirits,” the adjective “unclean” being emphatic since it is added by a second article in the Greek. Mark abbreviates as we see from Matthew. He names the greatest gift to the apostles, the power to expel demons and lets this imply the lesser gifts, cleansing lepers, healing the sick, etc.

The fact is that Jesus fitted the apostles out with powers that were like his own, only their powers were a gift to them from Jesus, those of Jesus were inherent in himself. On demoniacs see 1:23.

Jesus next issued an order, the contents of which the subfinal ἵνα clause states. We have a case of oratio variata since in v. 9 the ἵνα construction changes to the accusative with the infinitive (ὑποδεδεμένους, supply πορεύεσθαι, R. 441) and continues thus if we read another infinitive ἐνδύσασθαι or reverts to the ἵνα construction if we read the aorist subjunctive ἐνδύσησθε. The oratio variata would be trebled if we should read μὴἑνδύσησθε as a negative command, which in the aorist has the subjunctive instead of the imperative. The orders which Jesus issues are to teach the apostles absolute dependence upon their Lord who sends them out. They are to take nothing along “for the road,” Jesus will provide for them. After this lesson has once been thoroughly learned, they would be ready for their world-wide mission so that, whether they had something with them or not, their dependence on their Lord would be the same.

Nothing “except a staff” are they to take. In Matthew’s version even a staff seems to be forbidden, and we note that both evangelists use the same word ῥάβδος, which means a staff for walking and not a club for defense. The contradiction is only apparent: no new staff is to be provided. The same is true with regard to the sandals: no new ones are to be bought. The disciples are to go as they are, with such garments, sandals, and walking sticks as they have. The disciples are not to take along bread, and not even a pouch in which to carry food or other supplies, nor money for the girdle or belt in which coins were usually carried to buy bread and supplies.

Both the phrase εἰςὁδόν, “for the road,” and the position of πήρα between bread and money (see also its position in Matthew) exclude Deissmann’s idea (Light from the Ancient East, 108) that “a beggar’s bag” for collecting alms is referred to by this word. Jesus and the disciples never travelled as mendicants, and thus the thought of the apostles’ doing so on this tour is far from the mind of Jesus and needs no prohibition from him.

The disciples are to go “having been shod as to sandals” and are not to travel barefoot. But they are to carry no extra sandals (Matt.) or to buy new ones. The accusative ὑποδεδεμένους implies an infinitive such as πορεύεσθαι and thus breaks the previous ἵνα construction. We are not ready to call this awkward, loose, or just colloquial; it merely illustrates the flexibility of the Greek. The disciples are not to clothe themselves with two tunics, which means that the one they are wearing is enough. Travellers often had two or more, not only in order to have a change, but also to wear at the same time against the cold. The χιτών was worn next to the body under the ἱμάτιον or robe.

All these directions are not intended to inflict hardship on the disciples but to relieve them of all worry regarding their bodily needs. He who sends them out will provide for them in all respects. Their first experience is to teach them complete trust, Luke 22:35. Other employers may rob their workers, Jesus never does so. He may seem to have nothing, but everything is at his command. The Twelve are to realize this through their own experience.

Mark 6:10

10 And he went on to say to them, Wherever you go into a house, there remain until you go out from thence. And whatever place shall not receive you, nor they hear you, in going out from thence shake off the dust underneath your feet for a testimony to them.

By starting with “and he went on to say” Mark indicates that he is recording another portion of the commissioning address, and this time in direct discourse. Mark abbreviates and keeps only the main point. When they enter a town or village and preach there, some man will likely invite the two heralds to his house because he has been won by their message. Now in that house, Jesus says, “continue to remain” (present imperative) until you leave the place again. The apostles are not to shift from one house to another as if the first were not good enough for them, and they sought a house which offered better food and lodging. Note that the two ἐάν (ἄν) bring in the note of expectancy.

Mark 6:11

11 Jesus provides also for the opposite experience by again using the ἄν of expectancy. An entire τόπος, town or village, may not receive them (welcome them) nor hear them (listen to what they have come to say). What then? They are to leave. Because it is the minor, rather self-evident action, a participle suffices to express it, ἐκπορευόμενοι, present tense because while they are going out of the place they are to do an important thing, to indicate which the finite verb is used. “Shake off the dust under your feet” is the aorist imperative to express a momentary action whereas in v. 10 μένετε, which extends over a longer time, is the present (durative) imperative. Mark has χοῦς, the soil or dirt that sticks to the sandals in walking.

This symbolic act signifies that the feet of the heralds of Jesus have actually been in the place and leave the dust of their sandals “for witness to them” (αὐτοῖς, like the plural subject of ἀκούσωσι to indicate the people of the place), to testify that they were there but were forced to leave as unwelcome guests whose message was not believed. This symbolic act is sometimes misunderstood. It is called a sign of contempt; the dust defiles the apostles as that of heathen places does; to indicate that the apostles will have absolutely nothing to do with the place; an act that is equal to exclusion from the kingdom.

The remainder of v. 11 in the A. V. is inserted from Matt. 10:15 and is not a part of Mark’s Gospel.

Mark 6:12

12 And having gone out, they proclaimed that they repent. And they cast out many demons and proceeded to oil with oil many sick and to heal them.

This is the summary description of the activity of the Twelve when they went out two by two on their preliminary preaching tour. As heralds they called on men to repent; κηρύσσειν and μετάνοια (μετανοεῖν) are explained in 1:4. Their message was the same as that of Jesus recorded in 1:15. Mark considered the giving of further details unnecessary for his record. We may excuse the older grammarians and commentators when they labor to make ἵνα final (purpose), but we can excuse no commentator of today. This ἵνα is subfinal and states what the apostles preached, R. 993.

Mark 6:13

13 Another aorist states the second great work the disciples performed: they cast out many demons even as Jesus had given them power to do (v. 8). They thus exercised the same power that Jesus manifested, i. e., his power extended to them. The expulsion of demons is placed before the healing of the sick because it is accounted a greater work. The ἄρρωστοι are the feeble who suffered from some ordinary ailment. Instead of merely stating the fact of their being healed by means of an aorist Mark describes the fact by using imperfect tenses since the healing was connected with the application of oil: “they went on to oil with oil (olive oil) and to heal.” This use of oil is an exceptional feature in connection with the healings; it was made only on this preliminary tour of the apostles. Jesus never used oil in this way, nor did the apostles after this first tour.

Jesus himself must have ordered this exceptional use of oil; we cannot think that the apostles themselves thought of employing oil in connection with their healings. The claim that oil was used also upon the demoniacs is shut out by the text itself. The very nature of demoniacal possession would exclude the use of oil. When they were expelling demons the apostles really dealt with the demons and forced them to leave their victims.

Many opinions have been advanced to explain why on this tour the apostles were directed to use oil upon the patients they healed. Some are so fanciful and wide of the mark that they deserve no attention. The oil was evidently a mere adjunct to the miracles, for the healing power lay altogether in the word that was spoken by the apostles on the authority of Jesus. The application of oil was made for psychological purposes only, as an aid in inducing faith in the patients. Yet we should not think that only believing patients were healed. We have too many instances in which faith did not precede the miraculous healing, e. g., John 9:1, etc.; Mark 3:1, etc; Matt. 8:6, the servant; all the demoniacs as a class.

But it is true, to produce faith was the object of the miracles, to kindle faith where it did not yet exist, to justify and to strengthen it where it had already begun. As an aid in this direction the apostles were to use the application of oil. The apostles were beginners in their Lord’s work, they needed this help at the start of their work; after Pentecost such an adjunct would not be necessary. The sick persons to whom the oil was applied by the apostles (though others had applied oil to them repeatedly) were made to perceive that the heralds of Jesus were now taking them in hand, these men who, like their Master, had healed so many. The anointing was hardly done in silence, they were told its high object in connection with Jesus. Thus faith began at once in many cases and followed in other cases when the mighty word of healing was spoken in the name of Jesus.

