Mark 8
OGCMark 8:1-10
**3. FEEDING THE FOUR THOUSAND. 8:1-10
TEXT 8:1-10**
In those days, when there was again a great multitude, and they had nothing to eat, he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, I have compassion on the multitude, because they continue with me now three days, and have nothing to eat: and if I send them away fasting to their home, they will faint in the way; and some of them are come from far. And his disciples answered him, Whence shall one be able to fill these men with bread here in a desert place? And he asked them, How many loaves have ye? and they said, Seven, And he commandeth the multitude to sit down on the ground: and he took the seven loaves, and having given thanks, he brake, and gave to his disciples, to set before them; and they set them before the multitude. And they had a few small fishes: and having blessed them, he commanded to set these also before them, And they did eat, and were filled: and they took up of broken pieces that remained over, seven baskets. And they were about four thousand: and he sent them away. And straightway he entered into the boat with his disciples, and came into the parts of Dalmanutha.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS 8:1-10
Where did the feeding of the four thousand take place?
For how many days had some in the multitude been without food? What does this indicate as to interest in what Jesus was teaching?
Please read the record of the feeding of the five thousand and show at least three contrasts in the comparison of the two incidents.
Note the use of the term fasting in Mark 8:3. Why worry about them?
Why refer to the district of Decapolis as a desert place.
Does the reply of the disciples in Mark 8:4 indicate any knowledge of a previous multiplying of loaves? Please read the context carefully.
Did the apostles know what Jesus was going to do before He did it? i.e. with the loaves and the people?
Just what type of bread did they have?
What order did Jesus give to the multitude?
Was it the prayer of thanks for the loaves and fish that resulted in the multiplying of them in the hands of Jesus?
Just how many small flat loaves would it take to feed 4,000? How many small fish?please estimate.
Consider the fact that all ate until they were filled not just a little, but until they were filled. What does this mean to you?
Why gather up the fragments?
Were there actually more than 4,000 fed? Explain.
Had Jesus arrived in a boat? Where was the miracle performed? Cf. Mark 7:31; Matthew 15:32-38.
COMMENT
TIMESummer A.D. 29. PLACEIn Decapolis.
PARALLEL ACCOUNTSMat 15:32-38.
OUTLINE1. The occasion for the miracle, Mark 8:1. 2. The need for the miracle, Mark 8:2-3. 3. The disciples and the miracle, Mark 8:4-5. 4. Preparation for the miracle, Mark 8:6 a. 5. The miracle, Mark 8:6 b, Mark 8:7. 6. The results of the miracle, Mark 8:8-10.
ANALYSIS
I.
THE OCCASION FOR THE MIRACLE, Mark 8:1.
In the days of Jesus-’ time in Decapolis.
A great multitude had gathered.
They had nothing to eat.
II. THE NEED FOR THE MIRACLE, Mark 8:2-3.
Three days without food.
If sent home they would faint on the way.
III.
THE DISCIPLES AND THE MIRACLE, Mark 8:4-5.
How shall such a multitude be filled?
We have seven loaves.
IV.
PREPARATION FOR THE MIRACLE, Mark 8:6 a.
Sit down in anticipation of eating.
Gave thanks for the loaves.
V.
THE MIRACLE, Mark 8:6 b, Mark 8:7.
By power of His own will he created enough loaves for the multitude.
The apostles were the waiters.
Also blessed and created fish for the multitude.
VI.
THE RESULTS OF THE MIRACLE, Mark 8:8-10.
They ate and were filled.
Seven large baskets of fragments gathered.
They were dismissed.
Jesus and His disciples departed in a boat for Dalmanutha.
EXPLANATORY NOTES
I.
THE OCCASION FOR THE MIRACLE.
Mark 8:1. In those days the multitude being very great, etc. We now come to what is called The Second Miracle of the loaves. From the fact that-’ we have two miracles performed almost under the same circumstances, and in the same manner, and the accompanying details very much resembling one another in both cases, we cannot but gather that we have here a peculiar phase of Christ’s love and power presented to us, and by its repetition commended very urgently to our notice, so that we should be very anxious to realize all that is taught us in these two accounts. It would seem at first sight impossible to do more than repeat what has been before remarked on the two miracles, as related in St. Matthew, and on the first one which has already been fully described in Mark, but it is not so. We have yet many fragments to gather up if nothing is to be lost. In the first place, then, the Lord here takes the initiative.
II.
THE NEED FOR THE MIRACLE.
Mark 8:2-3. -I have compassion on the multitude, because they have now been with me three days,-’ etc. In the former miracle He felt equal compassion for the multitude, but did not express it. The disciples urge upon Him to send them away, and then He, as it were, invites them to suggest some exercise of the mighty power which they had so repeatedly seen put forth by Him. But they can suggest nothing except what is natural, that they should be dismissed to take care of themselves. Now the Lord Himself begins: I have compassion on the multitude, they have been with me three days. If I send them to their own houses, they will faint by the way, etc. Here was the hint given that they should ask Him to do as He had done just before, but apparently not a thought of the former mighty work presented itself. They seem to have altogether forgotten it.
III.
THE DISCIPLES AND THE MIRACLE.
Mark 8:4. -And his disciples answered him, From whence,-’ etc. We marvel at (must not the word be said?) this stupidity, but is it not natural? This surprise arises out of our ignorance of man’s heart, of our own hearts, and of the deep root of unbelief therein. It is ever more thus in times of difficulty and distress. All former deliverances are in danger of being forgotten, the mighty interpositions of God’s hand in former passages of men’s lives fall out of their memories. Each new difficulty appears insurmountable, as one from which there is no extrication; at each recurring necessity it seems as though the wonders of God’s grace are exhausted, and have come to an end. God may have diverted the Red Sea for Israel, yet no sooner are they on the other side than, because there are no waters to drink, they murmur against Moses, and count that they must perish through thirst (Exodus 17:1-7), crying -Is the Lord amongst us or not?-’ Or, to adduce a still nearer parallel, once already the Lord had covered the camp with quails (Exodus 16:13), yet for all this, even Moses himself cannot believe that He will provide flesh for all that multitude. (Trench)
But the backwardness of the Apostles to believe in Christ’s readiness to feed the multitudes miraculously, is in strong contrast with their readiness to believe in His powers of healing. They had but a short time before urged the Lord to grant the request of the Syrophenician woman, when He seemed unwilling. May it not, in part, have arisen from the infrequency of this sort of miracle? As Theophylact says, He did not always work miracles for the feeding of the multitude, lest they should follow Him for the sake of food.
And may there not be also something typical, something prophetical, about it? Do not many true disciples of the Lord in these days, who thankfully acknowledge the Lord’s power to cleanse and heal, seem to have their eyes closed to the supernatural or eucharistic feeding, of which this miracle is so remarkable an adumbration? Again, do we not learn from this miracle how Christ will exercise acts of special providence to help and succour those who are following Him? Is there any life of a poor humble Christian which does not contain some account of interpositions almost supernatural in favour of those who have given up all to follow Him? Dean Hook, in a lecture on this very miracle, gives a striking one: There was an individual who gave up a profitable employment, acting under advice, and not from the mere caprice of his own judgment, because he thought, taking his temptations into account, he could not follow it without peril to his soul, And after many reverses he was reduced to such a state of distress, that the last morsel in the house had been consumed, and he had not bread to give his children, His faith did not, however, forsake him; and when his distress was at the height, he received a visit from one who called to pay him a debt he had never hoped to recover, but the payment of which enabled him to support his family until he again obtained employment. And he adds, Many a similar tale can our poorer brethren tell.
