MIRACULOUS FEEDING OF THE FOUR THOUSAND

8:1-9. The report of the miracle performed on the deaf and dumb man seems to have gathered a multitude about Jesus in Decapolis, reproducing the effects of his Galilean ministry. They had been with him three days, enough to exhaust whatever provisions they had brought with them, when Jesus proposes to his disciples, as in the preceding miracle, that they feed them. They meet his proposition with the same incredulity as before, but he simply inquires how many loaves they have. They answer seven, and with these and a few fishes, Jesus proceeds to feed the multitude, numbering four thousand men alone.

The objection to the repetition of this miracle seems to be based on a misconception of our Lord’s miracles. If they were acts of thaumaturgy, intended to reveal Jesus’ power, the repetition of this miracle would seem improbable, and the similarity of the two accounts would point with some probability to their identity. But if the real object of the miracles was to meet some human need, then the recurrence of like conditions would lead to a recurrence of the miracle. And, in the life of Jesus, with its frequent resort to solitary places, and the disposition of the multitude to follow him wherever he went, the emergency of a hungry crowd in a place where supplies were not to be obtained would be certain to recur. Weiss objects that there was nothing to bring the multitude together, and that the miracle occurred at a time when Jesus had definitely closed his ministry in Galilee. But both Mt. and Mk. lead up naturally to this event, the one stating directly that he was healing the sick of all kinds of a great multitude that had resorted to him (Matthew 15:30, Matthew 15:31), and the other narrating the report of his healing of the deaf and dumb man circulated by his friends throughout the region, and the excitement created by it. Moreover, we have here, as Weiss himself admits, the results of Jesus’ previous visit to this region, and of the cure of the Gadarene demoniac, which the healed man had spread abroad in accordance with Jesus’ express command. Do we not have here a solution of the real difficulty underlying Weiss’ objection? It is true that we have in the gathering of the multitude, and the stay of three days, in which Jesus must have taught and healed, an episode in this period of retirement that is out of harmony with its evident character and design. But is not the exception justifiable? Here was a region where Jesus had been prevented from exercising his ministry by the opposition of the people, and now, on his first return to it, he finds the people in a different mood. This causes him to deflect from his purpose of retirement for a time, in order to exercise the ministry from which their previous unbelief had kept him. This seems more natural than to suppose that the evangelists created a second miracle out of certain minor variations in telling the story of the first, and then, having a miracle on their hands, proceeded to make a place for it in their narrative.

This account is found only in Mt. and Mk. The verbal resemblance of the two accounts is remarkable, the following words being identical. προσκαλεσάμενος τοὺς μαθητὰς … σπλαγχνίζομαι ἐπὶ τὸν ὄχλον, ὅτι ἤδη τρεῖς ἡμέραι προσμένουσί μοι, καὶ οὐκ ἔχουσι τί φάγωσι … ἀπολύς(ω) αὐτοὺς νήστεις, ἐκλυθ (ήσονται) ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ … οἱ μαθηταὶ … πόθεν … χορτάσαι ἄρτ(ων). ἐρημί(ας) … πόσους ἔχετε ἄρτουσ; οἱ δὲ εἶπον, ἑπτά. καὶ παρήγγειλε τῷ ὄχλῳ ἀναπεσεῖν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, και λαβὼν τοὺς ἑπτὰ ἄρτους, εὐχαριστήσας, ἔκλασεν, καὶ ἐδίδου τοῖς μαθηταῖς … τῷ ὄχλῳ … ἰχθύδια ὀλίγα, καὶ ἔφαγον καὶ ἐχορτάσθησαν … περισσεύ (ματα) κλασμάτων ἑπτὰ σπυρίδας … τετρακισχίλιοι. Among these words, νήστεις, ἐκλυθήσονται, ἐρημίας, and ἰχθύδια are peculiar, and especially the construction of ἡμέραι τρεῖς. Indeed, the occurrence of this peculiar nominative in both accounts would be enough to prove their dependence or interrelation.

1. πάλιν πολλοῦ ὄχλου ὄντος—there being again a great multitude. The reference is to the previous feeding of the five thousand (6:34); and the representation is that in this respect, the circumstances were similar. In both cases, there was a great multitude. κ. μὴ ἐχόντων τί φάγωσι1—and not having anything to eat; this is another circumstance in which the two events were similar.

πάλιν πολλοῦ, instead of παμπολλοῦ, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. א BDGLMN Δ 1, 13, 28, 33, 69, etc. Latt. Memph.

προσκαλεσάμενος τοὺς μαθητὰς λέγει—having called his disciples, he says.

Omit ὁ Ἰησοῦς after προσκαλεσάμενος, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. א ABDKLMN ΔΠ 1, 33, most mss. Lat. Vet. Vulg. Memph. Syrr. Omit αὐτοῦ after τοὺς μαθητὰς, Tisch. Treg. WH. א DLN Δ 1, 28, 209, Latt. Memph. Harcl.

2. Σπλαγχνίζομαι ἐπὶ τὸν ὄχλον ὅτι ἤδη ἡμέραι τρεῖς προσμένουσί μοι1—I have compassion on the multitude because already they remain with me three days.

ἡμέραι, instead of ἡμέρας, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. א ALNX ΓΠ etc. B ἡμέραις τρισὶ.

This three days’ stay of the multitude means of course that Jesus had been deflected from his purpose of retirement during this time, and had been drawn into his ordinary work of teaching and healing. And the sequence of events would indicate that the gathering was caused by the report of the miracle upon the deaf and dumb man.

3. νήστεις—fasting. ἐκλυθήσονται—they will be exhausted.2 καί τινες αὐτῶν ἀπὸ μακρόθεν3 ἥκασι4—and some of them have come from a distance. This is an additional reason for not sending them away, not the reason of their exhaustion, as in TR.

καὶ τινες, instead of τινὲς γὰρ, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. א BL Δ 1, 13, 28, 33, 209, one ms. Lat. Vet. Memph. Insert ἀπὸ before μακρόθεν, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. א BDL Δ 1, 13, 28, 33, 69, 209, 346 (Latt.).