We should note that Mark does not use the sacred and ceremonial verb χρίω (from which we have Χριστός and Christians) and thereby indicates that the act of the apostles was not ceremonial, symbolical, or sacramental. A favorite interpretation is the symbolical—just calling the act that and saying nothing more. But where was the rubbing on of common olive oil ever used as a symbol, and what would such an ordinary proceeding symbolize? Anointing with precious fluids as in Ps. 23; John 12:3, cannot be brought in here. All that ἀλείφεινἐλαίῳ conveys is the ordinary application of olive oil to the bodies or bodily members of the sick, which was the common Oriental medicinal practice. This very usual remedial measure was not used by the apostles as remedial but as an aid to faith in the patients. The healings were always miraculous and instantaneous—olive oil never works in that way.

Because these healings were miraculous we cannot refer to James 5:14. In James the oil is to act medicinally. The elders were to use prayer and the common medicine to help the sick, and they received the promise that the prayer would help the sick by blessing the medicinal means used. In Mark oil is connected with miracles, in James with natural gradual recovery. The two are so different in the essential point that the mention of oil in both cannot make them one.

The Roman Catholic extreme unction is wholly foreign to Mark and to James. That unction is a preparation for death, Mark and James refer to health and life, the one by miracle, the other by recovery. More may be said, but this is already enough. The view that the apostles were to use olive oil in order to obviate superstitious ideas among the people concerning the power exhibited in the miracles, is rather farfetched. How would oil prevent superstition? Some make the oil the causa medians of the healing, the power bestowed on the apostles the causa efficiens, and faith in the patient the causa apprehendens.

But many came to faith only after the healing, and the oil did not convey that healing. The application of oil is made analogous to the laying on of hands. That analogy must be denied. The touch of the hand is symbolical, rubbing with oil is not. Why change from hands to oil if the same effect is intended and no more? Mark 7:33; 8:23; and John 9:6 are adduced as analogies; but one of these men was deaf and dumb, the other two were blind, and Jesus very properly used a kind of sign language with them and treated all three in an exceptional way.

The apostles used oil in the case of all the sick, treated them all in the same way. Why find an analogy where none exists?

Mark 6:14

14 And King Herod heard, for his name became known. And he went on to say, John, the one baptizing, has risen from the dead, and for this reason these works of power operate in him. But others were saying, It is Elijah. Others, however, were saying, A prophet like one of the prophets. But when he had heard, Herod went on to say, Whom I myself did behead, John, this one did rise again.

This is Herod Antipas; though he was only a tetrarch, the royal title was popularly accorded to him. What he heard need not be stated in the Greek since it is indicated sufficiently by the general connection and by the γάρ clause. Luke writes that he heard “all the things occurring,” i.e., all that Jesus was doing. There is no reason to ignore Luke and to refer back only to the activity of the disciples mentioned in v. 12, 13. Herod heard more than this. Jesus became generally known (φανερόν), and so the king began to take special note of him.

The textual authority is too strongly in favor of ἔλεγεν (referring to the king) for us to accept ἔλεγον (plural, indefinite, certain people like the following two ἄλλοι) as the proper reading. Mark is reporting the conviction at which Herod arrived concerning Jesus. Even after he heard (ἀκούσας in v. 16) other opinions he clung to his own which he repeats in v. 16 in a different form. Since the king held that Jesus was the Baptist returned to life, others undoubtedly also held that view. This explains the three opinions presented in 8:28.

Even Zahn assumes that Luke 9:7–9 contradicts what Mark writes about Herod’s idea of Jesus. But there is no necessity to find a contradiction between the evangelists. Mark reports the final conviction of Herod while Luke reports what preceded the final conviction, namely Herod’s perplexity and the still doubting question: “But who is this of whom I hear such things?” At what conviction Herod eventually arrived Luke does not state since his object is merely to state that Herod took note of Jesus. On ἔλεγε and ἔλεγον in these verses see 4:11.

The apposition ὁβαπτίζων has the timeless present participle in the sense of the Baptist. Although he was dead he is in the Greek still called “the one baptizing.” The perfect ἐγήγερται has its strong present connotation. While the actual rising took place in the past, its effect still continues at the present. The phrase ἐκνεκρῶν denotes separation and nothing more, R. 598. The absence of the article points to the quality of being dead and not to so many individuals left behind. The sense of the phrase is “from death.” In the interest of the doctrine of a double resurrection the meaning “out from among the dead” is posited.

This cannot be done linguistically and doctrinally when it is applied to the unique resurrection of Jesus, this is at once apparent for the idea is, not that he left the other dead behind, but that he passed “from death” to a glorious life. For this reason ἐκνεκρῶν is never used with reference to the ungodly. The phrase occurs 35 times with reference to Jesus, a few times figuratively with reference to other persons, and twice with reference to the resurrection of many, Mark 12:25 and Luke 20:35, where the words can have no other meaning than they have in the other passages. Herod is, of course, speaking only of a return to this earthly life.

Δυνάμεις (v. 5) is a designation for miracles which describes them as “powers” in the sense of “works of power”; and αἱ is practically demonstrative: “these,” R. 694. With διὰτοῦτο Herod makes a deduction: since Jesus is John risen from the dead, therefore these works of power are active in him. But in Herod’s mind this deduction is really used as evidence for John’s being risen in Jesus. To him the works of power prove the resurrection. This is, of course, peculiar reasoning. John never wrought miracles while he baptized; why then should miracles now prove that he had come back to life? The trouble with Herod is his evil conscience. That conscience explains his peculiar logic.

Mark 6:15

15 From Luke 9:7, 8 we gather that Herod did not arrive at his opinion independently but heard the three opinions about Jesus and then fastened on the one. Mark, too, mentions these other opinions. Some explained Jesus as Elijah by referring to Mal. 4:5 and regarding Jesus as Elijah returned to life in order to prepare for the Messiah. Some thought Jesus to be a prophet like one of the great ancient Jewish prophets. Luke 9:9 shows that this opinion also involved a resurrection from the dead. Let us note in this connection that Judaism was so conversant with the resurrection that it made the Sadducees stand out as an unbelieving sect when they denied the possibility of the resurrection. The two other opinions are mentioned by Mark (both with δέ) because Herod rejected them and clung to the idea of John’s resurrection.

Mark 6:16

16 This is plain from ἀκούσας. This participle does not resume ἤκουσεν in v. 14, as some suppose, but has its object implied in the two opinions presented in v. 15. When Herod heard them he rejected them and still went on to say that John had risen from the dead. But Mark does not merely repeat Herod’s opinion since it was already expressed in v. 14. Herod is offering what to him is not merely evidence of John’s return to life (the works of power) but the most conclusive proof. He points out that he himself (emphatic ἐγώ) beheaded John.

Herod does not have the slightest doubt about John’s death. The idea is shut out, as far as Herod is concerned, that John escaped from prison and went on preaching and was now adding works of power to his message. Herod beheaded John and saw the head brought to him on a platter. So Herod concluded: οὗτος, this very man whom I beheaded, ἠγέρθη, did rise up, the aorist to express the fact, and the passive to be taken in the active sense.

Herod’s logic is, of course, conclusive on only one supposition, that John and Jesus are the same person. But let us note that the other opinions also operate in this way. Elijah and Jesus are supposed to be identical; a prophet and Jesus also. The fact that Jesus could be just himself and not some other person these Jewish minds do not even consider. The reason for this is the unbelief which refuses to see the Messiah in Jesus—he just must be someone else. This explains the divergence of opinion, John, Elijah, a prophet, in a descending scale of likelihood.

Unbelief always believes the most unlikely thing and calls it the most reasonable and the actual fact utterly unreasonable. All three classes of Jews believed that Jesus represented a resurrection of some other person, believed this strange notion in order to escape the truth of Jesus’ Messiah-ship. This is also true in the case of the unreasonable beliefs of today. In Herod’s choice (that Jesus is John) his evil conscience is the decisive factor. He cannot forget that he himself beheaded John.

Mark 6:17

17 Herod’s word: “I myself beheaded John,” is now fully explained for Mark’s readers (γάρ). For Herod himself, having sent forth, arrested John and bound him in prison on account of Herodias, the wife of Philip, his brother, because he married her. For John was saying to Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have the wife of thy brother.