Mark 8:5. -And he asked them, How many loaves have ye?-’ etc. This question was not for information. He knew well how many they had, but he asked it that there should be no mistake about the miraculous nature of the feeding. There were two more loaves and a somewhat smaller multitude than on the former occasion, but this does not, in the smallest degree, affect the character of the mighty work.
IV.
PREPARATION FOR THE MIRACLE.
Mark 8:6. -And he commanded the people to sit down on the ground,-’ etc. From the fact that it is expressly mentioned in the account of the former miracle, that there was much grass in the place, and that they sat by companies on the green grass, it has been argued with much probability that this second miracle took place at a much later time in the year, when the grass had been dried up by the scorching rays of the sun.
-And gave thanks.-’ We have before noticed the symbolical character of this giving thanks as foreshadowing the Eucharistic Benediction; but we learn also from it a more homely lesson, how that for all food, whenever received, thanks should be rendered, and we also learn how we ought to be thankful for all means and opportunities of doing good. The thanks of the Lord would be tendered to His father not only in anticipation of the actual food soon to be so. marvellously provided, but for the opportunity of showing forth the Divine glory and power, and also of relieving the wants of so many who were following Him for a good purpose. -And gave thanks, and brake, and gave to his disciples,-’ etc. From the circumstantiality with which these details are given in each of the four accounts, it is clear that there is some particular lesson which the Lord and His Spirit would have us draw from this. That lesson seems to be that the true feeding in the Church of Christ is not that each man should
take for himself, but that all that can be called food is to be given through ministerial intervention. V.
THE MIRACLE.
Mark 8:7. And they had a few small fishes. seven baskets. sent them away. From the mention of a few small fishes, it seems evident that the disciples gave all their provisions of every kind for the sustentation of the multitude; but notwithstanding this they were not in want, for a much larger quantity of fragments or broken pieces was taken up than in the case of the miracle of the feeding of the five thousand: the word here used signifying hampers or panniers, rather than baskets. The same word is used to denote the basket in which St. Paul was let down from the walls of Damascus (2 Corinthians 11:33).
VI.
THE RESULTS OF THE MIRACLE.
Mark 8:10. -And straightway he entered into a ship. parts of Dalmanutha.-’ Dr. Thomson, in The Land and the Book, thinks that he can identify this place with a certain Dalhamia, about half-way down on the western side of the Lake. It is about two miles south of El Medjet, which has been supposed to be the site of the ancient Magdala (or Magadan) (Matthew 15:39). (M.F. Sadler)
FACT QUESTIONS 8:1-10
What difference would it make if we did feel the two accounts of feeding the multitudes were actually two versions of the same event?
Please show at least three distinct differences in the two records.
Why did the disciples ask the question of Mar 8:4? Please attempt an answer.
Jesus did not ask the disciples to give them to eat, (as he did before)What does this mean?
At what point in the events did the miracle occur?
Which baskets were the largestthe ones here or the ones in the feeding of the 5,000?
What type of miracle occurred here?
Locate Dalmanutha on the map.
Mark 8:1-13
SUMMARY 7:248:13
This section contains an account of three more remarkable miraclesthe expulsion of a demon from the Gentile woman’s daughter; the restoration of speech and hearing to the deaf stammerer; and the feeding of four thousand men with seven barley loaves and a few small fishes. By these the divine power of Jesus is once more exhibited. The section also exhibits the tenderness of his compassion in his dealing with the Gentile woman and the hungry multitude, and his judicial indignation against hypocrisy in his conversation with the Pharisees. These are attributes of character which, though they do not prove their possessor to have been superhuman, are necessary to that perfection of character which must be found in the Son of God.McGarvey.
Mark 8:11-13
**4. THE DEMAND FOR A SIGN 8:11-13
TEXT 8:11-13**
And the Pharisees came forth, and began to question with him, seeking of him a sign from heaven, tempting him. And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this generation seek a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation. And he left them, and again entering into the boat departed to the other side.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS 8:11-13
What type of sign did the Pharisees want?
What test or trial was this to Jesus?
What emotion filled the Saviour’s heart as He sighed deeply?
Read Matthew 16:1-4 for a little more complete account of this.
Show how unreasonable was this request for a sign.
Was Jesus disappointed as He turned to get in the boat to go across the lake? Discuss.
COMMENT
TIMESummer A.D. 29. PLACECapernaum.
PARALLEL ACCOUNTSMat 15:39 to Matthew 16:4.
OUTLINE1. The dispute and question, Mark 8:11. 2. The disappointment and refusal, Mark 8:12. 3. The departure, Mark 8:13.
ANALYSIS
I.
THE DISPUTE AND QUESTION, Mark 8:11.
The Pharisees sought Him out.
Disputed and sought a sign from heaven.
This was only to justify themselves.
II.
THE DISAPPOINTMENT AND REFUSAL, Mark 8:12.
Sighed deeply from the bottom of His heart.
Why seek a sign when it is here.
No sign such as you seek will be given.
III.
THE DEPARTURE, Mark 8:13.
Left them.
Once again sought seclusion to instruct His apostles.
Sailed from Capernaum eastward.
EXPLANATORY NOTES
I.
THE DISPUTE AND QUESTION.
Mark 8:11. *The Pharisees came forth, and began to question with him.*i.e. came out from their homes when they heard that he was there. By some it is assumed that he went beyond Dalmanutha to Capernaum, and that this interview took place there; but the intention of both evangelists apparently was to tell what happened almost as he had landed. Hence these were in all probability Pharisees of Dalmanutha. Matthew associates Sadducees with them.Seeking of him a sign from heaven. See similar requests in John 2:18; Matthew 12:38; John 6:30, all previous to this. What they asked for was something like the manna (so, expressly, in John 6:31), or thunder from a clear sky (1 Samuel 12:18), or fire from heaven, such as came to Elijah (1 Kings 18), or the signs of Joe 2:30-31. There was a popular impression that, although miracles upon the earth might be spurious and deceptive, signs from heaven could not be counterfeited, It was expected that they would accompany the coming of the Messiah, and therefore Jesus was repeatedly asked to fulfill this expectation. If he was the Christ, they thought he would certainly be able and willing, and even anxious, to give this proof of his claim.But they were tempting him, neverthelessi.e., as in Matthew 19:3 and Mark 12:13, they were trying to entangle him, to his own injury with the people. They knew well enough that he would not give them a sign from heaven; all the Pharisees in Galilee must have known the great refusal recorded in Matthew 12:39 and the more recent one of John 6. He would not give them the sign, but by repeatedly calling for it they might discredit his claims with the people, who expected it of the Messiah. Since they themselves hated him, they must take all measures to prevent Israel from supposing its hopes to be fulfilled in him; so they would play upon false hopes and studiously repress all spiritual expectations. This was his welcome when he landed again on the soil of Galilee. He had been absent long enough to allow calm thought about him, and had now returned after a few days of gracious working just across the lake. This was his receptionthe old wearisome demand of spiritual blindness: Give us a sign from heaven.
