Mark 8

CHAPTER VIII

Mark 8:1

1 In those days, there being again a great multitude and having not what they may eat, having called the disciples to him, he says to them, I have compassion on the multitude because three days already they remain with me and have not what they may eat; and if I release them fasting to their home, they will become exhausted on the road; and some of them are come from afar.

“In those days” means when Jesus visited the Decapolis. “Again,” as on previous days, a great multitude was present. The genitive absolute extends to μὴἐχόντων, this participle modifies πολλοῦὄχλου, the plural is construed ad sensum, R. 407. Τίφάγωσι R. 737 cites as a relative clause, but this does not explain the subjunctive; it is an indirect question, the direct question of deliberation uses the subjunctive: “What may we eat?” The situation thus sketched Jesus lays before his disciples after calling them to him for this purpose.

The critics regard the two miracles by which multitudes were fed as one despite the differences in time, place, numbers fed, numbers of bread-cakes and of fishes and of baskets full left over. Matthew and Peter (Mark’s source) were present in person at both miracles and are reliable authorities. The inner difference between the two miracles is not discussed by the critics. The feeding of the 5, 000 intends to reveal Jesus as the Bread of Life as John 6:26–65 show in extenso; the feeding of the 4, 000 does not go beyond showing the care of Jesus for our bodily needs.

In the case of the 5, 000 Jesus broached the question of feeding them to Philip alone as soon as Jesus saw the crowd assembling; see the commentary on John 6:5–7. Here three days elapse before Jesus speaks. In the other miracle the disciples become worried about the multitude and come to Jesus toward evening and urge him to send them away. Here the disciples remain unworried for three days, and it is Jesus who finally speaks to them about feeding the crowds before he sends them away and himself leaves the locality.

Mark 8:2

2 Even the unsatisfied hunger of men awakens the compassion of Jesus; on σπλαγχνίζομαι see 6:34. And it does this the more since these people have held out for three days near (πρός in the verb, R. 623) Jesus; ἡμέραι is a parenthetic nominative of time, R. 460. After this long stay near Jesus, during which they forgot everything else except what they saw and heard from him, and after all supplies brought along had been consumed, he cannot bring himself simply to dismiss them by telling them to go home since he himself is leaving.

Mark 8:3

3 The fact that Jesus is speaking of their physical needs is plain; note “fasting” and ἐκλυθήσονται, “they will be completely unloosed” like a bowstring when it is unstrung, metaphorically, “they will become exhausted.” This would likely be the case especially in the case of some who had come from a great distance, ἀπὸμακρόθεν, the preposition governing an adverb.

Mark 8:4

4 And his disciples answered him, Whence shall one be able to fill these with bread in a desert place?

The emphasis is on “whence” and “in a desert place”; with ἐπʼ ἐρεμίας supply χώρας. Matthew (15:33) writes: “Whence have we in a desert place so much bread,” etc.? When Mark writes τὶς he means “one of us.” Verbs of tasting, including χορτίζειν, take the genitive, here ἄρτων, “breads,” flat cakes of bread, R. 508. The disciples declare that it is beyond them, in fact, impossible for any of them to furnish from any source, here in this uninhabited desert place, the required quantity of bread. They imply that it is Jesus alone who could do that. The τὶς, “one,” cannot include Jesus; note ἡμῖν in Matthew. We observe that the disciples do not speak of a minimum: “that everyone may take a little,” as they did in the other miracle (John 6:7); but of a maximum: “to fill these with bread,” χορτίζειν (see 6:42), the aorist to indicate complete filling.

The disciples remember the other miracle. Thus they are not again worried. They have learned that Jesus does not mean that they might possibly find a supply of bread somewhere. Yet they do not tell Jesus what he should do; they have learned to leave everything in his hands to act when and how may seem best to him. To say that the reply of the disciples betrays no knowledge of a previous miraculous feeding and nothing but complete perplexity is to misread not only this reply but also the word of Jesus that elicited the reply.

Mark 8:5

5 And he inquired of them, How many bread-cakes have you? And they said, Seven. And he passed an order to the multitude to recline on the ground. And after having taken the seven bread-cakes, having given thanks, he broke them and kept giving to his disciples in order to place before them; and they placed them before the multitude. And they had a few small fishes; and having blessed them, he said to be placing them too before them.

The compassion of Jesus will delay no longer. It is worth noting that, as far as the multitude is concerned, the record emphasizes only the compassion evidenced in the miracle. We are not told of astonishment among the people nor of a movement to proclaim him king. When the disciples promptly answer “seven,” these seven flat cakes are what they had left from their own supplies and are not secured from anyone in the multitude. No one now speaks as Andrew did (John 6:9): “What are they among so many?” The disciples answer with alacrity—they feel quite sure as to what Jesus intends to do. That other miracle has taught them well.

It is unjust to them to speak of their forgetfulness and obtuseness and to think that Jesus might have rebuked them and yet refrained from doing so and asked only with a sigh what amount of food the disciples still had left. Nothing of this is in the record. Only this appears, that Jesus deals in particular with the disciples. They are to know his motive of compassion; they are to see that he is repeating what he had already done; they are to realize that this repetition means that Jesus is able always to provide bread and to supply earthly needs. We are in that period of Christ’s ministry when the intensive training of the Twelve is his great concern, for only a few months are left until the final Passover arrives.

Mark 8:6

6 As in an army, Jesus issued the order so that it passed along to the multitude. All were to recline as for dinner on the ground in lieu of couches. That they ranged themselves in companies of 50 and 100 as they did in the other miracle is not stated but is entirely probable. The ground is now bare of grass, for the season has advanced into the summer. As Mark describes it, Jesus engaged in two acts, one with the bread and one with the few fishes. We regard λαβών as modifying εὐχαριστήσας and this as modifying ἔκλασε.

The taking is subsidiary to the giving of thanks, and this subsidiary to the breaking. The flat bread-cakes were baked flat so that they could be broken and distributed for eating. Cutting bread was not thought of. Bread was not baked in loaves in our sense of the word, and the translation “loaves” should not mislead us.

“To give thanks” is, of course, the same as “to bless,” which Mark uses regarding the fishes. Both mean that Jesus pronounced the prayer that was usual at a meal; he said grace. If anything of special significance had distinguished this prayer in either of the two miracles, at least one of the evangelists would have called attention to this, most likely by recording the words. The miracle was thus wrought, not by the words Jesus spoke, but simply by the silent will of Jesus when he divided the bread and the fishes.

The aorist ἔκλασε reports only the summary fact that Jesus “broke” the food; but the iterative imperfect ἐδίδου, “he kept giving” to the disciples, describes the multiplication of the food in Jesus’ hands. He loaded each disciple’s basket again and again with pieces to be placed before the waiting guests. There was always more to hand out. Only when all had been supplied with all that they reached out for were the seven sheets of bread and the few small fishes used up. The waiters at this miracle-meal were the disciples.

Mark 8:7

7 In this country prepared fish were the regular meat addition to bread, Zukost. The disciples had “a few small fishes”; Mark got the diminutive from Peter, and Mark has an ear for diminutives, for he always notes when something is small. “A few” means more than just two as was the case in the other miracle. It seems that Jesus blessed the fishes separately and gave a separate order for placing them before the people. The present tense παρατιθέναι is due to the tense of the direct discourse when Jesus said: “Be placing before them!”

Mark 8:8

8 And they did eat, and they were filled. And they took up what remained over of broken pieces seven baskets. Now they were about four thousand. And he dismissed them.

The facts are recorded with the greatest brevity: they did eat—they were filled, χορτίζω as in v. 4. It seems that the superfluous pieces (περισσεύματα)—some people always being afraid that they will not get enough—were this time gathered up by the disciples without an order from Jesus as was the case in John 6:12; yet we cannot be entirely sure since in their record of the other miracle Matthew and Mark omit this order. Both now use the word σπυρίδες for “baskets” whereas in the first miracle they used κόφινοι. Both were woven of wicker, but the former seem to have been larger as is indicated by Acts 9:25 and by the examples given in M.-M. 618 where a σπυρίς is mentioned that held fifty loaves of bread. It is, therefore, not safe to say that while 4, 000 were fed this time, the food left over was but little more than half of what remained at the former feeding. The seven spurides most likely held even more than the twelve kophinoi. The distinction between the types of baskets is retained in a marked way in Matt. 16:9, 10 and in Mark 8:19, 20, where, if they had been practically identical, only one of the terms would have sufficed.