4. Ὅτι πόθεν τούτους δυνήσεταί τις ὥδε χορτάσαι ἄρτων ἐπʼ ἐρημίας;—Whence will any one be able to feed these with bread here in the wilderness? This failure of the disciples to recall the previous miracle is one of the really strong reasons for doubting the repetition of the miracle. The objection is valid; the stupid repetition of the question is psychologically impossible. But this does not disprove the repetition of the miracle, only this incident in it. All things considered, it is very much more probable that the accounts got mixed in this particular, than that one miracle should be multiplied into two. So Meyer. χορτάσαι5 ἐπʼ ἐρημίας—literally, on a desert place; i.e. an uninhabited place, where there are no supplies to be bought.

5. Καὶ ἠρώτα—And he asked. Οἱ δὲ εἶπαν—And they said.

ἠρώτα, instead of ἐπηρώτα, Tisch. Treg. WH. א BL Δ. εἶπαν, instead of εἶπον, Tisch. Treg. WH. א BN Δ.

6. Καὶ παραγγέλλει—And he gives orders for the multitude to recline. The verb is used to denote the transmission of orders through subordinates.1

παραγγέλλει, instead of παρήγγειλε, gave orders, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. א BDL Δ one ms. Lat. Vet.

εὐχαριστήσας—having given thanks. We have in this word one side of the invocation at meals, and in εὐλογήσας below, the other, the invocation of blessing on the food.2

ἵνα παρατιθῶσιν—to set before them.

παρατιθῶσιν, instead of παραθῶσι, א BCLM Δ 13, 33, 69, 346.

7. Καὶ εἶχαν ἰχθύδια3 ὀλίγα καὶ εὐλογήσας αὐτὰ εἶπε καὶ ταῦτα παρατιθέναι—And they had a few little fishes; and having blessed them, he commanded to place these before them also.

εἶχαν, instead of εἶχον, Tisch. Treg. WH. א BD Δ. Insert αὐτὰ after εὐλογήσας Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. א BCL Δ 6 10, 28, 116, Memph. καὶ ταῦτα παρατιθέναι, instead of παραθεῖναι καὶ αὐτά, Treg. WH. RV. א BL Δ, also DM marg. παρατιθέναι, and C 115, one ms. Lat. Vet. καὶ ταῦτα.

8. Καὶ ἔφαγον—And they ate.

καὶ ἔφαγον, instead of ἔφαγον δέ, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. א BCDL Δ 1, 28, 33, 40, 124, Latt. Memph. Pesh.

περισσέυματα κλασμάτων—literally, remnants of fragments; i.e. consisting of fragments. σπυρίδας—On this, and the κόφινοι used to collect the fragments in the feeding of the five thousand, see on 6:43.

9. ἦσαν δὲ ὡς τετρακισχίλιοι—and they were about four thousand.

Omit οἱ φάγοντες, those eating, Tisch. (Treg.) WH. RV. א BL Δ 33, Memph.

JESUS CROSSES TO THE WEST SHORE OF THE LAKE TO DALMANUTHA, AND THE PHARISEES RENEW THEIR ATTACK ON HIM, DEMANDING A SIGN FROM HEAVEN

10-13. After finishing his work in Decapolis, Jesus gets into the boat kept for his use by the disciples, and crosses to the region of Dalmanutha, several miles south of his usual resort. But he does not escape the hostile vigilance of the Pharisees (Mt. says, Sadducees also), who gather about, demanding a sign from heaven, different from the terrestrial signs to which he has confined himself. Jesus asks merely, why this generation (of all generations) asks for a sign, and solemnly declares that no sign shall be given it.

10. τὸ πλοῖον—the boat constantly in attendance on him, 3:9, 4:36, 6:32. Δαλμανουθά—Nothing is known of this place, which is not mentioned elsewhere. Probably, it was a small village near Magadan (Magdala), which is the place mentioned in the parallel account, Matthew 15:39. This would make it on the west shore of the lake, and in the southern part of the plain of Gennesareth.

11. ἐξῆλθον οἱ Φαρισαῖοι—the Pharisees came out. Jesus has been absent in Gentile territory since his dispute with the Pharisees about the washing of hands, 7:1 sqq., and now, immediately on his return, they are on his track again. They came out, Meyer says, from their residences in the neighborhood. But see Morison’s Note. All explanations are conjectural and uncertain. Mt. couples together Pharisees and Sadducees, and the same in the warning against their leaven which follows. This is ominous of the final situation in Jerusalem, when the combination of the party of the priests and of the Scribes brought about his fate. συνζητεῖν αὐτῷ—to discuss with him.1

σημεῖον ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ—a sign from heaven. This was one of their cavils, like their attributing Jesus’ casting out of demons to the power of the prince of demons, by which they sought to discredit the miracles performed by him. They made a distinction between miracles that might be explained by reference to some supernatural power operating here in the world, and distinct from God, and those which came visibly from heaven, i.e. from the sky. The kind of signs demanded by them we find in the eschatological discourse, ch. 13, this being what they had been led to expect in connection with the Messianic period. See 13:24, 25. The miracles performed by Jesus were none of them, they thought, from this source. They were walking on the water, creating earthly food, healing human diseases, and so confined to this world. What they wanted was a voice from heaven, or anything coming from above. πειράζοντες αὐτόν—testing him. They wanted to put his power to perform miracles, or to produce them, to the test, and to see if he was able to give them a sign in which there should be no possibility of collusion with the powers that rule this lower world. The uniform use of tempt to translate this verb is very misleading.

12. ἀναστενάξας τῷ πνεύματι—having groaned in spirit, i.e. inwardly, not audibly. Τί ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη ζητεῖ σημεῖον;—Why does this generation seek a sign?

ζητεῖ σημεῖον, instead of σημεῖον ἐπιζητεῖ, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. א BCDL Δ 1, 28, 33, 118, 209.