II.
THE DISAPPOINTMENT AND REFUSAL.
Mark 8:12. At human misery he sighed (chap. Mark 7:34); at human sin amounting to criminal inability to discern the truth he *sighed deeply in his spirit.*a touch of personal remembrance peculiar to Mark. This deep sigh, or groan, was the sign of the chafing of his spirit against spiritual barriers. To the physically deaf he could say Ephphatha, but not to these spiritually hardened and self-imprisoned Pharisees. What voice could reach them? When the rich young man departed sorrowful, he pointed his disciples to the brighter side, saying, With God all things are possible. But in the case of these proud and hardened men he could only sigh, for the gates of spiritual possibility seemed closed.Why doth this generation seek after a sign? This generation, the men of his time, who had the opportunity to know himwhy should they ask for a sign? If there was no spiritual recognition of him, the case was hopeless; signs would teach them nothing. He himself was the true Sign from heaven, the living Witness to the present God. If they did not see that he was in the Father and the Father in him, their blindness must remain. Therefore he told them, with his emphatic verily I say unto you, that no sign should be given them.In Matthew three additions are placed here, all exceedingly significant: (1) He contrasts their quickness in detecting signs of coming changes of weather with their slowness in discerning spiritual signs. (2) He traces their lack of perception of a present God to spiritual adultery. The prophets represent Israel as the wife of Jehovah, and often as the unfaithful and adulterous wife. This generation, says Jesus, is thus adulterous; it has broken faith with God, and has become carnal and unloving. Therefore it has lost all spiritual sense and consciousness of him, and, instead of discerning his holy presence in him whom he hath sent, must be asking for visible signs and portents to certify his nearness, But for the spiritual adultery there would be felt no need of signs. (3) There shall be no sign given but the sign of the prophet Jonah, of which he had before spoken (Matthew 12:39-40), and which he seems to have wished to keep in their sight as a suggestive lesson, which might possibly awaken some right questionings in their hearts.
III.
THE DEPARTURE.
Mark 8:13, Disheartened and repelled by this reception in his own country, he abruptly turned back, without going on, as it appears, to Capernaum, and re-embarked to return to the eastern shore, It is little to say that he must have gone in sadness. He was despised and rejected of men, a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief. We should greatly misread his life if we interpreted such language almost entirely in the light of his latest sufferings. He felt the grief of rejection, not merely as a personal wrong, but more as the rejection of God and goodness and of saving love. Bringing the message of infinite mercy, he must have longed to be accepted; and it could not be other than a constant grief to him that he came to his own, and his own received him not.
Not more than a few hours at the most does he appear to have remained on the western shore, and now he is again afloat on the lake with his disciples, setting out on another journey alone with them, not to return until they have visited the region of Caesarea Philippi, (W. N. Clarke)
FACT QUESTIONS 8:11-13
From where did the Pharisees (and Sadducees) come?how soon did they come?
Explain just what kind of sign these Pharisees wanted.
Did they actually expect a sign? Why ask?
How was their spiritual blindness indicated?
What two things caused Jesus to sigh?
Show how the rich young ruler had more promise than these men.
What was the true sign they failed to recognize?
What three additional facts are given by Matthew?
Show how this incident fulfills John 1:10.
Mark 8:14-21
**5. WARNING AGAINST THE LEAVEN OF THE PHARISEES. 8:14-21
TEXT 8:14-21**
And they forgot to take bread; and they had not in the boat with them more than one loaf. And he charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod. And they reasoned one with another, saying, We have no bread. And Jesus perceiving it saith unto them, Why reason ye, because ye have no bread? do you not perceive, neither understand? have ye your heart hardened? Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? and do ye not remember? When I brake the five loaves among the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces took ye up? They say unto him, Twelve. And when the seven among the four thousand, how many basketfuls of broken pieces took ye up? And they say unto him, Seven. And he said unto them, Do ye not yet understand?
THOUGHT QUESTIONS 8:14-21
Why does Mark mention the fact that they had forgotten to take bread?
Why mention at this time the leaven of the Pharisees?
Define in your own words: The leaven of the Phariseesthe leaven of Herod.
Why connect the word leaven with the subject of bread?
How did Jesus know of the reasoning of their hearts?
Note please the three questions of Jesus in Mark 8:17discuss each one as they relate to the apostlesas they relate to us today.
Distinguish between the use of the eyesearsmemory in the process of understanding.
Why refer to the feeding of the 5,000 and the 4,000?
Do you believe the apostles did understand after Jesus rebuked them?
COMMENT
TIMESummer A.D. 29. PLACEOn the lake of Galilee.
PARALLEL ACCOUNTMat 16:5-12.
OUTLINE1. Forgot to take bread on their trip, Mark 8:14. 2. Jesus said: beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Herod, Mark 8:15. 3. The disciples thought He referred to their supply of bread, Mark 8:16. 4. Jesus rebuked them for their lack of spiritual perception, Mark 8:17-18. 5. Why worry about physical bread when I fed 5,000 & 4,000 with a few loaves? Mark 8:19-20. 6. Do you now see I refer to something more important than physical bread?, Mark 8:21.
ANALYSIS
I.
FORGOT TO TAKE BREAD ON THEIR TRIP, Mark 8:14.
Left in haste.
Had with them in the boat only one loaf.
II.
JESUS SAID: BEWARE OF THE LEAVEN OF THE PHARISEES AND HEROD, Mark 8:15.
This was given as an order.
This was given as a warning.
III.
THE DISCIPLES THOUGHT HE REFERRED TO THEIR SUPPLY OF BREAD, Mark 8:16.
They reasoned or conversed among themselves as to what He meant.
They agreed He must have reference to buying bread from their enemies.
But then this is no danger because we have no bread.
IV.
JESUS REBUKED THEM FOR THEIR LACK OF SPIRITUAL PERCEPTION, Mark 8:17-18.
He read their minds.
Why are you worried about your bread supply?; what I have said does not refer to your bread.
Are you still void of depth?
Are you yet without understanding?
Is your heart stone?
What has happened to the eyes, ears, and memory of your heart?
V.
WHY WORRY ABOUT PHYSICAL BREAD WHEN I FED 5,000 AND 4,000 WITH A FEW LOAVES? Mark 8:19-20.
When I fed the 5,000 how many baskets were left over?12.
And how many for the 4,000?7.
VI.
DO YOU NOW SEE I REFER TO SOMETHING MORE IMPORTANT THAN PHYSICAL BREAD? Mark 8:21.
EXPANATORY NOTES
I.
FORGOT TO TAKE BREAD ON THEIR TRIP.
Mark 8:14. The neglect to take a supply of bread was doubtless the result of their haste in again setting out; and, in that view of the matter, Jesus himself was responsible for it, since he had hurried them away.
II.
JESUS SAID: BEWARE OF THE LEAVEN OF THE PHARISEES AND HEROD.