Mark 8:9

9 The number of the people fed on this occasion was “about four thousand.” Matthew adds that this number were men, leaving the women and the children uncounted. What a host to be fed with a little bread and a few fishes! In both miracles the numbers are merely historical; all efforts to give them a symbolical or allegorical meaning are beside the point. We also say that the effort to find a Gentile unity or even a gradation between the three miracles recorded in 7:24–8:10 is futile. How do we know that the deaf-mute was a Gentile? If there were Gentiles present among the 4, 000, Mark does not even note the fact, much less attach peculiar significance to it.

When all were fully fed and the pieces gathered up, Jesus dismissed them, which means that he himself was leaving. Only three days did Jesus remain in this neighborhood. Only the dismissal is recorded, nothing is said about the effect produced upon the people, which certainly must have been profound.

Mark 8:10

10 And immediately having entered the boat in company with his disciples, he went into the parts of Dalmanutha.

No boat is mentioned in 7:31. Yet from what Mark (and Matthew) writes regarding a departure by boat, it is evident that the arrival, too, was by boat. The article τὸπλοῖον speaks of the boat as being well known and directly implies that Jesus had come in this boat. Yet this need not mean that the 4, 000, like the 5, 000, were fed near the shore of the lake, for 7:31 reads as though Jesus went some distance inland.

Mark writes that Jesus went “into the parts of Dalmanutha”; Matthew calls this locality “the borders of Magadan” (which has nothing to do with “Magdala,” after which Mary Magdalene was named). All that can be said is that this locality lies on the western side of the lake. Since both names are otherwise unknown, the conclusion seems warranted that the locality was small.

Mark 8:11

11 And the Pharisees came out and began to dispute with him, seeking from him a sign from the heaven, tempting him.

It is overdrawn to picture these opponents of Jesus as watching for the arrival of the boat and as then pouncing upon him with their demand. They “came out” from their houses when the news spread that Jesus was back from his extensive tour. They may have been waiting at Capernaum and, on getting word, may have hurried over to Dalmanutha. The brevity of the evangelists’ accounts leaves the possibility that Jesus returned to Capernaum for a brief visit and there encountered the Pharisees (on whom see 7:1). Matthew adds Sadducees.

Their union against Jesus marks the progress of the hostility. The Pharisees stood for stern holiness and by virtue of their numbers carried the common people with them; the Sadducees, skeptics and high livers, represented the aristocracy in the land and had at their head the high priest and his connection as a kind of priestly-political nobility that was at once rich and powerful. One of the wives of Herod the Great was Mariamne, the daughter of Simon, the high priest. The Sadducees must thus be classed with the Herodians who sought the support of the Herodian family (3:6; 8:15). Mark abbreviates the present clash considerably and uses it only as an introduction to the following narrative; hence he omits mention of the Sadducees.

These opponents start a dispute with Jesus. The point of it is that Jesus ought to show them a sign from heaven. These men pretend that they are not averse to Jesus, but they ask that he should present the proper credentials. They imply that the signs which he has wrought hitherto are insufficient in this respect, being only earthly; they are looking for something that is more adequate and convincing, namely for “a sign from the heaven.” But this demand was put forward with evil intent, “tempting him.” They felt sure that Jesus would not be able to furnish this kind of a sign, and that they would thus be able to discredit him completely with the people. These men made themselves the devil’s tool in suggesting to Jesus that he perform a deed for which his Father had not commissioned him, that he make himself a Messiah after the fashion of men so as to gain their favor and support by self-chosen means. We need not add that Jesus at once saw through the temptation and most vigorously repelled the cunning suggestion.

A σημεῖον, whether it is a miracle or some other deed, always signifies something, points beyond itself to something greater and thus makes a revelation by an actual deed and not merely by words. Here the sign is to demonstrate that Jesus is the Messiah. The unbelief of these Pharisees declares that for it only a sign “from the heaven” could suffice. There had been such signs as when Joshua made the sun and the moon stand still for twenty-four hours, when Elijah caused fire to fall from heaven, and when at Samuel’s prayer thunder discomfited the Philistines (1 Sam. 7:9, etc.). The reasoning seems to be that, since the Messiah will be greater than all the prophets and even than Moses, he will prove it by doing at least one sign which in outward grandeur will exceed all other signs that have ever been wrought.

But this entire conception is wrong, as wrong as the unbelief from which it springs. The value of a sign does not lie in the display it makes, not in what may make it a τέρας, prodigy or wonder, but in what it signifies, grace, mercy, deliverance, and salvation. In any number of miracles there is no display at all, but oh, how blessed is what they all signify! But this is in vain for unbelief. All the signs that Moses wrought did not change Pharaoh’s obdurate heart. Though one arose from the dead and warned the five wicked brothers of Dives, they would not believe. Voltaire cast off the mask when he declared: “Even if a miracle should be wrought in the open market place before a thousand sober witnesses, I would rather mistrust my senses than admit a miracle.”

Unbelief always finds a way to decline the truth, no matter with what credentials it is presented. As was the case here, another credential can always be demanded which discredits those already furnished. What, for instance, would prevent the Pharisees from claiming that even “a sign out of the heaven” was wrought by the aid of Beelzebul? This applies to all modern unbelief which rejects all the testimony of the divine records regarding the reality and even the possibility of miracles and all that they signify. Where the Word plus the signs awaken no faith, it is useless to offer a sign.

Mark 8:12

12 And having sighed deeply in his spirit, he says, Why is this generation seeking a sign? Amen, I say to you, if a sign shall be given to this generation—. And having left them, having again embarked, he went away to the other side.

It is Mark who again notes the emotion of Jesus, namely, that he sighed deeply (ἀνά in the participle) in his spirit (probably dative of relation, B.-D.187, in regard to his spirit). The sigh was audible; it is referred to the spirit of Jesus because this is the highest part of his human nature. The ψυχή is the immaterial part of man insofar as it animates the body; the πνεῦμα is the same immaterial part insofar as it looks up to God. The sigh of Jesus expressed his grief because of the hardness of the hearts of these Pharisees who come seeking such a sign. Hence the complaint in the question: “Why is this generation seeking a sign?” i. e., such a sign. Matt. 16:4 states only that it is seeking a sign, but Matthew calls this a wicked and adulterous generation, one that is following the wicked one, is unfaithful to its covenant God.

Jesus says “this generation” because these Pharisees represent a host of other obdurate unbelievers. Why do they want a sign? Not in order that they may believe but in order to tempt and to discredit Jesus.

These are not friends who in a mistaken way and unknowingly ask something improper of Jesus, whom he must in all kindness correct and instruct. These are treacherous enemies who can be properly answered in only one way. Matthew gives us the full account of how Jesus answered them, but the main point is that reported by Mark: Jesus refused this sign and left these enemies. On the formula “amen, I say to you” see 4:28. With this double seal of truth and of authority Jesus declares that they shall receive no such sign.

“If a sign shall be given to this generation” is a protasis without an apodosis; we may complete the sentence: “then it will be a far different sign,” namely, as Matthew states, the sign of the prophet Jonah, the final, absolutely convincing sign of judgment, which, however, comes too late for saving faith. When B.-D.454, 5 calls this εἰ after an oath Hebraistic and thus equal to the negation “not” he says too little. This εἰ resembles the Hebrew ’im but is an aposiopesis, the apodosis not being expressed, and does not mean οὐ, “not.” It is found in the papyri where Hebrew influence is excluded. R. 94. Note that the apodosis is one of reality and not of unreality. It thus hints at the fact that a sign shall be given to this generation, namely, one which it is least expecting.

Mark 8:13

13 This sharp answer is enough. Jesus turns away from these Pharisees (and Sadducees), embarks once more, and sails away to the eastern side of the lake. This embarking does not fix the place as being Dalmanutha; it may be that Jesus had sailed from Dalmanutha to Capernaum and there encountered these opponents. This is, of course, a minor matter.

