Mark 6

Verse 1 Events related in Mark 6 are: (1) rejection of Jesus at Nazareth (Mark 6:1-6); (2) sending forth of the Twelve (Mark 6:7-13); (3) the beheading of John the Baptist (Mark 6:14-29); (4) the feeding of the five thousand (Mark 6:30-44); (5) walking on the sea (Mark 6:45-52); and (6) preaching and healing in Gennesaret (Mark 6:53-56). JESUS AT And he went out from thence: and he cometh into his own country; and his disciples follow him. (Mark 6:1) His own country … refers to Nazareth, located some fifteen miles from Capernaum. That was the home of Joseph and Mary; there Jesus grew up; and from its name the Lord came to be called a “Nazarene” (Matthew 2:23; Mark 1:24). “It derives its celebrity from its connection with the history of Christ.[1] Mark did not name Nazareth in this verse but used a more general term, “his own country,” thus including numerous villages throughout the area (Mark 6:6). His disciples follow him … This indicates that the Twelve accompanied Jesus and contrasts with only three of them witnessing the raising of Jairus’ daughter (Mark 5:37). ENDNOTE: [1] C. E. W. Dorris, The Gospel according to Mark (Nashville: The Gospel Advocate Company. 1970), p. 138.

Verse 2 And when the sabbath was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, Whence hath this man these things? and, What is the wisdom that is given unto this man, and what mean such mighty works wrought by his hands?This man … as sneeringly repeated by the villagers was derogatory. “There is a contemptuous tone about the expression."[2] The citizens of the Lord’s home town despised him because he was one of themselves. Having no conception of their own value as human beings, they made their own guilty unworthiness the basis of rejecting the Lord. The light of all ages shone in their dark streets, but they were blind to it. (See full discussion of the phenomenon of Nazareth’s unbelief in my Commentary on Matthew, pp. 207-210). This was the second rejection of Jesus at Nazareth, the first being recorded in Luke 4:15 ff. Matthew 13:54-58 is parallel to this account of the second rejection. ENDNOTE: [2] E. Bickersteth, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), Vol. 16, 5:243.

Verse 3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended in him.The carpenter … From this it is clear that our Lord was himself a carpenter, as was Joseph; and we reject the allegation that Matthew “softened” this by recording “carpenter’s son,” as if the latter was in some manner more complimentary to Jesus than the fact of his being a carpenter. The snobbery of the critics in such a view shows. As a matter of fact, Mark’s words here contain elements which actually add to the glory of Jesus’ name. As Barclay noted: The word used for “carpenter” is [@tekton], meaning not a mere worker in wood. It means “a craftsman”, more than merely a joiner. In Homer the [@tekton] is said to build ships and houses and temples.[3]The English, word “technician” comes from the same root; thus the villagers’ slur unintentionally glorified Jesus as the Master Workman. Chrysostom said that our Lord made plows and yokes, and certainly Jesus referred to both in his teachings (Luke 9:62; Matthew 11:29). As Barclay said, “They despised Jesus because he was a working man."[4] In this attitude, the citizens of Nazareth were guilty; but they were not any more guilty than the scholars who suppose that Matthew tried to cover up the scandal that Jesus was a carpenter. The imputation of such an attitude to Matthew is an anachronism in which the current prejudice against people who work with their hands is retrogressively attributed to the holy apostle of Jesus Christ. Jesus was both a carpenter and the son of a carpenter, being, of course, the legal son of Joseph. The true reason for Mark’s reference to “carpenter,” as distinguished from Matthew’s “son of a carpenter,” lies in the obvious fact that the villagers freely gossiped about the Lord, using both expressions; and Mark, writing in 65-70 A.D., at a time when Joseph was dead, and having omitted from his narrative the record of the virgin birth of our Lord, consciously selected the particular form of the villagers’ gossip which could not have been construed as a denial of that essential tenet of Christianity. Matthew, on the other hand, writing at a much earlier date than Mark (44 A.D.), and having fully spelled out the particulars of the virgin birth, and having also as his objective the establishment of Jesus’ right of kingship over Israel (a right that depended upon his legal sonship of Joseph) found it more natural to record the common gossip of Nazareth in its other form. There is no way to deny that the gossip existed in both forms as recorded by Mark and Matthew. The son of Mary … To solve the problem of this reference by supposing the villagers thought Jesus was “illegitimate”[5] is ridiculous, there being no true evidence that they ever made such a charge; they also called him “the carpenter’s son” on this very occasion (Matthew 13:55). Matthew recorded the villagers’ mention of BOTH his parents (as they supposed). Mark’s record of only this part of their gossip was in all probability for the purpose of stressing the virgin birth. Even if there had been some intended reflection on the legitimacy of Jesus by the villagers, which we cannot see at all, then it would only mean that the wrath of man was praising God; for Jesus WAS the “Son of Mary,” the promised “seed of woman” (Genesis 3:15). Likewise, Cranfield saw this as “an important piece of evidence in support of the historicity of the virgin birth."[6]Brother of James, and Joses, etc. …

The natural way of understanding this is as a reference to the actual brothers of Jesus, sons of Joseph and Mary after Jesus was born. Devices such as making these the sons of Joseph by a previous marriage, or the “cousins” of Jesus, are mistaken efforts to sustain the myth regarding the “perpetual virginity of Mary,” the latter being unscriptural and even anti-Scriptural. Christ was the “first-born” son of Mary (Luke 2:7) and “the only begotten Son of God.” Why “first-born” if she had no other children? As Halley said, “There would never have been any other meaning read into these passages, except for the desire to exalt celibacy as a holier form of life."[7]His sisters … Matthew recorded, “Are they not all with us?” And from this it is clear that there were at least three sisters of Jesus. The word “all” could not have referred to just two. And they were offended in him … They rejected Jesus as being any more wise or able than themselves, the judgment being a moral one rather than an intellectual one. As is always true, it was their sins which blinded their eyes to the Lord (John 3:17-19). [3] William Barclay, The Gospel of Mark (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1956), p. 138. [4] Ibid. [5] Earle McMillan, The Gospel according to Mark (Austin: R. B. Sweet Publishing Company, 1973), p 76. [6] C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel according to Saint Mark (Cambridge: University Press, 1966), p. 195. [7] Henry H. Halley, Halley’s Bible Handbook (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961), p. 383.

Verse 4 And Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.The unwillingness of any community to see one of themselves exalted is due to natural jealousies and animosities. A Major General in the United States Air Force was overhead to say, “I may be a General to Uncle Sam, but I am just a buck private at home!”

Verse 5 And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands on a few sick folk, and healed them. And he marveled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages teaching.He could do no mighty work … This speaks not of physical but of moral impossibility."[8] As Alford said, “It was our Lord’s practice to require faith in the recipient of aid, and that being wanting, the help could not be given."[9] The unbelief of Nazareth was so dense and malignant that Jesus “could not” in harmony with his divine principles do a mighty work among them; and yet it should not be overlooked that even these were given more than sufficient reason to believe in him if they had willed to do so. Mark does not here deprecate the instances of healing cited, but contrasts them with what might have been done in a more favorable atmosphere. “Their prejudice kept them from hearty faith in him”[10] “The men of Nazareth had sufficient evidence, and a greater amount of evidence would only have increased their condemnation."[11][8] John D. Haley, Discrepancies of the Bible (Nashville: The Gospel Advocate Company, 1970), p. 110. [9] Ibid., p. 111. [10] C. E. W. Dorris, The Gospel according to Mark (Nashville: The Gospel Advocate Company, 1970), p. 141. [11] E. Bickersteth, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), Vol. 16, p. 244.

Verse 7 And he calleth unto him the twelve, and began to send them forth by two and two; and he gave them authority over the unclean spirits.SENDING FORTH THE TWELVETo associate this action of Jesus with any earthly kingdom idea is wrong; it was merely part of the training of the apostles for the effective discharge of their duties after the resurrection and Pentecost. It was an effective means of acquainting more people with the teaching of Jesus Christ. Over unclean spirits … The apostles, like the seventy (some early manuscripts have 72) sent out later, exercised this great authority over evil spirits (Luke 10:17-20), thus receiving a divine confirmation of the truth they preached. Two by two … is a wise arrangement for such workers now, as it was then; for this enables the two to draw encouragement and support from each other and to reduce the number of temptations.