Mark 8:15. It is Mark alone who mentions the one loaf that they had with them in the boat; plainly a touch of definite remembrance from one who was present.And he charged them. The emphatic word is peculiar to Mark.Taie heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod. In Matthew, of the Pharisees and Sadducees. From this grouping it has sometimes been inferred that Herod was a Sadducee; but that seems too definite a conclusion to draw from such premises. Undoubtedly, Herod’s position was such as to give him more in common with the Sadducees than with the Pharisees, and the Sadducees may have been the Herodians of Galilee; but Herod Antipas was probably too much of an indifferentist to hold very strongly the doctrines of any Jewish sect.The leaven is expressly, according to Matthew, the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees, or of the Pharisees and Herod. But doctrine (didache) is an active word rather than a passive, and refers rather to the teaching than to the substance of what was taught; and when used of Herod it must be substantially equivalent to influence.The warning must be understood in the light of what had just occurred, for it must certainly have been suggested by the demand for a sign from heaven. To the corrupting influence of Pharisaism and Sadduceeism or of political Herodianismi.e. to the spirit that was manifested in these formsit was due that Israel had departed from God, and had so lost all spiritual sense of him as to be clamoring for signs from heaven. So the warning means, Beware of the unspiritual, irreligious, godless teaching through which it has come to pass that God is no longer recognized. Reflecting on the conversation that had sent him, disheartened, back from Galilee, he thought of his own disciples, who were but too prone to a similar unbelief; and he said to himself, They must not be possessed by the ungodly blindness that cannot perceive a spiritual meaning and is dependent upon signs to show them God and truth. Yet the land is full of it under the influence of this unholy teaching, and it cannot fail to be working as a leaven in their minds. Therefore he spoke in warning.
III.
THE DISCIPLES THOUGHT HE REFERRED TO THEIR SUPPLY OF BREAD.
Mark 8:16. According to the most probable reading, adopted by the revisers, we may translate, And they reasoned, or considered, together, saying, We have no bread. The common English version, It is because we have no bread, represents the spirit of their utterance perfectly, though not a good translation. They dimly supposed he must mean that food received from the hands of his enemies was to be rejected, because of the unworthiness of those who might offer it: if Pharisees and Herodians were so defiled, they were not fit persons for them to obtain food from. There is a childish naivete in their self-questioning which testifies to the absolute originality and truthfulness of the record, and so to the genuineness of the question that followsa question that assumes the reality of the two previous miracles (Plumptre).They tried to understand him, but this low and uncharacteristic meaning was all that they could find, as if he had said, You will have bread to buy, and you must be careful from whom you buy it, and had forbidden them to eat the bread of his enemies.
IV.
JESUS REBUKED THEM FOR THEIR LACK OF SPIRITUAL PERCEPTION.
Mark 8:17-18. Mark’s report here is much more full than Matthew’S. The last two questions of Mar 8:17 are peculiar to Mark, and so is the whole of Mar 8:18, with the exception of the last word; so are the responses of the disciples in Mark 8:19-20, and so is Mark 8:21. The translation of Mar 8:18-19, according to Tischendorfs text, is, Having eyes do ye not see, and having ears do ye not hear, and do ye not remember when I broke the five loaves unto the five thousand, and how many baskets full of fragments ye took up? The readings of Mar 8:21 vary, but, according to the most probable, the question is simply, Do ye not yet understand? These questions of Jesus are sharp and cutting, full of surprise and indignation. So far as the record goes, they are the sharpest words that he ever spoke to the twelve. We can scarcely wonder at his indignation, for he saw already in them the leaven of the Pharisees, the same blindness that had just disheartened him, in their inability to perceive a spiritual meaning. They were like the generation that was described in chap. Mark 4:12, which, having eyes, saw not, and having ears, heard not.
V.
WHY WORRY ABOUT PHYSICAL BREAD WHEN I FED 5,000 AND 4,000 WITH A FEW LOAVES?
Mark 8:19-20. Whatever meaning they might have found in his warning, the one that they did find was one that their experience with him ought to have rendered impossible. They had been with him twice when he fed thousands from a handful, yet they were talking perplexedly among themselves, as if he could possibly be thinking of where the food was to come from. His rebuke means, When you are with me, and I am responsible for your want of food, you need have no anxiety, and you may know that whatever I may say refers to something else than the way in which food is obtained. They ought, moreover, to have known that he who had plainly abolished distinctions of food (chap. Mark 7:15) would not now set up a new distinction of a personal or sectarian kind, and teach them that they would be defiled by food bought from ungodly men. Surely it would seem to be asking but very little to ask that they should understand him well enough to escape such an idea. Here was indeed the unspiritual heart, upon which the spiritual thought seemed almost wasted. More than in the case of his townsmen at Nazareth, he marvelled because of their unbelief. If Christian teachers find even their brethren slow of perception in spiritual things, they may hear their Master saying to them, in the spirit of Joh 15:18, Ye know that they misunderstood me before they misunderstood you.
VI.
DO YOU NOW SEE I REFER TO SOMETHING MORE IMPORTANT THAN PHYSICAL BREAD?
Mark 8:21. In Matthew the final question, Do ye not yet understand? is expanded into a direct intimation that the warning did not refer to bread. Matthew adds also that they did at last perceive that he was warning them against the teaching or the principles of the Pharisees and Sadducees. But it is quite certain that they did not take in his full meaning, and that when the subject was dropped he knew that his utterance had not reached its aim. He had had to expend the energy that might have been given to the work of enforcing an idea in the vain effort to get it apprehended, and then to withdraw baffled by the unreceptiveness of his hearers. It was not his method to urge truth upon them faster than they were able to receive it. John 16:12 illustrates his real method: I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.Observe, again, the distinct reference in these questions to the two separate miracles of feedinga reference which cannot possibly be removed from the passage without utterly destroying one of the most vivid and self-witnessing scenes in the whole Gospel narrative. Observe, again, too, that in referring here to the first miracle Jesus employs the word cophinus in mentioning the baskets, and in referring to the second the word spuris, preserving the very distinction that has been made in the two narratives of Mark. (W. N. Clarke)
FACT QUESTIONS 8:14-21
Who was responsible for the lack of food?
What definite indications of an eye-witness do we have in this section?
Are we to conclude that Herod was a Sadducee from Matthew’s reference to the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees? What are we to conclude?
Please explain the distinctive influence of each of these groups; (1) Pharisees (2) Sadducees (3) Herodians.
How does the request for a sign from heaven relate to this warning of Jesus?
As they reasoned among themselves what conclusion did they form?
What is it that testifies to the absolute originality and truthfulness of the record?
Why was Jesus so sharp with the disciples?
What particular attitude in the hearts of the disciples disappointed Jesus the most?
When the subject was dropped was Jesus satisfied that His teaching was understood? Discuss.
How is the use of the two words for baskets as used in this record an indication of two incidents of feeding the multitudes?
Mark 8:14-38
SUMMARY 8:14 to 9:50
The two miracles recorded in the preceding sectionthe cure of the blind man at Bethsaida (Mark 8:22-26), and the casting out of the obstinate demon (Mark 9:14-29)are additional demonstrations of the divine power of Jesus. They are not mere repetitions of former proofs, but they possess peculiar force in that the blind man was cured by progressive steps, each one of which was a miracle in itself, and in that the demon in question was one of peculiar power and obstinacy.