Mark 8:14

14 And they forgot to take bread-cakes, and except one bread-cake they had nothing with them in the boat. And he went on to charge them, saying, Look to it, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the leaven of Herod. And they were considering with each other, saying, Bread-cakes we have not.

Merely the fact is brought out: “they forgot.” According to Matthew the discovery was made when they arrived at the other (eastern) shore of the lake. When they all disembarked they probably found that they had only one flat cake of bread in the boat. On the western shore this would have mattered very little, for that shore was populous and could easily provide bread; it was different on the lonely eastern shore.

Mark 8:15

15 Jesus sought lonely places in order to instruct his disciples. So he here goes on to warn them against the leaven of the Pharisees and against the leaven of Herod. They had just had a clash with the Pharisees and the Sadducees, which shows the appropriateness of this warning. Ὁρᾶτε is used like an exclamation, and βλέπετεἀπό means “beware of.” Both imperatives are durative to indicate an attitude that ought to continue. Matthew writes “the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” When Mark substitutes Herod for Sadducees he does not mean that Herod himself was a Sadducee, but that Herod and the Sadducees belonged together (see v. 11).

Mark does not interpret the figure of the leaven or yeast, but Matthew tells us that this is the doctrine of the Pharisees and scribes. Mark mentions leaven twice, but this cannot refer to two different realities: the Pharisaic leaven-doctrine, the Herodian moral principles. Doctrine and moral principles always go together, the former produce the latter. With this ζύμη Jesus refers to all that teaching which abolished μετάνοια and πίοτις, repentance and faith, and in the Pharisees set up a false holiness and in Herod and the Sadducees a false liberalism. Leaven is here used in an evil sense, its secret penetrating power illustrating the corrupting power of the teaching of the Pharisees and of Herod. Hence the warning βλέπετεἀπό: Do not look upon this teaching, i.e., with favor, but look away from it (ἀπό), i.e., with abhorrence.

Mark 8:16

16 The disciples fail completely to understand what Jesus means. They proceed to consider, i. e., to think over in their minds, what Jesus may mean. They did this πρὸςἀλλήλους, “over against each other,” and their opinion was that Jesus was in some way referring to their forgetfulness in not bringing along enough bread. They thus combine the idea of leaven with that of bread. This was rather pitiful. Had Jesus not just now again clashed with both Pharisees and Sadducees, and certainly not about bread but about the basis of faith?

Mark 8:17

17 And when Jesus knew it he says to them, Why are you considering that you do not have bread? Do you not yet comprehend nor understand? Have you your heart hardened? Having eyes, do you not see; and having ears, do you not hear; and do you not remember? When I broke the five bread-cakes for the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up? They say to him, Twelve. And when the seven for the four thousand, the fillings of broken pieces of how many baskets did you take up? And they say to him, Seven. And he proceeded to say to them, Do you not yet understand?

Jesus knew what the disciples were thinking and quietly saying to each other; he used his divine means of knowing. All that follows is painful rebuke. For this reason Mark and Matthew make such a full report of what Jesus said. Mark does not give the interpretation of the leaven, Matthew states that the disciples themselves finally discarded their interpretation. Mark leaves his readers to do the same.

Note that the entire rebuke is formulated in questions; we can hear the tone of reproach in every one of them. We see, too, what a task Jesus had to make his disciples really understand spiritual things. The first question as to why their considerations turn only on their lack of bread implies that there is no reason whatever for their thinking of such a superficial thing. “Not yet” in the next question means: “after all that Jesus has shown and taught them—has it all been in vain?” Do they not yet comprehend, i. e., does their mind (νοῦς) not yet grasp; do they not yet understand, i. e., put two and two together to see what Jesus really means? We see here that Jesus expects us to use our mind and our reasoning powers in religion, not indeed to rationalize but to understand and comprehend in true enlightenment.

But back of mind and reasoning powers lies the heart, the center of the personality itself, the seat of the will and of the thoughts it controls (this is the New Testament and the Greek conception of καρδία). The mind and its reasoning powers are never independent. The intellect does not control the heart so that the heart is swayed by what the intellect determines. This is the mistake of all rationalists, both ancient and modern. The reverse is true. The intellect, mind, and reasoning powers (σύνεσις) are the slaves of the heart, i. e., of the will, the central force of our being. The intellect always reasons as the will demands, never otherwise.

In the case of the Pharisees and the Sadducees we see that, even when their false reasonings are annihilated by the truth Jesus presents, their will remains unchanged. Therefore Jesus always does more: he drives directly at their will. The destruction of their false reasonings is only a preliminary skirmish, the fortress is not won until not only the intellect but the will itself capitulates. It is absolutely vital to have the right psychology in preaching the gospel. We thus see why Jesus asks the disciples about their heart. He wants them to examine their heart, to see whether it “has been hardened,” the perfect participle referring to a present condition that has grown out of the past. On πωρόω and πώρωσις see 6:52 where Mark describes the condition of the disciples in the same plain words.

Mark 8:18

18 When Jesus continues by speaking about the eyes that do not see, the ears that do not hear, the memory that does not remember, he is not reverting from the heart to the intellect. Eyes, ears, and memory are regarded as belonging to the heart. The sense of the questions is: “Is your heart really so inactive, so dead, that it does not use its eyes to see, its ears to hear, its memory to remember?” The tone of reproach is unabated.

Mark 8:19

19 And now Jesus stirs their heart by reviving their memory. Have they forgotten the two miracles when Jesus fed so many with so little? But the point of this remembrance is not that so many were miraculously filled, but that the disciples themselves received plenty. That is why the question asks how many baskets full of pieces the disciples took up. They answer twelve the first time, seven the second time. The point is: Did they starve, were they left hungry, when there was no bread out in the wilderness? No; Jesus fed them. How can they remember that and now think that Jesus is scolding them for not bringing enough bread? If he fed 5, 000 and 4, 000 with a few cakes of bread, can he not feed twelve men with the cake they brought?

Mark 8:20

20 The question about the 4, 000 is like that about the 5, 000. But the object of ἤρατε is formulated differently: “of how many baskets the fulness of broken pieces?” In v. 19 the stress is on the number of the baskets; in v. 20 the stress is on the full contents as well as on the number of the baskets. Jesus retains κόφινοι regarding the first miracle and σπυρίδες regarding the second, here where, if there were no difference between the terms, the one term would suffice. There evidently was a difference, see v. 8.

Mark 8:21

21 The rebuke as such is finished. Καὶἔλεγε marks a pause. Jesus gives the disciples time to absorb what he has said, time to let their hearts and their minds function as they should. Then he asks again: “Do you not yet understand?” This is no longer rebuke, hence is not a repetition of the question asked in v. 17 as some think. This is a solicitous question to which Jesus expects an answer after the extended rebuke he has administered. “Not yet” has a different reference than it had in v. 17; there it referred to all their previous experience, here in v. 21 it refers to the rebuke they have just heard.

Mark breaks off at this point, but Matthew goes on to say that the disciples now understood that Jesus was not warning against the leaven of bread such as came from the Pharisees but against the leaven of the teaching of the Pharisees and the Sadducees. We are, therefore, warranted in concluding that the disciples answered this question and answered it in the proper way.

Mark 8:22

22 And they come to Bethsaida. And they bring to him one blind, and they beseech him to touch him.

This is Bethsaida Julias, on the eastern side of the lake, near the entrance of the Jordan, a village that had been built up into a city by Philip and named in honor of Julia, the daughter of the emperor Augustus; it is to be distinguished from the Bethsaida on the western shore, the suburb of Capernaum. Jesus is still seeking retired localities. But even here he is known. He is asked to heal a blind man by touching him. The ἵνα clause is subfinal and states what the people asked.

Mark 8:23

23 And having laid hold of the hand of the blind, he brought him outside of the village. And having spit on his eyes in having laid his hands on him, he inquired of him, Dost thou see anything? And having looked up, he went on to say, I see men, for I perceive them as trees, walking.