εἰ δοθήσεται … σημεῖον—if a sign shall be given—! This is a case of suppressed apodosis, and is a common Hebrew form of oath or asseveration.1 By σημεῖον is meant a work which has either for its object, or result, the proof of the Divine presence and power. This is a denial that his own miracles had this purpose. All of them were uses of Divine power, but not displays of it. Any self-respecting man will refuse to show himself off, but he will constantly do things having other legitimate objects, which do show incidentally his intelligence, or strength, or goodness. This is the attitude of Jesus. He refuses to do anything merely as a sign, and yet his life was full of signs; nay, it was a sign, he himself was the sign. Indeed, the only element about his miracles which will save them from the general disbelief of the miraculous is the consonance of their objects with the character of Jesus. No one could have devised the story of a miracle-working person, and have kept the story true to Jesus’ principles and character. The wonderful thing about the miracles is that the Divine power shown in them is kept to uses befitting the Divine Being. τῇ γενεᾷ ταύτῃ—to this generation. Jesus refuses especially to give a sign to that generation. It was an age full of signs; it was the period of the Incarnation, and yet its leaders went about asking for signs, and refused to believe the self-witness of the Son of God.

WARNING AGAINST THE LEAVEN OF THE PHARISEES AND OF HEROD

13-21. Jesus does not remain in this hostile region, but crosses again to the east side. On the way, he warns the disciples against the unspiritual influences of the Pharisees—men who ask him for a sign—and, in order that they may not go from formalism to irreligion, also against the leaven of Herod. The disciples, who had forgotten to take bread, think that he is speaking of literal leaven. Whereupon, Jesus asks them if they are as dull as the rest to his spiritual meanings, and if they have forgotten how easily he provided for the lack of material food.

13. ἐμβὰς πάλιν, ἀπῆλθεν—having embarked again, he departed.

Omit εἰς τὸ πλοῖον, in the boat, Tisch. WH. RV. א BCL Δ mss. of Latt.

Ὁρᾶτε, βλέπετε ἀπὸ τῆς ζύμης—Take heed, beware of the leaven.1

The word ζύμη is used figuratively in Bib. Greek for a pervasive influence, either good or bad, though generally the latter, owing to the ceremonial depreciation of leaven among the Hebrews. The leaven of the Pharisees is their general spirit, including hypocrisy, ostentation, pride, formalism, pettiness, and the like; cf. Mat_23. Here, where Jesus is fresh from his controversy with them about signs, the thing specially in his mind would be the spirit that leads them to ask for a sign, when his whole life and teaching was a sign. It would be, in a word, their unspirituality, their blindness to spiritual things, which led them to seek outward proof of inward realities. The leaven of Herod, on the other hand, was worldliness. The Herods were professed Jews, who sought to leaven Judaism with the customs of heathenism. They represented the escape from the rigors and scruples of Pharisaism into the license and irreligion of the world, instead of into the freedom of a spiritual religion. But the escape from spiritual blindness does not lie that way.

16. Καὶ διελογίζοντο πρὸς ἀλλήλους, Ὅτι ἄρτους οὐκ ἔχομεν (ἔχουσιν)—And they reasoned with each other, (it is) because we have (or they have) no bread. Probably, with either ἔχομεν or ἔχουσιν, ὅτι is causal, and there is an ellipsis of the principal clause.

Omit λέγοντες, saying, after πρὸς ἀλλήλους, Tisch. Treg. WH. א BD 1, 28, 209, mss. Lat. Vet. ἔχουσιν, instead of ἔχομεν, Treg. WH. RV.marg. B 1, 28, 209, two mss. Lat. Vet. Memph., also D mss. Lat. Vet. (quod panes non haberent).

The disciples were themselves so blind spiritually, that they attributed a material sense to Christ’s spiritual sayings. They thought that he was warning them, in the very spirit of the Pharisees themselves, against food contaminated by them. Their thoughts were on their neglect to take bread, and so leaven, or yeast, suggested to them bread.

17. Καὶ γνοὺς λέγει αὐτοῖς, Τί διαλογίζεσθε, ὅτι ἄρτους οὐκ ἔχετε;—And perceiving it, he says to them, Why do you reason (it is), because you have no bread?

Omit ὁ Ἰησοῦς, before λέγει, Tisch. (Treg.) WH. א B Δ* one ms. Lat. Vet. Memph.

πεπωρωμένην ἔχετε τὴν καρδίαν ὑμῶν;—have you your understanding dulled?1

18, 19. Tisch. punctuates these verses so that they read, Having eyes do you not see, and having ears do you not hear, and do you not remember, when I broke the five loaves among the five thousand, and how many baskets full of fragments you took up? WH. read, Having eyes do you not see, and having ears do you not hear? And do you not remember, when I broke the five loaves among the five thousand, how many baskets full of fragments you took up? This latter punctuation is the most probable.

Insert καὶ before πόσους, Tisch. א CDM Δ 1, 33, mss. of Latt.

By his reference to the miracles of feeding the five thousand, and the four thousand, Jesus means to remind them that he has shown them his ability to provide for their lack of bread in an emergency, so that they need not fix their thoughts on that, nor think that his mind is occupied with it. The question about the baskets of broken pieces is intended to suggest the bounty of the provision made. It is noticeable that the distinction between σπυρίδες and κόφινοι in the two miracles is kept up here in Jesus` allusion to them.

20. καὶ λέγουσιν (αὐτῷ), Ἑπτά—And they say (to him), seven.

καὶ λέγουσιν, instead of οἱ δὲ εἶπον, and they said, Tisch. א one ms. Lat. Vet. Pesh. καἰ λέγουσιν αὐτῷ, Treg. marg. WH. RV. BCL Δ 115, two mss. Latt. Memph.

21. οὔπω συνίετε;—Do you not yet understand?

Omit πῶς, How, Tisch. WH. RV. א CKL ΔΠ 1, 118, 127, 209, one ms. Lat. Vet. οὔπω, instead of οὐ, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. א ACDgr. LMNUX ΔΠ mss. Lat. Vet. Syrr.