The aorists used in v. 17 report the facts as such. John was snatched out of his ministry by Herod’s order to some of his minions, who arrested John and lodged him in prison, where he was fettered (ἔδησεν) lest he escape. This prison was in the fortress Machærus (Josephus, Ant., 18, 5, 2), on the southern border of Perea, on the heights of the Dead Sea.

“Herodias” is a feminine patronymic from “Herod” (Herod the Great), her grandfather. She was the daughter of Aristobulus, one of the sons of Herod the Great, and Mariamne. She first married her full uncle, Herod, called Philip, a full brother of Aristobulus. This Philip was disinherited through the treachery of his mother and lived privately with Herodias and their daughter Salome in Rome. Herod Antipas was a son of Herod the Great and the Samaritan Malthake and thus a half-uncle of Herodias and was married to the daughter of Aretas, king of Arabia Petrea. While he was on a visit to Rome, Antipas and Herodias eloped, and the wife of Antipas, not waiting to be divorced, went to her father, and war followed between Aretas and Herod Antipas.

In Matt. 14:3 some cancel “of Philip” from the text, and its presence in Mark is called “an historical error” on the assumption that Herod the Great could have only one son named Philip. But he had two: one (the husband of Herodias) from Mariamne, the high priest Simon’s daughter; the other (the tetrarch) from Cleopatra. Two of the sons of Herod the Great were also called Antipas. For two half-brothers to bear the same name in a family like that of Herod the Great is far from being an error. Salome, the daughter of Herodias and the disinherited Philip, married the tetrarch, Philip, her half-uncle.

Mark 6:18

18 We should like to know the full story that lies behind ἔλεγετῷἩρώδῃ. It seems improbable that Herod met John face to face before the arrest, for John always kept to the uninhabited wilds. There is no hint that Herod ever summoned John into his presence, and ἔλεγε implies that John said what he did say more than once. Even the personal dative “for thee” does not need to mean that John was facing Herod when he pronounced his action unlawful. All that seems to be left us is to assume that the flagrant sin of Herod was castigated by John in the course of his preaching repentance and thus came to the ears of Herod and his illegal wife. It was evidently also the latter who instigated John’s arrest.

Herod’s crime was a public outrage. The woman had first married her own father’s brother and then ran away and lived with the half-brother of her husband, who was also her half-uncle and already had a legal wife. Two marriages were disrupted, and the new union was not a marriage. It was plain adultery and within the forbidden degrees of consanguinity. Josephus charges Herodias with the intention of confounding her country’s institutions. No wonder John raised his voice in spite of Herod’s being the ruler. “To have” == to have as wife. “The wife of thy brother” brings out one great feature of the unlawfulness.

Mark 6:19

19 But Herodias continued to have it in for him and was determined to kill him; and she was not able, for Herod was fearing John, knowing him a man righteous and holy. And he kept him safe. And when he heard him he was in perplexity, and he continued to hear him gladly.

Mark describes the emotions that John aroused in Herodias and in Herod in an admirable manner. The imperfect tenses describe the feelings and the actions; they are, of course, continuous but at the same time open, hinting that something final is to follow. To what extent Herodias hated John we see from her determination to kill him. Her hate was murderous. It is surprising how adultery and murder go hand in hand. In the Greek some verbs are clear enough without an object, so here ἐνεῖχεναὐτῷ, without χόλον (R. 1202) or θυμόν (R. 542); αὐτῷ is the dativus commodus (R. 539): “she continued to have it in for him,” sie hatte es auf ihn abgesehen, B.-P. 412.

With ἤθελεν Mark describes her will or determination as it continued before she succeeded in carrying it into effect. She was unable to accomplish her end for quite a time; but the imperfect οὐκἠδύνατο intimates that she did eventually gain that end. So much for the motives and the feelings of Herodias.

Mark 6:20

20 Now Herod—γάρ explains what interfered with Herodias: he continued to be afraid of John since he knew (εἰδώς, perfect in form but present in sense, the causal participle) him to be “a man righteous and holy,” i. e., approved of God and set apart unto God. The durative εἰδώς is to be construed with the durative ἐφοβεῖτο. Herod was afraid to carry out the will of Herodias; she had no religious scruples, he had enough to deter him. Mark does not say that Herod recognized that John was a prophet, but that he did feel that John was a man approved of God (δίκαιος) and separated unto God (ἅγιος), and that to take his life, as Herodias demanded, was to incur divine punishment. Mark gives us the more intimate motive that restrained Herod, Matthew adds the other, the more outward or political motive: Herod feared the people who considered John even more highly than Herod, who regarded him as a prophet.

The result was that Herod kept John safe, συνετήρει, the preposition intensifying the verb. He kept John in prison, but in such a way that this protected him from Herodias. Nor was this all. Herod heard John πολλά, “much,” here in the sense of “at length.” We do not think that Herod had him brought to Tiberias for conference with John as has been supposed. He listened to him whenever he stayed at the fortress Machærus. The strange thing is that Herod did this “gladly.” The reason was not that John accommodated his message to the ungodly king, and that Herod thus gladly listened to him; Mark adds ἠπόρει, “he continued to be perplexed,” at a loss what to do.

He would like to have followed the godly course pointed out to him by John, but he could not bring himself to break away from his former life. Mark reveals the character of Herod: attracted by the message of John, but attracted not enough, unstable, undecided, puzzled and at a loss religiously and morally. Thus things went on in the case of Herodias, Herod, and John until the tragedy broke.

Mark 6:21

21 And the right day having come, when Herod on his birthday celebration made a dinner for his dignitaries and the chiliarchs and the first men in Galilee, the daughter of Herodias herself having come in and danced, it pleased Herod and those reclining with him at table; moreover, the king said to the girl, Ask of me whatever thou wilt, and I will give it to thee! And he made oath to her, Whatever thou shalt ask, I will give it to thee, unto half of my kingdom!

“The right day” is the one that lent itself to the murderous intent of Herodias. This day came when Herod staged his grand birthday celebration, τὰγενέσια, plural like the terms for festivals. This celebration was held in Machærus and not in Tiberias. Δεῖπνον is the main meal of the day which was eaten in the evening; this word also means a feast as it does in this instance. Mark describes the illustrious guests, the articles divide them into three groups; first, the dignitaries (μεγιστᾶνες) who hold the high civil offices in the king’s administration; next, the military officers in the king’s army (χιλίαρχοι) the military tribunes; finally, the first men in Galilee (πρῶτοι), who were prominent in the land without holding civil or military commissions. All these guests were to make the celebration as grand as possible. The Jews abhorred the keeping of birthdays because they regarded it as a pagan custom, but the Herods even outdid the Romans in these celebrations so that “Herod’s birthday” (Herodis dies) came to be a proverbial expression for excessive festival display.

Mark 6:22

22 Mark continues with a second genitive absolute, both aorist participles state only the facts. The girl’s name was Salome, but Mark designates her as “the daughter of Herodias herself” and implies that she was not Herod’s daughter, the marriage being no marriage. The climax of the entertainment was the spectacular dancing of this girl. The exhibition was thoroughly pagan and had been learned by the girl while the mother still lived with her husband Philip in Rome. We may regard ἤρεσε as impersonal: “it pleased Herod,” or, like Matthew, personal: “she pleased” him, taking the subject from the genitive absolute.

The Jews reclined on broad couches while dining, several persons on one couch, each resting on his left elbow, the feet stretching away from the table. All the guests were delighted, but the king was quite carried away. Heated with wine and excited by the company, the man quite lost his reason. Although he was not even a dependent king but only a tetrarch, only called a king by the favor of the people, this man tried to ape the real kings by a grandiose display in the most magnificent royal style. He promised the girl that he would give her whatever she wanted. The aorist subjunctive in the indefinite relative clause refers to the girl’s decision.