The procedure of Jesus is pedagogical as was that which he followed in the case of the deaf-mute in 7:33. Jesus again employs sign language. Jesus lays hold of the hand of the blind man and brings him outside of the village—the old name “village” is still used for what was now a city. The blind man is taken away from the crowd and the excitement of the town; Jesus wants him to be entirely undisturbed so that he may have his entire attention, and that the man may realize fully what a miracle is being wrought upon him. Jesus thus wants to kindle faith in the man. The point is not that the miracle depends on that faith, for the faith is here to follow the miracle.

Jesus healed many who came without faith, but all his miracles were performed to enable and to aid faith. That was the purpose of the elaborate procedure of Jesus. He could have healed the man with a word right in the town, but he chose a better way, better for the man concerned. The disciples most likely went along and stood by quietly.

Jesus next spits upon the closed eyelids of the man while he is placing his hands upon him (αὐτῷ after ἐπί in the verb). We have no καί between the participles, which means that the one action took place (spitting) immediately after the other (laying on the hands). The placing of the hands on the man’s eyes (v. 25, πάλιν) assures him that Jesus is now proceeding to heal him; a great gift and blessing is about to descend upon him. The spitting on the eyelids which are now veiling his sightless eyeballs tells him that Jesus is dealing with his blindness, and that he is bestowing sight upon him. As was the case in 7:33, it is unwarranted to introduce the view that human spittle had healing power; or to make the spittle a medium for transmitting the healing power of Jesus. The healing, as always, was wrought directly by the almighty will of Jesus, which never needs a medium or channel. Whatever actions Jesus uses are for a different purpose, here the purpose already indicated.

The remarkable feature of this miracle is the fact that Jesus wrought it gradually and not in an instant as he did in other cases. This is due wholly to the will of Jesus which is working with an eye to the man. The gradual recovery of his sight is to impress him the more deeply with what Jesus is doing for him. The question as to why such a procedure fits this case and not others belongs altogether to Jesus—his insight (John 2:25) knows what is best in each case. Yet even here the man gets his sight quickly. It is unwarranted to think that Jesus’ power was unable to heal this case at once; that Jesus was compelled to make a second effort.

We sometimes read the statement that those who are healed by Jesus were left weak and needed time to recover fully; but this is contrary to the facts. Even this blind man had perfect sight after a moment’s delay.

Jesus asks the man whether he sees anything. Jesus is not seeking information as to whether his power is doing the work. He asks the question so that the man may lift his eyelids and look about and realize that his sight is being restored. The use of εἰ introducing a direct question is nothing but a retention of the εἰ in indirect questions, εἰ thus becomes an ordinary interrogative particle, B.-D.440, 3. While this use is unclassical, it is best to regard this εἰ as “having attained to all the rights of a direct interrogative at this time,” R. 916; and it hardly seems necessary to call it elliptical: “I ask thee, whether,” etc., or to trace this use to the LXX’s translation of the Hebrew he.

Mark 8:24

24 At the question of Jesus the man opened his eyes and looked up. His sight had come back partially. “I see men” (the Greek has the generic article) most likely refers to the disciples who were walking about near the man. But these men walking seemed to him as trees, they were vague, indistinct, so that he could not distinguish them from trees except that they were walking. The difference between βλέπω and ὁρῶ is slight, erblicken, gewahren, just to see and to perceive what one sees. Jesus wanted the man to realize that his sight was returning.

Mark 8:25

25 Thereupon he again placed his hands upon his eyes, and he was restored, and he continued to look upon all things afar. And he sent him away to his home, saying, Go not even into the village!

The man understands that Jesus had done so much for him, he will now do the rest. Jesus once more lays his hands on the man’s eyes, and on the instant he sees clearly. Mark emphasizes the complete healing by using three verbs: saw clearly, was restored, continued to look upon; the first two aorists indicate the fact, the last, an imperfect, indicates continuance. We have three compounds of βλέπω: with ἀνά, to glance up; with δτά, to see through, i. e., clearly; with ἐν, to look at. “Was restored” means that the man formerly saw but became blind in some way. The readings vary as to the form of the verb, whether it is second aorist passive or first aorist passive with one or with two augments; all three forms mean the same thing: “was restored by Jesus.” The adverb τηλαυγῶς (τῆλε, afar, + αὐγή, radiance) means that everything even far off appeared in radiant clearness to him, i.e., he could not have had better sight.

Mark 8:26

26 We need not puzzle about the reason Jesus sent the man home and told him not to go even into the village, to say nothing of other populous places. Negative prohibitions in the aorist use the subjunctive. This order is given for the man’s own sake, and that is all; it is part of the pedagogical treatment that marks this entire miracle. The man is not to lose the deep impressions that have been made upon him by going into an excited crowd. His own family circle is enough. As far as the townspeople are concerned, they already know that Jesus could heal this man’s blindness, that he had done many great miracles, etc. To say that Jesus wanted them to know nothing further about what he had done is to misconceive the situation.

Part Two

Jesus Proves Himself to Be the Christ, God’s Son, by Adding His Teaching concerning Suffering and by His Own Passion and Resurrection, 8:27–16:8

Regarding the reasons for dividing the entire Gospel at this point see the introduction to the Gospel. From this point onward the note of suffering meets us at every turn; this is markedly absent in the first half of the Gospel. In this second part of the Gospel the main division is undoubtedly to be made at 14:1, where the history of the Passion begins. A plain indication of division in the subpart 8:27–13:37 is found at 10:32, where Jesus proceeds to go up to Jerusalem. Further divisions are suggested by the way in which Mark indicates places. Thus for 8:27–10:31 we have Cæsarea Philippi in 8:27; Capernaum in 9:33; the borders of Judea and beyond Jordan in 10:1. Again for 10:32–13:37 we have Jesus’ going toward Jerusalem in 10:32; Jesus’ drawing nigh to Jerusalem in 11:1; and Jesus’ leaving the Temple in 13:1.

Mark 8:27

27 And Jesus went out and his disciples into the villages of Caesarea Philippi.

Jesus continues to sojourn in distant parts, away from his enemies, and devotes himself largely to the final training of the Twelve. From Bethsaida (v. 22) Jesus seems to have gone toward Cæsarea Philippi, not into the city itself but into the outlying villages where he could find more retirement. Philip, a son of Herod the Great, who ruled this territory as tetrarch had enlarged and beautified this town and had named it after both Cæsar and himself: “Cæsarea of Philip,” i. e., built by Philip in honor of Cæsar.

And on the road he went on to request his disciples, saying to them, Whom are men saying me to be?

It is Mark who tells us that this question was asked while the little company was “on the road.” The verb ἐρωτᾶν is dignified and is thus in full harmony with the importance of the occasion. The imperfect tense is descriptive and as an open tense holds our attention to see what the answer will be. This first question is plainly preliminary. Jesus is not asking for information on his own account. He wants the disciples to state the wrong opinions of men in order to set over against them their own correct conviction. These foolish opinions he does not care even to discuss; the disciples themselves will brush them aside.

Mark and Luke write simply “me,” Matthew, the Messianic title that was used so constantly by Jesus and by him alone: “the Son of man,” which is explained in 2:10. In many instances where Jesus might have used a pronoun when he was referring to himself he preferred to use this significant title and spoke of himself in the third person. We have λέγω followed by the accusative with the infinitive: “Whom do they say me to be?” “Men” has the generic article in the Greek, no article in the English; Jesus refers to men in general; Luke writes “the multitudes.”

Mark 8:28

28 Now they told him, saying, John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; still others, One of the prophets.

The answers the disciples gave were perhaps divided between them. The superstitious idea of Herod concerning Jesus as being John the Baptist come to life again has been discussed in 6:14; and in 6:15 all that needs to be said about the other opinions. Note that all three opinions regard Jesus as a mere man and resemble the opinions of the old rationalists and of the present modernists. All three opinions, however, involve resurrections and thus reveal that the Jews, excepting only the Sadducees, believed in the resurrection of the body on the basis of the Old Testament. This answers the claim of the critics that the resurrection of the dead is either not taught in the Old Testament or is taught there so vaguely that no one caught the idea. The accusatives Ἰωάννηνκτλ. are predicates after εἶναι which is to be supplied from v. 27.