Verse 8 And he charged them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no bread, no wallet, no money in their purse; but to go shod with sandals: and, said he, put not on two coats.The parallel accounts (Matthew 10:5-15; Luke 10:4-11) provide another pseudocon, inasmuch as Matthew said, “Get you no staff,” whereas Mark’s account plainly allowed one to be carried, with Luke agreeing with Matthew, “no staff.” McMillan called this a “discrepancy."[12] But if we take Luke’s reference as meaning that the purchase or procurement of a staff was the meaning of the Saviour’s instruction, as is clearly the case in Matthew, and as might reasonably be inferred from its appearance in a list of things one would usually buy in anticipation of a journey, the discrepancy disappears. We agree with the more ancient authorities on this place which state that “They were not to go to the pains of getting one if not supplied already; they were not to trouble themselves about preparation, even so little as that."[13]“The language implies that a staff was optional; they were not to bother about getting a staff, if one was not at hand."[14] That a staff was allowed (though not the purchase of one) is clear from Mark’s account. [12] Earle McMillan, op. cit., p. 78. [13] W. N. Clarke, Commentary on the Gospel of Mark (Valley Forge: The Judson Press, 1881), p. 85. [14] J. J. Taylor, The Gospel according to Mark (Nashville: Southern Baptist Convention, 1911), p. 83.

Verse 10 And he said unto them, Wheresoever ye enter into a house, there abide till ye depart thence.This instruction was to avoid giving offense by leaving one house or hospitality for another in the same community. Any “shopping around” for more comfortable quarters was forbidden.

Verse 11 And whatsoever place shall not receive you, and they hear you not, as ye go forth from thence, shake off the dust that is under your feet for a testimony unto them.The shaking off of dust against unreceptive places was an action commanded for the seventy (or, 72, as some of the earliest manuscripts have) also (Luke 10:10-11), it partook of the nature of a formal judgment against a community. It showed that the holy messengers had faithfully discharged their commission, but that God’s message had been rejected. The apostles followed this same procedure on the first missionary journey of Paul (Acts 13:51).

Verse 12 And they went out and preached that men should repent. And they cast out many demons, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them.Men should repent … The mission of the apostles was not merely one of healing but of preaching repentance. As Dorris said, “Repentance is a thing for a man to do, not something he gets; it is a command, not a promise."[15] in the stress laid upon repentance, their preaching was akin to that of John the Baptist and of the Saviour himself (Mark 1:15). Cranfield properly noted that the mission of the Twelve “was merely an extension of the teaching ministry, included because Mark knew that it occurred and that it had a relevance for later Christian missions."[16]And anointed with oil … There was a difference in the healing done by the apostles, in that they anointed with oil, an action nowhere mentioned in connection with the miracles of our Lord. Bickersteth suggested that the oil was significant of God’s mercy, of spiritual comfort and joy, “the oil of gladness."[17] However, there is no way this action of the apostles can be made to support the so-called sacrament of extreme unction. The people in view here got well at once! Extreme unction, always administered by its advocates when the patient is in the act of death, has no resemblance to what occurred here. [15] C. E. W. Dorris, op. cit., p. 148. [16] C. E. B. Cranfield, op. cit., p. 203. [17] E. Bickersteth, op. cit., p. 245.

Verse 14 And king Herod heard thereof; for his name had become known: and he said, John the Baptizer is risen from the dead, and therefore do these powers work in him.THE OF JOHN THE BAPTISTKing Herod … Of this despot, Sanner said: Herod Antipas (popularly called king) was tetrarch (literally, one who rules the fourth part of a domain) of Galilee and Perea from 4 B.C. to A.D. 39. His reign thus spanned the life and public ministry of Jesus: From a family characterized by intrigue and violence, “he appears as a sensual, cunning, capricious, cruel, weak, unscrupulous, superstitious, despotic prince (Matthew 14:9; Luke 3:19; Luke 13:31-32)."[18]It may well be doubted that this Herod believed in the resurrection of the dead; but a guilty conscience is a strong persuader, and his fearfully guilty heart shuddered at the thought that perhaps our Lord was a reincarnation of John the Baptist. Herod Antipas may have believed, erroneously, in the transmigration of souls. At that particular time, according to Bickersteth, “The views of Pythagoras respecting the transmigration of souls were current and probably influenced the troubled mind of Herod."[19] Such doctrines were rejected by Christ and the apostles. Paul’s mention of “the body” (2 Corinthians 5:10) opposes the idea of the soul’s having a succession of “bodies.” [18] A. Elwood Sanner, Beacon Bible Commentary (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1964), p. 320. [19] E. Bickersteth, op. cit., p. 245.

Verse 15 But others said, It is Elijah. And others said, It is a prophet, even as one of the prophets. But Herod when he heard thereof, said, John, whom I have beheaded, he is risen.The independence of the sacred narratives is conspicuously evident in this passage which has elements similar to Matthew 16:13-14. In that passage, the apostles responded to Jesus’ question by saying that people were saying that he was John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. Here the same information is given in a completely different context. There it featured a private interview with Jesus’ disciples. Here it was a topic discussed in the presence of Herod. See also underMark 6:14.

Verse 17 For Herod himself had sent forth and laid hold upon John, and bound him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife; for he had married her.Part of the sordid history of the Herods comes to view in this verse. A more particular look at the principal actors in this sad affair is in order. HEROD ANTIPASHe was the son of Herod the Great by the Samaritan Malthace, and a full brother of Herod Archelaus. He received as his share of his father’s dominion the provinces of Galilee and Perea with the title of tetrarch, but he was popularly called “king.” He reigned from 4 B.C. to 39 A.D. He founded Tiberias on the western shore of Galilee. This is the ruler that Jesus referred to as “that fox” (Luke 13:32); and it was to him that Pilate sent Jesus during the trials prior to the crucifixion. His first marriage was to a daughter of Aretas, the Arabian king; but on a visit to Rome he met Herodias his brother’s wife (Philip, not the tetrarch), whom he seduced and married. The outrage of this union was compounded by the element of incest.