Mark 6:23

23 The royal promise was not enough, Herod sealed it with an oath and made the display the grander by making the promise irrevocable. But the limitation is now added, “unto half of my kingdom.” Ἡμίσου is the genitive dependent on ἕως (R. 275). In Attic the gender is that of the following genitive but not in the New Testament (R. 655); here it is the neuter: “half part,” while βασιλείας (partitive genitive) is the feminine. The entire proceeding was outrageous. Herod was not a king and did not possess a kingdom; the tetrarchy he ruled he did not rule in his own right but under the Roman emperor. It was not in his power to give the half or any part of it to whom he pleased.

Morally, even only a blank promise, no matter how it has to be fulfilled, is sinful and silly at the same time. An oath to such a promise is worse and is directly prohibited in Lev. 5:4, etc. No promise or oath of this kind is morally or legally binding; when it is made, it must be confessed as sin and retracted, and pardon must be sought of God.

Mark 6:24

24 And having gone out, she said to her mother, What shall I ask for myself? And she said, The head of John, the one baptizing. And having gone in immediately with haste to the king, she asked for herself, saying, I will that thou at once give me on a platter the head of John the Baptist.

The cunning of Herodias was succeeding. She had found the right day (v. 21) and had made the right moves. We do not think that the girl left the dining hall of her own accord, she was following her mother’s instructions. That mother had arranged to have her dance before the grand company. She had counted on Herod’s vanity and was certain that he would reward the girl for her exhibition by some gift or other. It was at this point that she hoped to carry through her murderous intent.

It would, of course, all depend on what Herod would offer the girl as a reward. The scheme of Herodias might fail after all. She had to take that chance. But Herod could not have played into her hands more completely than he did. Glowing with pride, the daughter rushed out to her mother to learn what her mother wanted her to ask for herself. Among the Jews women did not recline at table with men, so Herodias was not in the dining hall.

When he was making his offer the king used the active αἰτεῖν, when she accepted the offer the girl used the middle αἰτεῖσθαι. When, as here, the voices are used in marked contrast, the active is used to indicate ordinary requests, the middle requests in business transactions. The point to be brought out is that after Herod invited the girl’s request, she proceeded as one who had business to transact with him—she asked to have her rightful claim met; see B.-D. 316, 2; R. 805.

Mark 6:25

25 Herodias had trained her daughter to do her will. The girl is not for one moment shocked at what she is to ask for herself. The crime involved does not make her hesitate, she does not recoil from the gruesome gift. She is as hardened as her mother. She avoids all the great and grand things she might have asked for her own enrichment and enjoyment. She asks what was in fact a gift for her mother, not one for herself.

Children are certainly more easily trained for the devil than for God. We should not lose the force of εὐθέως, “immediately,” to which is added even μετὰσπουδῆς, “with haste.” The girl flew to make this request. It seems that it delighted her as much as it did her mother. We may imagine how the eyes of the entire company were fixed upon her when she came in and faced (πρός) the king and then “asked for herself.”

Matthew keeps more to the essentials, Mark has a few details. The king had used θέλειν (v. 22), so the girl comes back with θέλω, “I will,” or, “It is my will.” She was to determine the gift, and now she determines it; ἵνα is subfinal and states what she wills. Herod is to give her the Baptist’s head “at once,” Matthew has “right here,” both meaning that all the company is to see that Herod has indeed kept his promise and oath. He could not put the girl off with the promise that he would give her the head later on. When the devil pulls his noose, he pulls it tight. She demands “the head” of John, the absolute evidence of John’s death and no mere word on the part of an executioner that John has been executed.

Herodias does not trust the man who stole his own brother’s wife. A πίναξ is really a “board” and thus any flat dish. The girl uses the noun “the Baptist,” the king (v. 14) and Herodias the substantivized participle; the difference is only formal.

Mark 6:26

26 And though having become deeply grieved, the king on account of his oaths and of those reclining at table did not have the will to turn her down. And immediately the king, having commissioned a bodyguard, ordered to bring his head. And having gone away, he beheaded him in the prison and brought his head on a platter and gave it to the girl, and the girl gave it to her mother.

Neither Matthew nor Mark says that Herod grieved for John. The context makes plain what made him feel so sorry; Herodias had gained her will; he was forced to act contrary to his fears; he had maneuvered himself into a terribly false position. The murder involved was an entirely minor matter to the king. What forced the hand of the king was his moral impotency coupled with his silly pride. He had made a grand gesture as if he were a magnificent independent monarch, and now, when he is called on to live up to the pretense, he lacked the manhood and good sense to acknowledge his folly. What moved him was his oaths and the presence of his guests.

We take the two together; they were now to witness whether he would live up to the oaths he had made in their presence or not. The plural “oaths” reads as if Herod had repeated his oath in his folly though Mark did not quote the repetition in v. 23.

The moral impotence of the king is expressed finely by οὐκἠθέλησε, “he did not have the will” to do the right thing; his weak will yielded. “Would not” in our versions is far too weak. The aorist states the fact that Herod was not man enough to say no. Ἀθετέω, when it is used with persons, means “to repudiate”; Herod lacked the courage to repudiate or turn down the girl with her criminal request. It did not occur to him that any murder, to say nothing of the murder of one of God’s prophets, was not in the power of even a king.

We should not imagine that the moral force of his oaths constrained Herod. If he did not fear to commit murder he certainly would not fear to break an oath. Those oaths had not been sworn for the girl’s sake but for the sake of the company at table. It was thus nothing but the vanity of his pride that now moved the man. It was not God that bound his conscience to carry out his oaths but this company. It seemed like disgrace to him to obey God rather than men.

Thus Herod perpetrated his greatest crime and filled the cup of his iniquities. He stands as the example of all the moral cowards whose moral and religious convictions are too weak to meet an issue. To swear a wrong oath and to keep it is a double crime; to keep a wrong oath by doing wrong, perhaps even committing crime, is trebly accursed.

Mark 6:27

27 It seems strange that in the face of Mark’s narrative some commentators think that Herod’s feast was held in some palace that was far removed from the fortress Machærus where John was imprisoned. How could this be possible when Herod sent out his executioner, and this man promptly brought in John’s head? Note εὐθέως, “immediately”—the girl waited right in the dining hall before the whole company to receive John’s head. The σπεκουλάτωρ is a Latin term that was appropriated by the Greek and the Hebrew and meant scout, courier, and then also executioner. In the present connection the term means one of the soldiers who served as Herod’s bodyguard, Leibwache, and thus carried out any personal orders of the king. The aorist verb forms are historical and narrate the facts as they occurred.

Mark 6:28

28 These aorists continue. The guard left, beheaded John in the prison where he was confined, brought the head into the dining hall on a platter, gave it to the girl who had remained waiting, and she took it out and gave it to her mother. It was all done in short order. Matthew brings out the fact that Herod beheaded John—the deed was his though it was done through his servant. The story ends, as it began, with Herodias. A painter of sacred scenes has pictured Herodias with John’s head on the platter heaping her indignities upon that head, with her daughter standing by. That picture is only too true.

Mark 6:29

29 And having heard it, his disciples came and took up the corpse and placed it in a tomb.

Matthew adds that they went and made report to Jesus. From Matt. 11:2, etc., we know that John’s disciples had access to him in prison, and thus we see how they could obtain the headless body and give it decent burial; πτῶμα, “a fallen body.”

While this account of John’s tragic death explains Herod’s superstitious idea about Jesus (v. 14), it evidently intends to do more. It reveals the entire attitude of the ruler of Galilee toward John and toward Jesus and thus involves one of the reasons Jesus withdrew himself more and more. The time was about a year before Jesus’ own death. Jesus died at the Passover, and this was just prior to the preceding Passover, John 6:4. John’s bloody death pointed forward to that of Jesus.

Mark 6:30

30 And the apostles gather together unto Jesus, and they reported to him everything, both what all they did and what all they taught.

Only in this place Mark calls the Twelve ἀπόστολοι, “apostles.” The title fits well in this connection, for the Twelve are now returning from their first preaching tour (v. 7). How long they were away the Gospels do not help us to determine. It is most likely that Jesus fixed both time and place for their return, and so they came back two by two “unto Jesus.” We can imagine the eagerness and the enthusiasm with which they reported everything about their tour to Jesus. We translate καί … καί “both … and”: “both what all they did” in the way of miracles “and what all they taught” in the way of proclaiming the kingdom. Jesus no doubt heard them patiently.