The foreknowledge of Jesus is again displayed in his two predictions concerning his own death (Mark 8:31-33; Mark 9:30-32), and with his foreknowledge, his predetermined purpose to submit to death at the hands of his enemies.
But the crowning argument of the section is contained in the account of the transfiguration. If the testimony of those who witnessed his scene is not false testimony, his divine majesty and his God-given right to be heard in all that he chooses to speak, are established beyond all possibility of a mistake.
End of Part First.
We have now reached the close of the first general division of Mark’s narrative. Hitherto, after a few introductory statements in the first chapter (Mark 1:1-13), all the incidents which he records occurred in Galilee, or in the regions immediately adjoining, Now the writer leaves Galilee, and returns to it no more. (McGarvey)
Mark 8:22-26
**6. HEALING THE BLIND MAN OF BETHSAIDA 8:22-26
TEXT 8:22-26**
And they come unto Bethsaida. And they bring to him a blind man, and beseech him to touch him. And they took hold of the blind man by the hand, and brought him out of the village; and when he had spit on his eyes, and laid his hands upon him, he asked him, Seest thou aught? And he looked up, and said, I see men; for I behold them as trees, walking. Then again he laid his hands upon his eyes; and he looked stedfastly, and was restored, and saw all things clearly. And he sent him away to his home, saying, Do not even enter into the village.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS 8:22-26
Please locate Bethsaida on the map.
Who brought the blind man to Jesus?
What is meant by the word beseech?
Why lead the blind man out of the village?
Did Jesus actually spit upon the eyes of the blind man? for what purpose?
Is this an example of a progressive healing? Discuss.
There must have been some purpose in the two stages of the healingwhat was it?
Did the blind man have faith in order to be healed?
Why send the man who was healed away?
COMMENT
TIMESummer A.D. 29. PLACEBethsaida Julias, on the east bank of the Jordan River where it flows into the Lake of Galilee. PARALLEL ACCOUNTSonly in Mark.
OUTLINE1. A blind man brought to Jesus, Mark 8:22. 2. The blind man led out of the city for healing, Mark 8:23 a. 3. Two stages of healing, Mark 8:23 b - Mark 8:25. 4. Sent home, Mark 8:26.
ANALYSIS
I.
A BLIND MAN BROUGHT TO JESUS, Mark 8:22.
They were in Bethsaida Julias.
An urgent request made for healing.
II.
THE BLIND MAN LED OUT OF THE CITY FOR HEALING, Mark 8:23 a.
Jesus led him by the hand.
Away from the multitude so the healing would teach the lesson intended.
III.
TWO STAGES OF HEALING, Mark 8:23 b - Mark 8:25.
Spat on his eyes and laid his hands upon him.
Asked: Do you see anything?
He looked up and saw the disciples in an indistinct manner.
Jesus laid his hands upon his eyeshe looked intently and saw clearly.
IV.
SENT HOME, Mark 8:26.
He was not from Bethsaida.
He was refused permission to return to Bethsaidasent directly home.
EXPANATORY NOTES
I.
A BLIND MAN BROUGHT TO JESUS.
Mark 8:22. Mark here records a miracle not given in the other gospels, one of the very few passages entirely peculiar to him. His reason for inserting it cannot be merely that it followed the dialogue above recorded (Mark 8:14-21); for he often omits multitudes of miracles in writing of the periods to which they belong. So far as his design can be conjectured, it was probably to illustrate and exemplify still further our Lord’s variety of method in the working of his cures, by stating a case (perhaps the only one) in which the cure was gradual. He cometh, or, according to the older manuscripts, they come, i.e. Jesus and his company, the twelve apostles and perhaps some others who attended him from place to place. To (or into) Bethsaida, or, as a few copies have it, Bethany, an obvious error of transcription, probably occasioned by the resemblance of the names, both which are compounded with the Hebrew beth (a house or place.) Bethsaida is supposed by some to be the town so called in Galilee, the birthplace of Andrew and Peter (John 1:44); but the best interpreters and highest geographical authorities understand it of Bethsaida in Perea, on the north-east shore of the lake in a solitude near which (or belonging to it) the five thousand were fed. This Bethsaida was distinguished from the other by its Greek or Roman name, Julias, which it bore in honour of a daughter of Augustus. They, indefinitely, some men, certain persons, otherwise unknown; or more specifically, the man’s relatives, friends, neighbours. A blind (man), not one born blind (as in John 9:1), for he knew the shape of trees (see below, on Mark 8:24), but blinded by disease or accident. Besought, in Greek beseech, the graphic or descriptive present being still continued. To touch him, literally, that he would (or still more closely, so that, in order that, he might) touch him. These words in the original rather state the motive than the substance of the prayer, a nicety of form without effect upon the meaning yet entitled to attention as an illustration of the difference of idiom. This specific prayer is not a sign of strong but rather of deficient or contracted faith, assuming contact to be necessary to the cure, an error which our Saviour did not think it necessary in the present instance either to reprove or correct.
II.
THE BLIND MAN LED OUT OF THE CITY FOR HEALING.
Mark 8:23 b. And taking, laying hold upon, the hand of the blind (man), which in the order of the words in the original, although the construction in the version is grammatical and justified by usage; the sense of course remains the same in either case. He led him forth out (or outside) of the village, a term applied with considerable latitude to towns of every size. Out is twice expressed in Greek, once by the compound verb, and once by the adverbial preposition. The reason of this movement has been variously conjectured; some supposing an intention to express displeasure towards the people of the town for reasons now unknown; others a desire to be uninterrupted in the process which was more than commonly protracted. But these and other explanations, which need not be stated, assume that Mark intended to describe this and the following proceedings on our Lord’s part as having a distinct significance, whereas he rather means to show how far he was from following a fixed routine, or countenancing the idea that a certain outward form was necessary to the curative effect. Against this error he provided by sometimes doing more, sometimes less, sometimes nothing, in the way of gesture or manipulation, and of all these methods we have instances recorded in the book before us.
III.
TWO STAGES OF HEALING.
Mark 8:23 b - Mark 8:25. Having spit on (or rather into) his eyes, which some regard as a medicinal appliance, healing virtue being ascribed to the human saliva by Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny, and in various dicta of the Talmud. Others find a symbolical meaning in the transfer of something from the person of the healer to the person of the healed. But the necessity of these conjectures is precluded by the view of the matter just suggested. And putting (laying or imposing) hands upon him, as had been requested by his friends (Mark 8:22). Asked; interrogated, questioned. If he saw (literally, sees, another instance of the graphic present) ought, an old word, not yet wholly obsolete, for anything. This pause, as it were, in the midst of the cure, to ask him as to its effect, is so unlike the usual immediate restoration, that it may be confidently reckoned as at least one reason for Mark’s giving a detailed account of this case.