Aretas took vengeance upon Herod by defeating him in a war. Herod applied to Caesar for a crown but was banished to Lugdunum, in which exile Herodias shared.[20]This woman was a daughter of Herod I’s son, Aristobulus. She first married her uncle Philip who was living as a private citizen in Rome, and by him she had Salome. When Herod Antipas was visiting in Rome, she left Philip and married his brother Herod Antipas.[22] She was a woman of ruthless ambition, no moral restraint, utter selfishness, and implacable hatred of anyone who dared to question her conduct. When John the Baptist denounced her marriage, she never rested until she had his head on a platter. The picture of her that emerges in the sacred text is one of lust, cruelty, and uninhibited evil. SALOMEHerod the Great had five wives, two of them named Mariamne, and two sons named Philip, one of whom was born of Cleopatra of Jerusalem and became a tetrarch. This Philip married Salome, who as the daughter of Herodias was his niece and his grand-niece at the same time. As Barclay said, “Seldom in history can there have been such a series of matrimonial entanglements as existed in the Herod family."[23] No less than ten members of the Herodian dynasty are mentioned in the New Testament, their names recurring in it like a sour note in a symphony. See below for a list of these. One can have little regard for the opinions of some who question the accuracy of Mark on the premise that a royal princess would not have performed such a dance as that attributed to Salome. Such opinions are founded in ignorance of the typical conduct of the Herods. As Barclay wrote: The daughter of Herodias danced … the fact that she did so at all is an incredible thing. Solo dances in that society were disgusting and licentious pantomimes … such dances being the art of professional prostitutes. That she did so dance is a grim commentary on the character of Salome, and of the mother who allowed and encouraged her to do it.[24]THE HERODS IN THE NEW Herod the Great, the ruler when Jesus was born. Herod Antipas, the Herod of this passage in Mark. Herod Archelaus (Herod the Great’s son by Malthace) (Matthew 2:22; Luke 19:12-17). Herod Philip I, called Herod by Josephus and Philip in the New Testament, distinguished from Philip the tetrarch of Ituria and Trachonitis. This Philip was son of Herod the Great by the second Mariamne, married Herodias who left him for Herod Antipas. Herod Philip II, known as Philip the tetrarch, was son of Herod the Great and Cleopatra of Jerusalem (Luke 3:1). He was the best of the Herods. Herodias. See the notes above. Herod Agrippa I was the son of Aristobulus and Bernice and a grandson of Herod the Great. He lived in Rome and was a close friend of both Caligula and Claudius. When Caligula became emperor, he gave Agrippa the tetrarchy of Philip who had died in 34 A.D.; and in 38 A.D. added the domain of Herod Antipas after the latter’s banishment. In 41 A.D., in return for services given to Caligula, he received Judaea and Samaria with the title of king, thus ruling over the whole domain of Herod the Great. He persecuted the church ( Acts 12). Three of his posterity are mentioned in the New Testament: Herod Agrippa II, Bernice, and Drusilla. Herod Agrippa II. This prince became king under Nero and lived to the year 100 A.D. He sided with the Romans in the war which ended in the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. (Acts 25-26). He led (like practically all of his family) a vicious life. Bernice, sister of Herod Agrippa II (Acts 25:13). Drusilla, sister of Bernice (Acts 24:24). This evil family would have been little remembered except for their lives having touched those of the principal persons of the New Testament. A knowledge of what the Herods were sheds light upon the vicious actions recorded in the paragraph before us. It is not to be thought that John the Baptist had deliberately denounced the incestuous marriage of the dissolute Herod Antipas, the situation calling for such a denunciation having in all probability been set up and precipitated by the Pharisees. We know that they repeatedly tried to entangle the Lord in such difficulties without success; and, although the Scriptures record no such Pharisaical instigation in the downfall of John the Baptist, it may be assumed in the light of all they tried to do to Jesus. The ancient fortress of Machaerus east of the Dead Sea is usually cited as the place where John the Baptist was beheaded, Josephus having written that as the place. There is some doubt, however, that Josephus was correct in this, due to the fact that he also wrote that Herod’s first wife, the daughter of Aretas, escaped to this fortress because it was in the power of her father, the king of Arabia. He outlined the intrigue by which Aretas’ daughter, having secretly learned of Herod’s intention of marrying Herodias, journeyed to Machaerus. Perhaps Josephus’ apparent contradiction is resolved by supposing that the fortress, situated on the border, was controlled at one time by Herod, and at another time by Aretas. There is the further consideration that there does not seem to have been any great distance between the birthday festival of Herod and the prison where John was beheaded. Tiberius or Machaerus would either one have provided the combination of palace and fortress suggested by the New Testament narrative. [20] Encyclopedia Britannica, (Chicago: William Benton, Publishers, 1961), Vol. 11, p. 510. [22] William Barclay, op. cit., p. 151. [23] Ibid., p. 153. [24] Ibid.

Verse 18 For John said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother’s wife.It is interesting that the greatest resentment against John’s truthful denunciation of Herod’s incestuous marriage came not from Herod but from Herodias. The fact of John’s words being addressed directly to Herod does not rule out the possibility that Herod asked John about the validity of his marriage, no doubt hoping that John’s sanction of it would make it more acceptable to the people. If such was the case, his vain hopes were shattered in the forthright, honest reply of the great herald, John the Baptist. There can be no doubt that John anticipated the fatal results to himself in such a reply; and one may only marvel at such courage and loyalty to the truth. As Jesus said, “Among them that are born of women there hath not arisen a greater than John the Baptist” (Matthew 11:11).

Verse 19 And Herodias set herself against him, and desired to kill him; and she could not; for Herod feared John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man; and kept him safe. And when he heard him, he was much perplexed; and he heard him gladly.Wicked as Herod was, there nevertheless remained in him a basic respect for holiness; and, seeing in John the sacred fire of holy zeal and the courage to speak God’s truth in every circumstance, Herod respected and admired him, even listening willingly to his preaching. On the other hand, Herodias, full of hatred and wounded pride, determined to kill him. Turlington said, “The text is very vivid: She had it in for him' and was constantly seeking’ his death."[25]ENDNOTE: [25] Henry E. Turlington, Broadman Bible Commentary (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1946), p. 317.

Verse 21 And when a convenient day was come, that Herod on his birthday made a supper to his lords, and the high captains, and the chief men of Galilee; and when the daughter of Herodias herself came in and danced, she pleased Herod and them that eat at meat with him; and the king said unto the damsel, Ask of me whatsoever thou wilt, and I will give it thee.Herod was not the first man, nor the last, to fall into great temptation at a festival. The cunning Herodias was ready with a plan to achieve her murderous purpose regarding the preacher who had refused to endorse her sin. She enlisted the aid of her own daughter for his entrapment, achieved her goal, and earned for herself everlasting infamy. The high captains … These were the chiliarchs, commanders of one thousand men. The daughter of Herodias herself … Her name was Salome, a royal princess, and her conduct on this occasion was not only licentious and immoral, but it was utterly unbecoming the royal dignity which she claimed. Ask of me whatsoever thou wilt … Herod took the bait - hook, line and sinker - and at once found himself in a vicious trap from which there was no honorable recovery.

Verse 23 And he sware unto her, Whatsoever thou shalt ask of me, I will give it thee, unto the half of my kingdom.This was the type of boastful, extravagant oath, characteristic of tyrants and despots of that era. Any person asking a gift large enough to embarrass such a monarch ordinarily found it fatal to do so; but the accepted code of that day, as it applied to such requests, required the king’s compliance with the request if it lay within his power to give it without jeopardy to himself.

Verse 24 And she went out and said unto her mother, What shall I ask? And she said, The head of John the Baptizer.When it is considered that Salome might have requested many things which could have been of great value to herself, and that her mother by this suggestion actually robbed her daughter of whatever benefit Herod might have bestowed upon her, all for the sake of venting her vicious hatred against John, the blindness and stupidity of evil are evident.

Verse 25 And she came in straightway with haste unto the king, and asked, saying, I will that thou forthwith give me on a platter the head of John the Baptist.This request was so bizarre and erratic that men have found it hard to believe; and, because Josephus explained John’s beheading as due to political considerations, critics have dared to accuse Mark of incorporating into his gospel “this legend.” But it was no legend at all; this is what occurred. There had been no time, historically, for the development of any legend; and Josephus was notoriously inaccurate on many things. Besides that, Herod probably explained to the public his murder of John with some lying justification of it.

Verse 26 And the king was exceeding sorry; but for the sake of his oaths, and of them that sat at meat, he would not reject her. And straightway the king sent forth a soldier of his guard, and commanded to bring his head: and he went and beheaded him in the prison, and brought his head on a platter, and gave it to the damsel; and the damsel gave it to her mother.His oaths … Turlington said, “The vows must have been given loudly under the influence of his drink and spurred on by the lustful delight of the feasters."[26] In any case, “oaths” in the text is plural, indicating that Herod had rashly multiplied his promises to the girl. This is indeed a sorry spectacle of what was called the court of a king. The environment of that shameful birthday party was such as adds support to words of Jerome that “Herodias thrust the tongue through with a bodkin."[27] The mutilated body was cast outside the walls of the prison and left neglected.[28]Bickersteth has the following with regard to God’s judgment of the perpetrators of this atrocity: God’s judgment at length found out Herod. He was defeated by Aretas in a great battle and put to ignominious flight. Herodias and Herod were banished by the Roman Senate to Lyons, where they both perished miserably. Salome fell into some treacherous ice over which she was passing, in such a manner that her head was caught while the rest of her body sank into the water. She perished when her head was (practically) severed by the sharp ice.[29][26] Ibid., p. 317. [27] E. Bickersteth, op. cit., p. 246. [28] Ibid., [29] Ibid.

Verse 29 And when his disciples heard thereof, they came and took up his corpse, and laid it in a tomb.The crafty hatred of Satan is evident in the sorrowful events which led to this capricious murder of John the Baptist. John was the herald of Christ and the coming kingdom of God, and the evil one succeeded in destroying both the herald and the Christ, as far as their lives on earth are concerned; but in the death of our Lord, there was to be a marvelous difference; because, in that event, it was the head of Satan that was crushed. THE FEEDING OF THE FIVE Immediately after the death of John the Baptist, and after the return of the Twelve, Jesus withdrew to the eastern side of Galilee, outside of Herod’s jurisdiction. Matthew clearly indicated that the murder of John entered into Jesus’ decision to withdraw east of Galilee (Matthew 14:13); and we cannot agree with Cranfield who thought “Matthew misunderstood Mark,"[30] as if there had to be only one reason why Jesus withdrew. The reasons for Christ’s withdrawal were complex: (1) He and his disciples needed rest. (2) Jesus needed an opportunity to instruct the Twelve privately. (3) Herod was showing interest in Jesus, and that could have meant nothing but bad for the Lord. (4) And the murder of John made it an appropriate time to change the scene of his ministry. ENDNOTE: [30] C. E. B. Cranfield, op. cit., p. 213.