Mark 8:29

29 And he on his part went on to request them, But you, whom do you say me to be? And answering, Peter says to him, Thou, thou art the Christ!

Αὐτός makes “he” emphatic, and the imperfect ἐπηρώτα holds us in suspense regarding the answer just as this same verb did in v. 27. In the question ὑμεῖς is decidedly emphatic: “you on your part” over against οἱἄνθρωποι in the first question. Whatever they may say, tell me what you say. With λέγετε Jesus wants a confession of the lips but, of course, only one that is a true expression of the conviction of their hearts. Any other confession is a falsehood. Jesus knew the heart (John 2:25), we cannot and must thus accept the confession of the lips.

Our only aid in understanding is the conduct, the acts of the individual, the practice of a congregation or of a church body. This, too, is a confession, and it should harmonize fully with the confession of the lips. When it clashes with that, the confession by means of deeds is the real confession by which we must then judge. Deeds and practice always speak louder and are more decisive than words.

It is natural that Peter, with his constant readiness for action, should speak for the Twelve who undoubtedly indicated or even voiced their assent. When Jesus said “you” he had in mind the Twelve, both individually and as a body. The aorist participle ἀποκριθείς expresses action that is simultaneous with that of λέγει, R. 861. Matthew writes the full name “Simon Peter,” Mark who has received the account from Peter himself, is content with the one name “Peter.” In the confession: ΣὺεἶὁΧριστός, the pronoun σύ, “thou,” has an emphasis, and this emphasis “passes on to the remainder of the sentence and contributes point and force to the whole,” R. 678. This is also true because the predicate has the article and is thus identical and interchangeable with the subject, R. 768. Just as “thou” denotes one person and only one, so “the Christ” is one and only one, and “thou” and “the Christ” are identical, and either may be used as the subject or as the predicate. These linguistic points are quite essential.

ὉΧριστός is appellative, the substantivized verbal adjective from the verb χρίω which denotes ceremonial or sacred anointing. This is made a title: the Messiah, the One Anointed, i. e., by God (1:10), for the great office for which God had commissioned Jesus. The conviction that Jesus was the Messiah who had been promised in the Old Testament revelations first drew the disciples to him, beginning with the Baptist’s assurance in John 1:32–34 and with the faith of the first six who attached themselves to Jesus in John 1:41, 45, 49. More than two years of constant intercourse with Jesus had deepened and fully established this conviction.

All those referred to as οἱἄνθρωποι in v. 27, however highly they were willing to rate Jesus, refused to see in him “the Christ,” and it is over against this refusal that Peter sets his confession that Jesus is the Christ. This confession is thus most emphatic, without qualification, brief, and decisive. Men had a false, a political conception of the Christ; no wonder they could see no more in him than the Baptist, Elijah, or a prophet risen from the dead. By rejecting these false notions the Twelve showed that they had the true conception of the Christ, the one of the Old Testament, the one that was perfectly fulfilled in Jesus.

Yet we cannot assume that only the Twelve believed in Jesus as the Christ. Others agreed with them. They are not brought in here for the simple reason that a right confession can be listed together with several wrong confessions only in a general way. Among those who deny the Messiahship of Jesus none have place who accept that Messiahship. They are in another class, that of the Twelve. They are not mentioned now because Jesus is dealing with the Twelve in a special manner.

Mark abbreviates Peter’s confession and the entire incident which Matthew records in full. In the first place, Mark intends to use this great confession as the introduction to the announcement of the Passion of Jesus which follows. In the second place, Mark is repeating what Peter often narrated in his presence. Now Peter was humble and did not put himself forward when he told the story; he let others do that. The view is thus answered that Mark’s Gospel aims to put Peter forward; likewise the opposite view that this Gospel intends to cast reflection on Peter. It reports Peter’s great confession and thus gives him credit, and it reports Peter’s attempt to dissuade Jesus from entering on his Passion and thus tells of his mistake. Mark shows no Tendenz except to report the facts truly even as the apostle John told his pupil Papias.

Mark 8:30

30 And he gave them strict orders to tell no one concerning him, namely that he was indeed the Christ. In the first place, they were not yet ready to do this properly. The fulness of what “the Christ” meant was not yet revealed to them. In the second place, to proclaim Jesus as the Christ would arouse the false hopes of the multitude who were looking for an earthly Christ, one who would fulfill their grand political hopes. We regard the ἵνα clause as subfinal, as stating the contents of the orders.

Mark 8:31

31 And he began to teach them that it was necessary that the Son of man suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and the high priests and the scribes and be killed and after three days rise again.

One great task had been accomplished: the disciples had been brought to the full realization of the divine person of Jesus as Peter voiced this conviction for the Twelve in his great confession (v. 29). Another task had to be performed: the disciples had to be brought to understand the redemptive work that Jesus was about to complete. Though Mark has not preserved these instances in the first half of his Gospel, Jesus had spoken about this work in a veiled manner; now he at last speaks of it in the plainest terms. More than two years before this time, behind the temptation after the forty days of fasting, Jesus saw the shadow of the cross. When he cleansed the Temple the first time he spoke of the temple of his body which the Jews would destroy, and he would raise up. To Nicodemus he said: “The Son of man must be lifted up.” But the time had now come for plainer language.

The aorist ἤρξατο indicates that Jesus now makes a definite beginning of revealing his Passion to the disciples. The durative infinitive διδάσκειν points to an extended course of instruction. Jesus did more than just to tell, he taught his Passion to the disciples. They had confessed him as the Christ, the Son of God. They are to draw no false conclusions from his deity and his Messiahship such as they were only too much inclined to draw because of the vain Jewish hopes that were still lurking in their hearts. Though Jesus is the Messiah and God’s Son, no golden, glorious, refulgent earthly kingdom and grandeur lie ahead but the very opposite.

Mark gives us a summary of what Jesus revealed to his disciples during these last few months. The ὅτι clause reports merely what Jesus said after his reply to Peter’s great confession. Later on Jesus repeated this statement with additions. All that awaits Jesus is a necessity. Δεῖ expresses all types of necessity, here evidently what the gracious will and counsel of God made necessary in regard to the mission of Jesus. These things “must” (δεῖ is often so translated) take place, and Jesus himself wills that they shall, for without them he could not redeem the world.

We have seen how Jesus withdrew himself from the populous center on the west shore of the lake and spent his time in distant parts, now near Tyre and Sidon, then in Decapolis, finally in the neighborhood of Cæsarea Philippi. Even in Galilee the opposition had grown so keen that Pharisees and Sadducees from Jerusalem had come up to interfere with him. But Jesus now tells the disciples, as Matthew adds, that he himself will presently again go to Jerusalem, to the very capital itself where the real center of hostility against him was to be found. The Jews would not need to follow him, to arrest him in some distant locality, he himself would place himself in their hands. Jerusalem would be the place of his sacrifice, Luke 13:33. Here he would “suffer many things,” παθεῖν, an aorist, includes all the suffering, πολλά still leaves a veil over the details.

Jesus knew what these “many things” were. The prophets had foretold them in all their terribleness, and Jesus knew even more fully just what they included. In the many things Jesus was to suffer we may well see the reflection of the many sins he bore, which Paul Gerhardt in his great Passion hymn on the thorn-crowned head of Christ likens to the grains of sand upon the seashore.

The verb ἀποδοκιμάζω means to reject after submitting to a test. Inferior or spurious coins were carefully tested and then rejected. Jesus will be rejected by no less an authority than the Sanhedrin, the highest judicial and religious authority of the nation which was far more representative than the high priest alone would have been. And Jesus gives that body its full name: elders, high priests, scribes. In ordinary connections it was enough to mention only two classes. “The elders” were the old, experienced men of the nation who had served as judges in the local courts and, due to their prominence, had risen to membership in the highest court. “The high priests” were members of the ruling high priest’s (Caiaphas’) family; they were Sadducees (see 8:11) and highly influential. “The scribes” were the experts in the interpretation of the Old Testament and of the rabbinical tradition (described in 7:3; further notes on the scribes in 7:1). We do not know how many of each class were to be found in the Sanhedrin of seventy-one judges, or whether the proportions for each class were fixed.