And looking up, raising his eyes, trying to use them. The particle with which the Greek verb is compounded sometimes denotes upward motion, sometimes repetition. Hence the verb itself may either mean to look up or to see again, but the latter, though preferred by some interpreters, is a less natural anticipation of what follows in the next verse. The sensations of the blind man, on his first attempt to see again, are strangely but expressively described in his own language, the peculiarity of which, however, is exaggerated to the English reader by an equivocal construction, quite unknown to the original, and only partially removed by careful punctuation in the version. It is probably one of the most common and inveterate misapprehensions of a scriptural expression, that the participle walking here agrees with trees, and that the blind man intended to describe his partially restored sight by saying that the men around him were like walking trees. But in Greek there is and can be no such ambiguity, the concord being there determined, not by the position of the words, which is far more free and discretionary than with us, but by their form or termination, which distinguishes their gender and requires walking to agree with men, and trees to be taken by itself without any qualifying epithet. The word men also has the article which shows it to mean not men in general, but the men who were passing or at hand, perhaps the twelve apostles; for although he led him out of town, it is not said that they were unaccompanied, or that the place to which he brought him was a solitude. This meaning therefore of the clause, according to the common or received text, is, I see the men walking about as trees, i.e. undefined in form and figure. Except by their motions, which were those of men, he could not distinguish them from trees. It is remarkable however that the oldest manuscripts almost without exception have another reading, which appears to give the patient’s words more fully. I behold men because as trees I see (them) walking. This is an awkward sentence, it is true, but not on that account less likely to have been pronounced on this occasion, while its very awkwardness may possibly have led to its abbreviation in the later copies. The weight of manuscript authority in favour of this reading is confirmed by its internal fitness, as a broken expression of surprise and joy, beginning with a sudden exclamation, I see the men! then qualifying or explaining it by adding, because (that is, at least), as trees I see (them) walking.
Then, afterwards, or in the next place, a Greek particle often employed to separate the items in an enumeration, and intended here to mark distinctly the successive stages of the healing process, an effect secured still further by the word again, which is the next in the original though not in the translation. As if he had said, having gone thus far and partially restored the man’s sight, he proceeded in the next place to impose his hands upon the eyes themselves, as he had previously done upon some other part, perhaps the head. It is possible indeed that even in the former instance he had laid his hands upon his eyes, but this is a less natural construction of the language, spitting in his eyes and laying his hands on him, where the mention of the eyes in one clause and of the person in the other, favours, though it may not peremptorily require, the former explanation. Made him, caused him, i.e. in this case both required and enabled him. Look up, or see again, the same two sense of the verb that are admissible in the verse preceeding, If the latter be adopted here, the meaning of the phrase is, that he caused him to receive his sight; if the former, that he caused him to look up, or try to see, on which he found his sight restored completely. The only objection to the first construction is that the restoration of his sight is then distinctly stated three times, whereas on the other supposition, it is only stated once, the other two expressions being then descriptive of the effort or experiment by which the patient was assured first of partial then of total restoration. He looked up once and saw men like trees; he looked up again and saw them clearly. Was restored to (reinstated in) his sound or normal state, another term implying that he was not born blind, Every (man) or all (things), as the Greek may be either masculine and singular, or neuter and plural. Another reading, found in some editions, removes the ambiguity by making it both masculine and plural, (all men), which may then be understood to mean specifically all those whom he saw before as trees (but) walking. Clearly, an expressive Greek word which originally means farsightedly, in opposition to near (or short) sight, although here, as in the classics it may have the wider secondary sense expressed in the translation and opposed to the dimness of his sight when only partially recovered.
IV.
SENT HOME.
Mark 8:26. And he sent him away into his house (or to his house), which was not in the town or village, as appears from the ensuing prohibition. The modern philologists deny that the Greek particle repeated here ever corresponds to neither … nor in English, as expressing an alternative originally present to the speaker’s mind; and one of them explains the first to mean not even, and the last nor even, -Do not even go into the village, nor so much as speak to any (person) in the village.-’ The supposed inconsistency of these two precepts, or at least the superfluousness of the last, as he could not tell it in the town unless he went there, has produced no less than ten variations in the text of this clause, all intended to remove the incongruity, and therefore all to be rejected as mere glosses. This may serve to show by a remarkable example the extraordinary principle, on which the ancient copyists frequently proceeded, of deciding what the writer should have said, instead of simply telling what he did say. To this single error may be traced a large proportion of existing variations in the text of the New Testament, most of which happily have never become current, but are found exclusively in certain copies or at most in certain families or classes of manuscripts. This erroneous principle or practice is the more to be condemned as the necessity of emendation is in almost every case imaginary. In the one before us, for example, the supposed incongruity arises from the strict fidelity with which the very words of Christ (or their equivalents) are here reported just as he pronounced them, not in a rhetorical or rounded period, but in short successive clauses, the natural form of a peremptory order. The man having just been brought out of the town, though not residing there, would naturally think of going back to tell and show what had been done to him. But this our Lord, for reasons which have often been explained before, is determined to prevent by pointed positive directions, which, without a change of meaning, may be paraphrased as follows: -Go homego directly homeno, not into the town, but homenot even for an hour or a momentdo not go into the town at allnot even to tell what I have donedo not so much as speak to any person in the townbut go directly home-’. (J. A. Alexander)
FACT QUESTIONS 8:22-26
Since Mark is the only gospel writer to record this miracle what is his purpose in giving it?
There is some question as to which Bethsaida is involved herewhy?
Who brought the blind man?
Do you believe the blind man had partial sight before Jesus touched him? Discuss.
What conclusion do you have for the reason of leading the blind man out of the city?
Why spit into the eyes of the blind man?
Why did Jesus ask the blind man if he could see?
Just what did the blind man say?what did he see?
After Jesus place His hands upon the blind man the second time did He make him look up or did the blind man do this of his own will?
Mark 8:26 is a remarkable example of the mistake of copyistexplain.
Mark 8:27-38
**7. JESUS THE MESSIAH 8:279:1
TEXT 8:279:1**
And Jesus went forth, and his disciples, into the villages of Caesarea Philippi: and in the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Whom do men say that I am? And they told him, saying, John the Baptist: and others, Elijah; but others, One of the prophets. And he asked them, But whom say ye that I am? Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ. And he charged them that they should tell no man of him, And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders, and the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again, And he spake the saying openly, And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him. But he turning about, and seeing his disciples, rebuked Peter, and saith, Get thee behind me Satan: for thou mindest not the things of God, but the things of men. And he called unto him the multitude with his disciples, and said unto them, If any man would come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever would save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel’s shall save it. For what doth it profit a man, to gain the whole world, and forfeit his life? For what should a man give in exchange for his life? For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of man also shall be ashamed of him, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels. And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There be some here of them that stand by, which shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God come with power.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS 8:279:1
How far from Bethsaida to Caesarea Philippi? Please locate on the map.
Why ask the disciples of the opinion of others? What meaning is there in the name Jesus applied to Himself? Cf. Matthew 16:13-14?
How would Jesus meet the designations given concerning Himi.e. in what way was He like John the Baptist?; like Elijah?; like one of the prophets?
Who thought Jesus was John the Baptist risen from the dead?
Show how appropriate this question was at this particular time in the life of Jesus.
What did Peter mean in his use of the name Christ?
Why doesn-’t Mark record the blessing pronounced by Christ upon Peter?
Define each of the three classes of persons referred to in Mark 8:31.
What is meant by the expression He spake the saying openly?
Please attempt an explanation of the attitude of Peter when he rebuked the Lord.
Why look at all the disciples and rebuke Peter? In what sense was Jesus not speaking to Peter?
Show the connection of denying self with the rebuke of Peter.