Verse 30 And the apostles gather themselves together unto Jesus; and they told him all things, whatsoever they had done, and whosoever they had taught. Luke said of this report that they “declared unto him what things they had done” (Luke 9:10); but Mark’s account containing about twice as many words actually adds no information beyond what Luke has, because their teaching was surely included in what they had “done.” It is the style in the current era to elaborate upon how much more complete and how many more vivid details are found in Mark than in the other gospels (the same being supposed to support the Markan theory); but a little later in this chapter, we shall make a comparison of the gospel accounts of the miracle about to be related, and the reader may judge for himself regarding the matter. See below.

Verse 31 And he saith unto them, Come ye yourselves apart into a desert place, and rest awhile. For there were many coming and going, and they had no leisure so much as to eat.One of the reasons for Jesus’ actions was the need of rest and recuperation; but there were other pertinent reasons also. See under Mark 6:29. “Mark alone notes no less than eleven occasions on which Jesus retired from his work."[31] That our Lord was diligent to procure rest and refreshment for himself and the Twelve emphasizes the truth that utmost care should be taken to insure health in the service of God. Doing what is necessary to the maintenance of health is serving God. ENDNOTE: [31] Marvin Vincent, Word Studies of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1946), Vol. I, p. 175.

Verse 32 And they went away in a boat to a desert place apart. And the people saw them going, and many knew them, and they ran together there on foot from all the cities, and outwent them.Such was the popularity of the Lord, that when the multitudes saw him and his disciples get into a boat to cross over to the other side, they simply ran around the northern extremity of the lake and come together at Bethsaida Julius on the northeastern shore, the same being an uninhabited area along the shore, a beautiful grassy slope beneath a bold headland overlooking the scene.

Verse 34 And he came forth and saw a great multitude, and he had compassion on them, because they were as sheep not having a shepherd: and he began to teach them many things.Not having a shepherd … The wicked Pharisees were no true shepherds of the people; and the king (actually the tetrarch) had proved himself to be no better than a wild beast. The poor multitudes were untaught and uncared for by their leaders. No wonder Jesus had compassion upon them.

Verse 35 And when the day was now far spent, his disciples came unto him, and said, This place is desert, and the day is now far spent.The apostles were concerned that evening was drawing to a close, and they anticipated a real problem regarding food for so many in such a place. It does not appear that they had the slightest idea what Jesus would do, despite the fact that the Lord had mentioned the problem to Philip considerably in advance of the crisis (John 6:5 f).

Verse 36 Send them away, that they may go into the country and villages round about, and buy themselves somewhat to eat.Many times, in all ages, the Lord’s disciples have proved to be no more able to solve difficult problems than were the Twelve on this occasion. “Send them away …” This was their proposal, but the Lord had a far better solution.

Verse 37 But he answered and said unto them, Give ye them to eat. And they say unto him, Shall we go and buy two hundred shillings worth of bread, and give them to eat?Give ye them to eat … The spiritual application of this is found in the command of Christ to “preach to the whole creation.” Such a task appears as impossible to the church of today as the assignment to feed the multitude must have appeared to the apostles. They did it, however; and so can Christians fulfill their mission now. Two hundred shillings … The money problem surfaced at once. A shilling was the equivalent of a day’s wage in that economy; and the equivalent value in our society with a minimum hourly wage of $5.00, making a day’s wage $40.00, would be $8,000, a sum the apostles considered utterly beyond them.

Verse 38 And he saith unto them, How many loaves have ye? go and see. And when they knew, they say, Five, and two fishes.The synoptics did not mention the source of the small supply which came from a lad’s lunch baskets, nor the fact that it was Andrew who brought them to Jesus.

Verse 39 And he commanded them that all should sit down by companies upon the green grass.This verse is mentioned by many commentators as an example of the “more vivid detail” found in Mark; but where is it? Luke also mentioned their sitting “in companies”; Matthew mentioned the grass and the “women and children,” who probably numbered in the thousands; and John alone related that the loaves were “barley loaves.” A careful study of the gospels reveals that each of the sacred authors made invaluable contributions to our full understanding of what occurred. Is Mark’s “green grass” any more vivid a detail than the “women and children”? Mark indeed supplied beautiful, vivid, and significant touches in his narrative; but so did they all.

Verse 40 And they sat down in ranks, by hundreds, and by fifties.It was a manifestation of the multitude’s faith that they consented to arrange themselves, as if for a feast, at a time when no food was in sight.

Verse 41 And he took the loaves and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he blessed, and brake the loaves; and he gave to the disciples to set before them all; and the two fishes divided he among them all.The miracle of multiplication in kind of the lad’s meager store sufficiently for the feeding of a great multitude is an unqualified wonder; and the fact of its being recorded independently in all four gospels requires that it be received as history. Cranfield admitted what naturally appears to any Christian that “the rationalizing of this miracle is not satisfactory."[32] The most remarkable proof that what happened here was an event widely known to be authentic occurs in the efforts of the people to make him king immediately afterward. In fact, it appears from John’s account that they actually had in view Christ’s feeding of an entire army while they made war on the Romans! Fantastic as such a scheme was, the very existence of it proves that the people knew that Christ had the power to do such a thing. [32] C. E. B. Cranfield, op. cit., p. 226.

Verse 42 And they all ate, and were filled. And they took up broken pieces, twelve basketfuls, and also of the fishes. And they that ate the loaves were five thousand men.We have already noted that each of the sacred writers added significant elements to make up the composite picture of what there took place. Unique to Matthew is the mention of Jesus’ healing the sick, his command that the loaves and fishes be brought to himself, and his mention of the women and children. Unique to Mark is the mention of “green grass.” Luke related how Jesus’ command for the multitudes to sit down was relayed through the apostles; and John has a vast amount of detail not found in the synoptics. This great miracle, recorded in all four gospels, claims in that fact alone a tremendous weight of importance, ranking along with the resurrection of Christ itself as one of the most important events in the New Testament. The miracle, as independently recorded in the gospels, is such a deed as to require its attribution to supernatural power. It was motivated by the loving compassion of Jesus who pitied the shepherdless multitude. It precipitated a public effort to make Jesus king by force. It had overtones regarding the “bread of life” as recounted in John. It was connected in Luke with the great confession by the apostle Peter of “the Christ of God.” It was the culmination of the great Galilean ministry.

It is the type of wonder no charlatan could fake. It spoke eloquently of Jesus as “that prophet” like unto Moses who had fed the children of Israel in the wilderness with the bread that God gave. In this mighty deed, Christ’s popularity reached its zenith; and the decline of it followed his refusal to allow the people to “use” him and his power to feed a rebellious army against Rome. Great as the wonder of the bread really was, it was but a shadow of the greater wonder of Christ himself who is the true bread that came down from God out of heaven. See this writer’s exegesis on this miracle in the Commentary on Matthew and the Commentary on John.

Verse 45 And straightway he constrained his disciples to enter into the boat, and to go before him unto the other side to Bethsaida, while he himself sendeth the multitude away.WALKING ON THE LAKEConstrained his disciples … These words take account of one of the most difficult situations that arose between Christ and his apostles. From John it is learned that the multitude had attempted to force Jesus into a declaration of himself as king, trying to make him king against his will, and by taking things into their own hands. It is altogether probable that the apostles were sympathetic toward such a move; and, if it had succeeded, the Romans would have put Christ to death as a seditionist. Therefore, it was of the utmost importance to remove the Twelve from the satanic situation developing at Bethsaida Julius. The weather could also have been threatening; but, in any case, the Twelve would not depart to the other side except upon the sternest orders from the Saviour. Mark recorded the significant words, “but their heart was hardened.” This may also have been the occasion when Judas, in heart, defected from the Lord. Bethsaida … This community was on the western shore, the native city of some of the apostles, and not far from Capernaum.