The naming of the Sanhedrin as the agent (ὑπό) of Jesus’ rejection points to a trial and a formal condemnation. Matthew has ἀπό, which points to the source whence the rejection comes; Mark ὑπό, the regular preposition for the agent after passives.

The disciples themselves knew that the chief enemies of their Master were the Sanhedrists, who, in fact, had already planned and plotted to destroy him. Thus far Jesus had quietly frustrated their schemes; but he now tells the disciples that the Sanhedrin will succeed. Jesus will not only suffer many things, he will actually “be killed.” This is speaking plainly indeed, although Jesus still withholds mention of the scourging, the mockery, the mode of death, etc., for the disciples cannot bear all these things at once. The previous mention of the Sanhedrin points to a judicial killing, but ἀποκτανθῆναι means only “to be killed” in the sense of to be put out of the way (ἀπό), murdered, robbed of life. It suggests no thought of justice on the part of the Jewish tribunal but, in connection with the preceding παθεῖν, the gravest kind of injustice—judicial murder.

Jesus is brief in this first formal announcement. He is like one who breaks a terrible piece of news to his dearest friends. The shock cannot be avoided, but it is softened as much as possible. The very thought of seeing their beloved Master, whom they had just confessed as the Christ, a bleeding, murdered victim of the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem must have overwhelmed the disciples—and not only because of their love, attachment, and high hopes but also because of their conception of the Messiah, which included the very opposite of suffering and being killed, namely, earthly grandeur and triumph.

Yet glory and triumph, though of a far higher kind, are included, namely, his resurrection “after three days.” Mark has ἀναστῆναι: it is necessary that “he rise up” from death; Matthew writes ἐγερθῆναι, the passive “be raised up.” Both are true: Jesus arose in his own power, and he was raised up by God, for the opera ad extra sunt indivisa aut communa. Jesus uses only the one word and intimates nothing further concerning the glorification that is connected with his resurrection. Any proper conception of this stupendous act was at this time beyond the comprehension of the disciples. It was enough for them to hear that Jesus would not remain in death but would be brought back to life as the Messiah. “After three days” is quite as exact as Matthew’s “on the third day.” This phrase is so important because it foretells the exact time. Jesus would arise, not at some indefinite future time, but after a lapse of only three days. Jesus sees the future with direct vision, for none of the prophets had specified three days; all that the Old Testament offers on this point is the analogy of Jonah’s stay in the belly of the great fish.

Beyond relating Peter’s attempt to dissuade Jesus from entering upon his Passion Mark and Matthew tell us nothing about the effect of this startling announcement upon the disciples. Peter’s attempt proves that the disciples certainly understood what Jesus told them. And yet we see that Peter thinks only of the suffering and the being killed and thus reveals that the glorious climax of the Messiah’s career is entirely clouded in the minds of the disciples. This explains 9:31 and Luke 18:34.

Modern criticism to this day denies both the prophecy that Jesus utters and the fulfillment that is recorded by all the evangelists and was preached by all the apostles. These critics allow the death to stand but stumble at the glorious resurrection. Untenable is the supposition of others who are less radical, who assume that Jesus did not speak as plainly as the evangelists record his statement, but that they wrote as they did on the basis of their later knowledge, especially that they did this with regard to the prophecy about his rising again that is put into the mouth of Jesus. They think that only in this way the reluctance of the disciples to believe the news of the resurrection can be properly explained. But Peter’s act shows conclusively that the disciples centered on the suffering and the death of their Master and failed to heed what he added concerning his resurrection. The last discourses of Jesus, recorded by John in extenso, show this still more plainly.

It is one thing to sit in a cool study today and to rationalize on the reactions of the disciples, and quite another thing to pass through the terrible experience of the disciples when their Master was crucified and then buried in the tomb. All the preceding assurances that he would rise again after three days were lost in the night of the calamity that engulfed them. We may note that the Jews counted parts of days as days so that “after three days” is perfectly correct.

Mark 8:32

32 And with openness he uttered this statement. And Peter, having taken him to himself (the middle participle with πρός), began to rebuke him. But he, having turned around and having seen his disciples, rebuked Peter and says, Get behind me, Satan! because thou hast not in mind the things of God but the things of men.

Mark draws our attention to the fact that Jesus uttered this λόγος or statement with παρρησία, which is the freedom to speak out. We are to know that he spoke as he did with utmost openness and without restraint. That, too, explains Peter’s action: he fully understood what Jesus said with such plainness, excepting, of course, the word about the resurrection.

The action on the part of Peter seems to have followed at once. Peter is again forward, impetuous. He thinks that he is doing the right thing, doing it for the Twelve just as he had made confession for them (v. 29). The purpose in taking Jesus aside to himself is that Jesus may listen the more readily to Peter’s expostulation. Inadvertently, however, this reproduced the situation that obtained when Satan tempted Jesus in the wilderness. Peter “began” to rebuke him just as a moment before this Jesus “began” to teach his disciples about his Passion and his glorification; but what Peter began was immediately squelched; it was like crushing a serpent that raises its ugly head.

The verb ἐπιτιμᾶν which is used also in the next verse regarding Jesus is full of vehemence, it is as when one comes powerfully at another in order to show him that he is altogether wrong. Mark shows the same brevity in this story about Peter as he had shown in the one about his great confession. Both abbreviations can most likely be traced back to Peter himself, Mark had heard him tell them thus on many occasions. Matthew has preserved what Peter said to Jesus.

The psychology revealed is so true that we can substantiate it by any number of examples in our own lives. But these examples are mostly on a small scale as when present pain or loss prove too much for us and blot out any joy or gain that may be achieved thereby. In Peter’s case it was the death of his Master which was to Peter a calamity that was so frightful as to blot out entirely everything glorious that might follow. The mystery of the Baptist’s “Lamb of God” with its implication of bloody sacrifice was still hidden from Peter. What Jesus meant by δεῖ, namely, the divine necessity of the atoning, cleansing blood of the Messiah, Peter did not grasp at all. His mind brushed all these divine things aside and thought of the Messiah only as the omnipotent Son of God who needed but to stretch out the hand of his power to achieve his great rule and kingdom among men.

To this day all who fail to see the damning power of sin are blind to the necessity of the cross. They see in Christ crucified (since he was indeed crucified) nothing but a noble martyr, a sacrifice only in this sense, and reject “the blood theology” of the gospel, the sacrifice which means substitution, redemption by the blood of God’s Son, and the cleansing of the soul from guilt by faith in this sacrificial blood. They thus need no essential Son in their theology, and his resurrection may be regarded as a myth. Like Peter, they would have a kingship without the Messianic priesthood. But the very thing for which Peter started to rebuke Jesus later became the kernel, yea, the Alpha and the Omega of his apostolic preaching.

Mark 8:33

33 Peter began but never finished. The moment he begins to speak of what he wants of Jesus, Jesus turns on him. Not for an instant did he pause or ask his urgent disciple: “Why?” or: “What makes thee think so?” Peter is not allowed to add that it would not behoove the Messiah and Son of God to allow himself to be killed; or that he should not go to Jerusalem and place himself in the hands of the Sanhedrin. Jesus does not for one moment entertain the tempting thought or even turn it over in his mind. This is an example for us who frequently dally with the serpent and then find his poisonous fangs lodged in us.

Some think that Jesus’ “having turned around” means that he turned his back on Peter in disgust; others that he turned away from Peter and faced the other disciples. But to turn and speak to a person—note that the two actions go together—means that Jesus faced Peter squarely. Peter and the disciples were behind Jesus; then Peter came to the side of Jesus and began to speak; then Jesus turned and in facing him, as Mark alone observes, saw also the other disciples. We have the same strong verb ἐπιτιμᾶν to indicate the rebuke that Jesus administers. His seeing the other disciples when he faced Peter implies that they, too, were to hear the rebuke, for it might apply also to their thoughts.