Mark 6:31

31 And he says to them, Come you yourselves in private to a lonely place and rest a little. For those coming and those going were many, and they were not having leisure even to eat. And they went away in the boat into a lonely place in private.

Jesus had two motives for withdrawing from the populous center of Capernaum; (Matthew 14:13) reports the one, namely, the news of John’s tragic death, Mark the other, the desire to confer in private with the Twelve after their return. So he invites them to retire with him to a τόποςἔρημος, “a desert place,” i. e., uninhabited, lonely, where they will be undisturbed. “You yourselves,” ὑμεῖςαὐτοί, means the Twelve without any others, without even other disciples. The phrase κατʼ ἰδίαν is idiomatic, “in private,” or “privately.” Jesus wants the Twelve to rest a little. This implies that their tour had been strenuous. This resting means not only that they are now to relax but that they are to spend a little while in quiet and undisturbed conference with their Master.

It was impossible to be undisturbed in Capernaum because of the constant turmoil of the people. We regard the two participles with οἱ as the subject and πολλοί as the predicate. Some were coming, others going, so that Jesus was never alone. They occupied him to such an extent that he and the Twelve were not at leisure even to eat, to say nothing of having quiet converse.

Mark 6:32

32 So they went away and got rid of this constant crowd by taking “the boat,” the article pointing to the one they had used hitherto (5:1, 2), and sailing to the eastern shore of the lake, where a quiet place was found.

Mark 6:33

33 And many saw them leaving and understood, and on foot from all the cities they ran there together and went before them.

The subject of the first two verbs is πολλοί which is placed at the end. The second verb ἐπέγνωσαν needs no object: “they understood,” i. e., what Jesus was doing, namely, trying to find a private place on the other side of the lake. The subject of συνέδραμον is understood, it includes the “many” and all the rest who joined them from the towns along the way around to the upper part of the lake. These went “on foot” (dative of manner) because they had not boats with which to follow. The σύν in the verb means that they ran together in a body. The crowd grew as it passed one town after another of the populous shore. Ἐκεῖ, “there,” is the place for which they understood that Jesus and the disciples were headed. Luke 9:10 mentions the locality as being near to Bethsaida, i. e., Bethsaida Julias, near the northern shore of the lake, not far from the entrance of the upper Jordan, which can easily be crossed by wading.

The readings of the last clause vary greatly; while καὶπροῆλθοναὐτούς has the better textual authority, this reading is by no means certain. Whatever the true reading may be, Mark cannot say, as some commentators assume, that the crowd outran Jesus and the disciples, arrived ahead of them at the place, and stood waiting on the shore before Jesus landed. John 6:3–5 shuts out this idea. Jesus arrived first and spent at least a few hours with his disciples on the mountain side in private. In v. 34 ἐξελθών cannot mean that Jesus went out of the boat. The mention of the boat was made too far back; nor would Jesus have seen the great multitude on leaving the boat, he would have seen the crowd on the shore long before he landed.

The view that Jesus dallied in the boat, sailing hither and thither to be alone with the disciples, contradicts the text. We are told that Jesus aimed to reach a quiet place (v. 31), and that he did reach such a place (v. 32). The aorist ἀπῆλθον in v. 32 makes the latter certain and prevents us from thinking that he only headed for such a place but failed to reach it. If the boat had sailed aimlessly around on the lake, “many” could not have understood so well that they, too, then started on foot to the place for which Jesus was heading. They understood just about where he would land. The variety of the textual readings causes the puzzle as to what Mark wants us to understand.

That Mark and John contradict each other on a minor point like this, or that Mark and Matthew do not agree, is entirely excluded for us.

Mark 6:34

34 And having come out, he 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.

John 6:3–5 interprets Mark’s and Matthew’s ἐξελθών. Jesus did secure a few hours of quiet with his disciples on the mountain side, where no one disturbed them. From this retreat Jesus came out and saw the multitude gathered below along the shore of the lake. It was this sight that melted his heart. The verb σπλαγχνίζομαι seems to be “a coinage of the Jewish Dispersion”: “to be moved as to the σπλάγχνα,” the nobler viscera, heart, lungs, and liver, here conceived in the Hebraic sense as the seat of the affections (M.-M. 584 on verb and noun). It means much that, in spite of all the unbelief that Jesus encountered, and in spite of his desire to withdraw from his great public activity and to be alone with his disciples, his heart should thus be moved at sight of this crowd that had so rapidly and eagerly followed him.

Mark alone states what aroused the compassion of Jesus: “because they were as sheep not having a shepherd” (compare Matt. 9:36, where the figure is more extended). The eyes of Jesus saw more than a mass of people, they saw the spiritual condition of those people. Sheep without a shepherd stray helplessly and are bound to perish. He saw the fate of these people unless they were shepherded.

He at once started to shepherd them. Mark notes the main part of this shepherding: “he began to teach them many things.” Luke is more specific: “he spoke unto them of the kingdom of God.” Matthew and Luke add that he healed the sick, “the strengthless ones” (Matthew), “them that had need of healing” (Luke). The fact that such helpless people were among the multitude shows that it took time to get them to this desert place and makes us still more certain that Jesus had a few hours to himself before he was compelled to meet the crowd. The healings must have come first, for Jesus would certainly not let the sick suffer until he was through teaching.

Mark 6:35

35 And when already much time was gone, his disciples having come unto him, went on to say, Desert is the place, and already much time (has gone). Release them in order that, having gone away into the farms and villages round about, they may buy what they may eat.

At this point we must turn to John 6:5–7. When Jesus first stepped out of his retirement on the mountain side he put the question to Philip about buying bread for all these people. Jesus did this in advance in order to test out one of his disciples. Already then Jesus knew what he would do when evening would come. But all that Jesus got from Philip was that it would take more money than they had in their treasury to provide even a very little for so many people—not an inkling that Philip remembered Cana or thought of miraculous help on the part of Jesus in any way. Disappointed in Philip, Jesus descends to the multitude, heals the sick, and teaches about the kingdom until evening had actually come—entirely unconcerned about the bodily needs of the people and the passing of the time.

The question put to Philip was evidently intended to have him report to the other apostles, and thus that all of them might think about it as the hours wore on. They did that but arrived at nothing.

The genitive absolute ἤδηὥραςπολλῆςγενομένης is quite idiomatic like the nominative ἤδηὥραπολλή. We take ὥρα in the sense of time: “much time having gone,” Matthew: “evening having come.” The disciples are able to stand the pressure no longer. Despite all that Jesus had said to Philip, no thought such as Jesus desired had come to them. They now come to Jesus in a body, evidently after having talked the matter over by themselves. One, as their spokesman, reminds Jesus of what he seems to have entirely forgotten. He is not in a city now but out in a place that is “desert,” wild and uninhabited; and “much time” has gone, little time is left to supply the needs of the people.

Mark 6:36

36 The disciples could not understand why Jesus should hold the people so long. Their uneasiness grows until they feel that they must act if Jesus does not. So, after explaining the situation, they urge him: “Release them,” i.e., by ceasing to teach and by bidding them to go away. The purpose of this release is that before it becomes absolutely too late these people may scatter to the farms (ἀγροί, “fields” and thus farms) and villages round about and buy for themselves “what they may eat,” τίφάγωσιν, the deliberative subjunctive left unchanged from the direct discourse, R. 1044. On the use of τί in this case see R. 737. The disciples are warning Jesus—he has already held the people too long—some may not be able to secure food at this late hour.

Mark 6:37

37 But he answering said to them, Do you give them to eat!

Astonishing reply to these dull-witted men, yet wholly transparent! If they are to give food to this tremendous multitude with no food in their possession, then Jesus must mean that they, the Twelve, have a source of supply that they have entirely overlooked. We see how Jesus is trying to lead his disciples to think of his almighty power and to place their reliance on him, on his wisdom and on his thoughtful care. But despite a hint as broad as this command for them to furnish the food, they remain in the dark.

And they say to him, Having gone, shall we buy bread for two hundred denarii and give to them to eat?

