Utatessattca
PART X, SECTION III
THE FOURFOLD GOSPEL
THE PROCLAMATION
OF THE NEW KINGDOM
Fora list of previous parts of Diatessarica, see pp. 545-6 of this volume.
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
ILontion: FETTER LANE, E.G.
C. F. CLAY, MANAGER
(CtJtnburgf) : 100, PRINCES STREET
#efo Sorfc : G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS
auto Calcutta: MACMILLAN AND CO., LTD.
Toronto: J. M. DENT AND SONS, LTD.
THE MARUZEN-KABUSHIKI-KAISHA
All rights reserved
77
-JIC
THE FOURFOLD GOSPEL
SECTION III
THE PROCLAMATION
OF THE NEW KINGDOM
BY
EDWIN A. ABBOTT
Honorary Fellow of St John's College, Cambridge
Fellow of the British Academy
The kingdom of God is at hand"
St Mark i. 15
Cambridge :
at the University Press
1915
PRINTED BY JOHN CLAY, M.A.
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS
PREFACE
PERHAPS the best Preface to this work might be found
in a glance at the Section Headings collected in the
Contents. If the title of the book may be said to indicate
a high road, the Section Headings may be said to indicate
cross roads. The cross roads represent investigations
into words. The high road is a continuous investigation
into thoughts the thoughts of the Four Evangelists,
severally and, through these, into the thought of Jesus
Himself in proclaiming the Kingdom of God.
Christ's authoritative calling of Simon Peter and the
other fishermen ; His authoritative acts of exorcism and
healing; His authoritative claim to forgive sins; His
assumption that He had authority to deal freely with
certain precepts of the Law all these things, related by
Mark, are examined along with other things related by
the other Evangelists but not by Mark. It is contended
that Mark often meant, or assumed, these other things,
though he did not express them, and that, when these
other things are duly taken into account, they reveal the
object of Jesus as being, from the first, not the establishment
of what men would commonly call a Kingdom, but the
diffusion of what we should rather call the atmosphere of
a Family, a spiritual emanation spreading like a widening
circle from a source within Himself as its centre, and
passing into the hearts of all that were fitted to receive
it, so as to give them something of His own power or
PREFACE
"authority" a term defined in the Prologue of the
Fourth Gospel as being "authority to become children
of God."
Although thus much may be said in deprecation of
the charge that the work has no claim to unity, I do not
venture to hope that any but a few specialists will read it
consecutively. Pains have been taken to make consecutive
reading unnecessary. The Contents at the beginning of
the book, and the Indices at the end, will enable readers
to ascertain what is said about a special subject, or a
special text of Scripture, without a continuous study of
the whole.
Let me give here a specimen of the way in which I have
found myself, after taking one of the above-mentioned
"cross roads" of verbal investigation, brought back
again not without some added knowledge of the sur-
rounding country into the continuous "high road."
The subject of the investigation (Chap. I. 27 foil.) is
the miraculous Draught of Fishes in Luke compared with
the corresponding miracle in John. The verbal portion of
it deals with a Greek word, neuein. This, in various forms,
may mean either (i) "nod" or (2) "swim." A very ancient
Gnostic work, called The Acts of John, describing the
Calling of the Fishermen, makes James speak to John about
Jesus on the shore as "the child that is nodding (neuein)
to us." Luke, prefixing the preposition kata, says that
Peter and his friends "nodded for help" to James and
John because their ship was sinking. But in the whole
of Greek literature kata-neuein apparently never has that
meaning. It has never been proved to include in its
meanings a neutral "nodding" (pace Liddell and Scott
"generally, to make a sign by nodding the head"). When
it means "nod," it appears always to mean, in effect,
vi
PREFACE
" nod-in-assent." How then are we to explain Luke's
use of it here?
To answer this question, we pass to the miracle in John.
A poet of the fifth century (Nonnus) has paraphrased this.
A commentator (Chrysostom) has explained it. Both of
these writers use neuein, but with another prefix. They
describe Peter and his friends not as "nodding for help,"
but as " nodding-in-dissent (ana-neuein) " to Jesus on the
shore. John himself, it is true, uses no form of neuein.
But he describes Peter, in effect, as swimming to the shore.
We have seen that neuein may mean "swim." Now we
have to add that "swim to the shore" (no less than "nod
in assent") is a correct rendering of kata-neuein, the word
used by Luke.
It will be maintained that this that is, "swimming to
the shore" and not "making signs of assent" was the
meaning of some early and obscure tradition misinterpreted
by Luke, who has also chronologically misplaced it, but who
has had the honesty to preserve the difficult word that led
him astray. The Preface to Luke's Gospel states that he
attempted to "write in [chronological] order," as well
as "accurately" ; but it also implies that other evangelists
had failed in this ; and it is not to be expected that Luke
would be always successful.
If in this instance Luke has made a mistake, we have
at all events compensations. We are relieved from the
necessity of supposing that Mark and Matthew omitted
what (according to Luke) was a turning-point in Peter's
career. And in the Johannine substitute we find a
narrative that gives us a peculiarly beautiful and (so to
speak) natural account of the impression produced on
Peter by the sympathetic insight, love, and regenerating
power, of the risen Saviour.
PREFACE
A similar compensation will be found (I believe) in
almost all the numerous instances where John intervenes
in the Synoptic tradition. He seems to do this mostly
with a view to elucidating Mark where Luke omits, or alters,
some Marcan tradition. Take one more instance, the last
in this volume where Jesus, in Mark, defines the family of
God as "those that do the thelema, or will, of God." Luke
substitutes "those that hear the word of God and do it."
It will be shewn that, in literary Greek, thelema, if it were
used at all, which it hardly ever is, would mean "desire of
the flesh." Probably this but probably other reasons
also, including a love of definiteness induced Luke to
alter the word.
What is John's course ? First, in his Prologue, he
distinguishes the fleshly and the sexual thelema, or "will,"
from the corresponding act by which "the children of
God" are "begotten." Having thereby implied that
there is something in God corresponding to the human
thelema, he does not hesitate to represent Jesus, later on,
as repeatedly saying, in the words of the Psalmist, that
He has come to "do the will (thelema) " of the Father who
sent Him (Jn i. 13, iv. 34, vi. 38, comp. Ps. xl. 8).
We lose something, it must be confessed, in arriving
at the conclusion that Luke's carefully arranged and
attractive Gospel where it attempts to clarify or correct
the obscurities and abruptnesses of Mark, and, as in this
last case, to extract definiteness out of indefmiteness
cannot always be relied on as bringing us nearer to the
words of Christ. But, even here, may we not learn more
from Luke and John together on the supposition that
Luke is wrongly correcting Mark, and John rightly
explaining Mark than we should have learned from
John alone without the erroneous Luke ?
Vlll
PREFACE
These considerations should bespeak respectful attention
for Luke's Gospel even if it should appear, in the course
of further investigation, that he is almost always in error
where John intervenes to correct him. Luke, as has been
shewn in the Introductory Volume (pp. 115 24), is fond
of historical and external "proofs," and of a definite
"word" followed by definite "doing." And it cannot be
denied that this definiteness has tended to immediate and
impressive success. Many of the Lucan "proofs" have
helped not only to increase the number of those who
call themselves Christians, but also to create a genuine
Christianity among many of them. But the evidence of
the Fourfold Gospel will be found to strengthen the
growing conviction that a time must come, for all Christians
conversant with the Scriptures, when they will have to
dispense with some of these "proofs," and to give up
expecting to find any definite "word," prescribing to us
what we are to "do," either in the pages of the Bible, or
in the interpretations of it by Christendom. The question
will then arise as to the best modern substitute for these
ancient definite "proofs" and definite "words." Almost
all will agree that there must be developments that the
old must be developed into the new. But into what
"new"?
Are we to accept, for our new "proof," the conviction
that Christ is still with us on our altars, in the Bread
consecrated by His appointed priests; and, for our new
"word," the prescriptions of these appointed priests, to
whom we can make our confession of sins, and from whom,
after performing the acts of penitence prescribed by them,
we can obtain a definite absolution?
Against this view it may be urged that official "priests"
for Christians are not recognised in the New Testament,
ix
PREFACE
and that even in Revelation, which does mention Christian
"priests," not official priests but ideal priests are con-
templated. For the context speaks of all Christians as
destined to be "kings and priests." But to this it may be
replied that if, in spite of this idealisation, Christians find
it expedient, and count it lawful, to have official "kings,"
they may also find it expedient, and count it lawful, to
have official "priests."
This contention is reasonable. Only it must be
remembered that it is a question of expediency, not of
morality; and that it is a development, not an appoint-
ment by Christ. The English word "priest" is simply a
shortened form of the Greek for "elder" "presbuteros,"
"presbyter," "pr ester," "prestre," or "pretre." The Elder,
at the confessional, in places where it is deemed expedient
that there should be a confessional, must not obscure the
One Priest through whom alone our confessions pass to
heaven. The same Elder, even when he is celebrating
the Eucharist, must still remember that, though he is
representing the One Priest in a peculiarly priestly function,
he would still be called no "priest" by Peter or Paul or
James or John, but only an "Elder."
The Fourth Gospel teaches us, at its outset, that in some
sense every human being that has been converted by the
Spirit of Christ, the One Priest, begins to partake of the
priestly character, and tends to become himself a con-
verter of others like Andrew, the first convert mentioned
by name, bringing his brother to Jesus. And at its close
the same Gospel teaches us that Jesus breathed the power
of forgiving sins not into the Apostles alone but into all
the disciples present. No other Gospel teaches so dis-
tinctly that from every genuine Christian there must
flow forth to other souls "rivers of living water." No
PREFACE
other Gospel so magnifies at once the dignity and the
responsibility of the individual believer, who is to be no
solitary anchorite, but to move among his brother men as
a natural benefactor, prince and priest in one.
But this princedom and this priesthood in everj
Christian have their source in the One Prince and Priest
whom Jesus promised to send as His other Self, the Para-
clete, who is in us, and in whom we are. No earthly
"elder" or "priest" is to come opaquely between our soul
and that Holy Spirit of Christ which speaks in us as well
as to us, through all the voices of nature, nature within
us and nature without, nature animate and inanimate,
testifying to us of the ultimate triumph of the love of the
Father, through the revelation of the Son, overcoming and
converting to good all powers of evil.
This teaching, if true, is not a merely theoretical truth.
Never was there an age when it was more practically
needed an age that has been so far led astray by the
impostures of false philosophy and false science as to
dream that man's permanent welfare can be brought
about by an appeal to enlightened self-interest, through
the readjustment of social and political arrangements,
with the aid of the marvellous discoveries of modern
science.
Against this imposture all the Gospels in various
ways protest. But the Fourth Gospel protests most
clearly by bringing before us the Incarnation as a part of
a Plan from the beginning, the Plan of the Father to
conform mankind to His own image and likeness through
the assimilating power of the revealed Son. This Gospel
uncompromisingly teaches us that there is no hope of any
permanent universal good except through a permanent
universal change of heart, a regeneration, in all races,
nations, and classes of mankind.
A. p. xi b
PREFACE
Those who reject this hope as a dream will reject the
Fourth Gospel. But those who accept the hope will
accept the Gospel, also, as that one of the Four which
best expresses or suggests it. It is a Gospel, so to speak,
of Four Dimensions, incompatible with familiar facts,
self-contradictory, sometimes recognising, sometimes ignor-
ing, the existence of evil. Yet it suggests to us a world
beyond expression the length and breadth and depth and
height of God's regenerating love, a mystery beyond the
experience of the senses and the understanding, yet
somehow practical, one that comes home to the business
and bosoms of the simplest of mankind. Alone among
the Gospels the Fourth goes to the root of the hopefulness
of Jesus by taking us to the root of all things, back to the
Beginning, in which it calls upon us to discern the Word,
the Word that was God, the Word that was at home with
God, or in the bosom of God, the Person that was to
become flesh as Jesus of Nazareth, in order to reveal the
perfect Man.
It is here in studying the necessarily illogical and
inconsistent delineations of the personality of Christ
that the Fourth Evangelist may give us priceless help,
if we can but overcome our objections to the indirectness
of his method. "Indirect" is indeed too weak an epithet.
"Tortuous" would hardly be too strong. Jesus is repre-
sented, for example, as saying, not only in effect but in
word, "I am the Way and the Truth and the Life," and
"I am the Light of the World" and "the Good Shepherd"
and "the Resurrection." Nothing can be more unlike
the words attributed to Jesus by the Synoptists. Few
certainties can be more certain than that Jesus did not
utter these exact words. Why then does the Evangelist,
thus repeatedly and with obviously deliberate iteration,
impute them to Him?
xii
PREFACE
The best explanation is that he knew (or, as I should
prefer to say, it was revealed to him) that Jesus meant them,
and he did not know how otherwise to express the know-
ledge or revelation. He longed to impress upon his readers
that this was their meaning; and by this longing he was
induced to substitute, throughout his Gospel, the meaning
instead of the word, and the spirit instead of the letter,
and the Logos instead of Jesus. The Synoptic Gospels
had hardly attempted to represent the "rivers of living
water" that flowed forth from Jesus in His utterances of
the unutterable love of the Father. Yet these utterances
were, as Peter says, "words of eternal life." In them the
love of the Father streamed forth to mankind, and Jesus
was both the channel and the stream. Jesus uses the
word "I" in the Fourth Gospel more often than in the
Three taken all together. Yet there is no such egotism as
some have supposed. It is often a sign of non-egotism, as
though He said " I, by myself, could do nothing, and should
be nothing. I am wholly dependent on the Father. I am
the Father's Love. I am the Way for you to pass into
His Love. Take me into your hearts. Strive to do as I
did. By following in my path, and by loving one another
with the love with which I have loved you, you will become
the veritable children of God."
The Fourth Gospel represents Christ as saying to His
disciples that His words before the Resurrection were but
"proverbs" or "dark sayings" as compared with the
teaching that He would send to them afterwards, and
that "greater works" would be done by them than those
done by Himself. These words should lift up our hearts
in hopeful readiness for the problems of the future. Paul
of Tarsus, Francis of Assisi, and John Wesley to speak
but of a few shew historically in what varied forms, and
xiii b 2
PREFACE
amid what diverse circumstances, the Spirit of Christ will
now and then break out into those "greater works" when
it finds a preeminently fit recipient of the constraining love
of Christ.
But what we need is a recognition on the part of all
Christians that this promise includes also those who are
not "preeminently" fit. Christendom will not be true
Christendom till the most commonplace Christian soul is
expected to thank God for having given him a power, to
some slight extent at all events, of forgiving sins like a
priest, of diffusing the truths of the Gospel like an evan-
gelist, and of reigning over his animal impulses like a king.
The Book of the Universe is full of illusions. Yet
God reveals Himself through it. Not one of the heavenly
bodies is where it appears to be. We see each in the place
that it filled some seconds, minutes, years, or centuries
ago. Yet "the heavens declare the glory of God." So
does the Fourth Gospel.
Let us turn, then, with fresh hope and faith to its
teaching, to the letter as well as to the spirit, but always
seeking the spirit through the letter. And let us especially
meditate on its reasonable and seasonable doctrine about
the Paraclete of Christ, how it has power to "teach" us
"all things" teaching us what to say and what to do
in answer to the importunate questionings and clamorous
demands thrust upon us by the social, political, and
national problems of each generation and teaching us
all this, not through a lesson-book of rules for saving
our own souls, but by bringing us into the circle of God's
Family, where each soul looks for instruction to the
Father's face and finds its weak self strengthened as well
as enlightened by Him who gives Himself to His children.
PREFACE
To the friends mentioned in the Prefaces of previous
volumes of Diatessarica, Mr W. S. Aldis, Mr H. Candler,
and the Rev. J. Hunter Smith, my thanks are again due
for help in revising the proofs help that must not be
measured by this meagre acknowledgment of their labour
and my benefit.
The Indices placed at the end of this volume, and
covering the three volumes of The Fourfold Gospel, are the
work of my daughter, who has also verified all the references
in the text and in the notes. If, as I believe, both the
references and the Indices are found almost invariably
accurate, the merit will be hers.
EDWIN A. ABBOTT.
Wellside, Well Walk
Hampstead, N.W.
