Mark 9

CHAPTER IX

Mark 9:1

1 The first verse is in reality the conclusion of the last section of chapter 8. And he went on to say to them, Amen, I say to you, there are certain ones of those standing here who shall in no way taste of death until they shall see the kingdom of God having come in power.

What Jesus says in warning about the final judgment in 8:38 is sealed by the assurance that some of those standing right here (ὧδε) in the crowd shall see the beginning of that judgment before they die. With ἔλεγε (see 4:11) Mark separates this saying of Jesus from the rest and makes it stand out by itself. It begins with the solemn formula of verity (“amen”) and of authority (“I say to you”), see 3:28. Jesus seals doubly what he now reveals. The perfect of ἵστημι, here the participle ἑστηκότων, is always used in the present sense: “of those standing here.” Some will, of course, die during the interval, but some will live to see what Jesus foretells. The relative clause introduced by οἵτινες has the futuristic subjunctive γεύσωνται (R. 955, on Matt. 16:28); hence we have the negation with οὐμή, “in no way” (emphatic).

To taste of death is an expression that refers to the bitterness of death. This remains even for the disciples of Jesus because they are still sinners.

For how long a time death shall spare these persons is stated by the ἕως clause: “until they shall see the kingdom of God having come in power.” They shall see it not only in the act of coming thus but also after it has come thus (ἐληλυθυῖαν, the perfect participle); the construction is indirect discourse, R. 1123. When Matthew writes “till they shall see the Son of man coming in his kingdom,” the sense is the same, especially when we observe that the kingdom is always where the King, the Son of man, is, for the kingdom is his rule of grace and of power; see the full explanation of the kingdom in 1:15. The Son of man was now present with Israel in grace, but even in the lifetime of some of his present hearers the mighty rule of his kingdom would arrive “in power,” i. e., power to destroy with judgment.

Jesus spoke repeatedly of this coming of himself and his kingdom, in 13:30 and in Matt. 26:64, and we have his own interpretation in Matt. 22:7 and in 23:38, 39. Jesus speaks here of the destruction of Jerusalem and the expulsion of the Jews from Palestine. That coming “in power” with judgment on the nation began with the war that started in the year 66 and ended in the year 70 with 90, 000 Jews being sold into slavery and the nation being abolished as a nation. This judgment marked a definite turning point in the gospel that transferred it from the obdurate Jews to the receptive Gentiles. Moreover, the fulfillment of this preliminary prophecy concerning the Jews was to be a seal of fulfillment of that greater prophecy concerning the end of the world and the final judgment, when the kingdom would reach its consummation.

It is unwarranted to have Jesus say that the end of the world will come before some of his present hearers are dead, for 13:32 assures us that the time of the end is not known even by Jesus. Because 8:38 speaks of the judgment on the last day is no reason 9:1 must do the same. Spiritualizing the coming of the kingdom is out of place. The Parousia of Christ may be viewed in a narrow sense, as referring to his coming at the end of the world, but also in a wider sense, as including the preliminary judgments, in particular that visited upon the Jews. The ordinary workings of the kingdom are invisible, but in this judgment upon the Jews the royal rule of Jesus “in power” would actually be seen as fulfilling what he now tells his hearers.

“Jesus thus used the word concerning his coming once and again (Matt. 10:23; 16:28) so as to combine the preparatory beginnings of the end (Matt. 24:8, 32, etc.; Luke 21:28, 31), after the manner of prophetic speech, with the supreme point of the final events, his Parousia.… To say that Jesus erred in this and prophesied falsely appears, in view of the more detailed prophecies, separating more sharply the individual features of the picture of the future, to be just as foolish as if someone would call the Baptist a false prophet because the kingdom whose nearness he preached was not at once realized as completely as he pictured and described its coming.” Zahn, Evangelium des Matthaeus, 673.

Mark 9:2

2 And after six days Jesus takes along Peter and James and John and brings them up into a high mountain in private alone.

When we read the narratives of Mark and of Matthew, it is worth noting that the latter, who was himself not present, has points in his narrative that are lacking in that of the former, who had received his account from Peter, one of those who were present. It is quite impossible to prove that Matthew was dependent on Mark, also vice versa. Each repeats independently, with great exactness, what the three witnesses, Peter, James, and John, originally reported. The exact interval of time is given, “after six days,” in order to connect the new occurrence with what precedes in 8:27–38. Jesus is preparing his apostles for the close of his earthly life and work. So he adds to the great confession of his Messiahship (and deity, Matthew) recorded in 8:29 the announcement of his Passion in 8:31 and the words that end with the judgment in 8:34–9:1, this wonderful visual revelation of his divine glory. Luke has only the approximate interval, “about eight days,” meaning about a week.

The verb παραλαμβάνειν means “to take to oneself,” “to take along.” Jesus selects these three disciples to go along with him and brings them up into a high mountain (the height being mentioned especially), away from everybody else, including their fellow disciples, κατʼ ἰδίαν (the common idiomatic phrase), “in private,” where they are wholly by themselves, μόνους, “alone.” Peter, James, and John form the inner circle among the Twelve who were selected by Jesus himself as special witnesses in 5:37, here, and in Matt. 26:37. Only these three were to see and to hear what was now to be revealed, for the testimony of two or three witnesses is sufficient.

By the way in which Jesus takes them to this mountain height he shows clearly that he knows in advance what will happen there. The disciples had confessed the deity of Jesus through their spokesman Peter (8:29; Matt. 16:16). These three are now to see Jesus in the glory of the Son of God. In addition to all the evidence of his deity which they had already received he will now show himself to them transformed in actual heavenly glory. In 2 Pet. 1:16–18 Peter himself stresses the great revelation that was thus vouchsafed to him.

The efforts to identify the “high mountain” are quite futile. Not until v. 30 do we read that Jesus went through Galilee, and in v. 33 that he came to Capernaum, which makes it rather certain that he had not at this time come as far south as the traditional site of the transfiguration, Mt. Tabor. Others think of the slopes of the great Mt. Hermon, which, however, seems to be entirely too far north. It is sufficient to think of one of the highest ridges in the mountainous region not far from Cæsarea Philippi, where we know that Jesus was at this time (8:27).

Mark 9:3

3 And he was transformed before them. And his garments became glistening, very white, such as a fuller on earth is not able so to whiten.

Luke adds that this happened while Jesus was praying, and we may note that many of the great moments in the life of Jesus are marked by prayer. The Transfiguration was a transaction between the Father and his beloved Son incarnate, who always received everything from that Father. Jesus did not ask to be transfigured just as he did not ask to have the Spirit descend upon him as a dove. But knowing the Father’s intention, Jesus ascended the mountain and brought along the needed witnesses.

The passive aorist μετεμορφώθη simply records the fact and involves the Father as the agent. Moreover, the noun μορφή, from which the verb is derived, always denotes the essential form, not a mask or transient appearance but the form that goes with the very nature. So the actual μορφή of Jesus was changed; he underwent an actual metamorphosis. God did this to him right “before them,” in the actual presence of the disciples. In 9:29–31 Luke records the transfiguration and in v. 32 states that the disciples were heavy with sleep, yet carefully adds that, having been aroused and being wide-awake, they saw his glory and Moses and Elijah standing with him. Perhaps the communing of Jesus with the Father continued for a while so that the disciples sat down and began to doze and were entirely unconscious of what was about to transpire. Then suddenly, as with sleepy eyes they looked up at Jesus standing a little distance from them, they beheld the wondrous change.

The body and the human nature of Jesus were glorified. Mark says nothing about the countenance, and Luke only that it became other (ἐγένετοἕτερον). Matthew reports that “it shone like the sun,” which should not be passed over as lightly as is generally done. The three aorists in Matthew and the two in Mark report objective facts, actual changes in Jesus himself and not something that was merely subjective, that occurred only in the minds of the three disciples. The natural explanation of rationalists that the rays of the sun lighted up the face and the clothes of Jesus while he was standing on an elevation is untenable. When the disciples looked at the countenance of Jesus they saw a refulgence that was as brilliant and dazzling as the sun itself.

And this extended to his entire form, for his very garments had the translucent whiteness of pure light. Mark alone has the note: “such as a fuller on earth is not able to whiten,” intending to say that the whiteness was altogether superearthly. Instead of thinking of the radiance on the face of Moses (Exod. 34:29; 2 Cor. 3:13), as some do, we have far more reason to think of John’s vision of Jesus as recorded in Rev. 1:13–15.

The philosophizings on this transfiguration are of little value. Thus the alternative whether the transfigured body was a donum superadditum or a donum naturale brings in a dogmatical distinction that applies to the image of God in the creation of man but is of little help when it is applied to the transfiguration. Peter writes (2 Pet. 1:16): “We were eyewitnesses of his majesty” (μεγαλειότης). John 1:14 adds: “We beheld his glory, glory as of the Only-begotten, from the Father.” It was the same body and human nature that the Virgin bore, but joined in that birth to the nature and the person of the second person of the Godhead. By virtue of this union the human nature shared in the divine attributes, but during the days of the humiliation used these attributes only on exceptional occasions as when it was performing the miracles. One of these occasions was the transfiguration, when the whole body of Jesus was allowed to shine with the light and refulgence of its heavenly divinity.

Jesus now shines thus in heaven forever. Of the holy city (heaven) it is said: “The Lamb is the light thereof,” Rev. 21:23.

A remarkable feature is the fact that the earthly clothes which Jesus wore were transfigured as was his countenance. It may sound deep and impressive to speak of a process that was now so far advanced as to permit his divine spirit (he had only a human spirit!) to shine out through his body. The Scripture knows nothing of such speculation. The disappearance of the glory after the transfiguration nullifies this idea of a process, and does it in spite of the specious explanation that this disappearance was only an element in the process and in the final result of permanent glorification yet to be achieved. Jesus came to his final glorification through no process between his spirit and his body or between his divine and his human natures. From his conception onward he was the very Son of God, and here on the mount his divine glory was for a little while permitted to shine out through his body.

Mark 9:4

4 And there appeared unto them Elijah with Moses, and they were speaking to Jesus.

The verb ὄπτεομαι is used regarding the appearance of angels (Luke 1:11; Acts 7:35), of God (Acts 7:2, 30), of Jesus to Paul (Acts 9:17), and of other manifestations; Young, Concordance, lists all the passages. The passive with the dative means: “was seen by them.” These two also appeared (were seen) “in glory,” Luke 9:30. The effort to make their appearance merely subjective, occurring in the minds of the beholders, is as futile as is the same effort regarding the glorious appearance of Jesus. The synoptists place Moses in the more prominent place; Mark has Elijah appear “with Moses.” This is done because Moses is, indeed, the greater. Moses and Elijah stood beside Jesus, were talking with him (συλλαλοῦντες), and were seen by the three witnesses just as they saw Jesus himself. They were sent by God from heaven and thus came “in glory” as the saints appear in heaven.

As regards all three, Jesus, Moses, and Elijah, their glorious appearance occurred in a form which was subdued sufficiently for the earthly eyes of the disciples to behold it without becoming blinded. Here again speculation introduces a spiritual process: the three disciples had advanced in this process sufficiently to see this vision, i.e., this inward picture, but not actual realities. But this view opens the door to all sorts of religious hallucinations on the part of those who deem themselves sufficiently advanced in holiness.