Verse 46 And when he had taken leave of them, he departed into the mountain to pray.To the mountain to pray … A bold headland overlooks the grassy slope where these events occurred; and, as soon as the Lord had sent the Twelve to the other side and dispersed the multitude he had recourse at once to prayer. It was indeed an hour of crisis; never was the ministry of Jesus any more threatened than at that hour. It is from this that the surpassing importance of this miracle derives. John made it one of the only seven signs that he recorded, and none of the gospels left it out. Equally important was the accompanying wonder of our Lord’s walking on the sea to go to the rescue of the storm-tossed apostles.

Verse 47 And when even was come, the boat was in the midst of the sea, and he was alone on the land. And seeing them distressed in rowing, for the wind was contrary unto them, about the fourth watch of the night he cometh unto them, walking on the sea; and he would have passed by them.This event must be looked upon as the supernatural rescue of the apostles from mortal danger, as well as from the moral danger due to their hardness. It was an absolutely essential rescue of the Twelve. There is no way to avoid understanding this event as a miracle. The rationalizations of it one finds among the critics are puerile, ridiculous, and unconvincing. Taking all of the accounts together for a composite report of what happened, one finds the following: (1) Jesus could see the apostles in the lake at night in a storm from a distance of several miles. (2) He walked on the lake to go unto them. (3) He commanded Peter to walk on the lake, and for a time Peter did so. (4) He rescued Peter from drowning. (5) The wind ceased as soon as Christ came aboard. (6) The boat was “straightway” at the landing (John 6:21).

Were all of these but ordinary events? If so, why is it recorded that “They that were in the boat worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God!” (Matthew 14:33); and why does Mark have “And they were sore amazed in themselves”? (Mark 6:51).

Infidelity is hard pressed when it will resort to the type of rationalizing that would explain this wonder as an ordinary event. As Bickersteth said of such “explanations,” “They are a laughable insult on logic, hermeneutics, good sense, and honesty."[33]And he would have passed by them … is an exceedingly important insight into what happened that night. The apostles were, for a time, hardened against the Saviour, due to their own secular dreams of an earthly kingdom having been so rudely dashed to the ground on the grassy slopes of Bethsaida Julius. If they had continued in that hardness by refusing to cry out unto the Lord as he approached and passed them by, it would have meant their loss to the apostleship; and the Lord would have begun again with other men. When people are tempted to believe in their own importance, as regards holy things, they should recall that Christ was in the act of “passing by” the Twelve themselves, until they cried out for his aid and support. ENDNOTE: [33] E. Bickersteth, op. cit., p. 249.

Verse 49 But they, when they saw him walking on the sea, supposed that it was a ghost, and cried out.It was a ghost … The KJV has “spirit” in this place, because at the date of its publication (1611), the word “spirit” meant exactly what “ghost” means today; and “ghost” meant exactly what “spirit” means today. This linguistic phenomenon of two words interchanging their meaning explains the expression “Holy Ghost” in the KJV. (See the Commentary on Matthew, p. 219).

Verse 50 For they all saw him, and were troubled. But he straightway spake with them, and saith unto them, Be of good cheer: it is I; be not afraid.Be of good cheer … The essential joy of the Christian faith is manifest in such an admonition. The winds and waves of life may be adverse and threatening, but the soul that is anchored in Jesus Christ is secure in a haven of joy. It is I … According to Turlington, the words so translated here actually mean “I AM”; and the view here is that: Mark intended his readers to identify Jesus with the Lord, the divine I AM of Exo 3:14. The phrase occurs often in John, and with theological overtones (John 6:85; 8:12; 10:7; 11:25; 14:6). Mark uses the phrase two other times, in Mark 13:6 and Mark 14:62.[34]Be not afraid … This is the constant admonition of faith in Christ. From the announcement of the angels to the shepherds on the night of Jesus’ birth, to the imperative “fear not” of Revelation 1:17, this is faith’s motto. ENDNOTE: [34] Henry E. Turlington, op. cit., p. 322.

Verse 51 And he went up into the boat; and the wind ceased: and they were sore amazed in themselves; for they understood not concerning the loaves, but their heart was hardened.They understood not … To be sure they knew that a mighty wonder had been performed, but until the moment of Jesus’ coming aboard they had not grasped the significance of it as an indication of the Lord’s deity. This lack on their part was due to the fact that “their heart was hardened,” being blinded by the dreams of a secular kingdom.

Verse 53 And when they had crossed over, they came to the land unto Gennesaret, and moored to the shore.THE AT One should not be troubled by the various names given to the scene of Jesus’ landing. John stated that they were on the way to Capernaum, which of course is true, Mark omitting the day’s teachings in the synagogue as well as many other events. This paragraph narrates what took place the week or so following, while John reported in detail what took place that very day. Gennesaret was the name of a plain southwest of Capernaum; Bethsaida was near; and Christ’s ministry was continued throughout the area.

Verse 54 And when they were come out of the boat, straightway the people knew him.John explained how many of the multitude who had witnessed the wonder on the east side of Galilee had hired boats and followed Jesus after the storm ceased, and after they had missed him, being aware, of course, that he had not boarded the vessel with the Twelve.

Verse 55 And ran about that whole region, and began to carry about on their beds those that were sick, where they heard he was.As Cranfield noted, “This is a summary statement,"[35] and includes events at a number of places, as indicated by the words, “where they heard he was.” The reaction of the people is what one should have expected. With a chance to be healed free of any charge, the throngs pressed upon Jesus to procure every possible benefit for the majority, the spiritual healing available in Christ was not so avidly desired. As Barclay put it: They came - to put it bluntly - to use him. What a difference it would have made had there been some few who came to give and not to get. In a way it is natural for us to come to Jesus to get things from him, for there are so many things he alone can give but it is always shameful to take everything and give nothing.[36][35] C. E. B. Cranfield, op. cit., p. 229. [36] William Barclay, op. cit., p. 164.

Verse 56 And wheresoever he entered, into villages, or into cities, or into the country, they laid the sick in the marketplaces, and besought him that they might touch if it were but the border of his garment; and as many as touched him were made whole.The immense popularity of Jesus during this ministry of healing is indicated by Mark’s summary. There were in all probability many thousands healed; and all of the sacred writers together recorded only a tiny fraction of the wonderful works of Jesus. As many as touched were made whole … For a sermon on this text, reference is made to my Commentary on Matthew, p. 221.

J.W. McGarvey Commentary For Mark Chapter SixOpinions of Men, and More Miracles, Mark 6:1-56 and Mark 7:1-23 Opinion of the Nazarenes, Mark 6:1-6. (Matthew 13:54-58; Luke 4:16-31)Mark 6:1. went out from thence.—That is, from Capernaum, where the ruler’s daughter had been healed. (See note on 5:21.) That he went “into his own country” from Capernaum, shows that this visit to Nazareth is different from the one mentioned by Luke; for the latter occurred immediately after his departure from Judea into Galilee, and before he took up his abode in Capernaum. (See Luke 4:14-16 Luke 4:31.) Mark 6:3-4. the brother of James.—We are here especially confronted with the question whether the four young men, James, Joses, Juda, and Simon, called his brothers, were actual brothers of Jesus and sons of Mary, and whether the young women called his “sisters” were actually his sisters. The question has importance chiefly on account of its bearing on the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary; and this doctrine is of no consequence at all except as it constitutes one of the pillars to support the idolatrous homage paid to Mary by the Roman Catholics. The conclusive Scripture evidence on the subject (and there is no other evidence worthy of attention), as it appears to my mind, is as follows:

1. It is stated that when the angel of the Lord commanded Joseph to take to himself Mary his wife, he “did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife; and knew her not till she had brought forth a son.” (Matthew 1:20 Matthew 1:24-25.) Here the exceptional fact of abstinence from sexual intercourse between the husband and the wife is mentioned, and the duration of it is expressly limited by the rime preceding the birth of Jesus. It is moat clearly implied that after this event it did not continue, and no adequate reason could have appeared to Joseph’s mind why it should, especially as the holy angel had actually bidden him to become a husband to Mary, and to make her his wife.
2. While the terms brother and sister were sometimes used in Hebrew style for more remote relationships, it is unquestionably true that their ordinary significance among Jewish writers was the same as with us. When, therefore, these terms occur, they must be understood in their ordinary sense until proof to the contrary is discovered. On him who denies their literal sense in this case falls the burden of proof.
3. The persons in question are invariably mentioned in connection with Mary, when mentioned in connection with any woman at all. It was “his mother and his brothers” who had come to him when he made the remarkable speech beginning, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” (Matthew 12:46-48; Mark 3:32-33.) In the passage before us the Nazarenes are represented as decrying Jesus because he was the son of Mary, and the brother of these four men and of these sisters whom they knew. And again, when both Mary and these brothers are mentioned the last time in the New Testament, they are mentioned together; for, after naming the apostles in the first chapter of Acts, Luke adds, “These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.” (Acts 1:14.) These evidences appear sufficient to settle the question beyond all doubt or cavil; but some objections have been urged against their conclusiveness, and two of these we will consider briefly:
4. There was a Mary who was “mother of James and Joses” (Matthew 27:56), who is supposed to have been the wife of Alpheus, because he was the father of James and Judas (Luke 6:15-16); and who was, according to a doubtful interpretation of Joh 19:25, a sister of the Virgin Mary. Now, if this supposition is correct, Jesus had three cousins with the same names as three of the men who are called his brothers, viz., James, Joses, and Juda or Judas. But the supposition has no proof in its favor whatever, and it depends on the highly improbable assumption that the two Marys were sisters. And even if it is correct, it proves nothing in point, for the two sisters might each have had three sons with the same names, and this is the more likely to have been the case if their own names were the same. Indeed, all three of the names, James, Joses, and Judas, were very common in Jewish families. But a second, and fatal objection to this supposition is the fact, that the James and the Judas who were sons of Alpheus were apostles (Luke 6:15-16), whereas the persons called “the brothers of the Lord” were unbelievers after the call of the apostles (John 7:5), and they are uniformly mentioned in the later history as distinct from the apostles. (See Acts 1:14, where “his brothers” are mentioned after the names of all the apostles; and 1 Corinthians 9:5, where Paul asks the question, “Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as the other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?”) Finally, as is well remarked by the writer on this question in Smith’s Dictionary (Art. Brother), “It is quite unaccountable that these ‘brethren of the Lord,’ if they were only his cousins, should be always mentioned in conjunction with the Virgin Mary, and never with their own mother Mary, who was both alive and in constant attendance on our Lord.”
5. Another supposition has been, that these brothers were sons of Joseph by a former marriage, and really the stepbrothers of Jesus. But this supposition has not a shadow of support in the Scripture narrative, and bears the evident mark of having been invented to save the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity. We conclude that there is no reason for a serious doubt that Mary was the mother of four sons besides Jesus, and of not less than two daughters.For other reflections on the incident recorded in these verses, see the notes on Matthew 13:54-57. Mark 6:5. no mighty work.—Matthew says, “not many mighty works;” and Mark, “no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk and healed them.” They agree that a few were healed, and Matthew gives the reason why the number was so small—“because of their unbelief.” The statement that “he could do there no mighty work,” etc., does not mean that it was physically impossible; for the same power which healed a few could have healed more; but he could not do more because it was improper. When he had wrought a number of miracles without shaking the unbelief of the people, others would have had even less effect, and would have been worse than useless; to work them, therefore, would have been an improper expenditure of time and power. Mark 6:6. he marveled.—Matthew says that Jesus marveled at the great faith of the centurion, and now we see that he marvels at the utter unbelief of the Nazarenes. (Comp. note on Matthew 8:10.) The faith which astonished him was that of a Gentile stranger, and the unbelief was that of his own Jewish friends and former neighbors. Neither event was in itself more astonishing than the contrast between them. We may remark in passing that if the faith of the centurion and the unbelief of the Nazarenes had been the result of an eternal decree, Jesus could not have been astonished at either. First Mission of the Twelve, Mark 6:7-13. (Matthew 9:35 to Matthew 10:42; Leviticus 9:1-6)Mark 6:7. the twelve.—The twelve are mentioned in this familiar style because Mark had previously given their names and an account of their selection. (Mark 3:13-19.) two by two.—Mark alone mentions the fact that the twelve were Bent out two by two; but Luke mentions the same circumstance in regard to the seventy. over unclean spirits.— In his extreme brevity, Mark mentions here only one of the miraculous powers imparted to the twelve, but he mentions below, at verse 13, the fact of their healing the sick. Mark 6:8-11.—On the directions given in these verses, see the notes on Matthew 10:9-15. Mark 6:12. went out and preached.—Omitting the long speech of instruction and prophecy which Jesus at this time addressed to the twelve (Matthew 10:16-42), Mark states what Matthew omits—the manner in which they executed their commission. They “preached that men should repent.” This single duty, enforced by the solemn fact that the kingdom of heaven was at hand (Matthew 10:7), constituted the substance of their earnest and simple appeal to their Jewish brethren. Mark 6:13. anointed with oil.—The anointing of the sick with oil was not expected to contribute to the cure; for, apart from its inadequacy as a remedy, it could not, in the nature of the case, contribute to a miraculous cure. But the Jews were in the habit of anointing their hair and their faces every day, and especially when they went out among their fellows. This anointing was omitted when they were sick, and when they fasted. (See 2 Samuel 12:20; Matthew 6:16-17.) When an apostle stood over a sick man to heal him by a touch and a word, he was about to send him out of his sick chamber; and just before the word was spoken the oil was applied. It meant no more than that the sick man was from that moment to be confined to his chamber no longer. (Comp. James 5:14.) This practice is the breadth of the heavens apart from the Romish practice of extreme unction, which is a pretended imitation of it. This was the anointing of a man who was about to be cured; that, of a man who was given up to die: this was preparatory to going forth once more into the enjoyments of life; that, to the passage of the departing soul through the fires of purgatory. A fair specimen, this, of the manner in which the Scriptures are wrested by the Mother of harlots. Opinions of Herod and Others, Mark 6:14-29. (Matthew 14:1-12; Luke 9:7-9)Mark 6:14. And king Herod heard.—For an account of Herod and the cause of his opinion, see the note on Matthew 14:1-2. Mark 6:15. Others said.—Mark here introduces the opinions which are mentioned by Matthew as part of the conversation at Cæsarea Philippi. (Matthew 16:14.) They occur in a natural connection in each place. Mark 6:17-18. laid hold upon John.—See notes on Matthew 14:3-4. Mark 6:19-20. Herod feared John.— Mark’s account is more creditable to Herod than Matthew’s, stating more fully the views and motives by which he was actuated. It seems from this account, that after John administered the rebuke concerning the adultery in which Herod and Herodias were living, the latter “would have killed him, but she could not.” Herod, still fearing John, regarding him as a just and holy man, and actually observing many things which John taught, refused to gratify his wife’s clamor for revenge. The statement of Matthew that Herod “would have put him to death,” but “he feared the multitude” (Matthew 14:5), must be referred to the later period of the imprisonment, when the importunities of Herodias had begun to prevail with him; and they introduce an additional restraining influence which affected him all the time, the tear of the multitude. Many a hardened sinner maintains, like Herod, a reverence for men of God, and vet, like him, they go on to perdition. Mark 6:21. a convenient day.—A day convenient for the malicious purpose of Herodias. It is not necessary to infer with Alford, that Herodias anticipated the day, and planned the procedure, though this is possible. It is far more probable that she merely found the day convenient as its events transpired, and had sufficient quickness of wit to take advantage of the opportunities which it afforded. made a supper.—Mark is more specific than Matthew in regard to the character of the entertainment and the company who were present. “Lords, high captains, and chief estates,” are expressions taken by our translators from the heraldry of Great Britain, and would have sounded strange in the ears of Herod and the Galileans. Mr. Green’s rendering, “his nobles and commanders, and the chief men of Galilee,” is much better. Mark 6:22-29.—On the remainder of the paragraph, see the notes on Matthew 14:8-12. Return of the Apostles, and Rush of the People, 30-34. (Matthew 14:13-14; Luke 9:10-11; John 6:1-4) Mark 6:30. and told him all.—All that they had done and taught on the first tour which they had made under their commission. Mark 6:31-32. and rest awhile.—They needed rest, and the pressure of the crowd, so great that “they had no leisure so much as to eat,” made it impossible to rest where they were; hence the retirement “into a desert place.” Mark 6:33-34. as sheep having no shepherd.—The people were intensely excited. John had been a shepherd to them for a short time, but he had now been cruelly murdered. This event, together with the recent widespread labors of the apostles, and the vague expectations connected with Jesus, conspired to turn all eyes toward him, but he was not to be the kind of shepherd they desired. As they rushed out from every city to the desert place to which his boat was sailing, and “outwent” the ship, they might well be compared to a flock of sheep without a shepherd. began to teach.—Healing and teaching filled up the day until late in the afternoon, and the manner in which these labors are treated by the four evangelists, illustrates the striking variety of their methods as historians. Matthew says that Jesus “healed their sick,” but he says nothing of teaching (Matthew 14:14); Mark says, “he began to teach them many things,” but he says nothing of the healing; Luke mentions both (Luke 9:11); while John says nothing of either (John 6:3-5). Feeding the Five Thousand, Mark 6:35-44. (Matthew 14:15-21; Luke 9:12-17; John 6:5-14)Mark 6:37. two hundred pennyworth.—Mark and John are the only writers who mention the remark about the quantity of bread which would be needed to feed the multitude. We learn from John that Jesus first suggested the thought of buying bread by asking Philip, “Whence shall we buy bread that these may eat?” Combining the questions and answers as given by the two historians, the entire conversation which followed was this: Some of the company answered, “This is a desert place, and the time is now far spent; send them away, that they may go into the country round about, and into the villages, and buy themselves bread: for they have nothing to eat.” He answered, “Give ye them to eat.” They said, “Shall we go and buy two hundred pennyworth of bread, and give them to eat?” Philip answered (John 6:7), “Two hundred pennyworth of bread is not sufficient for them, that every one of them may take a little.” Jesus says, “How many loaves have ye? Go and see.” Andrew, after a search, answers, “There is a lad here who has five barley loaves, and two small fishes: but what are they among so many?” Jesus said, “Make the men sit down.” (John 6:8-10.) The coin incorrectly represented by “penny” is the Roman denarius, worth fifteen cents. Mark 6:39. on the green grass.—They were in a “desert place” (verses 32, 35), yet they sat down on the green grass. This shows that the places called deserts in Judea were the grazing lands at some distance from the cities. Mark 6:40. sat down in ranks.—The distribution of the people in companies of fifty and one hundred was for the purpose of convenience in waiting on them and counting them. On the other details of this paragraph, see the notes on Matthew 14:15-21, and the parallels in Luke and John. Walking on the Water, Mark 6:45-52. (Matthew 14:22-33; John 6:15-21)Mark 6:48. and would have passed by.—Here is one of Mark’s graphic touches by which he adds vividness to the description. It pictures Jesus as walking in a direction which would have missed the vessel— a circumstance which made his appearance the more mysterious to the disciples. Mark 6:52. for their heart was hardened.—They lacked that impressibility by which, having seen former miracles, they would have been prepared for those that came after. But for this, they would have so considered the miracle of the loaves as not to be amazed at the walking on the water. For other remarks on this miracle, see the notes on the parallel in Matthew, and for other details not supplied by either of these writers, see the parallel in John. Cures in Gennesaret, Mark 6:53-56. (Matthew 14:34-36)Mark 6:53-56.—A few graphic touches render Mark’s account of this visit to the land of Gennesaret more lively than Matthew’s, but the matter of the two accounts is substantially the same, and the comments thought necessary have already been made under the parallel in Matthew.