29 Jan. 1915*
xv
CONTENTS
REFERENCES AND ABBREVIATIONS
PAGE
xxiii
CHAPTER I
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
[Mark i. 16 20]
i The Calling, in Mark-Matthew ..... i
2 The Reminding, in Luke ...... 4
3 The Calling and the Reminding, compared ... 5
4 Jesus "passing-by," in Mark .....
5 Jesus "walking," in Matthew ..... 13
6 Jesus "walking," in John ...... 15
7 Jesus "standing," and "teaching," in Luke . . 17
8 "Rabbi," used in all the Gospels but Luke . . . 20
9 "Rabbi," in John 22
10 "Andrew" . . . . . . . . . 26
11 " Casting-about in the sea " . ..... 32
12 " Cast the net on the right side of the boat " . . 35
13 "The right side" . . . 37
14 " For they were fishers " ...... 46
15 "Come (lit. hither) after me" ..... 47
16 "Following," in John ...... 50
17 " And I will make you to become fishers of men" . 57
18 "Fear not, from henceforth thou shalt catch men" . 61
19 Complexities in Synoptic metaphor and circumstance . 64
20 Greek metaphor, and Luke ...... 66
21 How does John express "fishers of men"? ... 68
22 The "Ich thus," or Fish, an early Christian emblem . 72
23 Influence of this emblem on Johannine doctrine . . 74
24 " ' Have ye anything to eat here ? ' And they gave
him part of a broiled fish," in Luke ... 77
25 (R.V.) "' Children, have ye aught to eat?' They
answered him, 'No'," in John .... 84
26 Clement of Alexandria on " one fishing " . . . 87
27 Peter swimming to Jesus 91
xvii
CONTENTS
PAGE
28 "Swimming" and "stretching out (or, spreading out)
the hands" ........ 97
29 Jesus "going on (or, forward)" ..... 101
30 "Zebedee" ......... 107
31 " With the hired servants " . . ... no
32 "Sons of Zebedee," in John .... 113
33 "Salome," in Mark 117
34 " Sons of peace " 120
35 " And straightway he called them " . . . . 124
36 How John expresses " calling " ..... 127
37 The "calling" of the sheep by the shepherd . . 130
38 Effective "calling" ....... 132
39 What did the fishermen " leave "? .... 135
40 "They left all," in Luke 139
41 "They followed him. . .they departed after him" . 144
42 "Departed after" implies a missionary journey . . 146
43 Philip "following" 148
44 Inferences from Mark 150
CHAPTER II
"AUTHORITY" AND "UNCLEAN SPIRITS"
[Mark i. 218]
i "The unclean spirit," in Zechariah . . . . 154
2 "An unclean spirit" and "authority," in Mark and
Luke ......... 157
3 "Authority" and "law," in Matthew . . . . 163
4 "Authority" and Christ's "word," in Luke . . 167
5 "Authority," in Greek writers of the first century . 169
6 "Authority" and the spirit of sonship, in John . . 174
7 " Going down to Capernaum " . . . . . 178
8 "Teaching in synagogue" at Capernaum, in John . 185
CHAPTER III
JESUS HEALING
[Mark i. 29 34]
i The first miracle of healing 190
2 The details of the healing 192
3 "Fever" 196
4 " Lying down " and " cast [down] " . . . 198
5 The Johannine view of "fever" ..... 202
6 The Johannine view of "thirst" . .... 204
xviii
CONTENTS
PAGE
7 The Johannine view of Messianic " raising " . . 207
8 Medically "attending," as distinct from "healing," in
Greek 208
9 "Divers" or "manifold" diseases ..... 210
10 "At even, when the sun did set" .... 213
11 Was Christ's action in any cases tentative ? . . 217
12 The Johannine view, regarded negatively . . . 220
13 The Johannine view, regarded positively . . . 223
14 The difference between the Fourth Gospel and the
Three 227
CHAPTER IV
JESUS GOES FORTH BEFORE DAWN
[Mark i. 35 9]
i Why did Matthew omit this ? 232
2 Why did Mark insert this ? . . . . . . 235
3 Differences between Mark and Luke, and Johannine
illustrations of (i) "pursued," (2) "let us go" . 237
4 " Elsewhere into the next towns " (Mark), " to the other
cities also" (Luke) ....... 240
5 "To this [end] came I forth" (Mark), "Toward this
[end] was I sent" (Luke) ..... 243
CHAPTER V
THE HEALING OF A LEPER
[Mark i. 40 45]
i The prominence of this miracle . . . . . 246
2 (R-V.) "Strictly (or, sternly) charged," in Mark . . 251
3 God "having compassion" on "Rachel's children,"
in Jeremiah ........ 252
4 (R.V.) "Groaned (or, was moved with indignation),"
in John ......... 254
CHAPTER VI
THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS
[Mark ii. i 12]
i The forgiveness and healing of the Paralytic, in the
Synoptists ....... 261
2 The healing, without forgiveness, of the man "in
infirmity," in John. . . . . . . 267
xix
CONTENTS
Forgiving sins and retaining sins, in John .
The first mention of "sin," connected with "Cain" in
the Bible, and with "retaining" in the Targums
"Cain," the "man-killer," in the Johannine Epistle .
Conclusion as to the Johannine view
PAGE
272
275
277
280
I
CHAPTER VII
CHRIST'S CALL TO "SINNERS"
[Mark ii. 13 17]
1 Technical terms in the Synoptists .... 284
2 John's use of the words "righteous" and "righteous-
ness" ......... 288
3 What does John say or imply about "sinners" ? . 291
4 The "harlots" in Matthew, and the "woman that was
a sinner" in Luke ....... 293
5 The woman of Samaria in John ..... 296
6 The Syrophoenician woman in Mark and Matthew . 298
7 " Greek " in Mark, and " Greeks " in John . . . 301
CHAPTER VIII
THE OLD AND THE NEW
[Mark ii. 1822]
i A complaint of the Baptist's disciples, in the Synoptic
Gospels ......... 307
2 Fasting . . . . . . . . . 311
3 The "bridegroom," in the Synoptic reply . . . 314
4 The meaning of "bridegroom," if uttered by Jesus, or
if uttered by the Baptist . . . . . 318
5 Hebrew and Jewish traditions about the Bridegroom . 323
6 "In that day," or "in those days" .... 325
7 A complaint of the Baptist's disciples and the reply, in
the Fourth Gospel . . . . . . . 330
8 The parable of the patched garment . . . . 335
9 " This year's wine " and " new wine-skins ". . . 336
10 Luke and John on "good wine" 340
11 The Fourth Gospel on the " old " and the " new " . 343
xx
CONTENTS
CHAPTER IX
JESUS AND THE SABBATH
[Mark ii. 23 iii. 6]
PAGE
i "When Abiathar was high priest," in Mark . . 347
2 Does John intervene ? . . . . . . 350
3 "The sabbath was made for man," in Mark . . 352
4 Does John intervene ? 354
5 Jesus proceeding to heal on the sabbath . . . 356
6 Jesus "being grieved" (R.V.), in Mark . . . 360
7 "At the hardening of their heart," in Mark . . 362
8 "The Herodians," in Mark ...... 365
9 The absence of technical terms in John . . . 369
CHAPTER X
THE CONCOURSE TO JESUS
[Mark iii. 7 12]
i Jesus "withdrew" ....... 372
2 "Toward the sea," "Galilee," "beyond Jordan" . 379
3 " From Idumaea (i.e. Edom) "..... 380
4 The Johannine view of the concourse to Jesus . . 382
CHAPTER XI
THE APPOINTMENT OF THE TWELVE
[Mark iii. 13 19]
i " Going up into the mountain " . . . . . 387
2 " Whom he himself would he calleth to himself " . 389
3 "Apostles" 390
4 "That they might be with him, and that he might
[from time to time] send them to preach" . . 404
5 " James the [son] of Zebedee and John the brother of
James" . . ..... 408
6 " Sons of thunder " in Mark, " thunder " in John . 410
7 "Thaddaeus" in Mark, "Judas of James" in Luke . 413
8 "The Cananaean" in Mark, "he that was called
Zealot" in Luke . ... . 416
xxi
CONTENTS
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
CHAPTER XII
THE KINGDOM OF GOD, A FAMILY
[Mark iii. 20 35]
PAGE
Jesus, in Mark, said by His "friends" to be "beside
himself" ......... 424
"He hath Beelzebub," in Mark 428
The "brethren" of Jesus, in John .... 431
"A devil," in John ....... 432
Mark's first mention of "parables" .... 435
John's mention of "proverbs" ..... 438
" Parable " implies comparison ..... 443
" The strong [one] " ....... 445
The "spoiling" of the Egyptians .... 452
The "casting out" of "the ruler of this world" . 453
"All things shall be forgiven to the sons of men/' in
Mark ....... . 458
(R.V.) "Guilty of an eternal sin," in Mark . . . 460
"Guilty," in LXX . . . . 463
"Ye say 'We see/ Your sin abideth," in John . . 465
"Because they said, 'He hath an unclean spirit'" . 468
"See ! My mother, and my brethren" / . 470
"Whosoever shall do the will. . . .." in Mark . . 474
The difference, as to "the will," between Luke and
John .... .... 478
INDICES
To Introduction and Beginning : (i) Scriptural Passages,
(ii) English, (iii) Greek
To Proclamation :
(iii) Greek
(i) Scriptural Passages, (ii) English,
487
512
xxn
REFERENCES AND ABBREVIATIONS
REFERENCES
(i) a. References to the first nine Parts of Diatessarica (as to which
see pp. 545 6) are by paragraphs in black Arabic numbers :
1 272 = Clue.
273 552 = Corrections of Mark.
553 1149 = From Letter to Spirit.
11501435 = Paradosis.
1436 1885 = Johannine Vocabulary.
1886 2799 = Johannine Grammar.
2800 2999 = Notes on New Testament Criticism.
30003635 = The Son of Man.
3636 3999 = Light on the Gospel from an ancient Poet.
(i) b. References to the Sections of the Tenth Part of Diatessarica,
entitled The Fourfold Gospel, are by pages. The three
Sections now completed are :
(Section i) Introduction.
(Section 2) The Beginning.
(Section 3) The Proclamation of the New Kingdom.
(ii) The Books of Scripture are referred to by the ordinary
abbreviations, except where specified below. But when it is
said that Samuel, Isaiah, Matthew, or any other, writer,
wrote this or that, it is to be understood as meaning the writer,
whoever he may be, of the words in question, and not as meaning
that the actual writer was Samuel, Isaiah, or Matthew.
(iii) The principal Greek MSS are denoted by N, A, B, etc. ;
the Latin versions by a, b, etc., as usual. The Syriac version
discovered by Mrs Lewis on Mount Sinai is referred to as SS, i.e.
"Sinaitic Syrian." It is always quoted from Prof. Burkitt's
translation. I regret that in the first three vols. of Diates-
sarica Mrs Lewis's name was omitted in connection with this
version.
(iv) The text of the Greek Old Testament adopted is that of B,
edited by Prof. Swete; of the New, that of Westcott and
Hort.
(v) Modern works are referred to by the name of the work, or
author, vol., and page, e.g. Levy iii. 343 a, i.e. vol. iii. p. 343,
col. i.
xxi n
REFERENCES AND ABBREVIATIONS
ABBREVIATIONS
Aq. = Aquila's version of O.T.
Brederek = Brederek's Konkordanz zum Targum Onkelos, Giessen,
1906.
Burk. = Prof. F. C. Burkitt's Evangelion Da-mepharreshe ,
Cambridge University Press, 1904.
Chr. = Chronicles.
Clem. Alex. 42 = Clement of Alexandria in Potter's page 42.
Dalman, Words = Words of Jesus, Eng. Transl. 1902; Aram.
G. = Grammatik des Jiidisch-Paldstinischen Aramdisch, 1894.
En. = Enoch ed. Charles, Clarendon Press, 1893.
Ency. = Encyclopaedia Biblica.
Ephrem = Ephraemus Syrus, ed. Moesinger.
Etheridge = Etheridge's translations of the Targums on the
Pentateuch.
Euseb. = the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius.
Field = Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt, Oxford, 1875, also
Otium Norvicense, 1881.
Gesen. = the Oxford edition of Gesenius.
Goldschm. = Der Babylonische Talmud, 1897 I 9 I 2, ed. Gold-
schmidt.
Goodspeed = Goodspeed's Indices, (i) Patristicus, Leipzig, 1907,
(ii) Apologeticus, Leipzig, 1912.
Hastings = Dictionary of the Bible, ed. Hastings (5 vols.).
Hor. Heb. = Horae Hebraicae, by John Lightfoot, 1658 74, ed.
Gandell, Oxf. 1859.
Iren. = the treatise of Irenaeus against Heresies.
Jer. Targ. or Targ. Jer. (abbrev. for Jerusalem Targum), or Jon.
Targ. (i.e. Targum of Jonathan, abbrev. for the Targum of Pseudo-
Jonathan) = the Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan on the Pentateuch, of
which there are two recensions both quoted (Notes on N.T. Criticism,
Pref. p. viii) by ancient authorities under the name "Jerusalem
Targum." The two recensions are severally denoted by Jer. I and
Jer. II. On other books, the Targum is referred to as simply " Targ."
Jon. Targ., see Jer. Targ.
Justin = Justin Martyr (Apol. = his First Apology, Try ph. = the
Dialogue with Trypho).
K. = Kings.
Krauss = Krauss's Griechische und Lateinische Lehnworter etc.,
Part n, Berlin, 1899.
Levy = Levy's Neuhebrdisches und Chalddisches Wdrterbuch,
4 vols., Leipzig, 1889; Levy Ch. = Chalddisches Wdrterbuch, 2 vols.,
1881.
xxiv
I
REFERENCES AND ABBREVIATIONS
L.S. = Liddell and Scott's Greek Lexicon.
Mechilta, see Wu(nsche).
Onk. = the Targum of Onkelos on the Pentateuch.
Origen is referred to variously, e.g. Horn. Exod. ii. 25 = lib. ii.
ch. 25 of Horn. Exod., but Orig. on Exod. ii. 25 = the commentary
ad loc. ; Lomm. iii. 24 = vol. iii. p. 24 of Lommatzsch's edition.
Oxf . Cone. = The Oxford Concordance to the Septuagint.
Pec. = peculiar to the writer mentioned in the context.
Pesikta, see Wii(nsche).
Philo is referred to by Mangey's volume and page, e.g. Philo ii.
234, or, as to Latin treatises, by the Scripture text or Aucher's
pages (P. A.).
Pistis = Pistis Sophia, ed. Petermann (marginal pages).
Ps. Sol. = Psalms of Solomon, ed. Ryle and James, Cambr. 1891.
R., after Gen., Exod., Lev. etc. means Rabboth, and refers to
Wunsche's edition of the Midrash on the Pentateuch, e.g. Gen. r.
(on Gen. xii. 2, Wu. p. 177).
Rashi, sometimes quoted from Breithaupt's translation, 1714.
S. = Samuel; s. = "see."
Schottg. = Schottgen's HoraeHebraicae, Dresden and Leipzig, 1733.
Sir. = the work of Ben Sira, i.e. the son of Sira. It is commonly
called Ecclesiasticus (see Clue 20 a}. The original Hebrew used in
this work is that which has been edited, in part, by Cowley and
Neubauer, Oxf. 1897; in part, by Schechter and Taylor, Cambr.
1899; in part, by G. Margoliouth, Jewish Quart. Rev., Oct. 1899
(also printed in About Hebrew Manuscripts (Frowde, 1905) by
Mr E. N. Adler, who discovered the missing chapters).
SS, see (iii) above.
Steph. Thes. = Stephani Thesaurus Graecae Linguae (Didot).
Sym. = Symmachus's version of O.T.
Targ. (by itself) is used where only one Targum is extant on the
passage quoted.
Targ. Jer., Targ. Jon., and Targ. Onk., see Jer. Targ., Jon. Targ.,
and Onk., above.
Tehillim = Midrash on Psalms, ed. Wiinsche (2 vols.).
Test, xn Patr. = Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs ed.
Charles, 1908 (Gk., Clarendon Press, Eng., A. & C. Black).
Theod. = Theodotion's version of O.T.
Thes. Syr. = Payne Smith's Thesaurus Syriacus, Oxf. 1901.
Tromm. = Trommius' Concordance to the Septuagint.
Tryph. = the Dialogue between Justin Martyr and Trypho the
Jew.
Walton = Biblia Sacra Polyglotta, 1657.
Wetst. = Wetstein's Comm. on the New Testament, Amsterdam,
XXV
REFERENCES AND ABBREVIATIONS
W.H. = Westcott and Hort's New Testament.
Wii. = Wiinsche's translation of Rabboth etc., 1880 i<
(including Mechilta, Pesikta Rab Kahana, Tehillim etc.).
(a) A bracketed Arabic number, following Mk, Mt., etc., indicates
the number of instances in which a word occurs in Mark, Matthew ,
etc., e.g. aydirrj Mk (o), Mt. (i), Lk. (i), Jn (7).
(b) Where verses in Hebrew, Greek, and Revised Version, are
numbered differently, the number of R.V. is given alone.
(c) In transliterating a Hebrew, Aramaic, or Syriac word,
preference has often, but not invariably, been given to that form which
best reveals the connection between the word in question and forms
of it familiar to English readers. Where a word is not transliterated,
it is often indicated (for the sake of experts) by a reference to Gesen.,
Thes. Syr., Levy, or Levy Ch.
xxvi
CHAPTER I*
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN 1
[Mark i. 16 20]
i. The Calling, in Mark-Matthew
THE Mark-Matthew account of the Calling of Peter and his
companions would not need to be studied with all the detail
that will be found in this Chapter if it were not necessary to
compare it with what may be called the Lucan Reminding of
Peter 2 . The Lucan narrative includes an account of a miracu-
lous draught of fishes. John also describes a miraculous
draught of fishes, and connects it with what may be called the
Restoration of Peter 3 . But John places it after the Resur-
rection.
This raises the question how far some of the Evangelists
may have been elsewhere chronologically misled so as to
place during Christ's life on earth words and acts that should
have been placed after the Resurrection while He was still
present with His disciples at frequent intervals. It has been
* For titles of previous Parts of Diatessarica referred to by
abbreviations in this Volume, see pp. 545 6. For other abbreviations
see pp. xxiii xxvi.
1 See Mk i. 16 20, Mt. iv. 18 22, Lk. v. i 2, 9 n, which
will be found arranged in parallel columns on pp. 5 6.
2 Lk. v. 3 foil. See p. 4, as to the reasons for so calling it.
3 Jn xxi. 7 19, see pp. 35 foil., 91 foil. In this narrative Peter
conies to Jesus through the water and receives the charge "Feed my
sheep," together with a prediction that he shall die by crucifixion.
A. p. i (Mark i. 16 20) i
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
pointed out in the introductory volume of The Fourfold Gospel
that "perhaps the Sending of the Seventy or some of its
precepts, such as 'eat those things that are set before you'-
may refer to a period after the Resurrection 1 ." Matthew
masses most of these precepts with the precepts to the Twelve.
Neither Mark nor Matthew makes mention of any mission of
the Seventy. It seems probable that Luke is correct in making
the precepts later than those to the Twelve, but incorrect in
not making them a great deal later. John leaves no room
for us in his Gospel to place appropriately any important and
fruitful mission of Apostles, whether twelve or seventy. If
he is right in his views, we ought (it would seem) to recognise
that some things recorded by the Synoptists may have been
recorded out of order, placed too early, and in a setting that
makes us unable to understand their spiritual meaning. Such
a recognition ought to make us patient to the utmost in inves-
tigating the following instance of Lucan divergence from Mark
and Matthew, and the apparent Johannine intervention.
In Mark, closely followed by Matthew, the first separate act
of Jesus, after He has begun to preach the Gospel, is to call
two pairs of brothers both pairs fishermen. To the first pair,
Simon and his brother Andrew, whom Mark describes as
" casting-about in the sea 2 ," Jesus says, "Come after me, and
I will make you fishers of men." Thereupon "they followed
him." "Going on a little [further]," says Mark, "he saw James
the [son] of Zebedee and John his brother them, too, in the
boat, mending 3 the nets." Here "the boat" means, not the
previously mentioned "boat" of Peter, but "their boat," and
1 See Fourfold Gospel, Introduction, p. no, quoting i Cor. x. 27
"eat everything that is set before you [to eat]," i.e., without regard
to distinctions of the Mosaic Law. See Clue 233 foil., From Letter to
Spirit 1015 a foil.