The question is inevitable as to why just these two, Moses and Elijah, appeared. The best answer seems to be: Moses as the great representative of the law, Elijah as the great representative of prophecy. Both are outstanding figures of the Old Testament, and both represent prophecy as well as law. Moses stands at the head of Israel’s history, Elijah appears when Israel had declined so that only 7, 000 remained who had not bowed to idolatry. The days of Elijah were like those which Jesus found, when all the rulers and the great mass of the people had lost the true faith and had abandoned God. The observation that the appearances of these two with Jesus intended to assure the disciples that the death of Jesus was in perfect accord with the Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah may be accepted as correct; the disciples had other ideas and found the death of Jesus a great skandalon.

How did the three disciples recognize Moses and Elijah? Certainly not by the correspondence of their features and their dress with ideas which the disciples and the Jews had formed concerning their looks. Nor do we hear that the disciples had to wait until Jesus afterward told them who these two glorified men were. A far better answer is that the saints in heaven need not be introduced and named to us but are known at once through an intuition that is wrought by God. If anything beyond this is needed, it is the fact that when God makes a revelation he makes it fully by conveying to the beholder all that he is to know. Elijah ascended bodily to heaven and thus undoubtedly appeared here in his glorified body.

There is much speculation in regard to Moses. According to Deut. 34:5, 6 he died and his body was buried in an unknown place by God himself. We know of no transfer of his body to heaven. Only the soul of Moses has entered heaven. We brush aside the speculation that prior to the final resurrection the souls of the saints in heaven are clothed temporarily with some kind of a heavenly body; 2 Cor. 5:1, etc., furnishes no support for this view, for note v. 8, “absent from the body.” Like the angels, the saints in heaven have no bodies of any kind, yet when an angel is sent to men on earth he is seen and heard (16:5, etc.) and performs various acts. In the same way God sent Moses who was both seen and heard and left again with Elijah.

It is Luke alone who tells us about the subject of the conversation between Jesus and the two heavenly visitors: “the ἔξοδος (outgoing or final outcome) which he was about to fulfill (πληροῦν) in Jerusalem,” which is usually taken to mean “the decease” or death, yet the word includes all that Jesus indicated in 8:31 plus the resurrection, for his death and resurrection always go together. We fail to see why some think that the disciples only saw Moses and Elijah talking with Jesus but did not hear what was said and learned about this later from Jesus. There is nothing in the three records which would indicate that. The transfiguration was surely intended for the three disciples as witnesses and, as all that precedes and all that follows show, intended to cast light on the death and the resurrection of Jesus. Why, then, should the conversation have been withheld from the disciples?

Mark 9:5

5 And answering, Peter says to Jesus, Rabbi, excellent it is for us to be here! And let us make three booths, for thee one, and for Moses one, and for Elijah one. For he knew not what he answered, for they became afraid.

Ἀποκριθείς expresses action that is simultaneous with that of λέγει as it did in 8:29 (R. 861). The participle is used in the wider sense. No one had spoken to Peter, all three disciples merely watched with great intentness. Then Peter speaks. He merely responds to the situation; what he says indicates his reaction to his great experience. He addresses only Jesus, his beloved and now so glorious Master.

What he says is valuable in one respect. He feels it is καλόν to be here, and the simple positive “excellent” is more expressive than the comparative or superlative would be. “The positive represents the highest absolute idea of a quality and cannot therefore be increased,” quoted by R. 661. Peter felt as if he and his fellow disciples were very near to heaven. Though they were filled with deep awe they knew themselves to be in the presence of heavenly glory, and that Jesus was glorified so unspeakably in divine majesty (2 Pet. 1:16), and two dwellers of heaven were also in glory (Luke 9:31). Peter’s one desire was to prolong this experience; hence his suggestion that, if it please Jesus (Matthew), they construct three booths, one for each glorious person. The volitive subjunctive ποιήσωμεν is hortative (read R. 930, etc.), which asks the consent of Jesus and in the subject “we” in the verb includes him in so far as he would be giving his consent.

When Matthew writes the future singular ποιήσω, “I will make,” he shows just what Petermeant: he would manage the work of erecting the booths.

Peter says nothing of shelter for the disciples because he perhaps felt so humble that he and the other two disciples would lie out in the open. The idea that Peter is placing Moses and Elijah on a level with Jesus and is thus introducing saint worship could hardly have entered Peter’s head. It is improper to make ἡμᾶς emphatic: “It is a good thing that we (disciples) are here”—we can build booths for you. Since καλόν is impersonal, the subject of εἶναι must be written out. Since Peter is addressing Jesus, “we” naturally includes Jesus and not only the three disciples. Matthew records the address to Jesus as being Κύριε, Lord; Mark as Ῥαββί, “Rabbi,” my Master; Luke as Ἐπιστάτα, “Master,” chief, commander. These titles are synonymous, each evangelist translates the Aramaic in his own way.

Mark 9:6

6 It is Mark alone who, with an explanatory γάρ, helps us to understand this suggestion of Peter’s. Luke says too little. Peter was talking foolishly, “he was not knowing what he did answer.” The past perfect ᾔδει is always used as an imperfect and here describes Peter’s condition. The other two disciples were silent, but forward Peter had to say something. The clause “what he answered” is in indirect discourse and retains the deliberative subjunctive of the direct question (R. 1044): “What did I answer?” (R. 1028). The foolishness of Peter’s words lies in the idea that beings who are in such an exalted state would need shelter for the night as men do in their ordinary state of being.

With a second γάρ Mark explains still further: “for they became afraid,” all of the disciples, including Peter, ἐκφοβοι, “sore afraid” (our versions). The disciples were so overcome by the presence of the glorious persons before them that even Peter could not control his thinking; he just babbled what came to his tongue, something that was quite unfitting and thus foolish. That is why Jesus gave him no answer, perhaps never even looked at him, other more important things were transpiring.

Mark 9:7

7 And there came a cloud overshadowing them; and there came a voice out of the cloud, This is my Son, the Beloved! Be hearing him!

The cloud was bright (Matthew), which indicated the beneficent presence of the Father; not dark so as to threaten. This cloud did not come slowly but suddenly, while Peter was still speaking, before the words were entirely out of his mouth (Matthew, also Luke). Here we have an instance where the other two synoptists, especially Matthew, are more specific (Matthew even dramatic with two “lo”) than Mark. The cloud overshadowed them all, i. e., enveloped them for a brief time.

Then out of the cloud there came a voice which was that of the Father himself, judging from what the voice said. All the synoptists agree on what the voice said except that Luke substitutes ἐκλελεγμένος for ἀγαπητός. This is the same voice as the one that spoke from heaven at the baptism of Jesus. By use of the third person οὖτος the Father addresses the words, not to Jesus, but to the others present, in particular to the three disciples. The Father once more acknowledges Jesus as his Son, the Beloved, and does so again directly, by his own voice.

Ὁυἱόςμουὁἀγαπητός is explained at length in 1:11, which see. When Luke writes ὁἐκλελεγμένος, “the one that has been elected” and thus now stands as such, he interprets ὁἀγαπητός, “the one who is beloved.” God chose his Son for the great work of redemption; he was well pleased in him (1:11), i.e., to choose him thus. He is on the mount still the Father’s Elect, doing perfectly the task for which he was chosen. Thus he is “the Beloved,” all the great love of the Father rests upon him.

“Him be hearing!”—this is the word order in the Greek. The present imperative means “hear constantly”; and the genitive αὐτοῦ indicates the person to be heard whereas an accusative would denote the thing to be heard. On this command, as transmitted already through Moses, compare Deut. 18:15, last clause, and especially v. 18, 19 with its threat against those who fail or refuse to hear Christ. “Him be hearing!” stands to this day. The Father himself has put this seal upon every word of Jesus. This is the confirmation by God himself of Peter’s great confession recorded in 8:29, God’s own attestation of the deity of the Son who is to die and to rise again (8:31). As far as Jesus and the Father were concerned, they certainly left nothing undone to prepare the disciples for what was impending.

Mark 9:8

8 And suddenly having looked around, they no longer saw anyone except Jesus only in company with themselves.

Mark’s account is very brief. When they heard the voice the disciples fell on their faces in great fear. Not until Jesus touched them did they arise. Then they looked around and saw no one except Jesus with them—Moses and Elijah had disappeared. The question is asked why, when the same voice speaks at the baptism of Jesus, no one falls prostrate, and when it speaks at the transfiguration, all three disciples fall on their faces. The situations differ greatly.

Jesus is now transfigured, his countenance is shining like the sun, etc., Moses and Elijah are present in glory, then comes the sudden, radiant cloud and the voice of God right out of the cloud—all this proved too much for mortal man. From their prone position the three suddenly looked up after Jesus touched them and bade them arise without fear. Moses and Elijah and the cloud were gone, removed by the same almighty power that had brought them. All they saw was just Jesus by himself in his natural state in company with themselves.

Mark 9:9

9 And while they were going down from the mountain he gave them strict orders to recount to no one what they saw except when the Son of man should rise from the dead.

We cannot agree with the view that they were allowed to tell the rest of the Twelve; for why, then, had the other nine not also been allowed to be present? We now see why Jesus took only these three—the rest were not to know as yet. The reason for thus restricting the witnesses of the transfiguration is not difficult to find. Even the disciples had wrong expectations concerning the Messiah. If the story of the transfiguration had been spread abroad, these wrong, fleshly expectations would have been fanned into flames and would have caused a great deal of harm.

The lips of the chosen witnesses were sealed regarding this revelation for the very same reason that Jesus so constantly avoided the title “Messiah” which had been associated with fanciful and extravagant political ideas of earthly grandeur. Yet the transfiguration and what went with it took place as part of the great foundation of faith. It is one of the major acts of our salvation. It established the fact that Jesus was the Son of God, and did this not by word alone or by inference from deeds (miracles) but by withdrawing the veil from his divine glory. He who would die and rise again for our redemption, who thus walked in lowliness in the fashion of man, let the divine majesty (2 Pet. 1:16) and glory which belonged to his person and through it also to his human nature and body, shine forth for a little while for these witnesses to behold. Heaven sent its great saints to confer familiarly with him. The Father sealed the scene with his personal attestation.

The time to tell it all was fast approaching. We have Peter’s record in 2 Pet. 1:16, 17. According to Matthew, Jesus calls what had been seen τὸὅραμα, “the vision.” It is, however, uncalled for on the strength of this term to reduce it to a mere subjective experience without objective reality. For Mark calls this vision ἃεἶδον, “what they saw,” and Luke τὰἑωράκασι, “the things they have seen.” This “vision” is like that which Moses saw in Exod. 3:2; Acts 7:31. The open and waking eyes beheld the actual realities; this alone comports with the three narratives of the Gospels. Note that Jesus calls himself “the Son of man” (see 2:10). When his resurrection finally occurred it made this vision and many other things plain. Till then the lips of the three were to remain sealed.

The phrase ἐκνεκρῶν denotes separation and nothing more, R. 598. The absence of the article points to the quality of the dead as dead and not to so many individuals who had been left behind; and the sense of the phrase is “from death.” In the interest of the doctrine of a double resurrection the effort is made to gain the meaning “out from among the dead.” Linguistically and doctrinally this is untenable. When it is applied to the unique resurrection of Jesus, this is at once apparent; the idea is not that he left the other dead behind but that he passed “from death” to a glorious life.