The command: “Be going behind me!” means that Jesus is facing Peter at the moment. If Jesus had turned his back on Peter he would himself have placed Peter behind him. The command means: “Get out of my sight!” With Peter, speaking as he does, Jesus will have nothing whatever to do. This peremptory word with the address “Satan” is identical with the command with which Jesus ordered the devil out of his sight after the third temptation (Matt. 4:10). For this reason “Satan” means the archfiend. Unwittingly and with the best intentions Peter was making himself a tool of Satan. What a warning to watch our love, our good intentions, our best acts, lest perhaps they after all agree with Satan and not with Christ.

The Romanists are concerned about removing the name “Satan” from Peter and reduce it to mean only “adversary” in general or regard it as an address to the devil and not to Peter. Others agree by advancing the claim that in the East “Satan” is commonly used as a designation for a bold, powerful enemy. But the evidence for this alleged common usage is lacking. The decisive point is that Jesus with his own lips here repeats to Peter what he once said to the devil, and both times we have temptations, even the same kind of temptations. In both “Satan” is used in the same sense, but in the second case the fiend is connected with Peter.

The argument that immediately after praising Peter as the rock (Matt. 16:18) Jesus could not have called him Satan, i. e., an agent of Satan, overlooks the fact that Peter had the flesh in him as well as the spirit, ignorance as well as faith, weakness as well as strength. And we may ask, “How could Jesus call him a rock when he knew that Peter would most shamefully deny him?” The name “rock” pointed to what the grace of Christ would eventually make of Peter; as yet the work had only begun. The fact that the Scriptures relate the faults of the apostles so openly and truthfully proves their complete reliability. These faults comfort us, not as offering excuses for our faults, but as assurances that Christ will not reject us on this account but will correct our faults as he did those of Peter.

Mark omits the word about the skandalon by which Jesus was to be caught as in a trap. Thus in Mark ὅτι gives the reason why Jesus ordered Peter away while in Matthew it states the reason why Peter is a trap for Jesus. But the reason assigned belongs to both. Because Peter comes with evil thoughts he is a trap, he must be ordered away. The verb φρονεῖν means to have something in the mind so that the mind is swayed thereby. “The things of God” and “the things of men” (the Greek has the generic article) are here direct opposites. The former are the great, blessed, saving purposes, plans, and acts of God; the latter the blind, erring sinful purposes and ways of men. Peter had his poor mind full only of the latter, his thinking and desires were set on these, not at all on the former. “To the world the cross was offensive, to Christ whatever opposed the cross.” Bengel.

Peter must have been shocked at Jesus’ reply to his well-meant urging. He could at that time hardly have understood that by his attempt to dissuade Jesus from going to the cross he was laying arrows on the bow of Satan to shoot at his beloved Savior. One thing, however, must have penetrated his mind, namely, that all this about Jesus’ passion, death, and resurrection was divine, “of God,” and therefore holy, blessed, saving; and that every contradictory thought and suggestion were evil, dangerous, Satanic. Thus the very temptation that Peter brought upon Jesus was used by Jesus to help him from the things of men to those of God. We have only the hint that Jesus saw the other disciples plus what follows to indicate that the others, too, heard what Jesus said to Peter.

Mark 8:34

34 And having called to himself the multitude with his disciples, he said to them, If anyone wills to come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and be following me.

Matthew mentions only the disciples, Mark also the multitude. The crowd of people must have been near enough to be called; σύν means that the multitude was called to be with the disciples; προσκαλεσάμενος, the middle voice plus the preposition πρός, means that Jesus called the people to himself. He had an important communication to make to them. Jesus, however, says nothing about his own future course. That is fixed once for all. He speaks about the course of those who would be his disciples. But his words involve all that precedes concerning himself, that he is the Christ, the Son of the living God (Matthew), and must be killed and raised up again. Whoever would belong to this Messiah must do what Jesus now says.

In εἰθἐλει we have the condition of reality, and θέλει points to the will as forming a continuous volition, R. 878 (“would” in the R. V. is inadequate). “To come after or behind me” means to attach oneself to Jesus as a disciple; but the thought is here deepened: to follow this Messiah who is going into death and the following resurrection. “Christ does not pull his sheep by a rope; in his army are none but volunteers.” E. Frommel. Jesus knows of no irresistible grace but only of the grace which draws the will and wins it for himself. And this grace excludes no one—τὶς is like a blank space into which you are invited to write your name, no matter who you may be.

Whoever wills to come after Jesus, “let him deny himself”; ἀπαρνέομαι, to turn someone off, to refuse association and companionship with him, to disown. And the one to be disowned and denied is ἐαυτός, SELF, and that means self altogether, not merely some portion, some special habit or desire, some outward practice. The natural, sinful self is meant as it centers in the things of men and has no use for the things of God. As Peter afterward denied Jesus by saying, “I know not the man!” so must you say to this your self: “I disown you completely!”

This is not self-denial in the current sense of the word but true conversion, the very first essential of the Christian life. The heart sees all the sin of self and the damnation and the death bound up in this sin and turns away from them in utter dismay and seeks rescue in Christ alone. Self is thus cast out, and Christ enters in; henceforth you live, not unto yourself, but unto Christ who died for you. Moreover, you can thus deny only one whom you know, a friend, for instance, by breaking off relations with him. To deny a stranger would mean nothing. If Jesus had been a stranger to Peter, Peter’s denial would have meant nothing. So you are to deny your very own old self and to enter the new relation with Christ.

This will mean that “he take up his cross” (αἴρειν). Jesus undoubtedly chose this figure because he himself was to be crucified. Although this was a Roman mode of execution it was known universally. Jesus will bear his cross, one which he alone can bear. Of his disciples he says that each is to bear his cross, i. e., the particular one allotted to him. This word has grown too familiar by constant use.

It is a mistake to call all our suffering a cross. The wicked have many sorrows (Ps. 32:10) but no crosses. The cross is that suffering alone which results from our faithful connection with Christ. And the intimation is that each disciple will have his share of such suffering. The thought grows overwhelmingly: Christ with his cross leads, and all his disciples, each loaded with his cross, follows in one immense procession, like men who are led away to be crucified. Paul carries the figure farther: they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh (Gal. 5:24); and Paul himself is crucified with Christ (Gal. 2:20).

The earthly prospects of a disciple are not alluring. However heavy your cross may be, he helps you bear it after him.

So Jesus says, “let him be following me” and uses the usual word for the attachment of faith and faithfulness, which is quite the same as to come after Jesus. Let no one think of changing the course of Jesus, which leads to the cross, but only of following him with our cross. Godet says that three things are necessary in travelling: first, to say farewell (to self); secondly, to carry our baggage (the cross); thirdly, to proceed with the journey (follow me). The only question is our will to make this journey. The first two imperatives are properly aorists, for to deny self and to shoulder the cross are momentary acts; but the third is present, for to follow is a long and continuous course of action. This means that the first two acts are preparations for the third, and that they always come in this order.

We need not add that all three are impossible for us, for no human power is able to bring about conversion and the new life. Christ’s Word and grace alone accomplish both.

Mark 8:35

35 For whoever wills to save his life shall lose it; but whoever loses his life on account of me and of the gospel shall save it.

This is the reason (γάρ) for the previous gospel commands. It is a warning and a promise combined. Its paradoxical form is sure to embed it in the memory. “Whoever wills to save his life” once more stresses the will; the decision is always made in this center of our personality. The verb σώζειν means not only to save by rescuing but in addition to preserve in a safe state. We note that ψυχή is neither exactly the English “life” nor “soul” although we must choose the one or the other when translating (R. V. and the margin show the wavering).

We get little help from the observation that in the Semitic nephesh is used for the reflexive “himself” and is yet translated ψυχή in the Greek: “he that finds (loses) himself.” Nobody knows whether Jesus used nephesh, or whether he used it in this sense. We could be sure, as in quotations, only where we have the Hebrew original.

Now in the present connection ψυχή faces in two directions; it animates the body (in fact, it always refers to the body) as its life and yet contains the ἐγώ and the πνεῦμα and is thus somewhat like the English “soul.” This will help us to understand what Jesus means. To save one’s ψυχή is more than keeping it in the body so that the body remains alive; it is to keep the immaterial part of our being in which the ego dwells. Note also the tenses, θέλη, the present, to express a willing that continues, and σῶσαι, the aorist, to indicate a saving that is complete. This is the terrible folly of the man whose will is directed toward saving his life, namely, by not denying himself, taking up his cross, and following Jesus—he shall, by this very volition of his, lose his life. Though he enjoys every earthly delight, his ψυχή, in which his person dwells, he has thereby really destroyed, for it is doomed.