2 "Casting-about," dufa&dXXovTas, see p. 32.
3 "Mending," Karapri^ovras (possibly "adjusting"), see p. 34.
2 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
"the nets" means "their nets." Matthew says "in the boat
with Zebedee their father mending their nets." This implies,
not only that "the boat" belonged to the Zebedaean family
(and presumably to Zebedee), but also that Zebedee was pre-
sent. Mark also implies this in his next verse : "And straight-
way he called them, and leaving their father Zebedee in the
boat with the hired-servants, they went after him." Matthew
has " And he called them. So they straightway, leaving the boat
and their father, followed him " omitting the clause about
"the hired-servants. ' '
Zebedee is never mentioned again in such a way as to
imply that he was still alive. There are passages where
James and John are called his "sons." And, in Matthew,
Zebedee's wife, or his widow, is called "the mother of the
sons of Zebedee 1 ." This favours the hypothesis that he
was dead at the time of the Calling, and that the Mark-
Matthew account of his presence is an error. If he was present,
several unanswered questions arise. Was not Zebedee included
in the Call ("he called them")? If he was included, did he
disobey, and did his wife leave him and go about with his
sons following Jesus ? Or did his death happen soon after the
Calling and pass unmentioned by Mark and Matthew ?
Another question, in connection with the Mark-Matthew
narrative, is whether the two pairs of fishermen are to be
regarded as called on terms of equality. To the first pair a
promise is made, "I will make you fishers of men." No such
words are uttered to the second pair. Both pairs follow Jesus ;
but the second pair receives no recorded promise.
To the question "Why did the fishermen follow?" Mark
and Matthew give no answer, except what we may infer from
their preceding statement that Jesus had begun to preach
repentance in public 2 . We have to suppose either what is
1 Mt. xx. 20, xxvii. 56.
2 Mk i. 15, Mt. iv. 17 "repent ye."
3 (Mark i. 16 20) i 2
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
very improbable that Jesus here repeated the substance of
His preaching, first to one pair, and then to the other, or else
that the four fishermen had already heard His preaching, or
the report of it, and already knew so much about Jesus that
His mere call sufficed to make them follow.
2. The Reminding, in Luke
In Luke, there is a somewhat similar narrative about two
fishing-boats, one belonging to Simon, and the other to Simon's
"sharers [in the work]" or "partners," the sons of Zebedee.
Andrew is not mentioned. Nor is Zebedee mentioned, except to
say that the owners of the second boat are his sons. Toward
the end there is addressed, but only to Simon, an exhortation,
"Fear not," followed by a promise, "From henceforth thou
shalt take men alive." Finally it is said "And having brought
the boats to land, having left all things, they followed him."
It will be observed that there is no "calling" here. All "fol-
low" but none are "called."
The reason will be obvious when we compare the three
Synoptic narratives, supplementing what is printed below
(pp. 5 6) by inserting the Lucan story of a miraculous draught
of fishes 1 , and also noting that Luke places his narrative after,
while Mark and Matthew place it before, Christ's visit to Peter's
house, where He healed Peter's mother-in-law. Mark-Matthew
will then be seen to be not really parallel to Luke. Mark-
Matthew describes "a calling." Luke appears to have as-
sumed and omitted the Calling 2 , and to describe what might
be termed "a reminding," which he placed after the Marcan
"calling 3 ." If that is the case, then, according to Luke, after
1 Lk. v. 3 10.
2 Somewhat similarly Luke and John make only a brief and
incidental mention of the Baptist's imprisonment, and no mention
at all of his death. But it must be confessed that the Lucan omission
of the Calling is less easily explicable.
3 A friend suggests that Luke may have thought of his narrative
4 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
Peter and Andrew had heard the words "I will make you
fishers of men," Peter returned to his occupation of fishing.
Jesus, finding him thus occupied, works a miracle that brings
him to his knees apparently alarmed, not by the wonder
alone, but also by his own conscience, and by the remembrance
of his neglected duty to the wonder-worker. Then the Lucan
words "fear not," and "from henceforth," imply that the
neglect is forgiven but must now come to an end 1 . The
"catching," or "taking-alive," of "men" is to begin at
once : "From henceforth thou shalt be taking-alive [not fish,
but] men."
3. The Calling and the Reminding, compared
It might be supposed that we could learn nothing from
comparing the Calling with the Reminding, since they do
not profess to describe the same events. And indeed a com-
parison would be misleading if we assumed in them a parallel-
ism of fact. But even a glance at the following columns will
probably shew the reader that there is something to be learned
from their contrasts or omissions as well as from their similari-
ties or identities :
Lk. v. i 2, 9 ii
Mk i. 1620 (R.V.) 2 Mt.iv. 1822 (R.V.) 2 (R.V.) 2
(16) And passing (18) And walking (i) Now it came
along by the sea of by the sea of Galilee, to pass, while the
as describing a first Calling whereas Mark describes a second. Thus
the " rending " of the nets in Luke (v. 6) would precede the " mending "
in Mark. But ancient authorities (e.g. the Diatessarori) do not
support this view. And internal evidence appears to be against it.
1 This is the most obvious explanation of Peter's alarm. But
it is not satisfactory. A large draught of fishes, even a stupendous
one, is not the kind of phenomenon that is represented in O.T.
(e.g. i K. xvii. 18) as causing similar alarm (or what Alford calls
(on Lk. v. 8) "self-loathing").
2 Printed here as in the Revised Version. Later on, separate
phrases will occasionally be rendered differently, for example,
Mk i. 16 "Simon and Andrew. . . casting-about [a net] in the sea."
5 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
Mk i. 16 2o(R.V.)
(contd.)
Galilee, he saw Simon
and Andrew the
brother of Simon
casting a net in the
sea : for they were
fishers.
(17) And Jesus
said unto them, Come
ye after me, and I
will make you to be-
come fishers of men.
( 1 8) And straight-
way they left the nets,
and followed him.
(19) And going on
a little further, he saw
James the [son] of
Zebedee, and John
his brother, who also
were in the boat
mending the nets.
(20) And straight-
way he called them :
and they left their
father Zebedee in the
boat with the hired
servants, and went
after him.
Mt.iv. 1822 (R.V.)
(contd.)
he saw two brethren,
Simon who is called
Peter, and Andrew
his brother, casting a
net into the sea ; for
they were fishers.
(19) And he saith
unto them, Come ye
after me, and L will
make you fishers of
men.
(20) And they
straightway left the
nets, and followed
him.
(21) And going on
from thence he saw
other two brethren,
James the [son] of
Zebedee, and John
his brother, in the
boat with Zebedee
their father, mending
their nets ; and he
called them.
(22) And they
straightway left the
boat and their father,
and followed him.
Lk. v. i 2, 9 i
(R.V.) (contd.)
multitude pressed up-
on him and heard
the word of God,
that he was standing
by the lake of Gen-
nesaret ;
(2) And he saw
two boats standing
by the lake : but the
fishermen had gone
out of them, and
were washing their
nets.
(3) And he en-
tered into one of the
boats, which was
Simon's
(9) For he was
amazed, and all that
were with him, at the
draught of the fishes
which they had taken ;
(10) And so were
also James and John,
sons of Zebedee,
which were partners
with Simon. And
Jesus said unto
Simon, Fear not ;
from henceforth thou
shalt catch (//"/. take
alive) men.
( 1 1 ) And when
they had brought
their boats to land,
they left all, and fol-
lowed him.
6 (Mark i. 1620)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
The first question that arises out of these different narra-
tives is "Why does Luke speak of 'the lake of Gennesaret'
whereas Mark and Matthew have ' the sea of Galilee ' ? " A brief
answer may be given in the words of an ancient opponent
of Christianity, "Those who report the truth of the localities
say that there is no sea there, but only a small lake 1 ." In LXX,
the Greek for "lake" is very rare, and always means "pool 2 ."
The Hebrew Scripture and the Talmud have but one word
for "lakes" and "seas," and the Talmud speaks of "the sea of
Gennesar," though more often of "the sea of Tiberiah" (but not
(apparently) "the sea of Galilee"). The prophecy of Isaiah
quoted at this stage by Matthew ("toward the sea, Galilee of
the Gentiles") might naturally induce the authors of the
earliest Gospels to call it "sea of Galilee." But Strabo and
Josephus speak of "the lake of Gennesar" or "the Gennesarite
lake" and this term would naturally commend itself to Luke,
who aims at writing like a Greek historian. He never mentions
"the sea of Galilee," but only "the lake of Gennesaret."
As regards the name Tiberias, we find Josephus now and
then speaking of "the lake of the men of Tiberias" or "the
lake near Tiberias." This, as a name of the lake, is also men-
tioned by Pliny. Tiberias was not founded till A.D. 20 30, and
therefore could hardly have given its name to the lake of
Gennesar at the time when the Gospel narrative began to be
circulated. But after the destruction of Jerusalem it became
the principal seat of the learning of the Law. Then Palestinian
as well as Roman and Greek influences would favour the
introduction of the new name of the lake. John accepts the
new name, and (as it were) bridges over the interval between
the old name and the new in his first mention of the lake,
thus : "Jesus went away to the other side of the sea of Galilee,
which is [the sea] of Tiberias*."
1 Macarius iii. 6 (p. 60).
2 Ps. cvii. 35, cxiv. 8, Cant. vii. 4, comp. i Mace. xi. 35 "salt
pools," 2 Mace. xii. 16. 3 Jn vi. i.
7 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
These three different ways of describing the scene of some
of the most remarkable events in the Gospel are not, in them-
selves, important. But indirectly the study of the differences
throws light on the motives and circumstances of the Evan-
gelists, and on the date of the traditions recorded by them.
The study of other differences will be found similarly illumin-
ating. Why, for example, does Luke make no mention of
Andrew here ? Was Andrew absent from the Reminding
though present at the Calling ? Or was it merely for brevity ?
Neither explanation will seem quite satisfactory when we come,
a little later on, to Mark's statement that Jesus "came into
the house of Simon and Andrew," and find Luke (in this case
followed by Matthew) again omitting Andrew's name.
Again, as to Zebedee, was he, too, absent from the Remind-
ing though present at the Calling ? That will not suffice to
explain why his boat is no longer called his but his sons'. No
answer will be satisfactory that does not explain other passages
where Mark inserts the name of Zebedee and Luke rejects it.
In this and in other cases of narratives that describe similar
but not identical events, such as Luke's and John's accounts
of a miraculous draught of fishes, the best plan will be to
compare them phrase by phrase, in order to ascertain whether
one of the two traditions has modified the other.
4. Jesus " passing-by l ," in Mark
Instead of "pass-by," Matthew has "walk [about]," while
Luke describes Jesus, first as "standing" by the lake, and
afterwards as "teaching" in Peter's boat. Mark applies
"pass-by" once more to Jesus thus:
Mk ii. 13 14 Mt. ix. 9 Lk. v. 27
(13) And he went- And passing-by And after these
forth 2 again by the thence, Jesus saw a things he went-forth' 2
1 In this section, the N.T. Gk for "pass-by" is rrapdyo>.
2 "Went forth," e'^Xtfe, might in certain contexts mean "dis-
embarked," as perhaps in Mk vi. 34.
8 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
man sitting at the
place of toll, called
Matthew...
Lk. v. 27 (contd,}
and beheld a re-
ceiver-of-toll, by name
Levi, sitting at the
place of toll...
Midi. 13 i^(contd.) Mt. ix. 9 (contd.)
sea ; and all the mul-
titude resorted unto
him, and he taught
them.
(14) And passing-
by, he saw Levi the
[son] of Alphaeus,
sitting at the place
of toll...
In both the Marcan passages there is a mention of "sea."
In the second there is a mention of "place of toll." Now the
Greek "pass-by" is used by Polybius to mean "come into
port," and by Epictetus (apparently) for "touch at a port";
and nouns derived from this verb mean "coming to land," and
"dues" payable by a vessel on putting to land or touching at
a harbour x . Possibly some assumption that Jesus "came by
the sea" may explain how the word came to be used by Mark
here instead of the ordinary words for "going-by 2 ." The
thought of Jesus, at this crisis, as "coming by the sea" in
some way or other, either "by the side of the sea," or "on the
sea," would be suggested by the prophecy of Isaiah, quoted in
the parallel Matthew concerning the "great light" manifested
"by the way of the sea" in connection with "Galilee of the
Gentiles 3 ."
But another and quite different allusion to "passing-by"
might spring from the thought of a parallelism between the
calling of the Fishermen by Jesus and the calling of Elisha by
Elijah, who is said to have "passed over unto him" or
"passed by him." Not that Elijah actually said to Elisha
"Come after me." Yet that Elisha understood him to mean
1 See Steph. Thes. vi. 235 7.
2 These would be Trapep^o/iai, TrapaTropevopiat, etc.
3 Is. IX. I 2.
9 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
1 -- ' ' . , ,
it, is certain, though the context is obscure 1 . For Elisha says
"/ will (lit.) go after thee," and it is added that Elisha "went
after" Elijah and "ministered unto him." In Mark, the
Baptist is regarded as "Elijah," and as using about Jesus the
words "there cometh" and "after me z ." It is therefore ante-
cedently probable that in this narrative, when Mark is about
to describe Jesus as saying "[Come] hither after me," and to
describe how the fishermen "went after him," he would have
in mind the occasion when Elijah virtually said "Come after
me" and Elisha actually said "/ will (lit.) go after thee."
On that occasion the Hebrew Scripture described Elijah as
"passing-over" to Elisha, or " passing-by," and Mark might
use "pass-by" here allusively.
It will be found that this Marcan word for "pass-by," when
used of persons absolutely and without qualification 3 , is used
nowhere in the canonical LXX except in a passage of the Psalms
where the Midrash exhibits differences of opinion: "Neither
do they that pass by say, The blessing of the Lord be upon you 4 ."
One Rabbi takes it literally. Another refers it to the Gentiles,
who "pass-by" like a vapour. Jerome takes it to mean the
saints who "have passed away to heaven and to eternity."
These variations and other ambiguities of the word both in
Hebrew and in Greek may help to explain why Luke never
applies this word to Jesus. But they also raise the question,
" Does John apply this word to Jesus, and if so, to what effect ? "
1 i K. xix. 19 20, R.V., "And Elijah passed over unto him (A.V.
passed by him) and cast his mantle upon him." Gesen. 718 a gives
only this instance of "pass-over" with "unto" (foil, by person),
LXX (TrrjXdev (A a.7rrj\dv) eV avrov.
1 K. xix. 20 (lit.) "Go, return" is interpreted, by some, "Go
[home to bid farewell, and then] return [to me]." See Breithaupt's
Rashi ad loc. Contrast Mt. viii. 21 2, Lk. ix. 59 60.
2 Mk i. 7.
3 This excludes such an instance as 2 S. xv. 18 dva x ~ L P a
, R.V. "passed on beside him."
4 Ps. cxxix. 8.
10 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
He does apply it once to Jesus, and then (as Matthew uses
it in a narrative peculiar to his Gospel) to describe Him as
proceeding to heal blindness. "Jesus," he says, "was hidden
[from the Jews] and went out of the Temple, and, passing-by,
he saw a man blind from his birth 1 ." The appropriateness of
the word here may be illustrated from two phrases in the
Johannine Epistle, "the darkness is-being-made-to-pass-by," and
"the world is-being-made-to-pass-away." Here we have two
instances of a passive use of which Stephen's Thesaurus
expressly avows inability to find an instance in "received
authors 2 /'
The explanation of this emphatic reiteration of so rare a
word may be that John is playing on it in a new and mystical
sense. He regards the Word, the Light of the world, as "pass-
ing into" the darkness of the world, or perhaps as "passing by"
the darknesses of the world one by one, in order to "make-to-
pass," i.e. to banish, the power of that darkness. This is an
ancient Hebrew thought. The Scripture says that Jehovah
"passed," on the night of the first Passover, when He inter-
vened to save Israel 3 . The Targumists there substitute
"revealed Himself" for "passed." Later on, disliking to speak
1 Jn viii. 59, ix. i. (On "was hidden," see Joh. Gr. 2538 43.)
In Mt. ix. 27 (pec.), xx. 30, Trapayw, "pass-by," occurs at the outset
of narratives of the healing of blindness.
2 i Jn ii. 8, 17, quoted in Steph. Thes. vi. 235 with the remark
" quern passivae vocis usum apud receptos linguae Graecae auctores
extare non puto." Wetstein merely quotes this. Westcott takes
no notice of this alleged rarity. In Clem. Alex. 836 the passive is
found in its usual sense " The divine nature is not turned-aside [from
its purpose]." Tlapdya is not found in the Apostolic Fathers or
Apologists in any form (exc. 2 Clem. Rom. x. 3 Trapdyova-iv, see
Lightf.).
3 Exod. xii. 12, 23 "pass," in both cases. The Heb. is the root
of the name "Hebrew," Perdtes, "Passer-over" (Light 3948). It
must not be confused with the root of "Passover" (Pesach) which
occurs in the context (xii. 13 "I will pass over you," xii. 23 "will
pass over the door").
ii (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
of Jehovah as "passing'' in their comment on Israel as
"passing" through the Red Sea and on the Lord as "reigning"
the later Targums speak of "the Redeemer who maketh-to-
pass, but passeth not ; who maketh to be changed, but changeth
not 1 ."
John would never have dreamed of saying that God " is-
made-to-pass," but he does not hesitate to speak of God the
Word, or God the Light, incarnate in Christ, as "passing," in
order to "make-to-pass " darkness from the blind. For this he
prepares the way in his Prologue, saying that "the light shineth
in darkness," and that the Word, in whom was the life that is
the light of men, "tabernacled among us." This is equivalent
to saying, "He 'passed' from 'the bosom of God' into the
midst of those who 'sat in darkness,' that He might 'cause to
pass' that darkness. He 'came to his own' the Jews. They
'received him not 2 .' ' Hence, later on, he describes how Jesus
"was hidden [from them] and went out of the temple [of the
Jews]. And 'passing by' [to the Gentiles] he saw a man blind
from his birth 3 ."