No wonder ἐκνεκρῶν is never used with reference to the ungodly. The phrase is used 35 times with reference to Christ, a few times figuratively with reference to other persons, and twice with reference to the resurrection of many, Luke 20:35 and Mark 12:25, where the phrase can have no other meaning than it has in the other passages. As he did in 8:31, Jesus uses the active ἀναστῇ, “should rise,” i. e., rise by his own power. Both expressions are used with reference to Jesus; it is said that he should himself arise, and that he should be raised by the Father; this is done according to the Biblical rule: Opera ad extra sunt indivisa aut communa.

Mark 9:10

10 And they fastened on the word by disputing with each other what the rising from the dead is.

The translation of our versions: “they kept the saying,” is inaccurate. This would require a verb like τηρεῖν. The sense is also misconceived, namely that the disciples observed the command to tell no one what they had seen and heard. What Mark reports is that the three disciples took hold of the word concerning the rising of Jesus from the dead. They fastened (ἐκράτησαν) on this by disputing about its meaning. Observe that συνζητοῦντες explains how they fastened on this word: they did it “by disputing” about its meaning. And they did it πρὸςἐαυτούς, “over against themselves,” they said nothing to Jesus. This took place while they were coming down from the mountain, before they reached the other disciples.

Mark lets us know that the disciples could not conceive of Jesus’ rising from the dead even when they fastened on this rising by disputing about it among themselves. “What the rising from the dead is” refers, not to the resurrection in general, but to the rising which Jesus predicated of himself. Note that τὸἐκνεκρῶνἀναστῆναι repeats the ἐκνεκρῶνἀναστῇ used in v. 9. This is the context, to which we should keep. The Jews knew about the final resurrection of the dead; regarding that fact the disciples would not dispute. Nor had the word of Jesus referred to the resurrection at the end of the world, when God would raise up all the dead. Jesus had twice (8:31) spoken of himself as rising from the dead, and that this would occur three days after his having been killed.

That was a different matter. If Jesus wanted to rise again, why would he permit himself to be killed? Were these expressions literal or were they figurative? How could the Son of God be killed? And if he could not be killed, how could he rise from the dead? The disciples wrestled with this problem but could not get into the clear regarding it.

Mark 9:11

11 And they went on to inquire of him, saying, The scribes say, Elijah must first come.

We regard both ὅτι as recitative. R. 730 regards the second ὅτι as a conjunction: “the scribes say that,” etc. The main dispute centers about the first ὅτι, which many, even the versions, cf. the A. V., regard as an interrogative particle: “Why do the scribes say,” etc.? by reading ὅτι as an abbreviation of τίὅτι, B.-D.300, 2. The reason for this is plain: they think that ἐπηρώτων, “they went on to inquire of him,” must be followed by a question in regular question form. But this is by no means necessary. The disciples make a statement and quote what the scribes say; and this statement invites Jesus to say what he thinks of it. If we have two recitative ὅτι, all difficulty disappears unless one is pedantic about demanding a regular question.

By thus speaking of Elijah the disciples are not turning to a new subject or dropping their dispute about Jesus’ rising from the dead. The connection is plain: if Elijah has come and must come first, ahead of the Messiah, to prepare the way for him, why, then, must Jesus suffer, die, and then rise again? The disciples had just seen Elijah with their own eyes; he had come and was again gone. Was this the fulfillment of Mal. 4:5, 6? Was this what the scribes taught in the synagogues? It did not seem sufficient—and yet, Elijah had surely appeared to them in his own person and had talked to Jesus, talked to him about the outcome (ἔξοδος, Luke 9:31) in Jerusalem.

What adds to the perplexity of the disciples is the fact that they are to say nothing about what they had seen, nothing even about Elijah. If the appearance of Elijah, which the disciples had just witnessed, was the one expected by Israel according to prophecy, it would seem that it should be publicly proclaimed instead of being concealed in silence. The disciples thus state the teaching of the scribes on Elijah’s coming πρῶτον, ahead of the Messiah, and invite Jesus to express himself regarding what the disciples could not understand. The expectation was that Elijah would first teach the Jews, settle all their disputed questions, give them again the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod which bloomed, etc.

Mark 9:12

12 That this is the meaning of the inquiry is evident from the answer which Jesus gives. But he said to them, Elijah, having come first, restores all things; and how has it been written on the Son of man that he shall suffer many things and be set at naught? But I say to you that both Elijah has come, and that they did to him what things they willed even as it has been written on him.

In his answer Jesus adopts the formula that was commonly used for stating doctrines and principles, namely the present tense; R. 870 on Matt. 17:11 calls it prophetic. Jesus intends to say: “It is a fact, Elijah, having come first, restores all things.” Jesus even adopts the expression “restores all things” from the scribes although the disciples had not used it. The scribes, of course, understood this in their own way as we have indicated above; Jesus referred it to the work of the Baptist which was a spiritual restoration, a bringing back the hearts of the people to God in true repentance and faith. “Everything” is mended and restored when this spiritual renewal is wrought. Without it all outward reforms and restorations are in vain.

Note how Jesus shifts the emphasis. The disciples stressed “must come” and said no more; Jesus makes the coming secondary by using only a participle to refer to it, ἐλθών, and puts the stress on the work of Elijah by using a finite verb, ἀποκαθιστᾷ, to refer to this. The English cannot reproduce the delicate μέν which implies a following δέ or a thought that is balanced with the one expressed with μέν. Μέν is not “indeed”; it only hints at a corresponding thought which is to follow.

This thought is found in the question about what is written concerning himself. It is joined with καί in the sense of “and yet” it has been written. When Jesus asks: “How has it been written on the Son of man that he shall suffer many things and be set at naught?” he places beside the prophecy concerning Elijah, which the scribes stated correctly, this second prophecy concerning himself and his Passion. Jesus asks: “How is this?” The fact of this second prophecy is, of course, beyond dispute. What Jesus asks is how this prophecy, including its fulfillment, is connected with the other prophecy, including also its fulfillment, about Elijah’s coming and work. This is the whole problem, Elijah’s work and the Son of man’s Passion go together. The former cannot be understood without the latter, and what the fate of the former was throws light on the latter.

The perfect γέγραπται is regularly used for Scripture references: “it has been written and now stands thus written” and can never be changed. On “the Son of man” see 2:10. Jesus summarizes what he said in 8:31. The verb ἐξουδενεῖν means to consider as οὐδέν, “nothing.” It here includes the total rejection and the death of Jesus (8:31; Isa. 53:3). Note ἐπί, “on the Son of man,” and again in v. 13, “on him,” which regard Jesus and the Baptist as subjects on which something was written.

Mark 9:13

13 The problem, thus stated in full, is now solved in the briefest and most masterly way. Matthew’s account is more interpretative but is the same in substance and partly in expression. “But I say to you” puts the entire authority of Jesus back of the solution he offers. The scribes said only that Elijah must come; Jesus says far more: both that Elijah has come, and that they did to him whatever they willed, καὶ … καὶ == “both … and.” The emphasis is on the tense: “has come.” Elijah’s coming is already past, his whole career from start to finish can now be viewed; ἐλήλυθε is much like γέγραπται. The fact that this is not the Elijah the disciples saw on the mount is flashed on their minds by the addition: “and they did to him what things they willed.” Both aorists are historical. The plural subject of the verbs is purposely left indefinite because the disciples knew only too well who was meant. “Did to him,” etc., is likewise veiled. Matthew says that they never even recognized him.

What the Jewish authorities did to John the Baptist we see in John 1:19, etc.; Luke 7:30; they accepted neither his baptism nor his teaching. When Herod arrested him and even when he murdered him, no protest was raised. In this way they treated him as they pleased. Matthew adds that the disciples now understood that Jesus was speaking of the Baptist.

But the disciples are not to think that all this happened accidentally to the Baptist, or that the will of his enemies was supreme in what they did to him. All that happened to the Baptist came about “even as it has been written on him.” Where? In 1 Kings 19, where Elijah is threatened regarding his life by Jezebel, the type of Herodias. The point to be noted is found in the two parallel expressions: “how has it been written on the Son of man” and: “even as it has been written on him” (the Baptist). What was written on the Baptist was fulfilled; what was written on Jesus would thus most surely also be fulfilled. The answer to πῶς, “how has it been written?” is thus plain: in the same way as on the Baptist, to be fulfilled most exactly just as the fulfillment came in the case of the Baptist. Matthew states this directly: “Thus also the Son of man is about to suffer at their hands.” Once more, then, we see Jesus expounding his approaching Passion and death to his disciples.

Mark 9:14

14 All three synoptists follow the account of the transfiguration with that of the healing of the epileptic, demoniac boy. The miracle itself is evidently not the chief point of the narrative, but the unbelief of the disciples, which prevented them from healing the boy, is. Observe the contrast: Jesus transfigured in his divine glory, the nine disciples still hampered by unbelief. Poignant is the complaint of Jesus which permits us to see with what discouragement he had to approach his Passion. This burden, too, he had to bear. Jesus heals the boy and then speaks a mighty word regarding faith, the fulness of which would be realized after his resurrection. His sadness at the moment is relieved by the prospect of the future near at hand.

And having come to the disciples, they saw a great multitude around them, and scribes disputing with them. And immediately all the multitude, when they saw him, greatly amazed and running to him, began to salute him.

Mark paints the scene with full detail although Luke adds that it occurred the next day. Jesus and the three disciples who witnessed the transfiguration finally arrived at the place where the other nine disciples were and found a great multitude around them and scribes (see 7:1) engaged in disputing with these disciples.

Mark 9:15

15 When the multitude saw Jesus they were greatly amazed (ἐκ intensifies the verb). The reason is his unexpected arrival at this critical juncture. We have no reason to think that a heavenly radiance, left over from the transfiguration, still shone from the face and the body of Jesus. If Mark had meant this he would have indicated it. Moreover, the multitude would then not have run to him to greet him. They were overjoyed at his presence.

Mark 9:16

16 And he inquired of them, Why are you disputing with them? And there answered him one of the multitude, Teacher, I brought my son to thee, having a dumb spirit. And wherever it seizes him it dashes him down, and he foams and gnashes the teeth and wastes away. And I said to thy disciples to cast it out, and they had not the strength.

In v. 14 the scribes are said to be disputing with the nine disciples whom Jesus had left behind; the multitude stands around and listens. Jesus thus now asks αὐτούς, these scribes, why they are disputing πρὸςαὐτούς, with the disciples. These pronouns are clear, and the multitude does not take part in the dispute. Jesus at times uses his divine power to know something, but as a rule he does not. So he here makes inquiry and thus learns what the situation is. We may also surmise the cause of the dispute. The scribes were delighted by the failure of the disciples and taunted them and shamed them before the crowd; and the disciples were defending themselves as best they could. The situation was painful indeed.

17, 18) Although Jesus addressed the scribes, these professional interpreters of the Torah and the tradition, they did not answer. It required some courage to face Jesus, and they did not have it. Then the father of the boy who had caused the trouble spoke up. He is clearly distinguished from the scribes by being designated “one of the multitude.” It is interesting to note how the three synoptists proceed independently in describing the ailment of the boy, Luke somewhat approaching Mark. These two state that a demon possessed the boy and caused all the distressing symptoms.

The case must, indeed, have been terrible. In the first place, the demon is called speechless and deaf (v. 25), i.e., rendering the boy deaf and dumb. Next, according to Matthew (17:14, 15), the lad was thrown into epileptic fits and fell into the fire or into the water. Mark and Luke also describe these seizures that were due to the demon. They are symptoms of epilepsy as we still know it: “wherever it seizes him it dashes him down, and he foams and gnashes his teeth and wastes away.” Rationalists regard this as a case of ordinary epileptic fits; they clash with the sacred records and with Jesus who deals, not with epilepsy, but with a deaf and dumb spirit.