Define in your own words what it means to take up his cross and follow.
How do we attempt to save our life and in the process lose it?
Specifically how can we lose our life for His sake? Please be personal and practical.
How is the word soul or life used in Mark 8:36?
Is Jesus saying a man has no real life or is not really living unless he is giving himself to His service?
How does being ashamed of Jesus fit into this context?
COMMENT
TIMESummer of A.D. 29. From six to eight months before the Lord’s Crucifixion. PLACEIn the neighborhood of Caesarea Philippi, about thirty miles northeast of Capernaum and the Sea of Galilee. It was upon the upper sources of the Jordan, the largest of the three streams that unite to form the river springing from a fountain near Caesarea Philippi. Professor McGarvey says: The city of Caesarea Philippi stood at the northeastern curve of the upper Jordan valley, and about twenty-six miles north of the lake of Galilee. Mountains 2,000 feet high rise abruptly from the eastern side of it, while the snow covered summit of Mt. Hermon, 9,000 feet high, swells heavenward but a few miles north of it. Its earliest name known to us was Paneas, so called in honor of the god Pan, and on or near its side Herod the Great erected a temple in honor of Augustus Caesar. Afterward Philip the Tetrarch, to whom Herod gave the district at his death, rebuilt the old town, and called it Caesarea Philippi in honor of himself and Tiberius Caesar. The city is now in ruins, but the wall can be traced on every side, and in some points on the east and south sides it is standing at almost its original height. Just outside the northeastern angle of the wall is the famous spring which is one of the three principal sources of the Jordan.
PARALLEL ACCOUNTSMat 16:13-28; Luke 9:18-27.
LESSON OUTLINE1. The Good Confession. 2. The Cross of Christ. 3. Losing and Finding Life.
ANALYSIS
I.
THE GOOD CONFESSION, Mark 8:27-30.
Christ at Caesarea Philippi. Mark 8:27; Matthew 16:13; Luke 9:18.
Opinions of Christ. Mark 8:28; Matthew 16:14; Luke 9:19: John 6:69.
Peter’s Confession. Mark 8:29; Matthew 16:16.
II.
THE CROSS OF CHRIST, Mark 8:31-34.
The Prophecy of the Cross. Mark 8:31; Matthew 16:21; Matthew 17:22: Luke 9:22.
Peter Rebuked. Mark 8:32-33; Matthew 16:22-23.
Bearing the Cross. Mark 8:24; Matthew 16:24; Luke 9:23.
III.
LOSING AND FINDING LIFE, Mark 8:35 to Mark 9:1.
The Way to Save Life. Mark 8:35; Matthew 16:25; Luke 9:24.
Gain or Loss. Mark 8:36-37; Matthew 16:26; Luke 9:25.
Ashamed of the Cross. Mark 8:38; Luke 9:26; Romans 1:16.
Coming in the Kingdom. Mark 9:1; Matthew 16:28; Luke 9:27.
INTRODUCTION
It was after our Lord had closed his public ministry in Galilee, and while he was seeking retirement in order to communicate special instruction in the principles of his kingdom to the apostles, who were to succeed in his work, that he gave the great lesson concerning the foundation on which he would found his church, and the lesson on consecration and self-denial that its extension in the world requires. Here begins the second great division of the Savior’s ministry, a period that leads directly to his sufferings and death. The first period culminated in the confession of Peter; the second in the cross and resurrection.
EXPANATORY NOTES
I. THE GOOD CONFESSION.Mark 8:27. Jesus went out, and his disciples. Went out is the word regularly used in this gospel when a departure from one scene of work to another is notified. In this case, our Lord, leaving the district in which he had hitherto been chiefly working, proceeded in a northeasterly direction along the valley of the Upper Jordan. And his disciples. Their presence is here mentioned expressly, calling attention to the object of a journey through a district to a great extent heathen, and lately traversed, viz., their special instruction (Mark 9:31). Into the towns, Away from the populous cities The solitude of the beautiful district, wither the Savior now journeyed, is illustrated by the fact that it is the only district in Palestine where a recent traveller found the pelican of the wilderness (Psalms 102:6). Caesarea Philippi. A city at the northeast extremity of Palestine and at the foot of Mount Lebanon, anciently called Paneas, and now Banias. It has now about fifty houses, many ruins of columns, towers, temples, a bridge, and a remarkable castle. And by the way. His conversation by the way: (1) The turn it often took when the disciples were left to themselvesdisputes concerning greatness, etc. (2) The turn Christ gave to itinquirings concerning his mission and person. Learn: (1), Avoid foolish and worldly talk; (2), Improve passing opportunities; (3), Let your talk be often about the Savior.Biblical Museum. Whom do men say that I am? The following conversation refers to three points: (1) The Christ. (2) The suffering Christ. The disciples of the suffering Christ. The object of this first question is evidently to prepare the way for the next. The inquiry was not concerning the opinions of the Scribes and Rabbis, but concerning the opinions of the people.
Mark 8:28.* And they answered.* As Jesus had not openly declared that he was the Messiah, but had allowed men to hear his surpassing wisdom and see his life and works and draw their own conclusions, there would naturally be various opinions. John the Baptist. Who had been killed by Herod a few months before, now restored to life. That was one popular notion regarding him, circulating, no doubt, chiefly among those who had never seen him. Herod Antipas entertained it (chap. Mark 6:16). Elias. The great ideal of a prophet and spiritual reformer. It was very generally expected that he was to return to the earth in connection with the Messiah’s advent (Malachi 4, 5).Morison. One of the prophets. The Jews believed that at the coming of the Messiah the prophets were to rise again. They did not declare their belief in him as the Messiah himself, doubtless for this reason, that the whole ministry of Christ appeared to them to stand in contradiction to their Messianic expectations.
Mark 8:29. Whom say ye that I am? He had never openly spoken of his Messiahship. It was his will that the revelation should dawn gradually on the minds of his children; that it should spring more from the truths he spake, and the life he lived, than from the wonders which he wrought. It was in the Son of man that they were to recognize the Son of God.Farrar. The time was come when it was of the greatest moment that they should have a settled conception of his real character and mission. And Peter answereth. With that honest readiness and impulsiveness which were so characteristic of his nature, and which fitted him for being a leader of the little circle.Morison. Thou art the Christ; Matthew adds, the Son of the living God. This confession not only sees in Jesus the promised Messiah, but in the Messiah recognizes the divine nature.Cambridge Bible. The confession of Peter is the first fundamental Christian confession of faith, and the germ of the Apostles-’ Creed.Lange. It was a decisive answer, and given as out of a higher inspiration. The Lord himself, as we learn from Matthew 16:17, traced the thought to its divine source. And yet it was, no doubt, founded on evidence which the disciple had diligently studied, and logically construed to his own inner satisfaction. The Lord in the passage in Matthew declares that the grand truth confessed by Peter is the rock on which his church shall be built. By faith in this truth men become disciples of Christ and members of his church.
Mark 8:30. Charged them that they should tell no man. The time had not yet come to proclaim that he was the Christ. To do so prematurely would result in harm rather than good. He must first demonstrate his Messiahship by his resurrection.