HEALING OF A BLIND MAN AT BETHSAIDA

22-26. Jesus and his disciples land at Bethsaida, on the cast side of the lake. There a blind man is brought him to be healed with the usual touch. But Jesus, still in quest of retirement, and so more than ever anxious to avoid the notoriety attending his miracles, takes the man outside of the village. He employs the same signs to tell him what is being done for him as in the case of the deaf and dumb man in Decapolis. But here, for the first and only time, there is something to obstruct the immediateness of the cure, and at first, the man sees only men looking like trees walking about. Jesus laid his hands again upon his eyes, and the man saw clearly. Then Jesus, in order to prevent the story spreading, ordered him not even to enter the village where he is known.

22. καὶ ἔρχονται εἰς Βηθσαϊδάν—And they come to Bethsaida.

καὶ ἔρχονται, instead of ἔρχεται, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. א BCDL Δ 13, 28, 33, 69, 124, 346, Latt. Memph.

23. ἐξήνεγκεν αὐτὸν ἔξω τῆς κῶμης—he brought him outside of the village. In the only other miracle recorded by Mk. alone (7:31-37), there is this same privacy observed. The two coming together at the same period of our Lord’s life would seem to indicate that there was some reason for the peculiarity common to them both, arising from the critical character of the period in his life. It was not the period of his miracles, nor of his public teachings, but of retirement with his disciples; and hence the even unusual secrecy attending such miracles as he did perform. πτύσας—having spit. This also is peculiar to this pair of miracles.

ἐξήνεγκεν, instead of ἐξήγαγεν, he led him out, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBCL 33.

ἐπηρώτα αὐτὸν εἴ τι βλέπεις;—he asked him, do you see anything?1

This reading, instead of εἴ τι βλέπει, if he sees anything, Treg. marg. WH. non marg. RV. BCD* gr. Δ Memph.

24. βλέπω τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ὅτι, etc.—The AV., I see men as trees walking, ignores this ὅτι. RV., I see men; for I see them as trees walking. That is, what would otherwise be taken by him for trees he knows to be men by their walking around. This indistinctness of vision is due not to the confusion of his ideas arising from his previous blindness, but to the incompleteness of his cure. This is the single case of a gradual cure in our Lord’s life, and the narrative gives us no clue to the meaning of it. But we have no right to argue from this single case that gradualness was the ordinary method of Jesus’ cures.2

25. Εἶτα πάλιν ἐπέθηκε (ἔθηκεν)—then again he laid.

ἔθηκεν, instead of ἐπέθηκε, Treg. WH. BL.

καὶ διέβλεψεν, καὶ ἀπεκατέστη, καὶ ἐνέβλεπεν δηλαυγῶς ἅπαντα—and he looked fixedly, and was restored, and saw all things clearly.

διέβλεψεν, instead of ἐποίησεν αὐτὸν ἀναβλέψαι, he made him look up, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. א BC* L Δ 1, 28, 209, 346 (one ms. Lat. Vet. Memph.). ἀπεκατέστη, instead of ἀποκατεστάθη, Tisch. Treg. WH. א BCL Δ. δηλαυγῶς, instead of τηλαυγῶς, Tisch. WH. marg. א* CL Δ (33 δήλως). ἅπαντα, all things, instead of ἄπαντας, all men, Tisch. Treg. WH. א BC* DLM ? Δ 1, 13, 69, mss. Lat. Vet. Vulg. Syrr. Memph.

διέβλεψεν denotes the act of fixing his eyes on things, by which he would be able to distinguish them. δηλαυγῶς is compounded of δῆλος and αὐγή, and denotes clearness of vision. τηλαυγῶς, TR., denotes distant sight.1

26. Μηδὲ εἰς τὴν κώμην εἰσελθῇς—do not even go into the village. The man was to return to his house, which was outside of the village, and so far from publishing his cure in the village, he was not even to enter it.

Omit μηδὲ εἴπῃς τινὶ ἐν κώμῃ, nor tell it to any one in the village, Tisch. (Treg. marg.) RV. WH. א * and c BL 1, 209, Memph.2

Attention should be called to the characteristics of the two miracles narrated by Mk. alone, both of which, moreover, belong to the period of Jesus’ retirement, and to localities inhabited by a mixed Jewish and heathen population, and unfrequented by him in his previous ministry. In both the healing of the deaf and dumb man in Decapolis, and that of the blind man at Bethsaida, Jesus takes the man aside before performing the cure, and uses spittle on the parts affected. In the second, the healing of the blind man, the cure is gradual. As to the withdrawal from the multitude, the purpose is obvious. The miracles belong to the period of retirement, and Jesus takes more than usual pains to guard against notoriety. A secondary effect, if not purpose, in the case of the deaf and dumb man, would be to fix his attention on what Jesus was about to do for him. As to the use of the spittle, it is commonly regarded as extraordinary, and naturally so, as these are the only cases in the Synoptical Gospels in which Jesus employs any other means than the laying on of hands. In the case of the deaf and dumb man, the reason for this exceptional treatment appears in the condition of the man. The thrusting of the hands into the man’s ears, the spitting into them, the looking up to heaven, are the language of signs, by which Jesus seeks to awaken the faith of the man necessary to his cure. Certainly the thrusting of the hands into his ears is that, and the rest goes along with this symbolical act. In the case of the blind man, extraordinary conditions are not lacking, though not of the same kind. Jesus is in an unfamiliar region, and the man’s blindness withdraws him more or less from even the knowledge that those about him would have of this extraordinary personage. In these circumstances, Jesus uses something more than the ordinary laying on of hands, which would tell its story so quickly to a Jew accustomed to his ordinary procedure, and substitutes what we may call a more elaborate and significant ritual of cure. The gradualness of the cure in this case would arise out of the same extraordinary conditions. Jesus is contending here against a dull, slow-moving faith, which hinders the ordinary immediateness of the cure. This explanation matches the extraordinary methods and process of the cure with the extraordinary conditions of the case.