The address Κύριε (Matthew), Διδάσκαλε (Mark and Luke), betokens reverence and respect even also as the man knelt before Jesus (Matthew). The boy is the father’s only child (Luke), a point that is brought forward in the plea. When the father says: “I brought my son to thee,” he does not, of course, mean that he found Jesus; he found only the nine disciples and begged these to cast out the demon. They tried but failed; as the father states it after watching their futile efforts: οὐκἴσχυσαν, “they did not have the strength.” Thus Jesus is informed in regard to the subject of the dispute, the inability of the nine disciples to cast out this wretched demon.

Mark 9:19

19 But he answering them says, O generation unbelieving, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I bear with you? Be bringing him to me!

All three synoptists report this pained exclamation, only Matthew and Luke add concerning the generation that it has been perverted. This is a case where Jesus allows his deep feeling to be expressed in words. Pain and disappointment wring this cry from his heart. It is true enough that γενεά means “generation” and thus applies to the people of Jesus’ time as a whole. As a generation they deserved the characterization ἄπιστος, “faithless,” “unbelieving.” Ὦ is seldom used with vocatives and, when it is used, carries with it a certain solemnity (R. 463) and deep emotion (R. 464). Note that γενεά has the same form in the vocative as in the nominative, ἄπιστος follows suit (R. 464).

But the point is the failure of the nine disciples to drive out the evil spirit. The narrative nowhere charges this failure to the unbelief of the multitude. Where is any miracle made dependent on the faith of the crowds that witnessed it? Yet some would so interpret here.

It is likewise wrong to charge the father with unbelief, for he brought his boy to the disciples with an appeal for mercy and in v. 24 he certainly shows some faith. The Lord rebukes his disciples as being without faith. It is their lack of faith that rendered them helpless in their attempt to cast out this spirit. They are the ones with whom (πρός, face to face) Jesus had been in a special way so long, with whom he had borne nearly three years. Yet the old unbelief, which marked their entire generation, again cropped out; because of it they had failed to heal this child (see Matt. 17:19, 20). From his own disciples Jesus had a right to expect more than this unbelieving generation offered him.

The pained lament, which is so fully justified, is followed by prompt action: “Be bringing him to me!” The command is already a promise. The plural in φέρετε seems to refer to the disciples who tried to heal the boy and failed.

Mark 9:20

20 And they brought him unto him. And having seen him, the spirit at once convulsed him, and having fallen on the ground, he wallowed foaming.

It makes little difference whether we refer ἰδών to the boy’s or to the spirit’s seeing Jesus. If it is referred to the boy, the nominative would be a kind of anacoluthon and quite odd. If it is referred to the spirit, the masculine gender would be natural, for the πνεῦμα is regarded as a person (R. 436). The latter reading is to be preferred. At sight of Jesus the demon becomes enraged and vents his horrible power upon his victim. The σύν in the verb intensifies it: “convulsed him badly,” as also the boy’s actions show.

They are the symptoms of an epileptic fit: falling to the ground, continuing to wallow, twisting and turning on the ground (imperfect tense), and foaming at the mouth. Before the very eyes of Jesus the whole affliction of the boy appeared. Note that this is not a case of ordinary epilepsy. Such persons are not thrown into a fit by the mere sight of another person. The demon is explicitly named as causing the violent fit. This is perfectly in line with all else that the Gospel writers report about possession; the demons cause all kinds of physical ailments, in this boy’s case dumbness and deafness besides epilepsy.

Mark 9:21

21 While Luke also reports the fit of the lad at the sight of Jesus, Mark alone adds what follows. And he inquired of his father, How long a time is it since this has come to him? And he said, Since a child. And often it threw him both into fire and into waters in order to destroy him. But if thou art able in any way, help us, having compassion on us!

When Jesus asks since (ὡς, “since,” R. 974) when this evil came on the lad, he is not like a doctor who is trying to form a picture of sickness and its course; he is asking for the father’s sake. The father replies: “Since a child.” Jesus thus makes him realize that during all this time no one was able to give the boy even relief, to say nothing of healing him completely. The father is to realize what he is really asking of Jesus when he appeals to him. This is necessary for the faith which Jesus aims to instil into the man’s heart.

Mark 9:22

22 Besides the brief statement “since a child” the father adds to what he has already told Jesus about his son (v. 17, 18) that during all this time the demon “often” tried to destroy him by throwing him into fire and into waters. “Often”—and no one was ever able to stop the repetition. The object of Jesus is attained. This is an affliction that is so terrible that it is beyond human help. When this father comes to Jesus for help he should realize that he is asking for more than human, namely, for divine help. And this requires faith in Jesus as the divine helper.

And the man now reveals the extent of his faith. When he qualifies his petition with the clause: “if thou art able in any way,” we should remember the setback his faith received when the nine disciples of Jesus failed to accomplish anything; this “if” refers to that failure. We should not translate “if thou canst do anything” (our versions), for “do” is not in the text, and τι is adverbial, it does not mean “anything” but “in any way” (R. 547 on this use). The implication is that the ability of Jesus is perhaps no greater or only a little greater than that of the nine disciples. On the use of the urgent aorist imperative in prayers to God see R. 948. It is thus that βοήθησον, “help!” is used.

With the added participle the man appeals to the compassion of Jesus; on σπλαγχνισθείς see 6:34. He uses the plural in his appeal: “help us, having compassion on us,” and includes himself and his family. We see the great weakness of the man’s faith, yet we see that faith is present.

Mark 9:23

23 But Jesus said to him, As to “if thou art able”—all things are able for the one believing!

Grammarians and commentators differ in solving τὸεἰδύνασαι (also written δύνῃ, contracted); B.-D.267, 1 regards the reading as “impossible” although it is textually fully assured. Τό marks εἰδύνασαι as a quotation (R. 766), for Jesus is repeating what the man just said to Jesus about his being able; τό also makes the quoted words a substantive, and this is the accusative of general reference (R. 491). The sense is quite plain and the construction simple: “As far as thy word to me, ‘if thou art able,’ is concerned, I must say to thee, all things are able for the man who believes.” In other words, it is not a question of the ability of Jesus to expel this demon, the question for the petitioner in all cases is his own ability of faith, i.e., his trust in the ability of Jesus.

This also clears up πάντα. We are inclined to regard it in an abstract way, as a reference to anything at all that may come into our heads. But “all things” are here concrete: all those things which faith trusts to the power of Jesus who, moreover, always exerts his power and ability according to his good and gracious will. Faith never asks anything foolish or wrong of Jesus; requests of that kind are never the product of faith. Moreover, faith always bows to the will of Jesus in those things of which we cannot be sure that they are good for us. Note the paronomasia in δύνασαι and δυνατά, “if thou art able” and “all things are able.”

Mark 9:24

24 Immediately the father of the child with a yell went on to say, I do believe! Be helping my unbelief!

To understand the yelling out of these words we should keep in mind the intense emotion that wrought in the man. It is a touch of feeling on Mark’s part when he calls the man “the father of the child.” Some texts add “with tears,” which may accord well with the fact. The imperfect ἔλεγε agrees with all this by letting us dwell on what the man said. The cry: “I do believe!” certainly attests the man’s faith. The second cry: “Be helping my unbelief!” acknowledges the man’s weakness of faith, which, by contrast with what it ought to be, he calls “unbelief.” This, too, was well, for they who feel their lack of faith are in the best condition for removing this lack. “Help my unbelief” is usually understood to mean: relieve me, free me of my unbelief. But this would greatly modify the verb βοηθεῖν which properly has the dative here and in v. 22 to indicate the person that is to be helped. Ἀπιστία is the abstract for the concrete; “my unbelief” means me in my unbelief, me unbeliever. Yet we should not forget that he who calls himself “unbelief” has just cried aloud, “I believe.” Only such a man could ask help of Jesus in his unbelief.

Trench may serve as an example of those who, on the strength of Christ’s dealing with this father, assume that faith is necessary for all such miracles, and that the absence of faith ties the hands of Jesus. For one thing, they overlook the fact that it is not the father that is healed but the little son, and nothing is said about this son’s faith. As far as the father is concerned, his is a case of prayer. He, indeed, asks a gift that is a miracle, but all he does is to ask and to pray for it. Now prayer must, indeed, be uttered by faith in order to be heard, whether the hearing consists in a miracle or in something else. That disposes of the confusion of thought in this case.

As regards the miracles, however, they are not dependent on faith but only on the will of Jesus. This is clear in all cases where Jesus heals without faith on the part of men and seeks to establish faith after the healing. In John 5:1, etc., the impotent man at the pool of Bethesda did not even know Jesus’ name and yet was healed. We are shown in John 9 how, after his eyes were opened, the blind man gradually came to faith. How many demoniacs believed before they were freed? Think of the two mentioned in 5:1; nor did anyone who had faith plead for them.

Did the widow at Nain or her dead son believe before the miracle? This is, indeed, true: Jesus wrought few or no miracles where the population was unbelieving and hostile (6:5), but this was done for the simple reason that miracles would be wasted on such people.

Mark 9:25

25 Now when Jesus saw that a multitude was running together he rebuked the unclean spirit, saying to him, Thou spirit, dumb and deaf, I command thee, go out of him and no longer enter into him!

The answer of Jesus to the man’s cry is that he frees the lad from the evil spirit. He fulfills the promise that was implied in the request to bring the boy to him, v. 19. Jesus hastens to do this because he sees a crowd running together. He breaks off his dealing with the father and turns to the lad who is lying on the ground, where the demon had thrown him. Since the participle may express several different relations according to the context, we choose the one that is most suitable here for ἰδών; it is temporal: “when he saw” or “on seeing.” It is not causal, for Jesus had determined to deliver the boy when he asked to have him brought to him. We take it that the great crowd that was mentioned in v. 14 was scattered at the start and now ran together toward Jesus in a mass. The Greek retains the present tense ἐπισυντρέχει in the indirect discourse after the aorist ἰδών; the English is compelled to change to a past tense.

Mark uses ἐπιτιμᾶν, “he rebuked,” as in 4:39; 8:32; 10:13; he spoke with severity. These possessing spirits are regularly called “unclean” in the Gospels; this is to be understood in a moral sense. The nominative with the article == the vocative, R. 769. The article adds the note of insistence: “Thou dumb and deaf spirit!” even as in the original Aramaic the article was most probably used, R. 465. The two adjectives, “dumb and deaf,” are added by a second article like an apposition (R. 776), “thou dumb and deaf one.” The addition of ἐγώ is strongly emphatic and voices the almighty authority of Jesus in issuing the command. Both aorists are peremptory; on the instant and without question the demon is to come out of the boy and not to enter into him again.

The command is both positive and negative, and, as is the case in all such instances, the negative strengthens the positive. Yet μηκέτι does not imply, as has been thought, that at each paroxysm or fit the demon entered the boy but left him during the intervals. The force of the command is that the demon is to leave once for all. In negative commands in the Greek the aorist is in the subjunctive and not, as in positive commands, in the imperative.

26, 27) And having yelled, and having convulsed him much, he came out. And he became like dead so that the majority were saying, He died. But Jesus, having grasped his hand, raised him up; and he arose.