The Marcan "pass-by" will come before us again when we
discuss the Marcan healing of blind Bartimaeus, where Matthew
in two narratives one parallel and closely similar to that of
Mark, but the other less similar applies the word to Jesus,
though Mark and Luke do not 4 . This indicates other beside
Marcan traditions about the healing influence of "the Passer-
by." And it confirms the inference that here we have a case
of Johannine intervention. Luke objected to the Marcan
word. And we know from Macarius that the Pauline use of
1 On Exod. xv. 16 18 (Targ. Jer. i and Jer. n).
2 Jn i. ii.
2 Jn viii. 59 ix. i. On fKpvprj probably implying " was
[judicially] hidden," see Joh. Gr. 2538 43.
4 Mt. ix. 27, xx. 30. The former is peculiar to Matthew. The
latter is parallel to Mk x. 46 foil., Lk. xviii. 35 foil. (Lk. xviii. 37
has Trape'pxerai. not napdyfi).
12 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
it in the expression "the fashion of this world passeth" was
attacked by an early controversialist 1 . John, if he had been
writing a first Gospel for Christians, would perhaps hardly
have used it. But, finding it in use in Mark and Matthew,
though omitted by Luke and perhaps already subject to cen-
sure, he adopted it in his Gospel allusively and allegorically,
and justified it in his Epistle.
5- Jesus "walking 2 ," in Matthew
Since Matthew elsewhere uses the Marcan word "pass-by"
in describing the call of Matthew the publican, as well as
(twice) in describing the healing of the blind 3 , we naturally
ask why he does not also use it in describing the call of the
fishermen, and why he substitutes a word that he never applies
to Jesus again except as "walking on the sea 4 ." Matthew has
just quoted (and he alone quotes) " The way of the sea, beyond
Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles, the people that sat in darkness
saw a great light 5 ." Now this prophecy describing the Lord
as advancing to deliver Israel "by the sea" might easily be
extended, in Jewish thought, to deliverance "through the sea."
The Targum actually paraphrases "the way of the sea" in the
latter sense, as "the mighty-deliverance of the [Red] sea."
It also explains "beyond Jordan" as "the miracles [in the
passing] of the Jordan 6 ." Such an interpretation would bring
"the way of the sea" into parallelism with the Psalmist's saying
"In the sea [is] thy way" (Targ. "in the Red Sea") 1 . The
1 Macarius pp. 158, 169 foil., on i Cor. vii. 31.
2 "Walk" is TrepiTrare'co in this section, lit. "walk about."
3 Mt. ix. 9, 27, xx. 30.
4 Mt. xiv. 25 foil., also used in Mk vi. 48 9, and Jn vi. 19 about
Jesus "walking" on or by the sea (see Join. Gr. 2340 foil.) but not
used of Jesus in Luke.
5 Is. ix. i 2, Mt. iv. 15 16.
6 Perhaps the Targumist took "across the Jordan" as "crossing
the Jordan."
7 Ps. Ixxvii. 19.
13 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
1 - -- ' . . -i . .. g . .
Hebrew root of derek, "way," occurs also in ddrak, "make
one's way." In Job, where the Hebrew describes God as
"making-his-way upon the waves of the sea," the LXX has
Matthew's word, "walking on the sea as on a pavement 1 ."
Job is alluding to the Spirit of God "moving on the waters"
at the Creation. The action is typical. Jewish Christians in
the first century or at least those who were imbued with the
poetry of the Scriptures would delight in the thought of the
Messiah as coming across the troubled waters to those who are
tempest-tossed in the darkness, and as "treading" down the
waves while bringing to them at once deliverance and light.
But they might differ as to the occasions and ways of the
Messianic action. Matthew, although following Mark in defer-
ring Christ's "walking on the sea" to a later period, may have
been influenced here by Isaiah's prophecy about "the way of
the sea," to this extent, that he here substitutes for "passing
by" the word used in the LXX of Job to represent "making
his way."
Luke, besides omitting the Walking on the Sea, never applies
the word "walk" to Jesus. The reason may be, that this
particular word, to a Greek ear, sometimes suggested "walking
about ostentatiously," or "going about with diffuse discourse."
Marcus Antoninus says that he learned "to abstain from
rhetorical and poetical and artificial language, and not to
walk in a robe in ones own house*." "Walk in robes" is a
phrase used by Mark and Luke in a condemnation of the
scribes 3 . Epictetus implies contempt for those who "walk in
purple 4 ." Playing on the word peripatein, "walk," when
applied to the peripatetic philosophers, Lucian records a jibe
1 Job ix. 8. The LXX use of this word here is unique.
in canon. LXX, occurs nearly thirty times, and the
Concordance, where it gives a Heb. equiv., gives always, except
here, some form of the Heb. "go."
2 Marc. Ant. I 7. 3 Mk xii. 38, Lk. xx. 46.
4 Epict. iii. 22. 10.
14 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
about a lame philosopher of that sect "There is nothing more
shameless than a halting peripatetic 1 -."
6. Jesus "walking," in John
John differs from Luke in often applying to Jesus the
word "walk." The first instance is connected with the first
mention of Jesus after His baptism: " Looking-stedfastly
on Jesus walking, he [i.e. the Baptist] saith, Behold, the lamb
of God 2 ." The consequence of the utterance is that two of the
Baptist's disciples become disciples of Jesus His first disciples :
"They came therefore and saw where he abode; and they
abode with him that day. It was about the tenth hour" This
was the beginning of the Church, the New Genesis 3 .
Bearing in mind the curious and (as it might seem to some)
superfluous mention of "the tenth hour" let us compare this
passage with the first instance of the word "walk" in O.T.
and with Rashi's comment. The Hebrew has "And they
heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the
cool of the day" But the LXX has "in the afternoon,"
and Rashi, accepting the view that the phrase describes the
evening, says "they sinned in the tenth hour*."
This indicates, in John, an allusive mention of "the tenth
hour," as though the Evangelist said "At the end of the first
Genesis, the divine Voice (not the Word 5 ) descended to convict
1 Lucian (ii. 393) Demonax 54.
2 Jn i. 36.
3 Jn i. 39. For proof that John adapts the context to the form
of a "Hexaemeron," see Joh. Gr. 2624, Son 3583 (ix) b, (xii) c foil,
etc., where however no mention was made of the allusive force of
the Johannine TreptTrareco.
4 Gen. iii. 8. See Breithaupt's note on Rashi's remark. Gen. r.
ad loc. shews that some considered the "coolness" to be that of the
morning. But Rashi does not even mention that view. In the
English Bible, A.V., "the tenth hour" does not occur except in
Jn i. 39-
5 On the inferiority of "voice" to "word," see Son 3628 d.
15 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
man of sin and to sentence him to death. At the beginning of
the second Genesis, the divine Word descended to redeem man
from that sin and to deliver him from that death. In both
cases the hour was that of 'afternoon/ about the time of the
evening sacrifice, 'about the tenth hour 1 .' Adam, fallen man, hid
himself, and was terrified by the Voice of Him that ' walked '
on earth. The men of the new Genesis, on the contrary,
' followed ' the Word that ' walked ' among them ; they also asked
Him where He 'abode/ and they 'abode' with Him 2 . Their
'abiding' with Him is dated from 'about the tenth hour/
which is the hour immediately following that of the evening
sacrifice that 'ninth hour' which is connected with the
completion of the Sacrifice on the Cross 3 , offered up by 'the
Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world 4 / '
When John comes to the Mark-Matthew description of
Jesus "walking on the sea," omitted by Luke, he intervenes
to insert it, using their exact phrase. But he suggests, by his
context, that he regards Jesus as walking "on" the sea in
1 AeiAti>oi> occurs in Gen. iii. 8, Exod. xxix. 39, 41, Lev. vi.
20, i K. xviii. 29. 2 Chr. xxxi. 3 (comp. i Esdr. v. 50, viii. 72).
2 Philo, on Gen. iii. 8, declares that to hear the Voice of God
" walking " is a sign of a disturbed mind. It is the mind that " walks/'
he says, not the divine Being. On the symbolical meaning of divine
"standing," as distinct from "walking," see Joh. Gr. 2307. In
Jn i. 36 9, the new disciples recognise the Word in two aspects,
both as "walking" and as "abiding." The latter, by repetition, is
emphasized as the higher aspect. The two disciples are at first
unnamed. When one is named it is "Andrew." This, etymolo-
gically, is "Man," in a higher sense than "Adam." Adam = </v^paj7roy,
"homo," but Andrew =ai^p, "vir." See below, p. 32, n. 2.
See Notes 2998 (xxviii) / k on the Hebrew conception of what
may be called, not the "immanence," but the "inambulance/'
of God (Gesen. 236) expressed by LXX TrepiTrareco and e/iTrepiTrareoo.
Comp. Rev. ii. i.
3 Mk xv. 34 "at the ninth hour," Mt. xxvii. 46 "about the ninth
hour." Luke (xxiii. 44 6 "darkness until the ninth hour...
Jesus cried") leaves the time of the cry undefined.
4 Jn i. 29, comp. i. 36. (On this, see Light 3781 f 1 .}
1 6 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
the sense in which we speak of a city as being "on" a sea or
river. That is to say, Jesus was walking on the shore of the
sea drawing the disciples towards Himself 1 .
Later on, John notes that Jesus "walked in Galilee," and
did not, for a time, "walk in Judaea," owing to the hostility
of the Jews, but that He did, on a certain occasion, "walk
in the Temple," herein, as we shall find, agreeing with Mark
against Matthew and Luke 2 . The last mention of the word
applied to Jesus says that, owing to further plots, "Jesus
walked no longer openly among the Jews 3 ." Thus the in-
carnate Word, who began by "walking" in Israel in such a
way as to call forth the Baptist's eulogy, is described as being
forced by Israel's rejection gradually to withdraw Himself from
them. These Johannine instances of a word rejected by Luke
must be considered in the light of the above-quoted LXX use
of the word about God in the Fall of Adam, and the vision of
Him that "walketh in the midst of the seven golden candle-
sticks," in Revelation. Adding these to the above-mentioned
agreement of John with Mark and Matthew against Luke in
describing Jesus as "walking" on the sea, we are justified in
saying that John intervenes in favour of a word that Luke
rejected. John restores and rehabilitates it by bringing out
its Hebrew and mystical associations.
7. Jesus "standing," and "teaching," in Luke
The LXX affords instances of confusion between the
Hebrew words "pass-by" and "stand*." The latter would be
regarded by many as better suited than the former to describe
1 Jn vi. 1921. See Joh. Gr. 23406, 2354.
2 Jn vii. i, x. 23, Mk xi. 27 (see p. 19). The Johannine "walking
in the Temple" is followed by an attempt to seize Jesus.
3 Jn xi. 54.
4 See Josh. iii. 16, i K. xxii. 36, where LXX reads "stand" for
Heb. "pass by," and i S. vi. 20 where LXX reads "pass by
for Heb. "stand."
A. p. 17 (Mark i. 1 6 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
the Saviour here. Philo says "None but the true God stand-
eth"\ he speaks of "the standing, wholesome, and right Logos";
"that which belongs to the world of phenomena," he says,
"does not stand 1 ." The founder of the Simonian sect is said
to have claimed to be the Standing One 2 . The Acts of John
describes Jesus as simultaneously "coming" and "standing"
when He appears to the two brothers. James sees Him as a
"little child." But John replies "Thou (emph.) dost not see,
my brother James. But [now] seest thou not the standing
[one, yonder] a [full-grown] man. . . 3 ?" Luke, when collect-
ing the various traditions about the Call of the Fishermen,
seems to have found the phrase "standing by the sea" in such
a context that it might be applied either to Jesus or to vessels
drawn up on the beach, so that (as Virgil says) "the sterns
stood on the shore 4 ." The ambiguity may have arisen from
a text such as this : "It came to pass that the disciples were
fishing, having two boats, and that Jesus saw [them], or, they
1 See Joh. Voc. 1725 g quoting Philo and also Origen (on Jn i. 26)
"There stands also His [i.e. the Father's] Logos ever in the act of
saving. ..."
2 See Clem. Alex. 456 and comp. Hippol. vi. 12.
3 Acts of John 2 ov crv 6pa$...ovx opas 5e TOV eoreora i><
evfj.op<pov, KaXoi/...; Previously it is said ep^erat Trpos /if KOL TOV deX-
<f>6v /uou....
4 See Mneid vi. 902 "Ancora de prora jacitur, stant litore
puppes," and ib. 3 5 "Obvertunt pelago proras ; turn dente tenaci
Ancora fundabat naves, et litora curvae Praetexunt puppes," where
"stant litore" and "litora praetexunt" correspond to Luke's
Trapa TTJV \ip.vrjv. Wetstein quotes (on Acts xxvii. 30), but without
reference, a Greek statement about the suspenders " by which hang
the anchors which, when loosed, bring-to-a-stand (tVroxri) the ship."
Steph. Thes. i. 353 quotes, from Pollux, o-r^a-aa-dai TTJV vavv as
nautical phrase. The Index to Polybius gives instances of <Fo-rd>?
meaning "stable," "firm," applied to Xdyoy and Xoyio-/ioy but not
applied to vessels. Acts of John 2 els yfjv TO TrXolov ayay6vTes...o7ra)S
TO rrXoioi/ o~pd(T(i)p.v indicates that eSpd^eti/ "beach [the boat]" would
have been a better word. But the context in Luke indicates that
he regarded the vessels as already "beached."
1 8 (Mark i. 1620)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
saw Jesus, standing by the sea 1 ." I have found no instance of
the Greek participle "standing," thus applied to vessels. But
this may explain why Luke, taking it thus, thinks it necessary
to enter into some detail so as to make it clear that the dis-
ciples had definitely given up fishing for the time. The fisher-
men had not only ceased to fish ; they had thrown out anchors
from the prows, the sterns were by the beach, and the disciples
had come ashore and were washing their nets.
This repetition of "standing by the sea," and its use in a
rare and apparently forced sense, make it probable that Luke
was himself in doubt, and scrupulously retained the words
that caused him difficulty, while endeavouring to put upon
them the best meaning that he could devise. In fact, however,
"standing" is not quite appropriate here even when applied to
Jesus. It is quite appropriate in the Fourth Gospel, where
Jesus "stood on the shore at dawn" and watched the disciples
on the sea, continuing the toil of the night and "taking
nothing 2 ." But it is superfluous in Luke, if all that is meant
is, that whereas the fishermen were sitting on the shore, Jesus
was "standing" near them.
Turning to Luke's context, we ask whether, besides this
apparent attempt to express Mark's "passing by," he has
made any attempt to express Matthew's "walking." We have
seen above that, according to Greek notions, "walking'' when
applied to a teacher or philosopher, would often imply lecturing
or "teaching." And, later on, we shall find that, where Mark
describes Jesus as merely "walking in the temple," Luke has
"teaching the people in the temple and preaching the gospel 3 ."
Eyevero 5e rovs fj.a6r)Tas dAteueii/, e^ovras 8vo TrXoia, KCU I8elv TOV
Ir)(rovv eorcora Trapa TT]V daXacrcrav.
2 Jn xxi. 3 4. This suggests a thought of Lucretius ii. i
"Suave mari magno . . . alterius spectare laborem," but with a
difference, since Jesus "standing" on the shore, "stands," not merely
to "behold" but also to help.
3 Mk xi. 27, Lk. xx. i (the parall. Mt. xxi. 23 has "teaching").
19 (Mark i. 16 20) 2 2
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
So, here, Luke adds a mention of "teaching" to the mention
of "standing." The result is: "He was standing by the lake
of Gennesaret, and he saw two boats standing by the lake . . .
and having gone-on-board one of the boats... he taught the
multitudes."
8. "Rabbi," used in all the Gospels but Luke
When Jesus says to the two disciples of John the Baptist
who are following him "What seek ye ? " they reply " 'Rabbi'
which is to say, being interpreted, Teacher (didaskale)
'where abidest thou 1 ?' ' This is the first vocative appellation
addressed to Jesus in the Fourth Gospel. The first vocative
appellation addressed to Jesus by a disciple in Luke is quite
different, ''Master (epistata), we toiled all night, and took
nothing 2 ." No evangelist except Luke uses epistata (and Luke
never mentions Rabbi). No evangelist except John explains
"Rabbi," and none uses it so frequently. What are the
differences of thought underlying these differences of word ?
In order to answer this question, we proceed to facts. First,
the Johannine interpretation of "Rabbi," namely "teacher,"
is not etymologically correct. It is true that Eusebius inter-
prets it as "Teacher" or "my Teacher*." But Jerome more
accurately interprets it "my Master" " Magister meus." Foi
rab-bi meant etymologically "my great one." And rob, " grec
one" had come to mean, even as early as some of the later books
of the Bible, under Babylonian influence, "chief" "captain 1 "
Hence "Rabbi," meaning "my Master" began, after the death
1 Jn i. 38 "Teacher (SiSaV/caXf)," R.V. text follows A.V. in
using "master" for "teacher," as often elsewhere.
2 Lk. V. 5 "Master (eViorara)." (Lk. ii. 48 rexi/ov, iv. 34 'Iqaoi
Na^apqi/e are not "addressed to Jesus by a disciple.")
3 See Onomastica Sacra, Index, 'Pa/3/3i.
4 See Gesen. 913 b quoting from Jerem. xxxix. 9 10 "chie
of guardsmen" ("only as title of Babylonian officer"), Jon. i. (
''chief of the sailors," i.e. captain, etc.
20 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
of Hillel, to be applied to a chief among teachers, i.e. a great
and distinguished Jewish Teacher of the Law. But it still
retained a notion of "mastership" or "greatness." Matthew
represents Jesus as declaring that the Pharisees "loved to be
called of men, 'Rabbi/" and as warning His disciples against
it, "Be not ye called 'Rabbi 1 .'"
Whenever any Gospel says that Jesus was addressed as
"Teacher," it is probable that the word, as uttered, was
"Rabbi"; for there is no other Hebrew or Aramaic vocative
that would be suitable 2 . Yet "Rabbi" is very rarely retained
by any Synoptist. Mark uses it twice as an exclamation of
Peter, (i) in the Transfiguration, (2) in the Withering of the
Fig-tree, and also (3) as the salutation of Judas 3 . He also
uses the form "Rabboni," where blind Bartimaeus exclaims
"Rabboni, that I may recover my sight 4 !" Matthew apart
from the above-quoted protest against the word uses " Rabbi "
only as the salutation of Judas, and in the preceding question
of Judas "Is it I, Rabbi 5 ? " Luke never uses either "Rabbi"
or "Rabboni."