Note the deliberative subjunctive ἀγαράσωμεν coupled with the deliberative future δώσομεν, R. 934. The force of the question is plain: “Is this what Jesus means? Is this how they are to give the multitude food?” What a hopeless proposition! The question of price, 200 denarii, popped into Philip’s mind when Jesus first spoke to him (John 6:7); it is repeated here, which indicates that Philip had talked to the others. The idea is not that the disciples had as much as 200 denarii in their joint treasury; a denarius Isaiah 17 cents, 200 == $34. Philip had already estimated that this sum would hardly be enough to buy even a little for each person.

We should also not overlook ἀπελθόντες—are the disciples to go out, buy this bread, and carry it hither? The time being so late, how could they hope to procure so much food? The minds of these disciples are completely dense. They stop at the impossibilities and do not see that these impossibilities are to make them think of Jesus and the things that are possible to him.

Mark 6:38

38 And he says to them, How many bread-cakes have you? go, see! And when they knew, they say, Five, and two fishes.

Jesus had vainly tried to call out the faith of the Twelve. He now proceeds with the miracle. His question about the food still on hand, and his command to go and see what there was, must have mystified the disciples. The Greek uses the plural ἄρτοι, “breads,” to designate the flat cakes of bread as they were baked at that time; if we translate “loaves” we should not think of our modern thick loaves. Note the tenses, ὑπάγετε, present, “be going,” and ἴδετε, aorist, “see definitely.” Mark reports this order to go and to see, and John tells us about the lad who had a little supply, and about Andrew’s speaking for the rest in reporting to Jesus.

So the disciples skirmished around through the crowd and made inquiry. Andrew probably found that lad who had brought bread and fish to sell and still had five bread-cakes and two fishes left. In this territory fish, dried or roasted, was the common ὀψάριον, Zukost, addition to bread. When Andrew made this report for the Twelve, they all thought that Jesus would now see the impossibility of holding the multitude any longer and would now, after this additional delay, hurry the crowd off. What could even Jesus do with such a bit of food?

Mark 6:39

39 And he issued command to them that all recline, company by company, on the green grass.

What the Twelve thought when they received this command that was to be transmitted to the multitude, is left to our imagination. Thousands are asked to get ready to dine—on five cakes of bread and two fishes! Was ever such a thing heard of in all the world? Ἀνακλιθῆναι is the infinitive in indirect discourse, an aorist to express the simple act of reclining as the Jews reclined on couches when dining. The duplication συμπόσιασυμπόσια is not a Hebraism although the Hebrew expresses distribution in this way; the duplication is found in the papyri and is thus idiomatic Greek, R. 284, 460. Robertson thinks the case may be either nominative or accusative and inclines to accept the former because in the next verse πρασιαὶπρασιαί is nominative; but in v. 39 συμπόσιασυμπόσια is in apposition with the accusative πάντας and thus must be the accusative while in v. 40 the apposition is with the subject of ἀνέπεσον and on this account the nominative. It was near the Passover season (John 6:4), hence the open spaces would be covered with green grass, an ideal place for dining in the open; later on this grass would become dry.

Mark 6:40

40 And they dropped down, rank by rank, up to a hundred and up to fifty.

The proceeding was orderly; the groups were arranged so that lanes were left between them in order that the disciples might serve the food. We get a vivid picture when we note that πρασιά is a garden bed. The whole multitude was arranged like a great garden with its beds all beautifully regular. Incidentally, this arrangement made it easy to count the entire multitude. Whether we read ἀνά or κατά makes little difference although the literal meaning of the prepositions is quite the opposite: “up”—“down.”

Mark 6:41

41 What a picture: these thousands arranged ready to dine, and only a handful of food to set before them! And having taken the five bread-cakes and the two fishes, having looked up to the heaven, he spoke a blessing and broke in pieces the bread-cakes. And he continued to give to the disciples in order that they might set before them; and the two fishes he divided to all.

The story of the miracle is simplicity itself and is so graphically told that comment is hardly necessary. The subsidiary actions are expressed by participles, which make the main actions stand out the more. The five flat cakes and the two fishes were easily held while the blessing was pronounced. The act of looking up to heaven was a common attitude in prayer while standing. The idea that Jesus first had to have God’s consent and help, and by looking up to heaven asked for it, misconceives not only this miracle but all of them. Jesus cannot be reduced to the level of the prophets and the apostles, who were dependent on God. Jesus wrought all of his miracles by his own will and power, that will and that power which reside equally in the three divine persons.

All three synoptists have recorded εὐλόγησε, “he spoke a blessing,” which John defines as giving thanks. This must have been the usual grace before a meal. If the words employed by Jesus had been unusual, one or the ether of the four evangelists would surely have at least intimated that fact. The miracle was not wrought by the words but, to be precise, by the will of Jesus. After the blessing Jesus broke the bread in pieces. Mark and Luke have used the compound verb, which describes more graphically what Jesus did, namely make pieces for handy distribution.

And Mark, like Luke, now inserts an imperfect tense and thereby indicates the miraculous multiplication of the bread in Jesus’ hands: “he continued to give to the disciples,” i. e., the pieces he broke. There were always more pieces to break off; the bread grew in Jesus’ hands.

The bread was given to the disciples to be placed before the people. They had the task of being the waiters at this miraculous meal. Mark speaks of the two fishes in particular. While Jesus broke them as he had broken the bread, breaking bread is a special phrase, which is not used with reference to fish. Mark uses another verb, “he divided” the fishes, portioned them out. He is content with the aorist, which merely states the fact. Note the contrast, “two fishes” divided out “to all,” the great multitude. This is all that even a writer like Mark has to say in recording this great miracle. An uninspired writer would have multiplied words. A divine restraint held the holy writers in check so that they let the facts speak for themselves.

Mark 6:42

42 And they did eat all and were filled, and they took up as broken pieces, fillings for twelve baskets, and of the fishes.

“They did eat all,” by the order of the words, puts emphasis on both the verb and the subject. All ate. How much? As much as each could hold. The verb used is really coarse, χορτίζειν, used of animals that are fed to capacity with grass (χόρτος, v. 39) or fodder. No stinting here as there was when Philip thought of each person’s having a little. These people had come a long way and had had little or nothing to eat all day and so were certainly hungry, and it took a good deal to fill them.

Mark 6:43

43 Moreover, pieces of bread and of fish were left over. Some people always take too much. Some took pieces from the disciples of which they could not eat even a bite, being so completely filled. Jesus intends that none of his gifts shall be wasted. This miraculous food was not to be thrown away. We assume that Jesus ordered the disciples to take it up. It filled exactly twelve of the little wicker baskets (κόφινος) that were used by travellers to carry food and necessaries and here used by the disciples when serving as waiters in distributing the food.

We construe: “as broken pieces (κλάσματα) fillings for twleve baskets,” i. e., twelve baskets full of broken pieces of bread. As the fishes were mentioned separately in v. 43 so they are again: καὶἀπὸτῶνἰχθύων, partitive ἀπό, “something of the fishes.” Twelve baskets full—one for each of the Twelve, none for Jesus, which means that he who had created this bounty furnished the opportunity for the Twelve to share their abundant portions with him. From all that he gives to you, you are privileged to give a little back to him. What were the feelings of the Twelve when, as dusk approached, they finally reclined around Jesus with those baskets full before them?

Mark 6:44

44 And they that ate the bread-cakes were five thousand men. Matthew adds: “without women and children.” We now see what the ὄχλος, “multitude,” mentioned in v. 34 actually means. Whereas Matthew has written “the ones eating” (present participle), Mark writes “they that ate” (aorist). The number fed makes the miracle seem so much greater.

Mark 6:45

45 And immediately he compelled his disciples to enter the boat and to be going on ahead to the other side toward Bethsaida, while he himself dismisses the multitude. And having taken leave of them, he went away into the mountain to pray.