The yell voices the demon’s rage at being forced at last to abandon his victim. Convulsing the boy πολλά (adverbial), exceedingly, is the last vicious damage he is able to inflict on his victim. But then he leaves. The two masculine participles modify πνεῦμα, the subject implied in ἐξῆλθε, and follow the natural instead of the grammatical gender as they did in the case of ἰδών in v. 20, R. 412.

The moment the demon left, the convulsion was at an end, the lad relaxed and lay like dead with the result (ὥστε with the infinitive) that the majority (τοὺςπολλούς, classical, B.-D.245, 1) were saying (λέγειν, durative): “He died!” in the sense of this aorist: “He is dead.” Jesus now completes the miracle by grasping the boy’s hand and raising him up. The thought that this was not the lifting of a limp body that would drop again Mark conveys by adding “and he arose” because of the new strength that surged through his body. In other words, the boy was completely restored, “healed from that very hour” (Matthew); “he healed the child and delivered him again to his father” (Luke); this latter evangelist reports also the effect produced on the multitude.

Mark 9:28

28 Matthew and Mark are interested in the nine disciples who had failed so ignominiously. And when he had gone into a house, his disciples went on to inquire of him in private. We on our part were not able to cast it out!

Though it is declarative in form the statement is an inquiry. It merely presents the fact to Jesus so that he may make what reply he deems proper. The emphasis is on ἡμεῖς, “we on our part,” when thou on thine wast able, etc. We see no reason for including ὅτι in the words of the disciples as some do in order to have it mean “why” and to secure a question in place of a declaration. The ὅτι is the recitativum. The matter is on the minds of the nine disciples; they want to know just why they failed. The objection that Jesus has already told them in v. 19 if he, indeed, included the disciples in “generation unbelieving,” is not valid. In v. 19 Jesus speaks in a general way and combines the disciples with their generation.

Mark 9:29

29 And he said to them, This kind is able to come out by nothing save by prayer.

Matthew’s much fuller answer states as the reason the unbelief of the disciples and adds a promise to faith. The nine disciples had a lack of faith in the authorization which Jesus had given them: “Cast out demons!” Matt. 10:8. The question as to how doubt could arise in their hearts is answered by Jer. 17:9, the heart is deceitful above all things. When Jesus promises even impossible things to faith that is as small as a kernel of mustard, we see that he refers to charismatic faith as Paul speaks of it in 1 Cor. 13:2 (also 12:9), which is not to be identified with saving faith. This charismatic faith Jesus had the fullest right to expect of all his disciples after he had given them power to heal, etc., in particular also to cast out demons. Matthew lets this reply regarding the disciples’ lack of faith suffice as the answer as to why the nine were not able to expel the demon. Mark gives us the ether part of the answer, that in some cases prayer is needed, and its lack will mean inability to exercise the power Jesus bestowed.

In the first place, the demons are not alike. When Jesus says “this kind” he points to a difference. Some are more powerful than others and, like the one that held the boy as his victim, are more difficult to dislodge. We do not refer “this kind” to the possessed person as some do, for it is not the afflicted person that goes out (ἐξελθεῖν) but the unclean spirit. These mightier spirits call for the full measure of charismatic faith in order to dislodge them. It will seem almost impossible to dislodge them; it will be like telling a mountain to drop into the sea. The faith to expel these demons must be like a grain of mustard, so genuine that at the critical moment it will shoot up into a great tree and accomplish the mighty deed (Matthew).

In Mark’s account Jesus tells us how this is accomplished: “in connection with (ἐν) nothing … save in connection with (ἐν) prayer.” When the evil spirit in the boy defied the nine disciples, instead of allowing themselves to be defeated their faith should have risen up in its might, should have appealed to Jesus in a fervent prayer that he make good his promise to them to expel demons. They would thus have won the contest, the demon would have disappeared. The disciples did not think of prayer, they let their faith droop at once and thus failed. The prayer need not be audible, a fervent sigh in the heart would be enough.

By pointing to the unbelief (Matthew) Jesus shows the negative cause of the failure; by pointing to the prayer of faith (Mark) Jesus states the positive means of success. Important texts add “and fasting” to prayer (A. V.). Textual criticism must decide the correct reading. All we can say is that, while fasting is, indeed, an aid to prayer, in the case of this boy any fasting on the part of the disciples was impossible. The boy was brought to them, there was no time for fasting, there was time only for prayer; they could not postpone the effort to free the boy to such a time as they might feel themselves ready. If the correct text includes fasting, this must be a fasting that is engaged in, not at the time the miracle is to be wrought, but a general practice which would keep the charismatic faith strong at all times.

Mark 9:30

30 And having gone forth from thence, they were passing along through Galilee; and he was not wanting anyone to know.

Jesus left the neighborhood of Cæsarea Philippi (8:27) and was on his way through Galilee; Matt. 17:22: “while moving about in Galilee.” Jesus is on his way to Capernaum (v. 32). Mark adds that he was not willing (the imperfect ἤθελε) that anyone should know (ἵνα subfinal, R. 983, stating what Jesus was not wanting). The Greek needs no object for γνῷ (aorist subjunctive); we should add: that he was present. The reason for desiring to remain unknown is the one we have met repeatedly: in these out-of-the-way places Jesus was devoting himself to the last, intensive training of the Twelve, especially also to preparing them for the end.

Mark 9:31

31 For he was teaching his disciples and was saying to them, The Son of man is being delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and having been killed, after three days he shall rise again.

These announcements mark the second half of Mark’s Gospel; we have had 8:31 and 9:9–13. So also the two imperfect tenses mean that Jesus was engaged in teaching and in saying to his disciples what follows about his Passion, etc. He was making this his chief business. “The Son of man” is explained in 2:10. The substance of this teaching is the same as that which has preceded. A new point is παραδίδοται, “is being delivered” (Matthew and Luke: μέλλειπαραδίδοσθαι, “is about to be delivered”), a prophetic present tense with the note of certain expectation. The new point is that the passive voice hints at an agent (Judas) who will deliver Jesus into the hands of men, those already named in 8:31, the Jewish rulers, the Sanhedrin. In this way that strange thing will happen that he who is “the Son of man,” true man and yet more than man, namely God’s very Son, shall be placed in the murderous power of mere “men.” And even God will not intervene (δεῖ in 8:31).

The rest of the announcement repeats those that precede. These men will execute their will upon Jesus and “shall kill him” (make away with him), yet (again naming the exact time) “after three days he shall rise again” and thus nullify this bloody deed of men. The death is mentioned twice: “they shall kill him” and “having been killed.” Over against this death the resurrection is placed in the clearest language. Mark again (8:31) uses an active verb (ἀναστήσεται); Jesus shall arise by his own power and might. Matthew has a passive verb, meaning that God shall raise Jesus up. The Bible uses both voices, for the opera ad extra are ascribed to each of the persons.

This announcement of Jesus to his disciples is all that Mark reports about the journey through Galilee to Capernaum. We see how intent Jesus is on preparing his disciples for the coming events.

Mark 9:32

32 But they grasped not the utterance and were afraid to inquire of him.

Matthew says that they were grieved exceedingly. That statement about the killing of Jesus would certainly cause grief if the utterance (τὸῥῆμα) were meant literally. Mark points to the lack of comprehension, which Luke stresses still more by using three verbs. Yet the disciples did not in this instance do what they usually did: inquire of Jesus and let him help them to understand. They were afraid to do so. Both verbs are imperfect tenses and state continuous conditions of ignorance and of fear.

We are too familiar with the crucifixion and the resurrection of Jesus properly to place ourselves into the position of the disciples when Jesus foretold these things. His words concerning his resurrection seemed as strange and incredible to them as those about his death. To the last their minds struggled against the plain meaning of what was dinned into their ears, and thus what they did not want to know, what they were afraid to know, they actually did not know or grasp.

Mark 9:33

33 As the geographical note regarding Cæsarea Philippi marks the first subpart in the first half of the second grand part of Mark’s Gospel (8:27–13:37), so Capernaum marks the next subpart (9:33–50). See the remarks on Mark’s division at the beginning of 8:27. And they came to Capernaum. And after he got into the house he went on to inquire of them, What were you reasoning about on the road? And they were silent, for they did argue with each other who was greater.

Merely the fact of the arrival at Capernaum is noted (Matt. 17:24). This was the last visit of Jesus to his home city, and it seems that he spent only one day there during this visit. It is Mark who informs us how the question came before Jesus. The disciples had argued about it on the road to Capernaum. After they got into the house, Jesus, who by his divine knowledge knew all about their argument, proceeded to inquire about their discussion. All that Matthew (18:1) says is that the disciples came to Jesus with the question. But by the way in which Matthew states the question: “Who then is greater in the kingdom of the heavens?” and by the addition of ἄρα, “then,” he indicates that something preceded the question even as Mark states.

“In the house” with its definite article means the house or home of Jesus. The view that this well-known house belonged to Peter, and that Jesus had a room there to which he came whenever he was in the city, cannot be verified. Jesus had transferred his home from Nazareth to Capernaum early in his ministry (John 2:12), and whenever he came to Capernaum he stayed at this home of his; and when he now visited the city for the last time, it is not to be supposed that he went to some other house and did not go to his own. The imperfect ἐπηρώτα describes and at the same time leads us to expect the outcome. The imperfect in the question διελογίζεσθε indicates the progress and the duration of the reasoning; it went on for some time.

Mark 9:34

34 The disciples answered Jesus with silence, ἐσιώπων (imperfect), “they continued silent,” being startled by the fact that Jesus knew about their discussion and ashamed of the subject of their discussion. Mark explains that they had argued (the Greek uses the aorist to state only the fact) with each other, i.e., quietly among themselves, “who the greater,” the expression needs no copula as we do in English. The Greek uses μείζων, the comparative, which is quite exact. The implication is that all of the Twelve will be great, yet that some will be “greater” than others. The singular does not refer to one disciple only as if the question was, which one would be greater than the other eleven, but is meant in a general sense, of any one compared with another so that for various reasons several might outrank others. Matthew adds “greater in the kingdom of the heavens,” which means the great Messianic kingdom, but as the disciples conceived it as being filled with earthly glory and grandeur with Jesus as the earthly king.

Mark does not say that the silence was broken, but from Matthew’s account we gather that one of the disciples finally spoke for all and told Jesus. Some occasion was furnished by Jesus himself for this question concerning the relative position of the disciples in his approaching kingdom. He had distinguished three of the Twelve on two notable occasions (5:37; 9:2). Peter had often been allowed to speak for the rest; and even on this day he had been ordered to catch the fish with the stater in his mouth and to pay the tax for Jesus and for himself (Matt. 17:24–27). So the Twelve had their dispute on the road. Jesus delayed to take up the matter until he was in his house in order most thoroughly to settle this question which was so fraught with danger because of envy, jealousy, pride, and hatred for possibly disrupting the little band of twelve.

Mark 9:35

35 And having sat down, he called the Twelve and says to them, If anyone wills to be first he will be last of all and a minister of all.