On the other hand, Weiss, ignoring the peculiar conditions, treats both the process and the gradualness of the cure as representing Jesus’ ordinary method and the rationale of the miracles. These are the two cases, he says, in which Mk. goes into details in telling the story of the miracles, and the matter contained in them, therefore, is to be read into the other accounts. The difficulty in this is to account for the choice of these two isolated cases for the introduction of these details. It is easy to account for them as peculiarities belonging to an exceptional period in the life of Jesus, but not at all easy to account for the choice of these, the very last of the miracles, to bring out material belonging to them all, but hitherto unrelated by Mk., and omitted altogether in the other evangelists. Moreover, it is very singular that this gradual cure occurs in the Gospel which emphasizes most the immediateness of the cures. Out of the eleven miracles of healing recorded in Mk., five speak directly of the immediateness of the cure, and of the rest three give circumstances implying the same. And yet, we are told that in this Gospel, the one account of gradual cure establishes the form to which the others must be conformed. As for the use of the spittle, that is treated as an actual means of cure, not as a symbol or sign. So Meyer. However, it is allowed that the curative power infused into this came from above. And this again is normal, telling us what really happened in the other cases. A means, which yet has no power in itself, only what is infused into it supernaturally. This is truly a tertium quid, and as long as it introduces into the miracles nothing of the nature of a secondary cause, it may be ranked among the curiosities of religious speculation.

JESUS GOES WITH HIS DISCIPLES INTO THE REGION OF CÆSAREA PHILIPPI. PETER’S CONFESSION OF JESUS AS THE MESSIAH

27-30. Jesus having landed at Bethsaida, proceeds to Cæsarea Philippi, at the foot of Mt. Hermon, a region hitherto unvisited by him. On the journey here he gains the privacy for which he had been seeking, and questions the disciples as to what men say about him. They tell him that he is called variously John the Baptist; Elijah, and one of the prophets. Then comes the question for which all his life with them had prepared the way, what title they are ready to give him. Peter, speaking for the rest, says, Thou art the Messiah. But Jesus, having drawn this confession from them, charges them to tell no one else.

27. εἰς τ. κώμας Καισαρίας τῆς Φιλίππου—into the villages of Cæsarea Philippi. Mt. says, into the parts of Cæsarea Philippi. The district is called here by the name of its principal city, and the villages were those belonging to that district. The city is near the sources of the Jordan, about 25 miles north of the lake of Galilee. Panium was the original name of the city, from the god Pan, who had a sanctuary here. The town was enlarged and beautified by Herod Philip, tetrarch of Trachonitis, to whose territory it belonged, and was given its new name in honor of the emperor and of himself. Philippi distinguishes it from Cæsarea on the coast. It marks the most northern part of our Lord’s journeyings, except Tyre and Sidon. His coming here was for the general purpose of his later Galilean ministry, to talk with his disciples in retirement of the approaching crisis in his life. Τίνα με λέγουσιν οἱ ἄνθρωποι εἶναι;—Who do men say that I am? This is the first time that Jesus has approached this question, even in the circle of his disciples. The characteristic of his teaching has been its impersonality His subject has been the Kingdom of God, its law, the conditions of membership in it, but not the person of its King. He has made approaches to this personal subject in the announcement of the coming of the kingdom, implying the presence of the King, and has made a veiled claim to the title in calling himself the Son of Man, but these hints and suggestions have been all. We should be inclined to call his styling himself the Son of Man something more than a veiled claim, if it were not that the people and rulers were manifestly in doubt, as this very event shows, as to the nature of his claim. This constitutes the great difference between the Synoptical Gospels and the fourth Gospel, since in the latter, Jesus discourses principally about himself and his claim.

28. εἶπαν αὐτῷ λέγοντες—they told him, saying. The verb and the participle are so nearly identical in meaning, that their juxta-position here is quite difficult to account for. On the different answers to the question of Jesus,—John the Baptist, Elijah, one of the prophets, see on 6:14.

εἶπαν instead of ἀπεκρίθησαν, answered, Tisch. Treg. marg. WH. εἶπον RV. א BC* and 2 L Δ one ms. Lat. Vet. Memph. Pesh. Insert αὐτῷ λέγοντες, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. א BC* DL Δ 13, 28, 69, 124, 282, 346, mss. Lat. Vet. Vulg. Memph. ὅτι εἷς τῶν προφητῶν, instead of ἕνα τ. π. Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. א BC* L Memph.

29. Καὶ αὐτὸς ἐπηρώτα αὐτούς—And he asked them.

ἐπηρώτα αύτούς, instead of λέγει αύτοῖς, he says to them, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. א BC* DL Δ 53 mss. Lat. Vet.

Ὑμεῖς δὲ τίνα με λέγετε εἶναι;—But who do you say that I am? Ὑμεῖς is emphatic in itself, and by its position.1 When the announcement of Jesus’ Messianic character is made, it does not come from himself, but is drawn out of the disciples by this question. He would have them enjoy the blessedness of not receiving it from flesh and blood, i.e. by oral communication, even from himself, but of that inward reception by silent communication from the Father which is the only source of true knowledge of spiritual things. See Matthew 16:17. He manifested himself to them, admitting them to an intimate companionship and intercourse with himself; and when he had made his impression on them, he drew from them the confession made under the guidance of the Spirit, that he was no inferior and preparatory personage in the Messianic Kingdom, but the King himself. Here, as everywhere, Jesus’ method is the truly spiritual one, that depends very little on external helps, but on the silent movings of the Spirit of God. ὁ Πέτρος λέγει—This is the first time in the Gospel that Peter appears as the spokesman of the disciples. Σὺ εἶ ὁ χριστός—thou art the Christ. On the meaning of χριστός, see on 1:1.

30. ἵνα μηδενὶ λέγωσιν—that they tell no one. The silence that Jesus enjoins on them is due to the same reasons as his own silence up to this time, and his breaking it only when he was alone with them. It was esoteric doctrine as yet, that only those could receive, who knew something about the Messianic office on the one hand, and about the person of Jesus on the other. In the prevalent misconception of the Messiah, such an announcement would work only disaster. The time was coming for it, but when it did come, the tragedy of Jesus’ life followed immediately.