(John 6:15) states the reason for this hasty compulsion, which implies a reluctance on the part of the disciples. The multitude was so affected by the miracle that they were scheming to kidnap Jesus and to carry him in triumph to Jerusalem as a king at the Passover which was now close at hand (John 6:4). The Twelve would have been delighted to see this plan carried out. Therefore Jesus separated them from the multitude and sent them away by themselves in order soon to give them a new revelation of the kind of king he really is.

The punctiliar aorist ἐμβῆναι denotes the single act of embarking and is followed by the durative present προάγειν to indicate the journey across. R. 857, in connection with Matt. 14:22, calls the former infinitive constative, which is incorrect. “To go on ahead” implies that Jesus would follow later on. Mark has written “toward (πρός) Bethsaida”; John writes: “they were going to (εἰς) Capernaum,” and that the next day the multitude also went to Capernaum. Bethsaida was only a suburb of Capernaum, and thus either place could be named as the destination.

When it is used with the indicative ἕως means “while.” Neither in Matthew nor in Mark is there an implication that Jesus would join the disciples in the boat before they started away. In Matthew ἕωςοὗ means “while” and not “until,” R. 975, etc., also Zahn, B.-D. on ἕως in Mark. The sequel shows how Jesus would come to the disciples.

Mark 6:46

46 So Jesus remained behind and took leave of them (αὐτοῖς), i. e., the multitude, R. 684. Matthew says only that he dismissed them. The dative αὐτοῖς is due to ἀπό in the verb, R. 542. The dismissal of the multitude and the ascent to a lonely spot on the mountain side for hours of prayer mark a serious turn in the affairs of Jesus. On the very next day so many turned away from him that he asked even the Twelve whether they would also go away, John 6:66, etc.; and his reference to Judas as a devil shows that his mind was facing the betrayal and the crucifixion. The reading φεύγει, “he flees,” instead of ἀνεχώρησε, “he withdrew,” in John 6:15 may well express the fact: Jesus fled up into the mountain, alone, by himself.

When he was at last where none could find him in the dark he prayed; the aorist προσεύξασθαι states the fact without intimating continuation. Note that dismissing the multitude is mentioned a second time, and then following it, as in vital connection with it, comes the hurrying away to pray. That multitude’s wanting to make him king was one of Satan’s temptations for Jesus, and the sending the multitude away shows that the temptation was overcome. And thus the prayer in the dark that stormy night may well have been an outpouring of his heart to the Father for the renewed victory, a glorifying the Father by his obedience in facing the cross, and an interceding for the Twelve and all his disciples that they might not be led away by these false Messianic conceptions. We thus catch just a glimpse of the deep inner life of Jesus. His praying was perfect, pure, and exalted communion with his Father.

Mark 6:47

47 And when evening came, the boat was in the midst of the sea, and he alone on the land.

The evening was divided into the first, “when the day began to decline” (Luke 9:12), our late afternoon, and the second, when the shadows began to fall, and darkness set in. It was the first evening when the disciples came to Jesus regarding sending the multitude away; it was now the second evening when the disciples were far out on the sea. Mark describes the contrast: the disciples in the midst of the sea, Jesus by himself on the land. Αὐτός is emphatic, in contrast with the disciples in the boat.

Mark 6:48

48 And having seen them distressed in the rowing, for the wind was contrary to them, around the fourth watch of the night he comes toward them walking on the sea and wanted to go by them.

Mark alone states that Jesus saw the disciples. It was night, a storm was raging, hence this was supernatural sight. The mention of the late evening in v. 47 should not mislead us into thinking that it was then that Jesus saw the disciples since the sky was still light enough for this. Jesus was engaged in prayer until toward the fourth watch. At that time he saw the disciples “distressed in the rowing.” When they started before dark, all was fair and beautiful, and, experienced sailors as most of them were, they hoisted sail and expected a pleasant voyage to their destination. But this soon changed.

One of those sudden storms, for which this lake is noted, lying, as it does, between high ridges, descended and swept over the water and lashed it into furious waves. They hurriedly furled the sail, took to the oars (Mark alone mentions the rowing), and held the boat straight against the wind to keep it from being swamped. Matthew writes literally: “the boat was being put to the test by torture”; Mark uses the same participle when referring to the disciples. Matthew attributes the test to the waves’ lashing the boat, Mark to the disciples’ laboring in rowing. Both are graphic. “The wind was against them” is added to explain the distress in rowing, they made next to no progress.

Matthew and Mark mention the time, “about the fourth watch,” to which John, who constantly supplements, adds the distance covered. This was about 25 or 30 stadia, 3⅛ to 3¾ miles, a stadium being ⅛ of a Roman or English mile. But this does not imply a great distance; quite the contrary, only so far had they come, they were still out in the middle of the lake at the fourth watch, still far from their port, the wind preventing them from making any appreciable progress. The first watch is from 6 to 9, the second from 9 to 12, the third from 12 to 3, and thus the fourth from 3 to 6. So many hours the disciples had labored; they must have reached the point of exhaustion. But now, when strength and hope are almost gone, “he comes toward them,” ἔρχεται, the vivid historical present tense.

One might inquire, “Had he walked all the way out from the shore through the storm in the dark, or had he suddenly transported himself to the spot where the disciples saw him?” Curious questions deserve no answer, and in Holy Writ receive none. The present participle “walking on the sea” pictures Jesus’ progress. The wind howled, the waves dashed high, but they affected him not at all. He was not pitched about or tossed up and down; he was not soaked with waves or spray striking him. Before him, as he moved his feet, a smooth, apparently solid path lay, on which he walked as on ordinary ground. He did not move or float in the air as a specter is supposed to do.

No unearthly light played around him as painters generally imagine. It was simply Jesus just as they had seen and left him the evening before—but now walking on the storm-tossed sea.

Jesus came “toward” them, πρός. Had they not wished for his presence most ardently during those long hours? Had he not promised that he would come to them? Well, here he was! “Toward them” when they were in such danger and distress could mean only one thing: help, deliverance, safety at last. Walking on the sea toward them meant that he was coming with omnipotent power, one that made the water bear his weight and prevented wind and water from disturbing him in the least. With such power he was now at hand.

Mark alone adds that Jesus “wanted to go by them,” the imperfect ἤθελε intimating that something followed to alter this completely. While Jesus went toward (πρός) the boat he took a course that would have led him by (παρά in the verb) the boat; and ἤθελε states that Jesus did this purposely. It is easy to see the reason. He wanted the disciples to invite him into the boat. He brought the help so near to them, as it were, offered it to them, but they would receive it only if they desired it and asked for it. Walking thus, so that he would pass by the boat, was no pretense on the part of Jesus. It is unwarranted to charge him with any form of insincerity. For he simply would have passed by the boat and left the disciples if they had failed to take him in.

Mark 6:49

49 But they, having seen him walking on the sea, thought that it was a ghost, and they shrieked out; for all saw him and were upset. But he at once spoke with them and says to them, Cheer up! It is I! Stop being afraid.

It was this superearthly act of walking on the sea, serenely, untouched by wind, spray, or waves, that threw the disciples into a panic. When they saw this figure dimly approaching on the water, the thought flashed into their minds that this was a φάντασμα, a specter or ghost. The darkness, the hour of night, the storm and the danger still in full force, the physical exhaustion, all combined to make the disciples give way to superstitions that were still lurking in their minds. What would some who now smile at superstition have felt if they had held an oar in that boat? In their dismay they shrieked out, and Matthew gives us their words: “It is a ghost!” Their terror consisted in this that they thought that the unearthly form walking on the sea right toward them was a sure sign that they were all doomed men.

Mark 6:50

50 Mark explains (γάρ) that all the disciples saw him and were shaken or completely upset, i. e., by what they saw. This was not a case where two or three became scared and thus no longer had a grip on themselves and, with nerves unstrung, began to see things. It was not a case in which some could steady and help balance others. All gave way completely, for all, without question, saw that form walking toward them on the sea. Moreover, this form was quite near, otherwise they could not have seen it in the dimness, nor could the voice of Jesus have reached them through the noise of wind and waves.