Jesus sat down in Oriental fashion, his legs crossed beneath him, and we assume that the Twelve, all of whom were summoned, sat before him in the same way. This action indicates that Jesus is about to convey rather important instruction to the disciples. Mark and Luke abbreviate greatly (see Matt. 18:1, etc.). Yet Mark retains the summary of Jesus which Matthew omits, which tells so strikingly who is the greater in the Lord’s kingdom. “If one wills (has the will and determination) to be first,” meaning “first,” not in the absolute sense (as Rome makes Peter first), but first relatively, first among the disciples with whom he is associated, i.e., if he wants to hold first rank among them, “he will be last of all,” humbly put all the others ahead of him and be happy to take the last place of all. The statement is highy paradoxical, is intended to be so in order the better to stick in the memory. It is like that other saying, “The first shall be last, and the last first.”

It is a question of the will: εἴτιςθέλει, one must determine, set his will upon being first. The thing does not drop into one’s lap, it requires will, effort. But this thing of being first is open to anyone (τὶς); we may all be first. In the world all cannot possibly be first. This indefinite pronoun is an invitation to you and to me to be first just as it invited the Twelve to step into first place. Moreover, “first” is objective just as “last” is; “first,” “last” as Jesus views the two. The Greek uses the nominative with εἶναι, here πρῶτος, when the subject of the principal verb is referred to R. 457.

First and last as men may view the two are not considered here. While the first who is last and thus the last who is first refer to the disciple’s life here among his brethren, they will both be found also in heaven, in the reward of glory bestowed upon him there. R. 874 is right when he makes ἔσται not merely future (“shall be,” our versions) but volitive: “he will be last” by his own volition, will make himself “last of all” the disciples with whom he is associated. This is better than to regard this future tense as legal, like a commandment in which the future is so employed, in the sense: “let him be last of all,” last as I, Jesus, regard last.

But this paradox is still veiled, for all depends on what this “last” means which makes anyone “first” in the sight of Jesus. It is made plain in a flash when Jesus defines “last of all” by adding “and a minister of all.” This turns the ordinary human idea of first and last upside down. For men regard him first who is lord of all and regard him last who is the servant of all. In Matt. 20:26–28 Jesus uses both διάκονος and δοῦλος, “minister” and “slave.” The latter is lower than the former. Note the two as used in Matt. 22:2–14. In John 2:5 we have only diakonoi. Compare Trench, Synonyms, 1, 55.

A diakonos is one who is intent on the service he is rendering to others. A doulos is a slave that takes orders from a master and thus serves him. The term could be applied here as well as in Matt. 20:27, but Jesus is content with the other. The rank and the standing of a disciple with Jesus are determined by the way in which he makes himself a minister of all, by the character and the amount of service he renders to as many as possible. Jesus is not averse to the ambition of his disciples to be greater than others; he encourages that ambition in all of them. He does more, he urges all to strive to be first, not merely to be greater than some others but to be the greatest.

He shows that this is actually possible for all of them. But he corrects the false, earthly idea of greatness that was in the minds of the disputing disciples by laying before them the true, spiritual reality of greatness. This he urges them to attain. And he urges them mightily by showing that its attainment is possible for them all.

Mark 9:36

36 And having taken a little child, he stood it in their midst. And having taken it in his arms, he said to them, Whoever receives one of such little children on my name, me he receives; and whoever receives me, receives not me but him that commissioned me.

Mark reports much less than Matthew but is in perfect agreement with him. It is most natural to think that this παιδίον (the diminutive is always neuter) belonged to someone who lived with Mary in Jesus’ house, and that the child thus knew Jesus and came readily at his call. We have no reason to assume that there was anything marvelous or extraordinary about this child. The little one ran up to Jesus who then, seated as he was, made it stand in the midst of the disciples, facing the half-circle of seated men. While the child was standing Jesus spoke Matt. 18:3, 4. Mark indicates this by making a separate statement of the act of standing the child in the midst of the disciples.

Mark 9:37

37 Although Mark omits what Jesus said while the child stood he adds what Matthew omits, the beautiful action of Jesus in taking the little one up in his arms and lifting it to his breast as he sat before his disciples. As readily and willingly as the child had come at Jesus’ call, it now came to his arms and laid its head on his bosom or his shoulder. This was a demonstratio ad oculos, one that would impress itself and what Jesus said about the child on the minds of the disciples in an indelible manner. Mark restricts himself to the one statement of Jesus concerning the reception of such a child, i.e., of rendering it service in his name.

It is one of the unsolved mysteries of exegesis why the commentators exclude actual little children whereas Jesus says so positively “one of such little children.” He has an actual child in his arms, he is using it as a living illustration, and yet we are told that “one of such little children” is metaphorical and refers only to beginners in the faith, spiritual babes and children. If anything is certain, it is that Jesus is speaking of receiving an actual child in the sense of caring for all its needs. From what Jesus says farther on in Matthew we conclude that he wants us to see in the little child an illustration also of childlike believers whom we are to serve as diakonoi especially in spiritual matters. But this extension of thought is only an extension and itself rests on what Jesus says of an actual child.

The more regular phrase is “in (ἐν) my name,” i.e., in connection with it; “on (ἐπί) my name” only modifies the idea; on the basis of my name. The sense of these phrases is quite often misunderstood, S. Goebel, Die Reden unseres Herrn nach Johannes, being the exception. The sense is usually assumed to be “on my authority.” But a study of all these ὄνομα phrases and of the use of this term in general reveals that “name” means that by which Jesus (or God) is known, hence his revelation. Thus to receive one of such little children ἐπὶτῷὀνόματίμου means to do this “on the basis of the revelation of Jesus which one has received.” The whole act rests on this and on no other considerations. This, of course, involves that the person will treat the child thus received as the revelation and teaching of Jesus require, which includes especially tender spiritual care.

In the eyes of the world a reception for such spiritual purposes amounts to nothing. Even today, when the world has come to value children more highly, this is done only for natural and secular reasons (providing for their physical and their educational needs). But Jesus regards it as an act of greatness when we receive such a child on the basis of his revelation. It is not even understood by the multitude, but the devoted humility of him who performs this lovely act distinguishes him in the eyes of Jesus. It is a sample of what Jesus means by becoming first through being the last of all, through acting as the diakonos of all.

Jesus declares: “me he receives,” with emphasis on ἐμέ. The thought is not that Jesus identifies himself with the child as a child. This “me” lies in the way in which the child is received, in the onoma of Jesus on which the act rests. In this way it is like receiving Jesus himself, the glorious Son of God, the King of the eternal kingdom. If it could be made a deed that is visible in its greatness it would be like tendering a magnificent reception to Jesus and make all the headlines in the dailies flare out in flamboyant type; but, being invisible in its greatness, it is covered with the humble mantle of faith, and its greatness will not be displayed until the judgment day (Matt. 25:40 “unto me”).

Mark alone adds “and not me but him that commissioned me.” The sense is: “not only me but even also,” etc. This is due to the position of Jesus as one who was commissioned by the Father. The aorist participle is substantivized and designates the Father; and the aorist tense describes him by the single act of sending Jesus out with his great commission of redemption. Being thus commissioned, Jesus is never alone but always with his great Commissioner. To receive Jesus is at the same time and in the same act to receive the Father that commissioned him. This is, of course, not the justifying reception of Christ and of God but the subsequent sanctifying reception.

The one is brought about by faith alone, the other by the works of faith. The simple act of receiving a little child and ministering to it in the name of Jesus is exalted to the highest degree by Jesus. This is the greatness of Christian ministration, the greatness we can all reach, for which Jesus bids us strive. None are higher than Jesus and his Father; the ministration that ministers to them is the highest of all and elevates us as nothing else can.

Mark 9:38

38 John said to him, Teacher, we saw one engaged in casting out demons in thy name and we tried to hinder him because he was not following us.

The asyndeton is marked; Mark perhaps omits the usual καί to show that John’s statement is part of the preceding narrative. Another indication is the correspondence of “on my name” in v. 37 and “in thy name” in v. 38. John simply states the facts to Jesus, and these are such as to invite a response of some kind from him. The disciples saw a certain man driving out demons in Jesus’ name. On this phrase see v. 37; its position is emphatic. After a verb of seeing we have the construction with a participle: “one … driving out.” “And he followeth us not” (A. V.) is not genuine.

The occurrence of this case is remarkable in itself. It is not like that of the exorcists mentioned in Acts 19:13, etc., for the man of whom John speaks actually exorcised the demons in Jesus’ name. Since he wrought by charismatic faith (1 Cor. 13:2), we have no right to class him with those mentioned in Matt. 7:22 as being rejected by the Lord. This is an instance in which a man so grasped “the name” of Jesus by faith that he expelled demons by its power. We are not told that he wrought other miracles in the same way. The effect of the teaching and the work of Jesus thus emerged in an unusual way. Jesus had not empowered this man as he had his disciples, the Twelve (3:15). This man attained this power by his faith alone.

With the imperfect ἐκωλύομεν John describes how he and the other disciples tried to hinder and stop this man. They assigned as the reason (ὅτι) that he was not following Jesus (ἠκολούθει, imperfect), i.e., was not among the regular followers and acknowledged disciples of Jesus. This statement is misunderstood when it is regarded as voicing the professional jealousy of the disciples. The answer of Jesus shuts out that view. John and the other disciples were concerned about Jesus and imagined that only avowed followers of Jesus, not only such as they themselves, the Twelve, but also others who had formally attached themselves to the company of the disciples (μεθʼ ἡμῶν), had a right to use Jesus’ name in doing mighty works.

The imperfect ἐκωλύομν implies that John and his companions had not succeeded in their effort of stopping the man; this fact would have been expressed by the aorist. The point in John’s statement is the implied question whether he and his companions had acted properly. They thought so at the time; but John is now doubtful after hearing the general statement of Jesus that whoever does an act “on my name” pleases Jesus and his Father (v. 37). They should perhaps not have interfered with this man who was acting “in thy name.”

Mark 9:39

39 But Jesus said, Stop hindering him! for there is no one who shall do a work of power on my name and be able soon to speak evil of me. For he who is not against us is for us.

We see how Jesus understood John’s statement, namely, that he wanted to know whether hindering the man was right or not. Jesus tells him it is not right and adds the proof. As a rule (see R. 851–852) the command to stop an action already begun is expressed by the present imperative with μή while the command not to begin an action is expressed by the ingressive aorist subjunctive with μή. So here μήκωλύετεαὐτόν == “stop hindering him.”

The reason for this order is the fact that there is no one who (R. 726 on the idiom οὐδείςἐστινὅς) shall do a work of power (δύναμις, a miracle wrought by power) on the basis of the name or revelation of Jesus which he has in some way attained and shall then quickly (ταχύ, soon) turn against Jesus and vilify him. We have no need to go beyond the usual meaning of κακολογεῖν and to take it in the sense of “curse.” Jesus states the reason in a negative form which is somewhat like a litotes, for he implies that such a man will speak well of him, if not now then at least very soon. In other words, he will confess Jesus and his name or revelation apart even from the great deeds which he does on the basis of that name, confess him for his own soul’s sake. Jesus thus asks for patience on the part of his zealous disciples and for time for the faith of the man to develop. This is better than to say that Jesus demands “tolerance,” a term that is liable to mislead. Jesus is not dealing with a man who is settled in his determination not to join the band of his disciples but with a man whose knowledge is still limited, whose faith is yet young, and of whom our expectation must be that he will grow in both.

Mark 9:40

40 This view of the man in question and of all who are like him is supported by another reason (γάρ): “for he who is not against us (κατά, down on) is for us” (ὑπέρ, in our favor, R. 630). Jesus combines himself with his disciples by using the plural “against—for us” because John used that plural in v. 38. He who joined Jesus, of course, also joined his disciples; he who opposed him also opposed them.