As for Mark, then, we may say that he adopted "Teacher"
as a rule, but made a few exceptions, in two notable instances
of Petrine exclamation, or where tradition, as in the "Rabbi"
of Judas, had preserved the Aramaic word, or where he wished
to express intense feeling, as in the case of Bartimaeus.
Matthew, who alone records Christ's warning "Be not ye
called 'Rabbi,'" adds "One is your teacher 6 ." This suggests
1 Mt. xxiii. 7 8.
2 In O.T. (A.V.) "teacher," used absolutely, occurs only in
i Chr. xxv. 8, where it is the participle, " making- to-understand, "
LXX T\fia>v (as distinct from p.av6av6vTa>v). Dalman (Words,
p. 336) denies that the passages cited by Levy Ch. (ii. 42 b) prove
the use of a noun from dlaph, meaning "teacher."
3 Mk ix. 5, xi. 21, xiv. 45.
4 Mk x. 51. The parall. Mt. xx. 33, Lk. xviii. 41 have "Lord !"
which Mark never uses except in vii. 28 "Yea, Lord."
6 Mt. xxvi. 49, 25. 6 Mt. xxiii. 8.
21 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
that Jesus permitted His disciples to call Him "Rabbi." But
the authorities for the text so vary that we cannot feel sure
that this permission was given. If it was not, we may say that
Matthew consistently restricts the salutation of Christ as
"Rabbi" to Judas, who utters it twice 1 .
Luke, who never uses "Rabbi," uses six times and for
the most part in traditions parallel to other Synoptists the
vocative of the classical Greek word epistdtes, meaning "pre-
fect," "chief of a department." This is used by canon. LXX
about eight times to correspond to six different Hebrew words.
But it does not express either the etymological meaning ("great")
or the derived meaning ("teacher") of the Hebrew "Rabbi."
In the Transfiguration, where Peter says, in Mark, "Rabbi,"
and in Matthew "Lord," Luke has " Epistdtd, it is good for us
to be here 2 ." It is not surprising that epistdtes, thus applied,
took no root in Christian tradition. The word does not
occur elsewhere in N.T. not even in the Acts nor in any of
the early Fathers or Apologists. It must be regarded as
a Lucan experiment scrupulous and well-intended but not
successful to express the Hebrew or Aramaic Rabbi with
exactness, and to shew that it does not mean "teacher."
9. "Rabbi," in John
John, so to speak, rehabilitates the term "Rabbi," dis-
carded by Luke. His treatment of this word illustrates his
treatment of something more than mere words. It is an
illuminating instance of his method of combining the old with
the new, and the rudiment with the development.
First, he tells us that the disciples, from the very be-
ginning, called Jesus " Rabbi." At the same time, he says to
us, in effect, "Rabbi did not practically mean Epistdtes, that is
to say, President or Prefect. It was a respectful term by which
1 Mt. xxvi. 25, 49.
2 Mk ix. 5, Mt. xvii. 4, Lk. ix. 33.
22 (Mark i. 16 20)
CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
disciples addressed their teacher, and if it must be expressed
in one word, that word is 'Teacher 1 .'" Then he shews us
how Nathanael, who used this salutation, while adding "Son
of God" and "King of Israel," was gently told that he was
still comparatively ignorant and he must "see greater things 2 ."
Later on, Nicodemus calls Jesus "Rabbi" and confesses that
He is "come from God [as] teacher," but receives a reply
indicating that he too is in ignorance and does not yet know
what the true "teacher" is 3 . Afterwards, the disciples col-
lectively say to Jesus "Rabbi, eat," but are told "I have
meat to eat that ye know not of 4 ."
In subsequent passages "Rabbi" is used by the ignorant
multitude, who are rebuked for seeking Jesus from interested
motives 5 . But it is also used by the disciples, ignorantly
supposing that if a man is born blind, he himself, or his parents,
must have sinned ; and again by the disciples, affectionately
but, at the time, causelessly anxious for their Master's safety 6 .
These instances of the word may pass without further com-
ment. But we must note the last of all : "Jesus saith unto
her, Mary. She turneth herself, and saith unto him in Hebrew,
Rabboni, that is to say, Teacher 7 ." Why does John here add
that Mary spoke "in Hebrew"? And why does he repeat
what he told us at the beginning of his Gospel that the
salutation meant "Teacher"? The moment of utterance is
a moment of transition, between the things of earth and the
things of heaven, between the Resurrection of Jesus, still on
earth, and His Ascension : "Touch me not ; for I am not yet
ascended unto the Father 8 ." Is the utterance intended to
1 Jn i. 38. John the Baptist is addressed as "Rabbi" (Jn iii. 26)
just before his final words are recorded.
2 Jn i. 4950.
3 Jn iii. 2, 10 " Art thou the teacher of Israel and understandest
not these things ? "
4 Jn iv. 31 2. 5 Jn vi. 25 6.
6 Jn ix. 2, xi. 8. 7 Jn xx. 16.
8 Jn xx. 17.
23 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
convey some hint of such a transition from the thought of
"Teacher" to the thought of some one higher, "God" ? Can
we apply to this salutation a tradition in the Talmud where,
in a specially passionate outburst, a Jewish layman, not called
a Rabbi, ventures, when pleading the cause of his suffering
fellow-countrymen, to call God Rabboni 1 ?
That does not seem probable. More probably John is
recording a historical utterance, but recording it with an allu-
sive reference to many first-century Christian traditions about
"Rabbi" and "Rabban." Some of these may be found
latent under the Greek word "Teacher" in Matthew and Luke,
as well as in John. For example, where John says, "Ye call
me ' Teacher' and 'Lord,'" the Syriac has " Ye call me 'Rabban '
and 'our Lord/ " and Delitzsch also has "Rabbi 2 "; and this
must be considered along with the Syriac and Hebrew of
Matthew "There is no disciple that is more than his Rabbi 3 ."
Both passages must be read along with their contexts, which
mention "servant" and "lord" and imply that these terms
are severally parallel to "disciple" and "Rabbi 4 ." Thus re-
garded, a "disciple" is a "servant." The Lucan parallel to
1 See Taanith iii. 9 (8) Mishna, 19 a, where Onias "the maker of
circles," pleading to God for rain for the people, traces a circle,
places himself in it, and says, " Rabbon of the Universe, or, Rabboni,
thy children have placed their trust in me, judging that I am in
thy sight as one of the children of the House ; I swear by thy great
Name that I will not go out hence until thou hast pity on thy chil-
dren." On the reading "Rabboni," see Taylor's note on Aboth ii. i.
See also Dalman Words p. 325 "It is a remarkable fact that in
the early Jewish literature, apart from the Targums, jisi. is
scarcely ever used except as referring to God." But he also says
(ib. p. 340) that the term "Rabboni" used by Mark and John "can-
not have been materially distinguished" from Rabbi, "and therefore
John is right in interpreting it as StSao-KaXf." In the Targums,
"Jia"! (Dalman ib. p. 324) represents the Heb. Adonai, "my lord,"
applied to persons.
2 Jn xiii. 13. 3 Mt. x. 24.
4 Jn xiii. 16, Mt. x. 25.
24 (Mark i. 16 20)
I
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
Matthew adds "But every one being perfected shall be as his
teacher (Syr. Rabbi) 1 ." Matthew has "It is enough for the
disciple that he should be as his teacher (Syr. Rabbi) and the
servant as his lord 2 ." These passages obscurely indicate that
the terms "servant" and "Rabbi" ought to pass away when
the "Rabbi" has "perfected" his "disciple" or "servant," and
made him like himself.
John seems to take up this thought in Christ's Last Dis-
course. After the Washing of Feet, wherein Jesus makes
Himself a servant, He bids His servants do the same, saying
to them "There is no servant that is greater than his lord."
But then He passes on to describe how the Paraclete will come
in His name and will "teach" them "all things 3 ," and the
result will be that the character of servant will be merged in
the character of friend: "No longer do I call you servants,
for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth ; but I have
called you friends, for all things that I heard from my Father
I have made known unto you 4 ."
Reviewing the facts we shall probabty feel diffident about
denning John's own feeling about the "Hebrew" appellation
"Rabboni ! " uttered by Mary for the last time on the morning
of the Resurrection, and about its relation to the Greek-Hebrew
appellation "Paraclete 5 " mentioned by Jesus for the first time
on the night before the Crucifixion. But we can hardly feel
doubt that John has some feeling of a development and
1 Lk. vi. 40. SS condenses the whole of the verse into "There
is no disciple that is perfect as his Rabbi in teaching," but Walton's
Syriac follows the Greek, only rendering "teacher" by "rabbi."
2 Mt. x. 25.
3 Jn xiv. 26 "But the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, whom the
Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things."
4 Jn xv. 15. It is assumed that the teaching of the Paraclete
is (xv. 9 foil.) "abide ye in my love," and from this "love" comes
the friendship. What the Son "heard from the Father" is "that
a man lay down his life for his friends."
5 On Paraclete as a Greek-Hebrew word, see Joh. Voc. 1720 ; /.
25 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
transition in thus placing "Rabbi" and "Rabboni" the same
word yet uttered with such different feelings at the opening
and at the close of Christ's life on earth. Still less can we
doubt that, in retaining this ancient salutation, redolent of
"Hebrew," John is tacitly protesting against Luke's Hellen-
istic substitute. Those who know a word or two of Greek
will understand the shock that one would experience if the
Evangelist had represented Mary, at the tomb, as saying
" Epistatd," and even those who know none may feel that
they would lose something, if they had to give up "Rabboni,"
and be content with the Lucan "Master 1 ."
10. "Andrew"
In Luke, Jesus is said to have entered into one of two
boats "which was Simon's," and the other boat is said to have
belonged to "James and John... who were partners with
Simon " ; but Andrew is not mentioned. Mark, on the other
hand, mentions "Andrew the brother of Simon" along with
the first mention of Simon, and Matthew does the same 2 . Later
1 A full discussion of Jn xx. 16 17 would require a discussion
of Mt. xxviii. 9 10 "And they. . .took hold of his feet and worshipped
him. Then Jesus saith unto them, Fear not " (on which see Notes
2999 (i) b and (ii)). John's attitude to such a tradition would seem
to be very different from that of Jerome, who (ad loc.) praises the
faith of these women, who "took hold" of the feet of Jesus, as
compared with that of " her who sought the living with the dead . . .
and justly heard [the rebuke] 'Touch me not,'" i.e. Mary. John
seems to say : "In what I shall describe, there was no ' taking hold '
and no 'fear.' Jesus bade Mary not to 'take hold' of Him so as to
detain Him on earth, since He was on the point of ascending to
heaven. But He did not say 'fear not,' for she had no fear. And
He did not rebuke her for using the old Galilaean appellation
' Rabboni.' He accepted it. Yet it was here used for the last time.
Henceforth 'Rabboni' was superseded by 'Maran, or 'Marana/
that is, 'our Lord.'"
Compare the following verse, "Mary Magdalene cometh and
telleth the disciples, / have seen the Lord."
2 Mk i. 1 6, Mt. iv. 18. See above, p. 6.
26 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
on in the narrative, when Mark says concerning Jesus and those
with him, that "they came into the house of Simon and Andrew,
with James and John," Matthew and Luke omit the italicised
words 1 . In the appointment of the Twelve, Andrew is neces-
sarily named by all the Synoptists 2 . But Mark alone says
that, before the Discourse on the Last Days, "As he sat on
the Mount of Olives, over against the temple, Peter and James
and John and Andrew asked him privately." Here Matthew
and Luke have severally, instead of the italicised words, "the
disciples," and "they 3 ."
Matthew, on the above-mentioned two occasions (iv. 18,
x. 2), and Luke on the one occasion (vi. 14), on which they
mention Andrew, append him, so to speak, to Simon Peter,
as "Andrew his brother." Andrew, in Matthew-Luke, never
says or does anything. This, then, is a case where we may
expect Johannine intervention.
John makes Andrew not only one of the first two converts,
but also the first to prepare the way for the conversion of
others by bringing to Jesus his brother Simon Peter 4 . He
also puts Andrew before Peter again when, after describing
how Jesus bade Philip follow Him, he adds "Now Philip
was domiciled at Bethsaida, i.e. the House of Fishing, [a
native] of [Capernaum] the city of Andrew and Peter 5 ." No
fishermen are mentioned. But to a Jew, and especially to a
Galilaean, the name Bethsaida (" House of Fishing 6 ") would
suggest that Philip belonged to that class. And the command
"follow me," compared with the similar command in Mark-
Matthew to the Fishermen, suggests that the Fourth Gospel
is here describing an early calling of the whole group of
1 Mk i. 29, Mt. viii. 14, Lk. iv. 38.
2 Mk iii. 18, Mt. x. 2, Lk. vi. 14.
3 Mk xiii. 3, Mt. xxiv. 3, Lk. xxi. 7.
4 Jn i. 41. 5 Jni. 434-
6 Enc. Bibl. "Place of Fishing, or Hunting/' Hastings' Diet.
"House of Sport," or "Fisher-home."
27 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
Fishermen : first, Andrew and John, secondly, Andrew's
brother Peter and John's brother James, and now Philip ii
addition. The context also suggests that Andrew may have
induced the Lord to go forth and save his friend Philip. This
would agree with the Marcan juxtaposition of Andrew and
Philip in the appointment of the Twelve. There, Matthew-
Luke appends Andrew to Simon surnamed Peter. But Mark
mentions, first, Simon surnamed Peter, secondly, James and
John (with their surname), and thirdly, "Andrew and
Philip:'
Andrew and Philip are also introduced together by the
Fourth Gospel, in the Feeding of the Five Thousand. There
Mark, as well as John, records the saying about "bread" and
"two hundred pence." But John alone names the speaker
(Philip) whom Mark leaves unnamed. In the same context,
John also names Andrew as "one of his disciples, Andrew,
Simon Peter's brother" in connection with "five barley-loaves
and two small fishes" (where the Synoptists name no speaker) 1 .
This union of the two disciples in the first Johannine giving of
bread ("five barley -loaves ") would prepare us for finding them
mentioned again together in the Johannine giving of the one
"loaf" after the Resurrection. And, though they are not
expressly included there, they may be (and probably are)
tacitly included in the expression "two other of his disciples 2 ."
If that is the case, we are to regard them as learning, after the
Resurrection, that lesson of the True Bread which (it is implied)
1 Jn vi. 7 9.
2 That these unnamed disciples are not the two sons of Zebedee
is shewn by the context (xxi. 2) "the [sons] of Zebedee and two other
of his disciples." The silence as to the names may possibly be
explained on the hypothesis that the Evangelist says to the reader
"I do not mention their names, for I leave it to you to think
who they ought to be. Should I be likely to introduce a pair of
disciples hitherto unmentioned ? And what other pair of disciples
have I previously mentioned except Philip and Andrew ? "
28 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
they failed to understand in the rudimentary sign of the "five
barley-loaves 1 ."
Papias, when describing his desire to supplement the know-
ledge he derived from the books about the faith by that which
came from a "living and abiding voice," says that he used to
cross-examine the Elders of his day, asking them, " What did
Andrew or what did Peter say? Or what did Philip' 2 '? Or what
[said] Thomas or James ? Or what John or Matthew, or any
other of the Lord's Disciples, . . . ? " It is worth noting that
Papias here not only puts Andrew first in the list of those of
the Lord's Disciples whose traditions he collected from the
Elders, but also puts Philip third. This follows the order of
the names introduced in the Fourth Gospel. In that Gospel,
Philip and Andrew are also introduced as being mediators, so
to speak, between the Greeks and Jesus, and as eliciting from
Him, in reply to their mediation, the reply about the "grain
of wheat" which must "fall into the earth and die" so that it
may "bear much fruit 3 ."
Viewing the Fourth Gospel in the light of the remarks of
Papias, we may fairly infer that the prominence given by both
to Andrew represents a protest such as that uttered by Papias
and somewhat similar to that uttered by the Evangelist at
the close of his Gospel against allowing "the books" current
among Christians to override oral traditions supplementing
and explaining them. Luke's Acts of the Apostles had practi-
cally mentioned no "acts" of any "apostles" except Peter
and Paul 4 . Yet others, apostles and non-apostles, must have
been preaching the gospel and presumably founding churches.
1 On the "barley-loaves," see Son 3420, comp. Joh. Gr. 1985.
2 Euseb. in. 39. 4. 3 Jn xii. 20 4.
4 The only exceptions are occasions where John and Peter are
said to do or say things jointly (Acts iii. i n "they were going
up ... Peter fastening his eyes upon him with John ... as he held
Peter and John," iv. 13 19 "the boldness of Peter and John...
but Peter and John answering said," viii. 14 " Peter and John, who . . .
prayed").
29 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
Incidentally we learn that the beginnings of a church had
been made in Samaria by Philip "the Evangelist" (not "the
Apostle") 1 .
Paul, in his Epistle to the Church in Rome, not only says
nothing as to its indebtedness to any of the Twelve as its
founder, but also uses language incompatible with the supposi-
tion that it had been founded and established with spiritual
gifts by any of them 2 . It is almost certain that Luke regards
1 Acts viii. 5, 12, comp. ib. xxi. 8.
2 Rom. i. ii 12. "For I long to see you, that I may impart
unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established
that is, that I with you may be comforted in you, . . . . " The italicised
words soften, but do not conceal, Paul's assumption that the Romans
had not yet received such "spiritual" gifts and such "establish-
ment" as might be derived from him, an "apostle," who had "seen
the Lord."
See Lightfoot on the untenableness of the hypothesis that
Peter visited Rome before Paul wrote the Epistle to the Romans
(Clem. Rom. ii. 491) " S. Paul could not have written as he writes to
the Romans (i. ii sq., xv. 20 24), if they had received even a short
visit from an Apostle, more especially if that Apostle were S. Peter."