JESUS PREDICTS HIS CRUCIFIXION. PETER REBUKES HIM, AND JESUS REPELS THE EVIL SPIRIT WHO SPEAKS THROUGH HIM

31-33. After drawing out from his disciples the confession of his Messianic claim, Jesus proceeds to tell them how that claim will be treated by the authorities. In general, it will bring him much suffering, and finally his rejection and violent death at the hands of the Sanhedrim, from which, however, he will be raised after three days. Peter, who evidently regards this as a confession of defeat, and as vacating the claim just made, takes Jesus aside, and begins to rebuke him. But Jesus, recognizing in this the very spirit of the Temptation, meets rebuke with rebuke, telling Peter that he is acting the part of the Tempter, and that he reflects the mind of men, not of God.

31. ἤρξατο διδάσκειν—he began to teach. This is a true beginning, being the first teaching of this kind.1 δεῖ—it is necessary. The necessity arises, first, from the hostility of men; secondly, from the spiritual nature of his work, which made it impossible for him to oppose force to force; and thirdly, from the providential purpose of God, who made the death of Jesus the central thing in redemption. But in order to take its place in the Divine order, his death must come in the human, natural order. That is to say, his death is the natural result of the antagonism of his holy nature to the world; it is the martyr’s death. But it has also a Divine purpose in it, and it is necessary to the accomplishment of that purpose. The Divine purpose can use, however, only the death that results from the human necessity, the martyr’s death. Jesus must be put to death by man. τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου1 πολλὰ παθεῖν—that the Son of Man suffer many things. This is the general statement, under which the rejection and death are specifications. ὑπὸ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων καὶ τῶν ἀρχιερέων κ. τῶν γραμματέων—by the elders and the chief priests and the Scribes.

ὑπὸ, by, instead of ἀπὸ,2 Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. א BCDGKL Π. Insert τῶν, the, before ἀρχιερέων Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. א BCDEHMSUVX, and before γραμματέων Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. א BCDEFHLSMUV Γ.

Elders was the general term for the members of the Sanhedrim, and when used as it is here, with the names of classes comprised in that body, it denotes, of course, the other members outside of these classes. The chief priests were members of the high-priestly class, i.e. either the high priest himself, those who had held the office, or members of the privileged families from which the high priests were taken. The three classes together constituted the Sanhedrim, or supreme council of the Jews, by which Jesus predicts that he is to be rejected and put to death.3 καὶ μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας ἀναστῆναι—and after three days rise again. This is one of the psychological problems with which we are confronted in a history generally answering with considerable exactness to such tests. For when we come to the account of the resurrection, this prophecy plays no part. The event, when it takes place, does not recall the prophecy, and is met with a persistent unbelief which does not seem in any way consonant with the existence of such a prophecy. It would seem as if Jesus must have used language here, which the disciples did not understand, until after the resurrection itself, to refer to that event. That Jesus predicted the crucifixion and resurrection, there does not seem to be any reasonable doubt. But we find variations in the details, which suggest that these were supplied by the writers, post eventum, and that the prediction itself was general in its character. Moreover, we find in the eschatological discourse, that Jesus’ language needs a key, and we seem forced to the supposition that the utter failure of the disciples to understand the present prophecy must have been due to a like enigmatical use of language. παρῥησίᾳ—without any reserve, using entire frankness of speech. Now that the time had come for Jesus to speak about this, he spoke out frankly.

32. προσλαβόμενος αὐτόν—having taken him aside. Peter could not understand plain speech about a matter to be spoken of only under his breath. Metaphorically, he puts his finger on his lips, and says Hush. He does not wish further open discussion of so dangerous a topic, and so he takes Jesus aside even to remonstrate with him. ἐπιτιμᾷν—to rebuke. Such an idea as his master had announced was not only to be refuted, but rebuked as unworthy of him. This would be the way in which he would reconcile it with his sense of his Lord’s dignity to rebuke him; a thing that he would not think of doing except as he thought that Jesus was himself underrating that dignity. He had just allowed the Messianic claim made for him by the disciples, and now he seemed to be predicting defeat, whereas it belonged to the Messiah not to be defeated.

33. ἐπιστραφείς—having turned, that is, upon Peter. But as he turned on him, it brought the rest of the disciples to view, and having seen the effect of Peter’s action on them, he was moved to special plainness of speech. ἐπετίμησε Πέτρῳ καὶ λέγει—he rebuked Peter and says. Notice the repetition of the ἐπιτιμᾷν of v. 32. Peter had assumed to rebuke him, and now he rebukes Peter.

καὶ λέγει, instead of λέγων, saying, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. א BCL Δ two mss. Lat. Vet. Memph. Pesh.

Ὕπαγε ὀπίσω μου—Ὕπαγε denotes withdrawal, get away. And the whole phrase means, Get out of my sight. Σατανᾶ—Satan. Our Lord is not calling names here, but indicating in strong language the part that Peter is playing. He is putting temptation in our Lord’s way, and is so acting the rôle of Satan. Jesus recognizes that it is not Peter in propria persona that is speaking, but the Spirit of evil speaking through him, just as he recognized the invisible Tempter in the wilderness (Matthew 4:10). φρονεῖς—thou thinkest not, thou dost not regard. φρονεῖν τά τινος means to side with one.1 Peter did not keep in mind God’s purposes, but men’s. He did not look at things as God looks at them, but as men regard them, and hence he played the part of the Adversary, the Tempter. And it was not a minor and incidental temptation, but the great thing that separates God’s ways and man’s, the temptation to consider himself, instead of imitating God’s self-sacrifice.