On the other hand, Jesus does not again say: “Whoever wills to lose his life,” for this willing is understood. So he at once advances to the fact that this man “loses” (or “shall lose”) his life and states a case where this loss becomes actual, hence the aorist. This man may even become a martyr and lose not merely many earthly treasures and advantages but earthly existence itself. Does his case seem sad and deplorable? Far from it! In and by the very loss he shall save his ψυχή, find it safe and blessed with Christ and God. But note the significant phrase “on account of me and of the gospel,” which explains “his cross” in v. 34. Compare 10:29; Matt. 5:10, 11; 10:18.

“On account of me” means on account of his faith in me and his faithfulness to me; and “on account of the gospel” means on account of confessing and promulgating the gospel. On the one hand, the gain is only temporal and a delusion while the loss is irreparable; on the other hand, the loss is only minor while the gain is immense and eternal. We cannot have both, only one of the alternatives can be ours. Hence the urging in v. 34 to choose the right one. By making the alternatives so plain Jesus drives at the religious will which must follow the norm that prefers the real to the sham, the eternal to the temporal, and, when it does not follow this norm, must forever blame itself.

Mark 8:36

36 A second γάρ elucidates the reason just given for the command occurring in v. 34. For what does it benefit a man to gain the whole world and to forfeit his life? For what would a man give as exchange for his life?

We see what underlies the paradox stated in v. 35. To save the ψυχή means to secure for it as much as this world affords; and thus to lose the ψυχή means to forego what the world affords. Jesus supposes the absolute limit, that a man secure for himself (κερδῆσαι, aorist infinitive, actually gain) “the whole world”—all the world’s wealth, power, pleasure, glory, the beauty of all the fair things that ever graced the world, the sweetness of all the delicacies that ever grew in it, the grandness of all the high things that ever towered aloft in it, all sensations, all enjoyments, all achievements, all satisfactions. Of course, such a thing is frankly impossible for any human being, and that is understood. But granting the impossible and for the moment accepting it as real, in what is this man benefited (ὠφωλεῖ, present indicative, merely asking about the fact) if, though he have the whole world, he forfeit his ψυχή? Note the aorist infinitive ζημιωθῆναι, “to forfeit actually.”

To understand exactly what Jesus means we must remember just what ψυχή means (see v. 35). The question answers itself. Jesus is appealing to the norm of the religious will, and he is doing this so perfectly that only an irrational man would make the wrong choice, take the whole world and give up and lose his ψυχή. However, a man need not die at once to forfeit his ψυχή, for he forfeits it already when he fails to secure salvation. The Jews are keen on finance—well, here is the whole matter reduced to a simple question of profit and loss. Write on the credit side of the ledger “the whole world” and then on the debit side “the life,” the man himself, and the profit is nothing, yea, infinitely worse than nothing. Yet Satan needs to pay no such price to buy men’s souls; all the bait he needs is a little piece of the world.

Mark 8:37

37 Or let us make the reckoning in another way. Here is a man who has forfeited his ψυχή. What can he do to gain it back, what can he possibly give as an exchange, an equivalent, a price of equal value, to release his ψυχή from forfeit and to place it in the safety of salvation? No equivalent can be named; no man will even try to name one. The form δοῖ is the aorist subjunctive (R. 1214) in a question of deliberation (R. 935), one in which a man asks himself or others what to do. The genitive after ἀντάλλαγμα is objective: “exchange for his soul,” R. 501.

Only in one way can a man make his life safe for time and for eternity, namely, by following the directions given in v. 34. The entire presentation is as clear as crystal, so convincing in every point, so in accord with the norms according to which our will acts, that only blind unreason or wilful self-deceit is able to resist following the right course. Even the interrogative form is masterly, for it makes the hearer himself utter the inevitable answers.

Mark 8:38

38 For whosoever is ashamed of me and of my statements in this adulterous and sinful generation also the Son of man shall be ashamed of him when he comes in the glory of his Father in company with the holy angels.

We now come to the final γάρ which adds the ultimate elucidation beyond which no reasoning can go, namely, the final judgment. “To be ashamed” of Jesus is one of those highly significant concepts of which Jesus uses so many. To be ashamed of him means doing the opposite of what v. 34 commands, it means to deny Jesus, to prefer the world, to turn from him. But Jesus combines “me and my statements,” λόγοι, the substance of what he says. This matches the phrase used in v. 35: “on account of me and of the gospel.” He and his words belong together and cannot possibly be separated. Those logoi are life, blessedness, salvation. They are the medium through which Jesus comes to our hearts, enables our hearts to receive him and to obtain all his heavenly blessings. To be ashamed of his words and statements means not to believe and accept them, to raise objections to them, to contradict them, and thus to nullify the blessed power of these words for the heart.

“In this adulterous and sinful generation” points to the fact that this generation is ashamed of Jesus with all that this verb implies. Jesus is thinking not only of the Pharisees and the leaders who were so hostile to him but also of the mass of people who, though they ran after him, failed to believe him and his words. “Adulterous” fits them as Jews who were unfaithful to the covenant God had made with them. In the Old Testament this covenant is described as a betrothal, yea, a marriage of Israel to God. But Israel was an adulterous bride and wife, faithless to her covenant obligations and vows.

“Sinful” is broader and yet helps to define “adulterous.” Ἁμαρτωλός is used here as it is in John 9:24, 25, not regarding the sinful condition of man by nature, but regarding his sin in failing to obey God when God has come to him. Thus the phrase “in this adulterous and sinful generation” gets its strong meaning here. The man of whom Jesus is speaking prefers to be one of this generation, prefers not to leave it and honor Jesus and his words by faith and faithfulness. He runs with the majority, feels safe with the crowd, will not deny himself, take up his cross, and follow Jesus (v. 34). We regard the ὅςἄν in this discourse as indefinite: “whoever” he is to whom the descriptions apply; in addition, ἄν (ἐάν) with the subjunctive stands for expectancy: Jesus visualizes such a man and his action and expects that there will be such men.

Hence we have the following positive future tense: “also the Son of man (see 2:10) shall be ashamed of him.” The tense is prophetic. The Son of man himself here declares what he will do at the last day. Note the absolute justice in the declaration. Matthew writes: “he shall duly give to each one according to his doing” (16:27). As the man is ashamed of Jesus now, Jesus shall be ashamed of him then. The one act produces the other. What we sow we are bound to reap. The Judge would be absolutely unjust and unfit to be the Judge if he acted in any other way. For him to be ashamed of a man means for him to deny that that man is one of his disciples, for him to disown and reject him.

Many now treat this threat lightly when they hear it, but it will be a quite different matter “when he (the Son of man) comes in the glory of his Father in company with the holy angels.” Then to be disowned by the glorified Redeemer before the whole universe of men and angels, disowned forever and ever, will fully reveal the folly of now disowning and being ashamed of Jesus. All subjunctives are futuristic, the aorist subjunctive indicates a single future act, ἔλθῃ, “comes” or “shall come” for the final judgment.

“The glory of the Father” is the sum of the divine attributes as they shine forth for his creatures to see. Jesus shall appear in his Father’s glory as possessing that glory equally with the Father. The reference is to the human nature of Jesus which was unglorified when he spoke but was soon to be glorified when he would arise from the dead. That human nature would undergo suffering and death (v. 31), yet by virtue of its union with the divine nature and person of the Son it possessed the divine attributes (the glory of the Father) and would thus be rendered glorious and refulgent in its exaltation and enthronement in heaven. The angels shall accompany the Son of man as his servants in the great judgment. They are called “holy” (the Greek using a second article, R. 776) in an emphatic manner, as belonging with the Son of man in the glory of his Father; Matthew writes “his angels.”

Our versions end the chapter here, but 9:1 evidently belongs to what precedes and forms its conclusion.

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.