Questions by E.M. Zerr For Mark 61. What country is meant in first verse ? 2. Who followed Jesus? 3. Where did he teach ? 4. On what day ? 5. Why were the people astonished? 6. State the occupation of Jesus. 7. How many brothers did he have? 8. Were there any girls in the family? 9. Where is a prophet honored? 10. What did this hinder him from doing? 11. Why did he marvel? 12. What did he go teaching? 13. Whom did he call unto him? 14. How did he send them out? 15. State the power he gave them. 16. To what were provisions restricted? 17. Was there to be‘ house to house canvas? 18. When was dust to be used in protest? 19. Compare the chances with Sodom and Gomorrha. 20. What did they preach? 21. Tell of the works they performed. 22. Who heard of Jesus? 23. Of whom was he king? 24. What person did he think of? 25. Whom did others say he was? 26. What had Herod done to John? 27. How think this could be him? 28. What had he first done to John? 29. For whose sake had he done this? 30. What had John to do with her ? 31. Why did she not have him killed? 32. Why did Herod fear ? 33. What celebration came to pass? 34. Tell who were present. 35. What girl helped in the celebration? 36. How did she inflame Herod? 37. Tell what reward he offered her. 38. What was to be the limit? 39. State her request. 40. Was this her personal choice? 41. State the motive of her mother. 42. Why did not the king refuse her? 43. What was done immediately? 44. Tell what the disciples did. 45. State the report they made to Jesus. 46. Where did he take them? 47. State the purpose for this seclusion. 48. Did it succeed ? 49. What moved the compassion of Jesus ? 50. How did he first favor them? 51. What did he then do for them? 52. State the supplies they had. 53. And the number of the people. 54. What indicates they had sufficient? 55. Unto what city did Jesus propose their going 56. Who were to precede? 57. Dismissing the people what did Jesus do? 58. What happened to the disciples? 59. Tell what startled them. 60. At what time of the night? 61. What did they think of Jesus? 62. Repeat his words of cheer? 63. What next astonished them? 64. Describe the greeting on landing. 65. Tell what he did for the people.

Mark 6:1

1Open country means that where Nazareth was located (Matthew 4:13). The reference cited tells that Jesus adopted Capernaum as his residence and many of his mighty works were done there, but he occasionally paid a visit to his boyhood home. Let it be noted that his disciples (apostles) followed him to Nazareth.

Mark 6:2

2 From whence hath this man these things. Jesus had lived in this town until he was thirty years old and they were intimately acquainted with him. It had been but a little while since he went away, and when he came back and they saw his deeds and heard his teaching it was somewhat puzzling to them.

Mark 6:3

3 The remarks in this verse were said by way of assuring themselves of the identity of Jesus. A peculiar trait of the human mind has produced a well-known saying, “Familiarity breeds contempt.” The citizens seemed to think that one with whom they were so intimately acquainted would be unable to accomplish such a great work. (For comments on brethren see Matthew 12:46.)

Mark 6:4

4 In this verse Jesus merely states the fact commented upon in the preceding verse, without expressing any opinion on it either for or against.

Mark 6:5

5 Could is from DUNAMAI which Thayer defines, “to be able, have power,” and he explains his definition, “whether by virtue of one’s own ability and resources, or of a state of mind, or through favorable circumstances (emphasis mine, E. M. Z.),or by permission of law or custom.” The words emphasized explain in what sense Jesus could not do much in this place; the circumstances were unfavorable. The fact that he did heal “a few sick folks” shows it was no lack of ability in Jesus.

Mark 6:6

6 Jesus was divinely inspired and knew all that was in man, hence nothing could surprise him that was done by human beings. The word marvel means that Jesus took special note of the gross unbelief of the people of Nazareth and decided to go elsewhere to do his work.

Mark 6:7

7 This is sometimes referred to as “the first commission,” in contrast with “the great commission” of chapter 16:15, 16. The wisdom of working in pairs is shown by the plan Jesus used in this case. Paul frequently had one or more brethren with him as he went out into the field. Power is from EXOUSIA which means authority or right. It was fitting to use such a word because the unclean spirits were intelligent beings and could logically be addressed by commands.

Mark 6:8

8 The staff was a walking stick and would be needed from the start, hence they were permitted to provide that. A scrip was the same as a modern lunch basket. They were supposed to be given their necessities by the people among whom they worked on the ground that “the workman is worthy of his meat” (Matthew 10:10).

Mark 6:9

9 Sandals were needed immediately, like the walking stick, therefore they were permitted to provide that before starting, and one coat was placed on the same basis.

Mark 6:10

0 They were to make only one house stop in each city.

Mark 6:11

1 Shaking off the dust was an old custom practiced to indicate a feeling of disgust against a person or place; I have no information as to its origin. More tolerable . . . in the day of judgment, not afterwards. To use some everyday language, some people will have a harder time in getting past the judgment than others. The reason is that some have more and better opportunities than others.