We should read this terse dictum in its connection and not in a mere abstract way. It applies to men such as the one under discussion. It could not apply to men who are merely indifferent to Jesus and thus not actively against him. Such indifference and coldness as a response to Jesus and his revelation would be “against” Jesus in a most decided way. To be lukewarm and neither hot nor cold is fatal. Thus, not to be against Jesus means, indeed, to be for him at least to some degree. Whoever appreciates Jesus and his name (revelation) enough to drop all opposition to him is on a fair road to becoming his enthusiastic follower.

This shows the agreement with the dictum recorded in Matt. 12:30: “He that is not with me (μετά) is against me (κατά).” Both dicta state the same thing, but do so in opposite ways. One states who are for Jesus, the other who are against him. Both imply that neutrality in regard to him is impossible. Whoever comes in contact with Jesus and develops no hostility toward him and his is already to a degree won for him and will soon confess it; but whoever comes in contact with Jesus and forms no attachment for him is already to a degree against him and will soon reveal it. The two dicta thus belong together, each makes the other clearer.

Mark 9:41

41 It may be but a trifle that shows how the scales turn in one direction or in the other, a little thing, perhaps, like giving a disciple a drink of water because he is a disciple. For whoever causes you to drink a cup of water in connection with a name that you are Christ’s, amen, I say to you, that he shall in no way lose his reward.

Jesus stated this saying in a somewhat different form and in a different connection in Matt. 10:42. Jesus here explains what it means not to be against him, and how such a man is already really for him. A little test may reveal the way in which his heart inclines. Suppose a thirsty disciple comes to him and asks for a drink in Christ’s name; if the man offers the drink for this reason he is not against Jesus, and his reward is absolutely sure. The verb ποτίζειν is causative: “whoever causes you to drink.”

It is quite certain that the ὅτι clause is in apposition to ἐνὀνόματι (R. 1033) and thus defines the phrase. We do not translate, “in my name,” for this would be complete in itself. B.-D.397, 3 has the phrase mean unter dem Titel, aus dem Grunde; B.-P. 910 agrees. But ἐν has its natural meaning; the act of giving the drink is performed “in connection with” a name, i.e., indefinite, some name such as “that you are Christ’s” followers and believers of his. “Because” in our versions is correct as an interpretative translation, but it is not linguistically exact.

If we are surprised that so small an act should be rated so highly by Jesus as to cause him to use the solemn formula of verity and authority, “amen, I say to you” (see 4:28) in connection with what he says of it, it is because we are still bound to common, earthly ways of thinking. Jesus sees the spiritual quality of the act, the giving the drink for his sake; for he is not speaking of an ordinary, humanitarian act that quenches thirst, feeds the hungry, etc., without any reference to Christ or those who are his. Note that “Christ” is here used as a proper name for Jesus (R. 795) and not as a mere appellative; and οὐμή is the emphatic negative with a subjunctive and with a future indicative, R. 930.

“He shall in no way lose his reward” is a litotes for “he shall most certainly receive it.” The reason for the reward and its certainty has been stated already in v. 37; the drink is really given to Jesus and to his Father (Matt. 25:40, “unto me”). All rewards are bestowed by grace, so also is this man’s reward. Jesus leaves unsaid in what it will consist, for that may depend on various things. He may get special blessings and benefactions in this life; or, if he enters heaven as being “Christ’s,” he may receive a measure of glory. This reward is, of course, out of proportion to the deed for which it is given; but such are the generosity and the magnanimity of the divine Giver that he measures his rewards by the divine standard of his boundless love and not by the narrow, human standard of mere equal value.

Mark 9:42

42 And whoever shall entrap one of these little ones that believe in me, excellent it is for him rather if an ass’s millstone lies around his neck, and he have been cast into the sea.

This is a concrete example of the opposite of not being against us (Jesus and his disciples), an example of one who is against them and shows this by his actions. Whoever he may be (ὃςἄν), the thing to which he will incline and which is thus to be expected of him (ἄν i.e., ἐάν with the subjunctive) is that he will entrap “one of these little ones that believe in me” (some texts omit “in me” though the sense remains the same). On σκανδαλίζειν see 6:3 and note again that the term goes beyond the idea of stumbling (from which one may rise again) and always denotes spiritual destruction as an animal is caught by touching the bait affixed to the crooked stick in a dead-fall trap. The sense is: whoever destroys a child or a childlike believer spiritually incurs the greatest wrath of Jesus.

Jesus thus describes the extreme of mistreatment, for nothing worse could be done. On the one hand, the least benefaction, only a cup of water; on the other hand, the worst possible damage, the destruction of the soul. As regards the extreme of the latter, Jesus often uses this on the correct principle that the extreme includes all lesser wrongs. In Matt. 5:21, etc., he has murder include anger, etc.; in 5:27 adultery, lustful looks. Moreover, the extreme must be mentioned lest its omission give rise to wrong conclusions. By forbidding the entrapment which kills spiritually all lesser spiritual harm done to others is equally condemned.

Let no one deceive himself by thinking that only one of “the little ones” is destroyed or hurt, only a child or a humble believer. Jesus has indicated how precious these are in his sight, for what is done for them is as if it were done for himself (v. 37). This is a word that should awaken all of us, parents, pastors, teachers, and all who hold positions of influence. What if only one humble soul be lost through our teaching and our conduct! We note that Jesus again has the numerical “one.” He knows every single one of his own. But he now uses the broader term “one of these little ones that believe in me.”

Those who eliminate children in v. 37 do so also here. This is often done because of τῶνπιστευόντωνεἰςἐμέ, the unwillingness to admit that little children are able to believe. The exegesis thus becomes dogmatic. But the whole context from v. 36 onward (compare Matt. 18) includes children to such an extent that to include childlike adult believers requires some penetration of the meaning of Jesus. Children lie on the surface as being “the little ones,” other believers are under the surface. To believe means to trust.

Even in adults the inner essential of their faith, let it be filled with ever so much discursive thought, intelligent knowledge, introspective consciousness, is childlike trust. In the matter of this trust the child is the model for the man, not the man for the child. As capable as a babe is of natural trust toward a mother, father, etc., so capable it is of having spiritual trust in its heart. Not the discursive features make faith what it is but this essential quality of trust. As faith remains in sleep, coma, insanity, senility, so it can go back to earliest infancy (Luke 1:41, 44). Delitzsch, Biblische Psychologie, 353.

The positive καλόν combined with μᾶλλον is used for the comparative (R. 663). The ὄς clause which describes the man is taken up again by αὐτῷ. But we doubt very much that εἰ == ὅτι as R. 997 thinks; and we dissent still more from B.-D. 372, 3, that καλόν … εἰκτλ. breaks into the territory of the conditions of unreality: “excellent it would be … if an ass’s millstone were lying around his neck,” etc. All that we have here is the common turn from one conditional form to another. Instead of in the regular manner following ὃςἄν (expectancy) with the future tense, Jesus makes the entire presentation vivid by turning to the present tenses and leaving εἰ in the proper sense of “if.” The remarks of R. 1022 which refer to mixed conditions apply here. “The human mind does not always work in stereotyped forms, however excellent they are.” Read also the rest. Moreover, as was the case in the parallel in Matthew, Jesus has a good reason for turning from the future to the present.

He speaks of the trapping of a little one as an expected act but of the death of the man as taking place now—thus he would not live to commit that damnable act, and that would, indeed, be excellent for him. So the very thought of Jesus requires the wording which he employs.

When a deed such as this is supposed with regard to a man (ὃςἄν) (ruining a little one spiritually), it would be καλόν, “excellent” for him if he died right now, i.e., before that supposition could become reality, considering the guilt and the penalty which that deed, if it were carried out, would bring upon him. Jesus says that even the most terrible temporal death is preferable to the perpetration of such a deed. And he then names one that is unheard of: laying a great millstone around a man’s neck and plunging him into the sea.

We should not for a moment suppose that any human judge or court ever decreed the penalty of such a death. What Jesus aims to convey is the enormity of the crime of ruining one of these little ones; and he does this by referring to the enormity of the death that would let a man escape the commission of such a crime. The adjective ὀνικός means “pertaining to an ass” and describes the μύλος, here “millstone,” as being one that is operated by an ass and thus being far heavier than the stone that is used in a hand mill. The present tense περίκειται, “lying now around the man’s neck,” is intensified by the following perfect βέβληται, “having already been cast into the sea” and thus now lying at the bottom. As Jesus speaks of the largest kind of a millstone, so he matches this by speaking of the sea, the deepest kind of water.

43–48) And if thy hand starts to entrap thee, cut it off! Excellent it is that thou enter into the life maimed than having the two hands to go away into the Gehenna, into the fire unquenchable. And if thy foot be entrapping thee, cut it off! Excellent is it that thou enter into the life halt than having the two feet to be cast into the Gehenna. And if thine eye be entrapping thee, pluck it out! Excellent it is that one-eyed thou enter into the kingdom of God than having two eyes to be cast into the Gehenna, where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.

Compare Matt. 5:29, etc.; 18:8, etc. The connection is the same as it is in the latter passage; from the thought of entrapping and destroying others Jesus turns to the allied thought that we may entrap ourselves and do this through one or the other of our bodily members. Throughout these verses we should hold to the meaning of σκανδαλίζειν since the entire argument rests on this verb. It has nothing to do with stumbling. See 6:3. One who stumbles is not killed, but one who is caught in a trap loses his life. The figure as well as the meaning refer to something that always proves fatal.

All the protases are built alike, and all are followed by peremptory aorist imperatives. In each case, however, the bodily member is one of a pair, a hand, a foot, an eye. This feature obviates both false literalism and false spiritualism in the interpretation. For if one physical hand is cut off, the other would be left again to entrap us; the same is true with regard to the foot and the eye. Yet if all the physical members of the body be cut off, the body itself would be sliced away and destroyed. The same is true with regard to the spiritual: it is absurd to think of cutting off one spiritual hand or foot and plucking out one spiritual eye and leaving the other. Note that Jesus carefully refers to both: “having the two hands—the two feet—two eyes.” The older allegorical and the newer symbolical interpretations, which make the hand, foot, and eye unreal, lose themselves in intangible views or in weak generalities.

The key to the correct interpretation lies in the three ἐάν clauses, in the way in which Jesus speaks of the three bodily members. Do they really act independently of your person? Does your hand, foot, or eye without your volition set and bait a trap for your soul and then catch and kill it? Certainly not. It is your own evil heart and will that abuse these bodily members to make them the instruments of lusts and passions that center within you. It ought to be plain, then, that removing these members from your body and mutilating it would not help you, the lusts and passions would still be there.

The heart and will must be changed; thus alone will you be saved. That is why Jesus speaks of leaving one hand, one foot, and of being one-eyed. These single members would still be left as instruments to serve the evil heart if it remains unchanged.

But what does Jesus mean by our cutting off one of these pairs of members? Jesus is using an argumentum ad hominem; he is taking those of his disciples at their own word who would excuse themselves for committing sin by acting as if this could not be helped since we are constituted as we are with our bodies and physical members. Jesus meets this by drawing the logical consequences according to the universally recognized principle. No man hesitates to have a virulently diseased member of his body amputated by the surgeon in order that he may save his life. It is truly the only thing to do; everybody agrees. If we, indeed, mean that our will cannot control hand, foot, and eye, that one or more of these members drags us into sin and catches us in a deadly trap, then, on our own assertion, the only thing to do would be to amputate those members, and to do this with every member the moment it becomes dangerous—amputate the entire body away!