Rom. xv. 20 (R.V.) "that I might not build upon another man's
foundation (aXXorpioi/ 0efie'Xioi>) " affords no grounds for saying " The
other man must have been Peter." For d\\6rpiov may mean
"other men's." Thus it is rendered by Fritzsche " alieno (ab
aliis jacto)"; and he quotes Theophylact, 'AXAorpioi/ 5e 0(/jit\iov
TTJV Sidao-KaXi'af rooz/ diroo-To\(ov (pqcrii/, ov^ on aXXorpiot r\aav. Theophy-
lact adds "not because they were strangers (or, aliens) (dXAoYptoi)
or because they preached other things (aXXa) but in respect of the
reward. For the reward for the toil performed by them (tKfivois)
belonged to others (aXXdrpios jv)...." If Peter afterwards visited
Rome, there would be a strong and natural temptation to antedate
his visit, and to regard the Church there as founded by the same
Apostle that had opened the Church to the Roman Empire in the
person of Cornelius (Acts x. i) "a centurion of the cohort called
the Italian cohort." Paul might claim to be the founder of almost
all the great Churches of Europe. That Peter should have founded
the Church of Rome would seem so fit and reasonable that in a
very few years all would be convinced that it was true.
It should be noted, however, that the Chronicon of Eusebius
(p. 152) describes Peter as having "founded the first (?) church in
30 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
Aquila and Priscilla as already Christians, come from the Church
in Rome in the early days of the Gospel 1 , and long before Peter
could have been supposed by anyone to have visited the City.
Unnamed disciples seem therefore to have originated and
established that Church to which Paul sent his great Epistle.
If indeed one of the "acts" of Peter had been to found or
even merely to visit and confirm the Church in Rome, before
Paul was sent there as a prisoner, it is impossible that Luke
(or even an early redactor of the Acts) could fail to know it ;
and if he knew it and failed to mention it, I do not see how he
could be acquitted not only of an astonishing want of sense
of proportion, but also of such a suppression of truth as would
amount to mendacity 2 .
Our conclusion is that Luke, as in the Acts, so in his Gospel,
systematically pruned away from Marcan traditions about the
Twelve such details as (in his opinion) took off the reader's
attention from Peter^as their main representative and as the
main recipient of Christ's doctrine. John pursues an opposite
Antioch (TTJV ev 'Ai/Tto^eta TrpaTTjv (? -rrpwTov) dep,\id>(ras e<K\rj(TLav) before
proceeding to Rome to preach the Gospel." The Acts mentions
no such "founding." The only N.T. mention of a visit of Peter
to Antioch is in Gal. ii. n "But when Cephas came to Antioch, I
resisted him to the face." To the statement of Eusebius Jerome adds
that Peter preached the Gospel in Rome for twenty-five years
("ubi evangelium praedicans XXV annis ejusdem urbis episcopus
perseverat"). Eusebius mentions no definite time: "The same
[Peter], along with the Church in Antioch, was the first primate of
the Church in Rome as well, until his martyrdom (6 ' avrbs
iq (KK\r)(rias <al rfjs ev PCO/AT; rrpuros irpoeo-rrj e
Eusebius apparently regards Peter's claim to Antioch as
being on a level with his claim to Rome.
1 See Beginning p. 339.
2 It would be futile, against such a charge, to allege that Luke
contemplated a sequel to the Acts, in which sequel he might have
mentioned the foundation of the Roman Church by Peter. For
the whole of the narrative of Paul's arrival in Rome, and of what
he did there after he arrived, would take a different colour if Peter
had arrived before and had founded the Church of Rome.
31 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
course. He concentrates his reader's attention on Christ as the
Light of the world, by shewing us, dramatically and pictur-
esquely 1 , how the Light, while shining now on this disciple,
now on that, drew forth from each a responsive beam that
helped each to enlighten and evangelize the world. Of these
disciples Andrew is the first 2 .
ii. "Casting-about in the sea''
At this stage we have to investigate minute verbal details
pointing to the conclusion that Luke's narrative sprang from
the same original as Mark's, and that Greek as well as Hebrew
ambiguities have caused the Synoptic divergences. Though it
is difficult, and perhaps impossible, to restore the original with
confidence, it is possible to shew the nature of the early obscuri-
ties and the honesty of Luke's attempt to elucidate them.
The Greek word for "cast-about," here used absolutely with-
out an object, has not hitherto been found thus used elsewhere
(except in Greek borrowed from this Marcan passage) to mean
"cast a net" or "fish." Used absolutely, it does not occur
1 "Picturesquely," but with a very different picturesqueness
from that of Mark, who spends an appreciable part of his Gospel in
describing the feast at which Herodias danced away the life of John
the Baptist.
2 Andreas was one of the three fictitious names (Joseph. Ant.
xii. 2. 2, see Schiirer n. iii. 306 12) ascribed to those patrons of
the Jews who were instrumental in bringing about the translation
of the Hebrew Scriptures by the Seventy. The names Aristeas,
("Excellent"), Sosibius ("Save-life"), Andreas ("Manly") are appro-
priate to their task of introducing the Law of Jehovah to the Gen-
tiles. And in the same way there is an appropriateness of names in
the Fourth Gospel, when the Greeks are brought to Jesus (Jn xii. 22)
by Philip and Andrew. This does not imply that the narrative
itself is fictitious. But it does suggest that in other parts of the
Fourth Gospel "Andrew" may represent "man" in a noble sense
(Jerome, Onomast. p. 66 "melius autem est...d?ro rou dvftpos, hoc
est, . . .virilis") including Jew and Gentile.
The Muratorian Tablet says that the Gospel written by John
was the result of a vision to Andrew.
32 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
in the early Fathers and Apologists in any sense except "cast-
about [in ones mind}," "be in doubt." It is thus used by
Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria 1 . Macarius, when
he repeatedly speaks of Peter " casting-about," is referring to
him, not as fishing, but as attempting to come to Jesus on the
water, and "being-in-doubt," and sinking 2 .
The LXX uses "cast-about" only once, and then with a
cognate noun, in Habakkuk, "cast-about his casting-net 3 ." But
the Hebrew is "empty his net." This might mean either
(1) "empty" the net of its contents, fish, weeds, etc., or
(2) "empty" the net out of the boats so as to encircle a shoal
of fish. The latter may be illustrated by the Hebrew phrase
"empty the sword out of its sheath," and Gesenius favours the
proposal to read here "empty the sword" (instead of "empty
the net"Y- The Vulgate has "spread" the Syriac "cast" An
edition of Aquila has " empty -forth " with "sword" instead of
"net," and with a marginal reading "make-new." These
variations in the rendering of Habakkuk may bear on the
variations in the Synoptists here. For Mark and Matthew
describe the first pair of fishermen as "casting-about" (or
"casting") ; but the second pair they describe as "adjusting"
(taken by some as "mending") their nets ; Luke describes the
fishermen of the two boats as all "washing" their nets 5 .
The LXX (in a description of men fishing, angling, and
spreading nets) uses the noun " caster -about" once, either to
paraphrase (in a conflate) "spreader of nets" or, more probably,
1 Clem. Alex. pp. 41, 94, Justin Mart. Tryph. 51, 123. Justin
uses it in no other sense.
z Macarius p. 87.
3 Hab. i. 17.
4 See Gesen, 938 a, referring to Exod. xv. 9, Lev. xxvi. 33, etc.
5 Lk. v. 2. "Washing," i.e. purifying, may represent Luke's way
of paraphrasing. He may mean, " I say ' wash/ because they were not
emptying their nets of fish, but discharging weeds and refuse. They
were not preparing to fish at once, but cleaning with a view to fishing
after some interval. They had toiled all night and were wearied.."
A. p. 33 (Mark i. 16 20) 3
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
to paraphrase "on the face of the waters 1 ." This paraphi
perhaps proceeds from a desire to make it clear that the words
indicate the enclosing of a shoal with a net, and not the use
of the "angle" (Heb. "hook"). The Hebrew of Isaiah
"spread the net," by itself, is ambiguous. It is used in a
Mishna where the context justifies Levy in explaining it as
"spread to dry.'' But Schwab ("ne posera pas de pieges")
suggests "setting nets for the purpose of catching 2 ." Variation
is all the more excusable because, when Ezekiel speaks of "a
place for the spreading of nets [to dry]," he uses a different
Hebrew word 3 .
So far, the evidence bearing on Mark's " casting-about"
points to an original Hebrew "spread the nets," meaning
"spread them on the water to catch fish" erroneously taken by
some to mean "spread the nets out to dry." Moreover the
phrase rendered by R.V. "mending their nets," applied by
Mark and Matthew to the sons of Zebedee 4 , if interpreted
according to LXX usage 5 , and not as in the Pauline Epistles,
would more probably mean "set in order," "perfect" (not
"restore" or "repair"). This may be the interpretation of the
Mark-Matthew phrase in the Syriac, and certainly is, in a few
of the Latin versions.
If this view is correct, then, according to Mark -Matthew,
all the four fishermen were trying to catch fish, and, for that
purpose, "spreading" or "adjusting" their nets (not "mend-
ing" them) when Jesus called them. Luke's notion that they
were "washing" them may have sprung, in part at all events,
from a different interpretation of Mark, or of Mark's ambiguous
original, and from an attempt to explain it by amplification.
1 See Is. xix. 8 and comp. Oxf. Cone, on this text (i) with a
query, under dpfapoXevs and (2) under /3uXXo>.
2 Levy iv. 140 b, quoting Megill. 28 a, Schwab vi. 239.
3 Ezek. xx vi. 5 (on which see Rashi).
4 Mk i. 19, Mt. iv. 21.
5 See Karapri^a) in LXX Concordance.
34 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
Mark's extraordinary expression " casting- about, or, doubting,
in the sea" may be best explicable as a transposition from some
other tradition about Peter the Fisherman, such as Matthew
has alone preserved in his account of Peter walking on the
waters 1 .
12. "Cast the net on the right side of the boat 2 "
From the preceding section it appears that "cast-about"
could be taken by some literally as meaning "casting [a net],"
but by others metaphorically as meaning "cast about [in
one's mind]." It might also be regarded as a paraphrase of
the ambiguous Hebrew phrase "spread the nets," i.e. (i) spread
them to catch fish, or (2) spread them out to dry. Luke
in his narrative of the Reminding of Peter describes the fisher
men as having given up fishing and as "washing the nets";
and this precedes a miraculous draught of fishes not related
by Mark or Matthew.
John supplements all these early narratives by one that
relates a miraculous draught of fishes with which Peter has
much to do. And in John, as in Luke, the fishermen are de-
scribed as having toiled through the night and taken nothing.
But there the resemblance ends. Or rather, we may say, the
antithesis begins. The Johannine miracle is after the Resur-
rection ; the Lucan one occurs almost at the outset of the
Gospel. In John, there is but one boat with seven disciples;
in Luke, there are two boats with four. The nets, in Luke,
begin to be "torn" ; John says expressly "the net was not
rent" In Luke, Peter falls on his knees and begs the Lord
to depart from him ; in John, Peter girds himself with his
, in suitable contexts, also means " Cast [a garment]
about [one]." See Notes 2999 (xvii) a o on "The Re-clothing of
Peter," and see Field on Mk xiv. 72 cirifiaXuv, interpreted by eminent
scholars "having cast [his garment] over [his head]."
2 Jn xxi. 6 eis TO. fia p.eprj TOV TT\OLOV, lit. " to the right-hand
parts of the boat."
35 (Mark i. 16 20) 3 2
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
garment and throws himself into the sea in haste to reach
his Master.
There follows, in John, a meal on a loaf and a fish, intended
apparently as a viaticum for the disciples, who are now to go
forth and preach the Gospel. The last words of Jesus in the
Johannine narrative are those addressed to Peter "Do thou
(emph.) follow me." This supplies what is wanting in Luke
who nowhere describes Jesus as bidding Peter "follow" Him.
Also the Johannine context represents Peter as being drawn
toward Jesus by affection, not by the miracle of the draught
of fishes.
The symbolical character of John's narrative is recognised
by early commentators in many details, such as the one hundred
and fifty-three fishes 1 , the loaf, the fish, the coal-fire, etc.
That being the case, we are led to ask what symbolism, if any,
is implied in the wording of the Lord's command to cast the
net. Why is the "casting" to be "to the right-hand parts,"
instead of the obvious and frequent phrase "on the right-
hand 2 "? Westcott says, "The definiteness of the command
(contrast Luke v. 4) explains the readiness with which it was
obeyed." But was it necessary to insert "parts" in order to
give this "definiteness"? It is indefinite and perplexing.
Blass follows Chrysostom in leaving it out. The omission
would be defensible if it were defensible to omit from John
every perplexing phrase that has (at present) no precedent in
Greek. But Chrysostom is not a safe guide in Johannine
interpretation. Thayer explains the phrase as meaning "into
the parts (i.e. spots sc. of the lake) on the right side of the
1 See below, p. 42, n. i.
2 Jn xxi. 6 /3dXere els TO, 8fia p-epr) TOV rrXoiov TO SIKTVOV. In N.T.
egttov with genit. is frequent, but there is no instance of Sfta
in N.T. Nor is there in Steph. Thes., which omits Josephus'
curious saying about the Essenes, that they (Bell. ii. 8. 9) "avoid
spitting toward the middle [of their company] or the right side (/} TO
de^iov p-epos)."
36 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
ship." "Spots of the lake" opens a wide choice for Peter,
and does not favour the above-mentioned hypothesis of "defi-
niteness." Yet Thayer's view is in accordance with the in-
definite geographical use of "parts" in N.T., e.g. "the parts"
of Galilee, of Tyre and Sidon, of Caesarea, of Libya, etc. 1
Turning to Luke we find no mention of "right hand" in
the precept given by Jesus "Put out into the deep, and let
down your nets for a draught 2 ." But it happens that the
Hebrew or Aramaic for "draught" resembles that for "part,"
and the word for "sea" resembles that for "right hand" ; so
that one and the same Hebrew tradition, without much change,
might branch into the Lucan or the Johannine version 3 . In
deciding, therefore, between Luke and John, those who adopt
the view that the two Evangelists are giving two versions of
one original "Draught of Fishes" will have to be guided large-
ly by the antecedent probability that such an original would
contain some mention of "the right side."
13. "The right side"
Here, then, arises for consideration Ezekiel's description of
the "fishermen 4 " standing by the side of the life-giving "river"
that issues from the Sanctuary. This might well be in the
mind of any subsequent Jewish prophet speaking about "fishers
of men " as also in the minds of the earliest Christians when
describing the acts of the apostolic Fishermen. This " river " they
would regard as the Holy Spirit, or the Spirit of Jesus, or the
Spirit of the Gospel, which, going forth from the Lord, through
His disciples, to the world, sweetens all its stagnant or poisoned
1 Mt. ii. 22, xv. 21, xvi. 13, etc.
2 Lk. v. 4.
3 Heb. 1="side," pfpos; Ti =" catch. " Heb. D'="sea"
fiftt = " right hand." In Ps. cvii. 3, Gesen. suggests reading "the
south (lit. the right hand)" instead of "sea." In Ps. Ixxxix. 12
"the south (lit. the right hand)," LXX has "sea."
* Ezek. xlvii. 10.
37 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
streams and gives life to the "fishes " in them. But, by another
metaphor a forced one, but necessitated by Christian thought
it might also be called the Net of the Gospel which draws
the "fishes" out of the water into the air, which they are
enabled to breathe. Ezekiel's "river" is seldom referred to by
the Ante-Nicene Fathers, but Barnabas speaks of it as that
river by which grows the Tree of the Cross, thus : "And there
was a river drawing-on from the right, and there went up from
it trees of beauty, and whoso eateth from these shall live for
ever 1 ." Ezekiel twice describes the river as issuing "from
the right side" of the Temple 2 . When the metaphor of the
Net was substituted for that of the River it would be natural
that the auspicious "right-hand," in some form, should be
retained.
In the Ezra-Apocalypse, when Ezra asks for a revelation,
the Angel says to him "Stand to the right" or perhaps, "turn
thyself toward the right side and look" "and I will explain
the meaning of a similitude unto thee" ; later on, Ezra says
"I lifted up my eyes, and saw a woman upon the right 3 ." In
both cases, there may have been a thought of the Psalmist's
saying "The Lord is on my right hand*." This may perhaps
have been in the mind of the Essenes, when they forbade
"spitting to the right 5 " In Mark and Luke an angelic appear-
ance announcing good tidings is described as being "on the
right*"
This however is not quite analogous to the Johannine
1 Barn. n.
2 Ezek. xlvii. i 2. "Side," lit. "shoulder," Gesen. 509.
3 See the Ezra- Apocalypse (ed. Box) iv. 47 (with Editor's note)
and ix. 38.
4 Ps. xvi. 8. See Rashi. The Targum avoids "right hand" by
a paraphrase "Quiescit majestas eius super me." Some paraphrased
"the Lord," as meaning "the Law of the Lord."
5 See p. 36, n. 2.
6 Mk xvi. 5 "on the right," Lk. i. n "on the right of the altar."
(R.V. in both adds " side," but it is not in the Gk.)
38 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
"casting to the right." Nor does it explain the addition of
"parts/' as to which one ancient commentator says that
whereas Moses and the Prophets, "occupying the left-hand
position," tried in vain to catch the single nation of Israel
the apostolic net "received as its lot the right-hand portion^"
Apparently he means, by "the right-hand portion," the full
result of the Law and the Spirit that is, Jews and Gentiles
together, whom he regarded as being placed "on the right
hand" of God. But something is still wanting to explain the
plural "parts," which, as has been noted above, generally has
a geographical meaning in N.T., so that Luke, for example,
describes Paul as passing through "the upper parts" and
coming to Ephesus in the course of his missionary work 2 .
If "the right-hand parts," in Hebrew, were used with a
geographical meaning in poetry, it would mean "the south*."
Ezekiel describes Samaria as dwelling on "the left hand,"
i.e. the north, of Judaea ; and Rashi, both there and elsewhere,
says that Judaea is regarded as being relatively "on the right
hand*." In the Acts, Philip, fresh from evangelizing Samaria,
hears an angel saying "Arise, and go toward the south." On
the road to Gaza he converts the officer of Candace queen of
Ethiopia, after which he is "caught away" by the Spirit 5 .
This reads like a poetic fulfilment of the prediction that
"Ethiopia shall haste to stretch out her hands unto God 6 ."
The poetic nature of the narrative does not negative the
possibility that Philip may thus have passed from Samaria
1 Cramer, on Jn xxi. 6 foil.
2 Acts xix. i TO. dvtorepiKa p-fprj, A.V. "the upper coasts," R.V.
"the upper country."