JESUS TEACHES THE MULTITUDE THAT THE SELF-SACRIFICE PRACTISED BY HIMSELF IS THE NECESSARY CONDITION OF DISCIPLESHIP

34-9:1. Jesus now calls up the multitude, having closed the purely esoteric part of his teaching, relating to his own fate, and teaches them that the condition of discipleship is self-denial, and following him even to death. He bases this on the general principle that to lose life is to save it, and to save it is to lose it. And there is no profit in gaining the whole world and losing one’s life, because that is an irreparable loss. Nothing will buy it back. These ultimate gains and losses follow a man’s attitude towards Him because the Son of Man is to return in the glory of his Father, and will then be ashamed of the man who is now ashamed of Him.

34. τὸν ὄχλον—the multitude. It seems from this, that in spite of his being away from his usual place of work, and in heathen territory, Jesus was surrounded by a crowd of people. And his language implies that they had some knowledge of him. Εἴ τις θέλει ὀπίσω μου ἀκολουθεῖν—If any one wishes to follow after me. A figurative expression of discipleship.1

Εἴ τις, instead of ὅστις, Treg. WH. RV. א BC* DL Δ Latt. Harcl. marg. ἀκολουθεῖν, instead of ἐλθεῖν, Tisch. Treg. C* DX 1, 28, most mss. Lat. Vet. Vulg. The rare combination, found elsewhere only Matthew 10:38, is fairly conclusive of the originality of the reading.

ἀπαρνησάσθω ἑαυτὸν—let him deny himself. The person is made here the direct object of the verb, not the indirect. He is not to deny something to himself, but he is to renounce himself. He is to cease to make himself the object of his life and action. The verb is the same that is used to denote Peter’s denial of his Master, and means to deny that one stands in a supposed relation to another, and hence to reject, or renounce. To deny self is therefore to deny the relation of self-interest and control which a man is supposed to hold to himself, in the interest of humanity and of God; in other words, to renounce himself. It is the negative side of the command to love, and like that, does not refer to special acts, but to a change of the fundamental principle of life. κ. ἀράτω τὸν σταυρὸν αὐτοῦ—and take up his cross. This is a phase, the extreme phase of the self-denial which Jesus has just demanded. Let him deny himself, and carry out that self-denial even to death. The cross does not mean here any disagreeable thing, but the instrument of death. The criminal carried his own cross to the place of execution, and so, to take up the cross means to go to the place of death. The equivalent of it in our language would be to go to the gallows or the stake. The idea is, that a disciple is to follow the example of Jesus in giving up everything, even life itself, that belongs to the selfish interests, sooner than anything belonging to the higher purposes of life. κ. ἀκολουθείτω μοι—and follow me. This is not a third thing added to the self-denial and cross-bearing, but a repetition of the ὀπίσω μου ἀκολουθεῖν of the conditional part of the sentence. The meaning is, that in these two things, self-denial and cross-bearing, is to be found the way to follow him.

35. Ὃς γὰρ ἐὰν θέλῃ—For whoever wishes.1 ὃς δʼ ἂν ἀπολέσει— but whoever shall lose.2 σώσει αὐτήν (omit οὗτος, this one) will save it.

ἐὰν before θέλῃ, instead of ἄν, Tisch. Treg. WH. א BCKM ΔΠ 1, 28, 33. ἀπολέσει, instead of ἀπολέσῃ, Tisch. Treg. WH. א BCD 2 ΓΔ Omit οὗτος before σώσει, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. א ABC* DLM* X ΔΠ Latt. Memph. Syrr.

Jesus has just bidden them to sacrifice even their lives, and this gives the reason for that bidding, showing them that this is really the way to save their lives. The paradox consists in the two meanings of the word life. In the first clause, it means the bodily life, and in the second, the true life of the spirit, which is independent of that bodily condition. The general principle is, that there is no such thing as ultimate loss in the kingdom of God. And in this case, a man loses his life only to receive it again enriched and multiplied. He sacrifices himself so far as he is identified with lower interests, only to become absorbed in higher and larger interests, in righteousness and love, in God and man. ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ καὶ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου—for the sake of me and of the Gospel. Here we have the higher objects stated, for which a man sacrifices himself, and in which the merely personal life is absorbed. He becomes absorbed, in the first place, in a higher personality, that of Jesus, the Redeemer, and the head of the Messianic kingdom, who represents interests human and universal. And all personal interests become merged in those of the Gospel, the glad-tidings that Jesus brings, that the kingdom of God is coming. This coming is involved in the advent of its king.3 It is as a man loses himself in so great and high things, that he finds himself, and as he sacrifices his life in their behalf, that he saves it. Only in such things is there any true life.

36. τί γὰρ ὠφελεῖ ἄνθρωπον κερδῆσαι … καὶ ζημιωθῆναι …;—for what does it profit a man to gain …, and to forfeit …?

ὦφελεῖ, instead of ὠφελήσει, Tisch. WH. RV. א BL mss. Lat. Vet. Pesh. κερδῆσαι, instead of ἐὰν κερδήσῃ, and ζημιωθῆναι, instead of ἐὰν ζημιωθῇ, Tisch. WH. RV. א BL.

ζημιωθῆναι—to forfeit. The word commonly means to lose by way of penalty, to forfeit. The argument is carried forward here no longer in the contrast between the two lives, the ψυχή in its two senses, but in the contrast between the ψυχή and the κόσμος. And this is pertinent, because the earthly life is measured generally by outward gains, while the spiritual life is valued for itself. In the one, a man is worth dollars and cents, in the other, his worth is a matter of his own excellence, the quality and range of his being. The question is thus between that life which consists mainly in having, and that which consists in being. And to be, in the true sense, means to have the life of God in us. The contrast is made as strong as possible by making the gain the κόσμος, the sum total of things.

37. Τί γὰρ δοῖ1—For what shall a man give? ἀντάλλαγμα—as an exchange. The questions means, if a man has forfeited his life, by what price or ransom can he buy it back? It is the rhetorical form of saying that the loss is irrevocable. It is the irrevocableness of the loss that makes the gain to be nothing by its side. The whole world, if a man had it, would not buy back his life, if he lost it.

τί γὰρ, instead of ἣ τί, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. א BL Δ 28, one ms. Lat. Vet. Memph. δοῖ, instead of δώσει, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. א* B (אc L δῷ) ἐὰν, instead of ἂν, Tisch. Treg. WH. א BCEFLMVX ΓΔ.