The argument thus becomes a reductio ad absurdum. For, on our own assertion, the only other alternative would be to let the virulent members actually kill us in their trap and destroy us in hell. The repetitions found in these verses, hand, foot, eye, each treated separately in the same drastic way, aim to hammer in the truth that we are at all hazard to try to escape hell and to make sure of heaven. If, then, the way of physical amputations is hopeless and absurd, there must be another way. Since these entrapments must be escaped, we must search out that way. Jesus does not state what it is; but his teaching has made it plain: the heart must be converted and must then control the body and all its members to spring traps neither on others nor on ourselves.

In v. 43 the aorist subjunctive σκανδαλίσῃ seems to be the assured reading although some texts have the present subjunctive σκανδαλίζῃ, which is the reading in the next two verses. If the one aorist is genuine it would be ingressive: “if thy hand starts to entrap thee”; it could not be effective: “actually entrap,” for it would then be too late to cut off the hand. The present subjunctives are simpler: “be entrapping,” be engaged in this nefarious business without as yet having fully accomplished it. While the task of determining the readings belongs to the text critics, whose findings the exegete accepts, the great similarity of the three ἐάν clauses, which is evidently intentional, would seem to favor the reading that has three present subjunctives.

Matthew’s (18:8, 9) two phrases, “into the fire, the eternal,” and “into the Gehenna of the fire,” agree with Mark’s double phrase, “into the Gehenna, into the fire, the unquenchable.” Mark’s second phrase defines the first for his non-Jewish readers by telling them that Gehenna means the unquenchable fire, i.e., hell. Note that ἄσβεστον is added by a second article, which makes the adjective a kind of apposition, in fact, a climax, R. 776. A fire that is “unquenchable” is by that very fact eternal. It is fruitless to dispute about the kind of fire that this is: all that we can say is what Jesus here says of it. We have no eternal or unquenchable fire here on earth, and when Jesus tells us of such a fire in the other world, we must remember that everything in that world is really beyond our comprehension. Let no man quibble about the kind of fire, let him make sure that he will escape that fire.

We omit v. 44 (A. V.) because it is not found in the best texts. In v. 45 “into the Gehenna” is sufficient, having been explained already in v. 43.

But in v. 48 an entire clause furnishes us a further description: “where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.” South of the walls of Jerusalem lay ge ben-Hinnom, “the valley of the sons of Hinnom,” which had at one time been desecrated by the worship of the idol Moloch, when children were roasted to death in the red-hot iron arms of his image (Jer. 2:23; 7:31; 2 Chron. 28:3; 33:6). Josiah declared the place unclean (2 Kings 23:10), and it then came to be used as a place for the disposal of offal (Jer. 7:32, etc.; 31:40). It was thus that the valley furnished γέεννα or Gehenna as a Jewish designation for hell, the place of the damned.

This is the meaning of the term in the eleven passages in the New Testament in which it occurs. In none of these passages can Gehenna refer to the actual valley near Jerusalem. Some, however, overdraw the picture of this valley. We have no evidence whatever to prove that constant fires were kept burning in this valley, or that the Jews ever burned criminals alive, or that the bodies of dead criminals were dragged out to this valley and were there committed to the flames. In v. 43 ἀπελθεῖν, “to go away” into Gehenna, pictures the sinner’s own action; he literally, by his own doing, goes to hell. But in v. 45 βληθῆναι, “to be thrown” into Gehenna, pictures the divine judgment on the sinner, when the angels of Christ, at his command, consign him to hell. Both verbs state facts.

This Gehenna is a place “where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched,” which is a description that is appropriated from Isa. 66:24. The two clauses are two lines of Hebrew poetry, the second line amplifies the first. “The worm” is internal, “the fire” external, thus the entire suffering of the damned is described. This σκώληξ is the maggot that consumes the flesh of a corpse. The fact that it does not die means that its work is eternal just as the fire is not quenched and is thus eternal. Within and without torment shall be the lot of the damned. The bodies of the blessed shall shine with glory and eternal bliss, but the bodies of the damned shall be like rotting, putrid corpses that have the worm within and the fire without.

The torment is predicated of the body because Jesus has spoken of the bodily members, the hand, the foot, and the eye. But the souls of the damned will be within their bodies, united with them in the resurrection on the last day. There is no need, then, to say that the souls will endure this torment by means of their bodies. Soulless bodies could not suffer. Since the worm is not identical with the fire it has often been interpreted with reference to the conscience and the endless reproaches which it will heap on the damned in hell. We may allow this to pass although it cannot be verified from the words themselves as they are used by Isaiah or by Jesus.

In these descriptions of hell Jesus uses the categories of space and of time. Gehenna is regarded as a place “where” the damned are; and their torment goes on and on in a fire that is never quenched. Jesus cannot speak in any other way because the human mind is so bound to the concepts of space and of time that it cannot think without them. But in reality the other world has no space and no time such as we are bound to in this world. That world is spacelessness and timelessness, or the opposite of space and of time, both of which are wholly inconceivable to us in our present state. Yet it is necessary for us to know this lest by carrying our concepts of time and space into the other world we fall into foolish and ridiculous reasonings and imaginings.

Whenever we incline to think thus we must at once check ourselves and remember that all our thoughts about the other world are wholly imperfect because we cannot as yet think in the true categories of the other world. This applies to heaven as well as to hell.

The ζωή is not the life that animated the body (ψυχή) but “life” in the supreme sense, here the life of God and of heaven, the life that is eternal blessedness; hence we have the article εἰςτὴνζωήν. It is the opposite of eternal death, and the opposite phrase is εἰςτὴνγέενναν. In v. 47 Jesus substitutes the phrase “into the kingdom of God” and thus defines what into the life means. This kingdom (see on 1:15) is the rule of God (Christ) in heaven and glory, for its opposite is Gehenna or hell. The kingdom includes the rule of grace here on earth, and the ζωή or life is attained already in this kingdom. Jesus is, however, speaking of the end and thus refers to the heavenly kingdom.

Fools alone will risk losing that kingdom and the heavenly life that fills it; the disciples will let no hand, foot, eye, or other bodily member yield to any lust or passion of the heart but will make every bodily member a ready servant of a converted and a sanctified heart and will thus enter into life and the kingdom. Jesus uses εἰσελθεῖν three times without change. He who “goes away into Gehenna” must “be thrown” into it at last; but they that “go into the life” go with unspeakable joy and need not even a push.

Mark 9:49

49 For everyone shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt. Excellent the salt! But if the salt becomes saltless, with what will you season it? Have salt in your own selves and be at peace with each other!

These words, which Mark alone reports, have called out conflicting comments; it is often assumed that the interpretation is difficult. Yet Jesus spoke with sufficient plainness to be understood by his disciples. The main idea is that of salt and of its use in salting. This figure is not difficult: salt is used to prevent food from spoiling and to make it tasty. In Matt. 5:13 the disciples themselves are called salt, the salt that is to counteract the corruption of the world. What makes them the salt of the earth is the divine Word which they believe and receive, the saving and the sanctifying power of Christ in and through this Word.

In our passage the metaphor is not so strong, the disciples are not themselves called salt, but salt is to be applied to them, they are to be salted, to have salt in themselves, namely, the salt of the Word and teaching of Jesus in all its saving and sanctifying strength. After this main thought is clear, much of the difficulty disappears.

What Jesus says about salting and salt is intended to explain what he has just said in warning about entrapping others and being entrapped ourselves (v. 42–48). He now indicates the means by which such calamities are to be prevented. His disciples are to be salted. The future passive ἁλισθήσεται is punctiliar, the salting is to be complete in them. This applies and can apply only to the disciples of Jesus (Matt. 5:13), hence πᾶς, “everyone,” refers to them and certainly not to the wicked, i.e., to any antecedent that is drawn from αὐτῶν in v. 48.

The figure is made startling by speaking of salting “with fire.” The close proximity of “the fire, the unquenchable,” in v. 48 leads some to conclude that this fire is referred to also in v. 49. They apply the exegetical rule that in the same context the same word must mean the same thing. But this rule has its marked exceptions. In fact, the contexts differ most decidedly, and all that is left is the proximity. The unquenchable fire in hell does not salt, it torments; the fire that acts as salt must be a different fire. It is in reality salt, but salt in its burning property when it destroys the germs of corruption. It is the Word of Christ in its power to burn out of our hearts the evil desire to entrap others (v. 42) and the evil desires that would allow our own bodily members to entrap us ourselves (v. 43–48).

Mark 9:50

50 The idea of fire suggests painfulness. That is why Jesus declares: “Excellent the salt!” Note the article, “the salt,” this particular salt of which he is speaking. Even when it burns like fire in the heart by eradicating any evil in us it is an excellent thing. Its excellent quality will, of course, show itself also in other ways; the Word (salt) will salt or sanctify us through and through. We could not remain sweet and wholesome spiritually without this divine salt.

But this salt must, of course, not become “saltless,” ἄναλον, lose its power to salt. Otherwise, “with what shall it be seasoned” to make it salty again? There is and can be no salt for salt, Jansen. In Matt. 5:13, where the disciples themselves are called salt, this loss of saltiness means that the disciples are not to grow unbelieving and worldly again. Here the salt is the Word which is changeless and will always be salt. But Jesus is speaking subjectively: we are to have salt and to be salted with this salt.

It is then plain that the Word which is excellent as salt may become saltless for us when we do not apply it properly to ourselves. You may have the whole Bible, but if you shrink from its sanctifying power you will not be freed from your corruption. Therefore Jesus adds: “Be having salt in yourselves.” Note the durative imperative: have it all the time; and not in your hand, in your head, but “in yourselves,” in your entire persons, hearts, hands, feet, eyes, and all your members. This having salt means using the Word constantly to keep us free from evil and spiritually clean and pure.

In concluding Jesus drops all figures and says: “And be at peace with each other,” let nothing at any time disturb your peaceful relation to each other. Jesus harks back to the beginning (v. 33), the ambition for earthly greatness among the disciples. This and any other wrong desires in their midst might easily cause division and dissension among them. The salt of the Word will remove anything of this kind and will keep them in true brotherly harmony.

The question whether in v. 49 the words: “and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt” (Lev. 2:13), belong to the text is one for the text critics to decide. The weight of textual evidence is against their genuineness. Some commentators lay great stress on them and make us as disciples a meat offering to God which must then be seasoned with salt. It is not likely that, even if Jesus did speak this sentence, Mark would have used it in his Gospel for non-Jewish readers.

A note is needed on salt becoming saltless. Remote cases are often cited to show that in olden times natural salt, when it was procured in an impure state and mixed with other chemicals, did or might thus actually lose its power and become unsalty. This kind of proof is deemed necessary on the assumption that Jesus would not use a figure that is drawn from what does not actually occur in nature. But the assumption is wrong—Jesus does use such figures. Who ever lights a lamp and then sets it under a peck measure? What father would ever send his son as did the one mentioned in Matt. 21:37?

Where is the lord who rewards his servants as did the one who is referred to in the parables of the Talents and the Pounds? These impossible figures serve to bring out most strikingly the reality which Jesus intends to picture. Let us acknowledge the fact that Jesus used figures with a mastery that is beyond all “good writers.” Saltless salt—the very idea is startling and only too true in the way in which the Word is often used.

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

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

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