II. THE CROSS OF CHRIST.Mark 8:31. He began to teach them. must suffer many things. The great lesson of our two years of his ministry was that he was the Christ; after this had been learned by his apostles they were ready to be taught he must die a violent death. So from this time onward we find him speaking more and more plainly of the decease which he must accomplish. The supreme purpose of his advent was not to teach truth, nor to work miracles, nor to illustrate the perfection of manly character, but to die, to die for sinners, to bear their sins in his own body on the tree. Rejected of the elders, chief priests and scribes. The three constituents of the Sanhedrim. The elders (leading men) would be chosen because of their material and political influence; the high priests, because of their elevated ecclesiastical position; the scribes, because of their literary and rabbinical qualifications. Now, for the first time, the disciples received full and clear information of the sufferings and death of Christ.
Mark 8:32. And he spake that saying openly. Without reserve, publicly. The previous statements respecting this subject, made by our Lord, were expressed in figurative language.Godwin. And Peter began to rebuke him. The same Peter who but just now had made so noble and spiritual a confession, and received so high a blessing, now shows the weak and carnal side of his character. This world has many Peters, who wish to be wiser than Christ, and to prescribe to him what it is needful to do.
Mark 8:33. Turned about and looked on his disciples, A sudden movement is indicated. Looking at all, he singles out Peter for special warning. Rebuked Peter, saying Get thee behind me, Satan. Christ saw, with the lightning glance of his spirit, in the words of Peter a suggestion not so much of his as of Satan’S. This is the very temptation that fell from the lips of Satan in the wilderness when he offered to surrender the kingdoms of this world to Jesus without his suffering on the cross. The Lord when he says, with sudden vehemence, Get thee behind me Satan! was not speaking directly to Peter but to the prince of darkness, who had for a moment taken possession of Peter’s mind and lips. Peter had been greatly elated over the Messiahship of Jesus, but still expected an earthly king Messiah after the type of David, in whose kingdom he would have a great place. To hear the Lord talk of the cross was a cruel disappointment to his ambitious hopes.
III. LOSING AND FINDING LIFE.Mark 8:34. When he had called the people unto him. The great lesson of his Christhood and death on the cross had been given to the apostles alone. Now the throng and his disciples are united and the Lord teaches a grand truth that springs directly from what had occurred just before, Will come after me. Will become my disciple. There was an eagerness among many of the people to come after him. The wistfulness of a considerable proportion of the northern population had been awakened. They were ruminating anxiously on Old Testament predictions, and filled with vague expectancy. Let him deny himself. The word is strong in the originallet him deny himself off, let him entirely renounce himself. Let him be prepared to say no to many of the strongest cravings of his nature, in the direction more particularly of earthly ease, comfort, dignity and glory. Our common thoughts of self-denial, i.e., the denial to ourselves of some pleasure or profit, fall far short of the meaning of the Greek. The man is to deny his whole self, all his natural motives and impulses, so far as they come into conflict with the claims of Christ. And take up his cross. Even as the Lord would take up his cross at Jerusalem. So every disciple must crucify the old man, his selfish nature (Romans 6:6), give up his old life, and become dead to it. The cross is the pain of the self-denial required in the preceding words. The cross is the symbol of doing our duty, even at the cost of the most painful death. Christ obeyed God, and carried out his work for the salvation of men, though it required him to die upon the cross in order to do it. And ever since, the cross has stood as the emblem, not of suffering, but of suffering for the sake of Christ and his gospel as the highest ideal of obedience to God at any and every cost. Follow me. Obey and imitate Christ.
Mark 8:35. Whosoever will save his life. Whoever makes this the end will lose life. A great principle is stated. All self-seeking is self-losing. Even in spiritual things, he who is perpetually studying how to secure joy and peace for himself loses it. A certain measure of self-forgetfulness is the condition of the highest success, even in Christian grace. But whosoever shall lose his life. In the sphere of the present. For my sake, and the gospel’S. It is only loss for the sake of Christ that has this promise. Multitudes of people lose their lives for gain, for pleasure, for fashion. Each of these has more martyrs than the cross ever required; but the loss was without compensation or hope. But whosoever loses for the love of Christ, for the sake of preaching and advancing the gospel shall save itshall have a blessedness and glory which will a thousand times compensate for every loss.
Mark 8:36. What shall it profit a man? This is one of the searching questions that the Scriptures are wont to throw out to arouse reflection. Let each student try to conscientiously answer this question and the one which follows.
Mark 8:37. What shall a man give in exchange for his soul? What would a man not give? If he had the whole world, would he not willingly give it, provided he really knew, believed, or felt, that otherwise he would be utterly lost? The Saviour has gone forward in thought, and taken his standpoint in eternity. It is from that standpoint that he puts the question.
Mark 8:38. Shall be ashamed of me and of my words. As many would be prone to be. The temptation to shame, in reference to the Savior and the Savior’s sayings or doctrines, continues to the present day, and is pervading society to the core, even in countries called Christian, It is one of the severest temptations which young converts have to encounter. The anticipation of it is one of the mightiest motives to keep men away from conversion, and on the other side of Christian faith and fealty. This adulterous and sinful generation. Adulterous here, as in the Old Testament, means unfaithful to God. When he cometh, etc. The glorious coming to judge the world when all nations shall appear before him.
Mark 9:1 Some of them that stand here, etc. The allusion to the final coming of the kingdom of Christ in power which took place on the day of Pentecost. The day of Pentecost, when the descent of the Spirit took place, marks the beginning of the dispensation of the Spirit, the new economy, or the kingdom of righteousness. Its consummation will be seen when all souls shall be converted to righteousness and Jesus shall come.
FACT QUESTIONS 8:279:1
Give three facts about Caesarea Philippi.
The verses before us begin what great division in our Lord’s ministry?
What area of public ministry concludes with the eighth chapter?
What was the purpose of our Lord in going into the district of Caesarea Philippi?
- Give three lessons we can learn in the example of our Lord.
Did Jesus want the opinions of the scribes and rabbis? Why not?
Show how Malachi 4:5 helped form the opinion of some.
Show how the whole ministry of Christ appeared to them to stand in contradiction to their Messianic expectation?
It was in the Son of man that they were to recognize the of .
The confession of Peter sees in Jesus the Messiah but even morewhat was it?
The confession of Peter had both a human and divine originexplain.
How was Jesus going to demonstrate His Messiahship?
It took two years to teach one great truthwhat was it? What was the second great truth to be taught in the next few months?
What was the supreme purpose of His advent?
Why choose the three classes mentioned in Mark 8:31? Do we have their counterpart today? Discuss.
What hurt Peter the mostthe words that Jesus would be killed or being called Satan? Discuss.
Satan repeated his temptation to Jesus through the words of Peterexplain.
Were there many who wanted to follow Him? Who? Why? How?
Explain the strong meaning of deny himself.
Discuss in your own words the meaning of the cross as here ascribed to every disciple.
Even in spiritual matters he who would save his life shall lose itplease apply.
Multitudes lose their livesdiscuss two or three areas where this loss takes placewith no gainonly loss!
In what way do we save our life?
Isn-’t the use of the word soul in Mark 8:37 an unfortunate one?it has a wider use than the eternal nature of manDiscuss.
How is the temptation to be ashamed overcome?
What is the fundamental error in being ashamed?