Mark 6:12

2 They means the twelve apostles who went out under the commission as stated in verse 7. Matthew 10:7 tells us also that they preached the news that the kingdom of heaven was at hand and that repentance therefore was necessary.

Mark 6:13

3 They cast out devils by the power or authority that Jesus gave them (verse 7); and performed the other miracles by the same means. Anointing with oil is connected with healing the sick. The significance of that is expressed by one writer by saying, “Its use implied that God was the healer.” That is correct, but it does not explain how it does so. The idea is that oil of olives is no active medicine and could not effect a cure of sickness alone. The conclusion would be, then, that a greater power was working in connection with the oil. (See James 5:14.)

Mark 6:14

4 This was Herod Antipas, son of Herod the Great. His remarks about Jesus are explained in the note at Matthew 14:2 on “transmigration.”

Mark 6:15

5 The writer interrupts his story of Herod to report what some others were saying about Jesus. The same is given in the conversation Jesus had with the apostles when they came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi (Matthew 16:13-14).

Mark 6:16

6 This verse repeats verse 14 with the added statement that Herod beheaded John.

Mark 6:17

7 The persecution began with the imprisonment of John which was spite work, caused by Herodias whom he had unlawfully married, she being the wife of his brother.

Mark 6:18

8 John told Herod it was not lawful for him to have this woman. The law that he violated by that marriage is in Leviticus 18:16; Leviticus 20:21.

Mark 6:19

9 John’s rebuke especially angered Herodias who would have killed John if she could have done as she felt about it.

Mark 6:20

0 The original word for feared has a twofold meaning, depending on the way it is used. This entire verse shows a friendly attitude toward John hence it means that Herod respected him. It was this kind of fear that was in the way of the wicked designs of his wife. But as vicious a person as she can plot and accomplish her wickedness by indirect methods as we shall see.

Mark 6:21

1 Convenient is defined, “seasonable, timely, opportune.” The verse means that Herod’s birthday furnished a convenient time for the woman to carry out her plot.

Mark 6:22

2 Herodias knew the lustful character of Herod, a character that explains his willingness to take his own brother’s wife unlawfully, and she therefore conceived a plan to capture him. She instructed her daughter to go into the party and dance before the eyes of the men. It is not reasonable to suppose that Herod was a judge of “art” so that the performance of the girl impressed him from that standpoint. Besides, if that were his motive, just an expensive personal gift would have been all that she would have expected. The eastern dances were of a licentious character, displaying the figure in a way to appeal to the lustful eyes of the witnesses. Herod’s baser nature was so inflamed that he exceeded all the customs and promised to give the girl anything she might ask.

Mark 6:23

3 The man was so overcome in his passion that he did not stop with a mere promise, but backed it up with an oath, and also specified the maximum limit to which she could go in her wish which was the half of his kingdom.

Mark 6:24

4 The damsel had accomplished the satanic effect that her mother planned, and she then went to her for further instructions, and was told to ask for the head of John the Baptist. This verse states the wish in general terms and the next will be more specific to suit the horrible designs of the revengeful woman.

Mark 6:25

5 Following her mother’s instructions the girl came back into the presence of Herod and requested the head of John in a charger or large dish. By having the head in this way the wicked woman would know that she had been successful in her plot.

Mark 6:26

6 The king was sorry because he knew that John was a righteous man. But his pride of position under the eyes of the guests, together with a false notion of the sacredness of oaths, prevailed over his better judgment and feelings.

Mark 6:27

7 The executioner went to the prison and beheaded John, which was done with a sword, that being before the days of other mechanical means.

Mark 6:28

8 The head was brought in a large dish and given to the girl. That would seem to make the deal regular since she was the one who had earned the gift by her immoral performance. Of course she could do as she pleased with the award, hence she gave it to her mother who had plotted the affair.

Mark 6:29

9 His disciples means the disciples of John. All that was left for them to do was to give respectful and loving attention to the headless body. I have been unable to find any information on what became of the head of this righteous man.

Mark 6:30

0 The apostles made this report under the commission of verses 7-13.

Mark 6:31

1 The crowds were so dense that it interfered with their meals. The people kept coming and going until Jesus instructed his disciples to get away for a while.

Mark 6:32

2 They slipped away from the crowd and took a boat for a desert place.

Mark 6:33

3 But they did not escape from the eyes of all the people. They saw and recognized Jesus and were determined not to let him get entirely from them. They could not follow him in boats, but went on foot with such speed that they were at the place ahead of him and met him as he landed.

Mark 6:34

4 When he came out denotes when he left the boat and came ashore. The compassion of the Lord was always one of his ruling principles. His opinion of this mixed throng that had come out of all cities is compared to a flock that has been deserted by the shepherd. Such a group of people would furnish the kind that was hungering and thirsting after righteousness (Matthew 5:6), hence it says he began to teach.

Mark 6:35

5 The disciples finally became concerned about the comfort of the multitude. It was a desert place, which merely means it was not inhabited and hence contained no markets of any kind where food could be purchased.

Mark 6:36

6 They suggested that Jesus dismiss the people that they might go into the villages round about to buy some food, for they had not brought any such supplies when they came out there.

Mark 6:37

7 The disciples did not understand how Jesus meant for them to reed them.

Mark 6:38

8 These few loaves and fishes would not supply even a taste for all the multitude, but the lesson should be gathered that the Lord expects man to do what he can in accomplishing desired results.

Mark 6:39

9 Sit down by companies means to form groups for the orderly passing of food. Green grass does not grow where there never is any moisture, so the desert does not mean an infertile spot.

Mark 6:40

0 By hundred and fifties. This was according to the uneven condition of the land, making it more convenient to have smaller groups in some places and larger groups in others, adapting the size of the groups to the surface conditions.

Mark 6:41

1 Jesus blessed the bread by giving thanks to God for it. The reason for breaking the bread was the same for breaking it in the Lord’s Supper, and that was only because more than one person was to partake of it. Jesus handed the pieces of bread to the disciples so they could serve the multitude.

Mark 6:42

2 Jesus did not satisfy their hunger by performing a miracle on their appetite, for it says they were all filled. The miracle was in multiplying the bread as it was being passed through the crowd.

Mark 6:43

3 Another proof that no miraculous effect was given to the bread so as to satisfy the hunger, is the fact that they found all these scraps left after the meal.

Mark 6:44

4 Five thousand men, and Matthew 14:21 adds “besides women and children.”

Mark 6:45

5 Bethsaida was a town of Galilee, and Jesus gave his disciples instructions that they were to return by boat to that region, while he remained to dismiss the people so they could return to their homes.

Mark 6:46

6 Having sent the multitudes away, Jesus retired to a mountain to pray.

Mark 6:47

7 The boat had been making its way for several hours until evening overtook it. Still later in the night a severe wind came down upon the sea, blowing against the boat so that the rowers were having difficulty with the vessel. Jesus saw the situation and went to their rescue the fourth watch which was 3 A. M.

Mark 6:48

8 While it was night, it was possible to discern a form coming towards them and they were frightened. They thought it was a spirit which is from which means some kind of disembodied being with a visible form.

Mark 6:49-50

0 The familiar words, “It is I; be not afraid,” assured them of their safety.

Mark 6:51

1 The presence of Jesus in the boat had a quieting effect on the storm. The disciples were baffled by the event and overwhelmed by amazement

Mark 6:52

2 Heart was hardened means it was stunned to the extent of inaction, forgetting for the time being that Jesus had only a few hours before fed the thousands.

Mark 6:53

3 Gennesaret was a narrow strip of country on the east shore of Galilee.

Mark 6:54

4 They means the people of Gennesaret who had seen Jesus before and knew about his great works of compassion on behalf of the unfortunate.

Mark 6:55

5 The people began at once to gather up the sick folks and carry them in beds to wherever they knew that Jesus was pausing.

Mark 6:56

6 Streets is from a word that means marketplaces, not an ordinary thoroughfare as one might think. They were centers where people in all the walks of life gathered, and they expected Jesus to be there a part of the time. When he did come he was requested to let the sick people touch his clothing. Such a request was a sign of their faith and Jesus rewarded it by healing them of their diseases.