38. ὃς γὰρ ἐὰν—for whoever.2 The argument does not connect this with the special statement that immediately precedes, but with the entire statement of which that forms a part. It shows how these general statements are to be applied to man’s relations to Christ; how these relations can affect their lives so profoundly—a question that might easily be suggested to his listeners by the amazing character of his assumptions. The present situation, he says, is to be changed. He who seems to them now so easily to be set aside is to appear eventually as the Son of Man, coming in the glory of his Father, with the holy angels. Now, they are ashamed of him, it may be; then he will be ashamed of them. The announcement of Jesus’ Messiahship (v. 29) is followed immediately by the prophecy of his humiliation and death; and that by the statement that life and death hang upon the acceptance and imitation of him; now this is justified by the prophecy of his reign. Verily, Jesus’ reticence about himself, that has been so characteristic of his teaching so far, is here broken. μοιχαλἰδι—adulterous. The figure represents sin as unfaithfulness to the close relation in which God seeks to put man to himself. It is a favorite figure of the prophets.

1 The participle here is plural, because it belongs with a noun of multitude, which is taken distributively. In τί φάγωσι, we have the pronoun and the mood of direct discourse. τί is irregularly substituted for ὅτι, the indirect interrogative. The mood is quite regular. See Win. 25, 1. Goodwin, Greek Moods and Tenses, 71. μὴ relates this not only as a fact, but as it lay in Jesus’ mind and influenced his action.

Tisch. Tischendorf.

Treg. Tregelles.

WH. Westcott and Hort.

RV. Revised Version.

אԠCodex Sinaiticus.

B Codex Vaticanus.

D Codex Ephraemi.

G Codex Wolfi A.

L Codex Regius.

M Codex Campianus.

N Codex Purpureus.

Δ̠Codex Sangallensis

1 .Codex Basiliensis

13 Codex Regius.

28 Codex Regius.

33 Codex Regius.

69 Codex Leicestrensis.

Latt. Latin Versions.

Memph. Memphitic.

A Codex Alexandrinus.

K Codex Cyprius.

Π̠Codex Petropolitianus

Lat. Vet. Vetus Latina.

Vulg. Vulgate.

Syrr. Syriac Versions.

209 An unnamed, valuable manuscript.

Harcl. Harclean.

1 On σπλαγχνίζομαι, see on 1:41. ἡμέραι τρεῖς is an elliptical construction for the acc. of duration of time. We say, “it is three days, they remain with me.” Win. 62, 2.

Γ̠Codex Tischendorfianus

2 Both these words are peculiar. νήστεις is a good Greek word, but is found in the N.T. only here and in the parallel passage, Matthew 15:32. The same is true of ἐκλυθήσονται in this sense of exhaustion.

3 This adverb itself belongs to later Greek, and the combination of prep. and adverb is also late. With an adverb of this ending, moreover, the prep. is superfluous. Win. 54, 1. 65, 2.

4 This perf, from ἥκω is late. Thay.-Grm. Lex.

346 Codex Ambrosianus.

5 See on 6:42.

1 Thay.-Grm. Lex., under κελεύω.

2 See on 6:41.

C Codex Bezae.

3 On the form εἶχαν, see Thay.-Grm. Lex. ἰχθύδια is found in the N.T. only here and in the parallel (Matthew 15:34).

marg. Revided Version marg.

Pesh. Peshito.

1 The proper meaning of συζητεῖν is to search or inquire in company. This meaning discuss is peculiar to the N.T.

1 See Win. 55, Note at end.

1 This meaning of βλέπειν is foreign to the verb in earlier Greek, and the construction with ἀπό is borrowed from the Heb. It is a pregnant construction, and is resolvable into look to yourselves, and so keep from. Win. 32, 1, note.

1 On the meaning of πωροῦν τῆν καρδίαν, see on 3:5.

U Codex Nanianus.

1 This use of εἰ in direct questions is not found in classical Greek, but belongs to the N.T. period. Win. 57, 2.

AV. Authorised Version.

2 So Weiss, Life of Jesus, 2, 97, 3, 23.

1 δηλαυγῶς is a rare word.

2 The translation of μηδὲ … μηδὲ, neither … nor, AV., is wrong. μηδέ is disjunctive, and the first μηδέ is to be rendered Not even. Win. 55, 6 a).

1 Win. 22, 6.

1 Thay.-Grm. Lex.

1 See on 2:28.

2 On the distinction between ὑπό and ἀπό after passives, see Win. 47 b) Note.

E Codex Basiliensis.

H Codex Wolfi B.

S Codex Vaticanus.

V Codex Mosquensis.

F Codex Borelli.

3 See Schürer, N. Zg. II. I. III. IV.

1 Thay.-Grm. Lex.

1 See on 1:17-20. The use of ὀπίσω after ἀκολουθεῖν is a Hebraism. Win. 33, Note. Thay.-Grm. Lex.

1 On the use of ἐὰν for ἄν after relatives, see Win. 42, Note at end. Also footnote2, p. 158.

2 On the fut. ind. with ὄς ἃν, see Burton, 308, who notes it as a N.T. use. Win. 42, 3 b, cites only LXX. passages, as the N.T. passages occur only in the various critical texts. There is a use of the future indicative in classical Greek with ἄν, but not in conditional or relative clauses. And there is a use of the future in conditional relative clauses, but without ἄν. This construction is therefore anomalous. See Goodwin, Greek Moods and Tenses, 61, 3, Note; 50, 1, Note 1; 37, 2, Note 1.

3 See on 1:1, 14, 15; cf. Matthew 4:23, Matthew 9:35, Matthew 24:14.

1 An irregular form of sec. aor. subj. for δῷ. The mood is that of deliberative questions. Win. 41 a, 4 b.

2 This use of ἐὰν for ἂν is due to the use of ἄν as a contracted form of ἐάν, leading to a mistaken use of the two as interchangeable. See Thay.-Grm. Lex.