“At once,” εὐθύς, Jesus speaks with them and allays this superstitious fright. With θαρσεῖτε he calls upon them to take courage and to be filled with cheer; since this is to continue, the imperative is the present tense. “It is I!” furnishes the reason: “I”—not a specter! Away with your superstitions—I, your own Lord and Master, whose voice you know so well! The present imperative in prohibitions often, as here, means to stop what one is already doing, i. e., to end it permanently: “Stop fearing!” there is no sense to it (R. 851, etc.). The first imperative is positive and is matched by the second which is negative: fear out, cheer and courage in!

Mark 6:51

51 And he went up unto them into the boat, and the wind stopped.

This happened after the episode with regard to Peter. When Mark heard Peter tell about Jesus’ walking on the sea, he did not tell about himself, and it is thus that only Matthew tells that part of the story. “Went up unto them into the boat” is one action. The boat lay in the calm water that surrounded Jesus. We cannot conceive of the boat as still pitching and tossing and as still being distressed by the waves; nor of Jesus frantically clutching at its side and being hauled in by the disciples. Without any effort at all Jesus stepped into the quiet boat, and Peter with him.

The wind stopped at once, κοπάζειν, to grow tired, to abate. This sudden stopping just at that moment is evidently not presented as a singular coincidence. The wind stopped at the will of Jesus. More than that, John 6:21, supplementing Matthew and Mark, adds that immediately the boat was at its destination—there in the dawning light lay the docks of Capernaum. We now see why John mentioned the distance the boat had gone, and why we were told so particularly that it was still in the midst of the sea. He who walked on the sea and enabled Peter to do so caused the storm to cease in an instant and caused the boat to be transferred to its destination.

The fact that Matthew and Mark omit the latter is the plainest evidence that they are not intent on magnifying the miracles or their miraculous features. They never overstate but, as in this instance, often understate the facts.

Mark 6:52

52 And they continued greatly astonished in themselves, for they did not comprehend about the bread-cakes, but their heart continued as having been hardened.

The effect caused by the compound miracle overwhelmed the disciples. We omit as being textually unsound both ἐκπερισσοῦ and καὶἐθαύμαζον. Note the imperfect tense ἐξίσταντο; the amazement did not subside but continued indefinitely. Why the phrase “in themselves” should exclude Matthew’s report that the disciples cried: “Thou art truly God’s Son!” is hard to understand. Mark records the inner effect, Matthew its outward expression. See the full discussion in the commentary on Matt. 14:33.

Mark intends to bring out fully what was still lacking in the hearts of the disciples at this time. There was just too much mere amazement, “for they did not comprehend about the bread-cakes,” that this miracle wrought so silently and without display was just as much an act of omnipotent power as this second miracle on the boisterous sea, wrought amid storm and dashing waves. The disciples should have understood but did not, συνῆκαν, first aorist from συνίημι. Mark goes to the inner cause of this obtuseness in the mind of the disciples. The trouble was in the heart; this continued (ἧν) as having been hardened and thus still being in this condition (πεπωρωμένη), this being the force of the perfect. In the Greek the heart is the center of the mental and the spiritual life, where the thoughts and the volitions are formed. Delitzsch, Biblische Psychologie, 248, etc.

Πώρωσις, Vertuffung, is the process of petrifaction, and also the result. Here, of course, Mark does not have in mind the imperviousness of unbelief like that found in the scribes and Pharisees but the unresponsiveness of littleness of faith. Because of all that they had seen and heard about Jesus, they should have understood far more than they did. Yet it would be unwarranted to conclude that Mark means that the disciples did not understand what they were saying when they exclaimed that Jesus was truly the Son of God. They understood this voluntary confession as truly as the confessions recorded in John 6:68, 69; Matt. 16:16; and elsewhere. What they lacked was that clarified understanding of the heart which expects Jesus to act as the Son of God in all things and is thus delighted to see him act thus and is no longer amazed (literally, deprived of his senses).

Mark 6:53

53 And having crossed over, they came to the land in Genesaret (only one “n” in Mark) and were anchored near the shore.

From Mark’s account we see that the crossing was made by boat. Matthew has ἐπὶτὴνγῆν after ἦλθον so that it modifies this verb; Mark has this phrase after διαπεράσαντες as modifying this participle. Our versions are not justified in translating Mark as they do Matthew. The middle and thus also the passive of προσορμίζειν means “to come to anchor near” (πρός), i. e., here near the shore.

When did Jesus arrive at Genesaret? Some reply that he landed there on the morning after the storm. But this is shut out by the participle “having crossed over.” Jesus, the chief person in the boat, had not crossed over but had entered the boat in midlake. John’s account makes it certain that Jesus and the Twelve landed at Capernaum after the storm. Here the multitude that had been fed so miraculously found him later in the day and heard his discourse on the Bread of Life and then turned away from him. Even the argument that Jesus spoke this discourse on a Sabbath, since he spoke in a synagogue, and that this could not have been the day on which he landed, since Jews would not travel the distance from the east side of the lake to the west side on a Sabbath breaks down.

Time for the visit to Genesaret cannot be gained in this way, by dating the discourse in Capernaum after this visit. The argument which involves the Sabbath is answered when we note that the Jews assembled in their synagogues also on Monday and on Thursday. The facts are that after the storm Jesus landed at Capernaum and on that day spoke on the Bread of Life. Some days after that he visited Genesaret. The aorist participle “having crossed over” is quite general, fixes no time, and in the present connection means that when Jesus was through with his work at Capernaum he sailed over to Genesaret.

Genesaret was a small triangular plain, south of Capernaum and north of Tiberias, made by the recession of the mountains, and was praised by Josephus for its fertility. From this little plain the lake is called the Sea of Genesaret.

Mark 6:54

54 And when they came out of the boat, immediately having recognized him, they ran round about that whole region and began to carry around on their pallets those that were ill, where they would hear that he was. And wherever he would enter into villages or into cities or into farms, they would place the sick in the market places and would beseech him that they might touch if only the tassel of his robe; and as many as touched him would be saved.

The moment the disciples and Jesus disembark Jesus is recognized (ἐπιγνόντες). Matthew states that the men recognized him; some of them had seen and heard Jesus elsewhere, Jesus himself had not yet been in Genesaret. His visit to this place is an illustration of how he withdrew from the populous centers and sought out retired, even remote localities.

Mark 6:55

55 No sooner is Jesus recognized than the people perceive their great opportunity for securing healing. They send runners out through their small territory (about three miles along the lake front and two back from the shore) to induce the people to bring the sick. So they began to bring them to Jesus; ἔχω with an adverb is translated “to be,” and κακῶςἔχειν is quite idiomatic, R. 546. Since Jesus moved about, the people were compelled to carry the sick around to where they would hear (ἤκουον, the iterative imperfect) that he was (ἐστί, the Greek retaining the tense of the direct discourse after secondary tenses, R. 1029).

Mark 6:56

56 The imperfect tenses are iterative and tell what the people did again and again. Mark shows us how Jesus moved about by naming villages, towns, and country places. The surest way to get their sick to him was to place them in the market places where Jesus would most likely pass. They had such trust in the healing power of Jesus that they would beseech him, not himself to touch the sufferers, but simply to let these touch the tassel of his robe, κράσπεδον explained in 5:27. The ἵνα clause is subfinal and states what the people asked of Jesus; κἄν == “if only” and needs no verb. Verbs of touching are construed with the genitive; ὅπουἄν with the imperfect is indefinite, but ὅσοιἄν with the aorist is definite though ἄν is not necessary, R. 969 and 958.

As many as thus touched Jesus would be healed, ἐσώζοντο, saved from their ailment. Jesus consented to this procedure and thus honored the faith of these people as he had honored that of the woman with an issue of blood (5:25, etc.). Nothing is said about teaching on this visit, for Matthew and Mark intend to record only what was exceptional on this brief tour of Jesus to this little region.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.

M.-M. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, Illustrated from the Papyri and other Non-Literary Sources, by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan.

B.-D. Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage besorgt von Albert Debrunner.

B.-P. Griechisch-Deutsches Woerterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments, etc., von D. Walter Bauer, zweite, etc., Auflage zu Erwin Preuschens Vollstaendigem Griechisch-Deutschen Handwoerterbuch, etc.