3 See Gesen. 412 a.
4 Ezek. xvi. 46, iv. 6 (Rashi).
5 Acts viii. 26 38.
6 Ps. Ixviii. 31, quoted by an ancient commentator on Acts viii.
27 8 (Cramer). Hor. Heb. (on Acts) quotes Zeph. iii. 10. See From
Letter 1015 d, shewing that Luke's narrative seems to borrow expres-
sions from Zephaniah.
39 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
"toward the south" to preach the Gospel in obedience to the
Spirit. And (according to the Acts) Peter does the same thing
at a little interval. Following on Peter's action in Samaria,
his next reported action after he has "passed through all
[parts] "is toward the South at Lydda, and then in Joppa ;
where he sees that eventful vision which leads him to receive
into the Church Cornelius the Gentile centurion 1 . Meantime
the Gospel is being spread by other agencies in the North,
partly as a sequel of the conversion of Paul near Damascus,
and partly by unnamed missionaries in Antioch, who "spake
to the Greeks also," i.e. to the uncircumcised, "preaching
the Lord Jesus 2 ." Apparently this was done in Antioch
without definite sanction from Jerusalem, which was not
obtained till after Peter in Joppa had been bidden by a vision
from heaven not to call "common" what "God hath cleansed."
Peter, even after his enlightenment, seems not to have
felt at home in the North at least on one occasion. "When
Cephas came to Antioch," says Paul to the Galatians, "I
resisted him to the face." The context, if taken literally and
exactly, would seem almost to limit James and Peter and
John to the South, or rather to the Jews. The three Apostles
agreed so says the Epistle "that we should go unto the
Gentiles and they unto the circumcision 3 ." It would be un-
reasonable to take expressions of this kind (shewn by the
context to be fervid and hyperbolical) as being literally in-
tended in the fullest sense as though, for example, Peter
ought not to have preached to the Gentile Cornelius. Yet in
the early days of the Church such Pauline words might have
1 Acts ix. 32 "As Peter went throughout all [parts] he came
down also to the saints that dwelt at Lydda." Peter's last recorded
previous action is the (ib. viii. 14 25) bestowal of the Spirit on
those whom Philip had converted in Samaria. It must be admitted,
however, that the actual admission of Cornelius takes place in
Caesarea (to the North of Joppa).
2 Acts xi. 20. 3 Gal. ii. 911.
40 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
been taken at least so far literally as to cause jealousy and
disunion ; and those evangelists who perceived this danger
might shape their narratives of the Calling and Sending of the
Fishers of men, the Apostles, so as to shew, symbolically, that
they were really united from the first.
Ephrem Syrus interprets Luke's "two vessels" as meaning
the vessel of the Circumcision and the vessel of the Gentiles.
Luke calls those who were on board the two boats, first "sharers
[in the work] 1 ," and then "partners" words frequently used
literally in contemporary papyri, but also capable of application
to participation in the heavenly Calling, or in the preaching of
the Gospel 2 . Perhaps Luke had in view some allusion to the
Gentiles in mentioning the second vessel, and desired to shew
that when the Net of the Gospel was being filled to bursting,
1 "Sharer," jueVo^o?, occurs in Berlin Urkunde passim, e.g. 704,
716, 755, 761 etc., but note especially 1123. 4 (time of Augustus)
KCU KOLVCOVOVS KOI Kvpiovs, i.e. "sharers and partners."
In LXX it represents Heb. " chaberim" (i.e. "fellows," "partici-
pators," or "neighbours"). In N.T. it occurs only in Heb. i. 9
(quoting Ps. xlv. 7 "thy fellows (chaberim)"), iii. i "partakers of
a heavenly calling," iii. 14 "partakers of Christ," vi. 4 "partakers
of the Holy Spirit," xii. 8 "chastisement of which all have been
partakers." It is probable that Luke uses the word with some
allusion to its Christian sense of "partakers of a heavenly calling "
a sense appropriate to the Calling of the Fishermen.
2 Lk. v. 7 10 "They beckoned to the (lit.) sharers [in the work]
(/if robots) . . . the sons of Zebedee who were partners (Koiwvol) with
Simon (r<u 2i>oom)." Comp. Gal. ii. 9 "they gave to me and
Barnabas right hands of partnership (wHvavias) that we should
go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision." Origen's
comment on Lk. v. 7 10 is lost. But on Mt. xxi. i (Comm. Matth.
xvi. 17) he suggests that the "two disciples" are Peter and Paul
"giving one another right hands of partnership."
Ephrem (on Luke, p. 59) says " The two boats are the circum-
cision and the uncircumcision. And, whereas they ' beckoned to
their companions,' this means the mystery of the Seventy-two
[Lk. x. i (SS)] Disciples, because the Apostles did not suffice for the
fishing and the harvesting." This seems to combine two inter-
pretations of the second boat, (i) the Church of the Gentiles, (2) the
Seventy-two as the Missionaries to the Gentiles.
41 Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
the Fishermen still acted together as "partners." But
narrative implying duality was liable to the danger of suggestii
thoughts derogatory from the unity of the Church.
In the Fourth Gospel there is but one boat. Peter is
bidden but not Peter alone ("cast ye") to cast the net "to
the right hand parts of the boat." If this originally contained
an allusion to Peter's preaching in the South, it might be
adopted by John in a spiritual sense, as indicating work to the
glory of the Lord who was always on his "right hand," so
that in casting to the right, Peter was casting ultimately and
indirectly to the four quarters of the world, yet always to God's
glory. That the phrase had some mystical significance (beyond
that of mere auspiciousness or good luck) is indicated by a
number of similar details non-pertinent if not mystical-
such as the exact number of the fish taken by the fisher-
men 1 .
In concluding this comparison of the Lucan and the Johan-
nine accounts of the miraculous Draught of Fishes, and of what
followed by the side of the lake, we should note that it is in
accordance with Hebrew and Jewish thought that visions of
deliverance should be seen, and prayers for deliverance uttered,
"by the side of" the waters of some river or sea. Later on,
we shall find Matthew quoting Isaiah in full about "the way
of the sea." It is by the side of a great river that both Ezekiel
1 St Augustine's mystical view of (Jn xxi. n) "153" accords
with a mystical view of Gen. vi. 3 (LXX) "and the days of men
shall be 120 years," taken by Clem. Alex. 782, "the number is from
i to 15, by addition (Kara avvQcatv)." That is, 120 = i + 2 + 3. . .
+ 15. Similarly 153 = i + 2 + 3. . . + 17. Now "17" represents
the "ten" Commandments and the "seven" Spirits of God. See
Joh. Gr. 2283 c. But it should have been added there that in
Plato "a perfect number" meant one that is the sum of its factors.
" Six" would be a perfect number in both ways, since it = i + 2 + 3
and also 1x2x3. That there were variations in the way of
reckoning the "perfection" of a number is indicated by Philo ii. 183
on the perfection of the Decad, of which Clem. Alex. 782 says "The
Decad is agreed to be all-perfect (Traj/reAeio?) " (see context).
42 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
and Daniel receive their visions 1 . When Ezra proclaims a
fast, he adds that it was "at the river Ahavah 2 ." Josephus
tells us that "by the side of the sea" Jews in Halicarnassus
offered up prayers so frequently (it would seem) that it might
be called a "custom of the nation 3 /'
Although therefore Luke is (doubtless) recording what he
believed to be the fact, and we have no reason to disbelieve
the fact, when he writes about Peter as lodging "with one
Simon a tanner whose house is by the sea*," yet that ought not
to prevent us from supposing that Luke probably recognised
in the place ("by the sea") a symbolical appropriateness to
the great vision of that all-enclosing "sheet" which was to
descend from heaven, as a type of the all-enclosing Net of the
Gospel, to be revealed to the Fisherman, Peter 5 . So, too, as
regards the Draught of Fishes. There may be at the bottom
of Luke's narrative some literal and actual fact that may have
occurred at the outset of the Gospel, which Luke may have
related as being a Reminding of Peter and as having a literal
as well as a symbolical meaning. But the evidence, so far as
it goes, points to the conclusion that Luke had no such basis.
He seems to have interpreted an early version of the Calling
of Peter in such a manner that it became a Reminding of
Peter, and then to have blended with it a Returning of Peter.
The real and spiritual Returning of Peter is described by
John as occurring after Christ's resurrection, first, in the form
1 Ezek. i. i, Dan. x. 4. 2 Ezr. viii. 21.
^ Joseph. Ant, XIV. IO. 23 KCU ras Trpoo-ev^as Troie'ia&ai Trpbs rf)
6a\do-crr) K ara TO Trdrpiov Wos (in a decree of the Halicarnassians) .
We may perhaps compare Ps. cxxxvii. i "By the rivers of Babylon,
there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion." See
also Notes 2961.
4 Acts x. 6. An angel says this to Cornelius.
5 We may also note Acts xvi. 13 "by the side of a river, where
we supposed that there was a place of prayer," no doubt, recording
a fact, but still a symbolical fact, the beginning of the Gospel in
Europe ("we sat down and spake") in this "place of prayer."
43 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
of a symbolical miracle, secondly, in the form of a Dialogue
between Jesus and Peter part of which seems to be in a
vision ending with the words "Follow thou me." Even
those who cannot feel sure where the fact ends and the vision
or symbolism begins, may feel sure that there was such a real
and spiritual Return, and that a real and spiritual "following"
was the result a result that has deeply affected the whole of
the civilised world.
At this point, without anticipating what cannot be fully
discussed till we come to the subject of Christ's resurrection, a
word or two on the difference between Luke's and John's
attitude towards it may be of use as illustrating the difference
between their Gospels as a whole.
Luke writes with a view to scientific or historical proof.
First, he mentions the evidence of women concerning "a vision
of angels" as seeming to all the disciples "idle talk 1 ." Then,
he mentions an appeal from "all the scriptures," as being
addressed to two disciples by their at first unrecognised Master,
who presently vanishes 2 . Then, appearing to the Eleven,
Jesus appeals to their touch and sight 3 . Lastly, He asks for
something to eat, and "did eat before them 4 ." As a kind of
Appendix, comes the statement that He "opened their mind
that they should understand the scriptures," followed by a
promise of power "from on high 5 ."
John implies that the first revelation of Christ's resurrection
was received by Mary through tears and affection, receiving no
"proof" except that He called her by name; and a second, by
the disciples, after He had said to them "Peace be unto you"
and shewn them His hands and His side. He also breathed
upon them and said "Receive ye the Holy Spirit 6 ." Thomas,
the affectionate pessimist who had in former days said "Let us
1 Lk. xxiv. n, comp. ib. 23. 2 Ib. 27 31.
3 Ib. 39 "Handle me, and see."
* Ib. 42 3. 5 Ib. 45 9. 6 Jn xx. 16 22.
44 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
also go that we may die with him 1 ," and who was absent from
this gathering refuses to trust the mere "seeing" of the hands
and the side and demands to feel them. Accordingly the
Saviour appears and bids him plunge himself into His wounds
and then believe in His love as a living power 2 . Last of all,
Peter, the utterer of the three denials, being now restored to
favour and strengthened by the food given him by the Lord, is
questioned as to whether he still professes to excel his fellow-
disciples in affection for the Master ; and thrice professes love,
but love without excelling. Placed thus last in order, he is
restored to the first place in precedence by receiving a special
commission "Feed my sheep" and the precept "Follow thou
me 3 ."
The difference between Luke and John may be illustrated
by a passage in Ignatius describing the conversion of the
disciples through the Resurrection: "They touched Him and
believed, being mingled with His flesh and His blood 4 ." The
Latin Version gives "constrained," instead of "mingled."
Similarly Luke regards the disciples as "constrained" by
external evidence. John regards them as "mingled" with the
Lord Jesus by internal emotion. Origen says "The Lord
'knew them that were His own' by being thoroughly blended
with them, and by giving them a share in His divine nature 5 ."
The "blending" might be all the more cogent when it came as a
revulsion to Peter the denier, Thomas the pessimist and
doubter, and, most of all, to Paul the persecutor.
Paul's first Corinthian Epistle shews that, apart from
manifestations to women, the post-resurrectional appearances
1 Jn xi. 16. 2 Jn xx. 27. 3 Jn xxi. 15 22.
4 See Lightfoot on Ign. Smyrn. 3 Kpadfvrcs, but Lat. "convicti"
pointing to KpaTrjOevres, and Westcott on Heb. iv. 2 (W. H. text)
5 Origen Comm. Joann. xix. i, Lomm. ii. 144 "knew (e
i.e. "took cognizance of" (quoting 2 Tim. ii. 19), "thoroughly-
blended (dvaKpaOeis)," see Light 3688 d.
45 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
of Jesus were more numerous than those recorded in 01
Gospels 1 . Among these, and among the circumstances proving
their reality, the test of "eating" might very well suggest
itself, in view of Jewish traditions about the Three Visitors to
Abraham, about whom the Scripture says "They did eat/
but Philo, the Talmud, and the Jerusalem Targum, say,
effect, "They did not eat, but they made as though they ate 2 . 1
But this explanation of Luke's adoption of such a tradition
makes it less credible, not more credible, as a fact. John's
accounts are such as Shakespeare might have invented. Those
who cannot believe that John was a Shakespeare will prefer
to believe that he recorded fact fact mingled with vision and
related with a view to symbolism, but still, like Christ's appear-
ance to Paul in the Acts, substantially fact.
14. "For they were fishers 3 "
Mark, with whom Matthew agrees, implies that it was a
matter of course that Jesus saw Simon and Andrew fishing,
"for they were fishers." It was their business. They were
bound to be doing it. Luke cannot say this. For, if he con-
sistently adhered to the view that his business was to describe
not a Calling of Simon, but a Reminding, then Simon was
bound to be doing, not this, but something else, which he had
been called by Jesus to do but had not yet done. But Luke
does not make any clear distinction between what Peter was
doing and what he ought to have been doing.
Luke speaks of "two boats"; and then of "one of them"
as belonging to Simon that Simon whose mother-in-law
Jesus (according to Luke, but not Mark and Matthew*) had
already healed; and then of "the fishermen" as "gone out
1 E.g. i Cor. xv. 7 "to James."
2 Gen. xviii. 8, on which see Jer. Targ., Philo Lat. ad loc. and
ii. 17 18, Bab. Metz. 86 b and Exod. r. on Exod. xxxiv. 28, Wii. p. 326.
3 Mk i. 16, Mt. iv. 18. 4 See p. 65.
46 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
of them" and "washing their nets"; and lastly of Peter as
avowing that he has "toiled all night and taken nothing."
All this amounts to an acknowledgement, or assumption, that
Peter still used, as a fisherman, the boat that belonged to him.
It might seem then that Luke could have said, with Mark,
"for they were fishers." But he does not venture to say this
directly. The reason is that he distinguishes the de facto from
the de jure "fisherman." He admits the fact indirectly by
speaking of them as "the fishermen." But he will not say
that they were reasonably engaged in their labour "for [the
reason that] they were fishers." For he implies "they ought
not to have been any longer fishermen."
John makes the fishing, so to speak, an extemporised affair.
Throughout his Gospel he nowhere describes the occupation of
any of the Apostles, whether fisherman, or tax-gatherer, or
anything else. But in his narrative of the Draught of Fishes,
he says that when seven of the disciples "were together,"
Peter said to them "I am going to fish," and that they replied,
"We also come with thee." One of the seven was Nathanael
of Cana, who, if domiciled at Cana, could not have been a
fisherman by trade. The lesson taught by John appears to be
an allegorical one that Peter, "fisherman" though he was in
name, "fished" without success till Jesus had appeared with
the dawn and told him how to cast the net. It is conveyed >
dramatically. Jesus did not say as in Mark-Matthew "I will
make you fishers ---- " He made them "fishers."
15. "Come (lit. hither) after me*"
That Luke omits "Come after me" when Jesus says to
Simon "henceforth thou shalt catch men," cannot cause sur-
prise, on the hypothesis that he is relating a Reminding and
not a Calling. But a verbal point is worth noting about the
1 Mk i. 17, Mt. iv. 19 Sevre OTT/O-O) /uov, omitted by Luke in v. 10
"thou shalt catch men."
47 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
rare exclamatory particle " Hither !" here used for "Come
It is never used by Luke. In Christ's words it is assigned t<
Jesus once by John, as uttered in the story of the Draught of
Fishes ("Come, take-breakfast 1 "). It is also assigned by Mark
(alone) to Jesus, in the Introduction to the Feeding of the
Five Thousand, "Come, [by] yourselves apart into a desert
place and rest a little" where "rest" for the purpose of
"eating" seems to be implied by the addition "they had no
leisure so much as to eat 2 ." Matthew represents Jesus as
using the particle in His invitation to the "weary" to come
unto Him, and also in parables of invitation 3 . And it occurs
in his version of what the angels say to the women at Christ's
resurrection 4 .
Considerations of style may have weighed somewhat with
Luke in inducing him to refrain from using this exclamatory
or hortatory "Come 5 ." But possibly the thought also repelled
1 Jn xxi. 12 dfvTf dpt(TTr)<rciT. Its rejection by Luke is note-
worthy in the Parable of the Heir of the Vineyard, Mk xii. 7,
Mt. xxi. 38, Lk. xx. 14, ''Come (SeCre), let us kill him," where Luke
alone omits dfvrf.
2 Mk vi. 31. The parallel Mt.-Lk. omits all this, but mentions
the fact that they went "apart," stated in Mk vi. 32.
3 Mt. xi. 28 "come unto me," xxii. 4 "come to the wedding-
feast," xxv. 34 ''come, ye blessed of my Father."
4 Mt. xxviii. 6 OVK ZO-TIV o>8e . . . d(iJT i'Sere TOV TO-TTOV. Mk xvi. 6
Omits SfOre, having OVK eamv &)5e t&e 6 TOTTOS.
5 Aei/re is Homeric and poetic, non-occurrent in Aristotle, Demos-
thenes, Aristophanes, and the Lexicon to Plato. Epictetus iii. 23. 6
once uses it in a satirical representation of a philosopher inviting
folk to come and hear him lecture, Sevre <al aK.ovara.Tt /iov. It does not
occur in Patr. Apostol., nor in the early Apologists, except citations
and Justin Mart. Tryph. 24 (thrice, in a mixture of quotation with
personal exhortation) " come with me . . . come, let us walk in the
light of the Lord, . ..come, all nations, let us gather ourselves."
AeCre was regarded as equiv. to a plural imperative, and would
therefore be inappropriate in a saying addressed to Peter alone.
In the Calling of the Rich Man, Lk. xviii. 22 follows Mk x. 21,
Mt. xix. 21 8evpo dKoXovQfi ftot.
48 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
him, because it suggested invitation rather than command.
Command, not invitation, may have seemed to him to be
implied whenever Jesus said to anyone "Follow me."
This distinction is an important one. Invitation, rather
than command, may perhaps be suggested in the Calling as
related in the Acts of John, where James and John hear a
voice from a figure on the shore saying "/ have need of you.
Come to me 1 ." "Come to" is not the same as "come after."
It is more important to note that in the single instance where
" Hither after me" occurs in LXX it is a phrase of invitation.
Elisha says to the Syrians, "This is not the way, neither is
this the city. Hither after me, and I will bring you to the
man whom ye seek 2 ." In this offer to be a guide there is no
assumption of any superiority except in knowledge of the
way.
If Jesus meant "Come after me" in the sense "Let us go
together," the question would arise, "Whither were they to
go ? " It might be to Jerusalem literally Jerusalem on earth,
where the Lord was to die. But it might be to Jerusalem in
heaven, the Kingdom of God. In one passage that contains
the words "come after me" Luke seems to give them a
spiritual significance by an addition of his own ("daily 3 ").
But later on he adds (again an addition of his own) that Jesus
"set his face to go to Jerusalem*." Close on that come precepts
about "following," which sound as if Luke took them literally
though, of course, spiritually, too 5 .
Of John 2 Xpr/<0 V/JLUtV f\6a.Tf TTpOS /JL.
2 2 K. vi. 19 R.V. "follow me," Heb. lit. "come after me (LXX
3 Lk. ix. 23 "If any man would come after me, let him. . .take
up his cross daily and follow me." See Son 3432 a, 3545 on the
addition of "daily" etc.
4 Lk. ix. 51. Just before this, concerning one of those that were
"not following," Jesus says (ib. ix. 50) "Forbid him not."
5 Lk. ix. 57, 59, 61.
A. P. 49 (Mark i. 16 20) 4
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
16. "Following," in John
Let us attempt to place ourselves in the position of John,
if he reviewed the Mark-Matthew traditions about "coming
after" and "following," in Christ's words, and noted how they
were revised by Luke. He would find that the latter had
made two omissions. Luke had omitted the command to
Peter "Come after me." He had also previously omitted the
Baptist's words "after me," referring to the "coming" of his
successor 1 . Further, though Luke had suggested to his readers
that the "following" of Jesus in some cases referred to a literal
"following" on the road to Jerusalem but in others to one
that was not literal, he had not clearly explained the nature
of the latter.
Besides these Lucan defects, there was in the whole Synop-
tic tradition a stumbling-block for Greeks in the suggestion
that "the mightier one" mentioned by John the Baptist
called on men to "follow" Him. Plato had said that one
must follow God in accordance with Nature leading his
readers to infer "follow God, not men 2 ." Philo had declared
his allegiance to this maxim, calling it "a chant of all the best
philosophers," and basing it on the Deuteronomic edict "Ye
shall walk after the Lord your God z ." Epictetus inveighs
1 Mk i. 7, Mt. iii. n, Lk. iii. 16. See Beginning p. 75.
2 See Plato Legg. iv. 716 A: The all-including God "goes round
unswervingly and completely according to nature; Justice ever
follows Him close (ro> Se aei vi/c7rcrat AI'KT?) . . . and following close,
clinging to Her, comes the man that is destined to blessedness (^ 6
fjiev v8ciLfjiOvf)(rfiv p.e\\(i>v tjf6pswos ^WfTTfTai)." In theory, ui>7ro/icu
might mean "follow along with," as though there were something
(possibly Nature) that was "followed" by God as well as by Justice.
But in practice, gweTropai appears rarely or never to mean anything
(Steph. Thes.) but "follow close." However, both Philo and
Clement of Alexandria use irop.ai instead of wc7ro/j.at when
apparently alluding to the Platonic passage.
3 Philo i. 456, apparently alluding to Plato, and subsequently
quoting Deut. xiii. 4 (which is also quoted for the same purpose by
Clem. Alex. 703), comp. Clem. Alex. 893.
50 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
against the baseness of "following the mightier one 1 ." In the
second century, Marcus Antoninus, and Justin Martyr (followed
by Clement of Alexandria) take the same line 2 . It was ex-
pedient, therefore, for the sake of educated Gentiles, to go
to the bottom of these Synoptic traditions about "^following,"
to detach accident and circumstance from essence, and to
shew that, whether accompanied or unaccompanied by any
bodily change of place, the act of following Christ, the Word of
God, implied following on the Way to God, and that to follow
the Son was, in fact, to follow the Father.
When we have once taken in this Johannine survey of the
antecedent traditions about "following," some in the early
Evangelists but some also in the Greek philosophers, we shall
receive light on Johannine doctrine as a whole, and, still more,
on many Johannine details that appear at first sight petty,
or meaningless, or unnecessary suggestions of mystery. "Fol-
lowing," in John, is always the result of the attracting power
of the Word, who is the Life and Light of men. Not being
a mechanical act, it cannot be mechanically taught. The soul
cannot be drilled into it, but must, somehow, grow into it.
"Following" begins, dramatically and literally, when An-
drew and his companion, "having heard from [the lips of] 3
John" the witness that he bore to Jesus as the Lamb of God,
"followed Jesus," and Jesus "turned, and saw them following."
That was the first rudimentary "following." But when He
asked them what they sought and invited them to see where
He "abode," they then heard (so it is implied) from the lips
of the Son Himself that which prepared them for a spiritual
1 See Son 3603 a, quoting Epict. ii. 13. 22 3.
2 Marc. Ant. vii. 31, Justin Mart. Tryph. 80 ou yap dv
duoXovdelv d\\a Beat.
3 "Hear /ram [the lips of] (irapa) " in Jn i. 40, vi. 45, vii. 51,
viii. 26, 38, 40, xv. 15, implies hearing from some one in whose house
one sits as a child before parents, or as a pupil before teachers. The
"school" of a teacher was called by Jews his "house" (Son 3460 c).
51 (Mark i. 16 20) 4 2
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
" following 1 ." At all events, Andrew immediately brought Peter,
who, it is implied, became a follower of Jesus. Yet, though
this is implied concerning Peter, it is not stated either in the
context or later on. Nor does Jesus say to any one of these
early disciples "Follow me," except to Philip, whom early
tradition regards as being surrounded by spiritual dangers of
a special kind from which it was needful that he should depart 2 .
John teaches us that "the multitude," which at one time
literally "followed" Jesus, was not following Him spiritually 3 .
To "follow" Jesus required a spiritual sense of seeing and of
hearing. The former requisite is implied when He says "I am
the light of the world ; he that followeth me shall not walk in
the darkness 4 ." The latter is implied in the Parable of the
Good Shepherd, where it is said that only those really follow
Jesus who recognise in His words their Shepherd's voice 5 .
Later on, a still higher kind of following is hinted at, not that
of sheep following the Shepherd, but that of the Shepherd's
helpers following in the footsteps of the Shepherd who lays
down His life for the sheep 6 .
The rest of the Johannine instances of "following 7 " are
almost entirely devoted to Peter. They mix the literal and
the spiritual in juxtapositions so strange that, in any other
work but the Fourth Gospel, the use of the word might be
1 Jn i. 379-
2 Jn i. 43 4. Philip, according to early tradition, was the disciple
mentioned in Mt. viii. 21 2, comp. Lk. ix. 59 60, as being warned
" to leave the dead to bury their dead " (see Beginning p. 213 or Son
3377 a).
3 Jn vi. 2 q K o\ov6ei. This same multitude soon afterwards
purposed (ib. 15) to "snatch him away that they might make him
a king." Comp. Mk i. 36 Kare5i'a>ei> avrbv Si'ftcoi/ with the more seemly
Lk. iv. 42 ot OX\QI ir(r)Tow aiToi/, and see below, p. 382.
4 Jn viii. 12. 5 Jn x. 4, 5, 27.
6 Jn xii. 25 6.
7 Jn xiii. 36 (twice), 37, xviii. 15, xx. 6, xxi. 19, 22 are all applied
to Peter ; xxi. 20 to the beloved disciple (comp. xviii. 15) ; xi. 31
merely describes Jews as "following" Mary the sister of Lazarus.
52 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
confidently pronounced casual and chaotic. The first of these
instances is placed after a precept of Jesus about "loving one
another." This "loving one another" Peter passes over. He
is absorbed in his Master's destiny: "Lord, whither goest
thou ? " Jesus replies "Whither I go thou canst not follow
me now, but thou shalt follow afterwards." Peter has not yet
perceived that "love," love in a new sense love including
something more than even his own present affection for Jesus,
love and insight combined so as to resemble the Lord's love
towards His disciples and apostles is necessary for those who
are to "follow" the Lord. So he protests that he will "follow"
to the death, and that at once, "Why cannot I follow thee
even now ? I will lay down my life for thee."
The next scene opens with Peter keeping his word and
"following Jesus 1 ," who is now a prisoner, on the way to the
City. Luke omits "Jesus" or "him" representing "Jesus."
Reasoning like a historian Luke would argue that Peter could
not be rightly said to "follow Jesus." How could he Jesus
being in the middle, or perhaps at the front, of the column of
soldiers and officials, while Peter was not even in the rear of
it, but behind it ?
Nevertheless John says Peter was "following Jesus." Per-
haps, having regard to the context, we ought to recognise a
thought of this kind : "Jesus said that Peter could not follow
Him at once. Peter replied, by implication, that he could 2 .
Here you see Peter keeping his promise and literally ' following
Jesus.' Was Peter then right, and Jesus wrong ? That
question will be speedily answered by the sequel." And the
sequel does answer it. Peter had "followed" in a sense, but
1 Jn xviii. 15 "and Simon Peter was-following Jesus." Comp.
Mk xiv. 54 "and Peter from a,ia,r-oft followed him," Mt. xxvi. 58 "But
Peter was-following him afar-off," Lk. xxii. 54 "But Peter was-
following afar-off" (omitting "him" or "Jesus").
2 Jn xiii. 36 7. A direct contradiction ("I can follow thee")
would have been unseemly. But it is implied.
53 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
not as yet in the right sense. The scene closes with the Denial,
which makes it seem as though the denier had cut himself off
from all hope of ever really "following."
In the last scene of all, by the Sea of Tiberias, where the
thought of "following" is worked up to a climax, there is a
mysterious contrast between the silent "disciple whom Jesus
loved," and who is not bidden to follow, and Peter, who speaks
a great deal, and who is bidden to "follow 1 ." Of the silent
and beloved disciple it is said that, though he was not bidden,
"Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved,
following." This apparently mystical detail leads us to go
back to the first manifestation of the Resurrection, in which
Peter and John ran together, but John outran his companion
and "came first to the tomb .... Simon Peter therefore also
cometh, following him 2 ." Is it a mere accident, this mention-
unique in the four Gospels of one disciple "following" another ?
It is of course intended literally 3 . But is it not also allegorical ?
At all events this "outrunning" of the silent disciple at the
tomb, where he is the first to arrive, though Peter is the first
to enter, prepares us for the initiative of the former at Tiberias,
where John is the first to say "It is the Lord 4 ," though Peter
is the first to go to Him.
The same double meaning is apparent in the climax of
the Dialogue on "following," which is also the climax of the
Gospel and the last of the Johannine utterances of Christ. The
Dialogue begins with a mention of "loving" love, taken in
that narrow sense in which Peter had taken it, a devotion, a
1 Jn xxi. 19, 20, 22. 2 Jn xx. 4 6.
3 Comp. Lk. xxiv. 12 (R.V. txt) "But Peter arose and ran unto
the tomb. . .," placed in double brackets by W.H. See Notes 2999
(xvii) g h, for parallelisms to "Peter" which might explain varia-
tions of this tradition. The existence of it in Luke, even though not
in all the texts of Luke, indicates that the corresponding tradition
in the Fourth Gospel was not invented by John. But he may have
selected a form of it adapted to his purpose.
4 Jn xxi. 7.
54 (Mark i. 16 20)
TIE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
zealous and almost jealous devotion to Christ's person, but
without sufficient insight, a devotion to the Shepherd apart
from the sheep 1 . Jesus proceeds to ask, in effect, for a different
kind of love, which may be called two kinds of love combined,
love towards Himself as the human Jesus, but love also towards
Himself as the Man at once human and divine, who embraced
all mankind in His love, and whom Peter could not duly love
unless he, too, attempted to love and embrace mankind in the
same way. Jesus was the Shepherd of the spiritual Israel, and
the proof that Peter loved the Shepherd was to be that he
"shepherded" the Shepherd's sheep.
When we have taken in this lesson, there is given, as the
last lesson of all, the revelation that this "shepherding," this
imitation of the Shepherd, is a "following" of the Shepherd in
the Shepherd's Way. And the Way of the Shepherd is also
the Way of the Cross. "This he spake, signifying by what
manner of death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken
this, he saith unto him, Follow me." Peter, apparently taking
this literally, perhaps in a vision, and proceeding to follow
Jesus, turns and sees John also "following," and asks "What
shall this man do ? " The question asked by Peter is not
answered except with an "if," which leaves the destiny of
"this man" unsettled. But the command to Peter is repeated
with emphasis "Follow thou (emph.) me." These are (in the
Fourth Gospel) Christ's last words on earth a command to
Peter to follow. But we are left to feel that the other disciple,
too, the silent one, though he has not received the same com-
mand, is also "following," and following on the same Way,
though in a different manner.
Stated barely, the facts seem to put Luke very much in the
wrong. "Why," it may be asked, "does Luke rely if indeed
1 Jn xxi. 15 "lovest thou me more than these (i.e. than these love
me)?" There is probably an allusion to the implied claim of
superiority in Peter's words (Mk xiv. 29, Mt. xxvi. 33) " though all
should stumble. . ." omitted in Lk. xxii. 33.
55 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
he does rely on the two earlier Evangelists to describe
Calling of Peter, and reserve for himself (apparently as a kind
of substitute) a Reminding of Peter ? Was it not possible for
him to insert both ? He has imitated Mark and Matthew in
describing the healing of Simon's mother-in-law. Why did he
not also imitate them in describing what seems a much more
important event, the first call of Simon to follow the Lord ? '
The facts appear to constitute a striking instance of Johannine
intervention. Mark and Matthew say that Jesus said to
Peter, while fishing, Come after me. Luke nowhere relates
this even though he relates a story about Peter fishing. John
relates it after a story about Peter fishing as being both
said and repeated by Jesus with emphasis.
But we must note that John does not mention the com-
mand "follow me" until he has prepared the way for it by his
description of the disciples as feeding on the Fish and the Bread
the viaticum for the Apostolic Mission and then by Christ's
implied definition of the mission of an Apostle, namely to
"feed the sheep." What if both Luke and John perceived
that the Mark-Matthew words placed where they are and
expressed as they are were liable to be misunderstood ?
What if both Luke and John attempted to prevent misunder-
standing, though in different ways ?
There is always a danger that the historian, like the drama-
tist, treating a mass of events as a whole, may adapt the first
chapter to the last chapter, without intention to deceive.
Much greater would be the danger for a writer like Mark, no
historian, but half summarist, half note-collector, many of
whose notes would be derived from poetic traditions. If
Christian Tradition declared that the Lord Jesus "called H
earliest disciples from catching fish to the task of catching
men," that would be true. But it would by no means follow
that this definite "calling" happened at the outset of Christ's
public life, or when He first drew disciples around Him. Per-
haps that definite calling, bidding them cast the net out to
56 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
the four corners of the world, did not come till later on, perhaps
not till after the Resurrection.
17. "And I will make you to-become fishers of men"
Part of the subject of this section will be the phrase "fishers
of men." But another part, and by far the more important,
will be an attempt to answer an apparently quite unimportant
question : "Why has Mark contrary to Greek as well as
Hebrew idiom inserted in his text 'to-become/ rejected by
Matthew, and also by the Syriac versions of Mark itself and
by Delitzsch's Hebrew version 1 ? "
"Fish," as a verb, occurs only once in Hebrew. It is in
Jeremiah, describing the Israelites as destroyed or enslaved by
their enemies, who are, in effect, called "fishers and hunters
of men 2 ." Syriac and Aramaic have no separate verb for
"fish" corresponding to the Hebrew one; and the Syriac of
Jeremiah renders both "fish" and "hunt" by "catch 3 ." Con-
sequently, in Aramaic, "fishers of men" would be "catchers
of men," where "catchers" would include "hunters" as well
as "fishers." The expression takes us back to the legends
about Nimrod, described in Genesis as "a mighty-man of
hunting before the Lord 4 ." On that text, Origen says " ' Hunt '
means evil in the present [passage]," and he asks his readers
1 Mk i. 17 KOI iroirio-G) vfj.as yfV<rdai aXids avdpairw, Mt. IV. IQ the
same, omitting yevto-dai.
2 Jerem. xvi. 16 ". . .many fishers. . .and they shall fish them
...many hunters and they shall hunt them." The Targ. has
rendered "fishers" and "fish" by "killers" and "kill." Rash
explains that some are like fish taken out of their element and
killed, others (the remnant) are hunted and taken alive. The Syr.
translates both verbs by "catch" (the Heb. T), Gesen. 8446, which
occurs for the first time as a noun TV in Gen. x. 9 (bis] " a mighty-
man of hunting").
3 Walton renders the Syriac, first by "fishers" and "fish" and
then by "hunters" and "hunt," but the exact translation would be
"catchers" and "catch" repeated twice.
4 Gen. x. 9 (bis).
57 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
.
to "consider whether it does not mean evil elsewhere" appa-
rently referring to the only other instance of the correct use of
the Greek word, where it is applied to Esau as distinct from
Jacob 1 . In Habakkuk, the King of Babylon is virtually de-
scribed as a fisher of men for evil: "he taketh up all of them
with the angle, he catcheth them in his net and gathereth them
in his drag 2 ." One of the Jerusalem Targums describes Nim-
rod as "a mighty rebel before the Lord," besides being "mighty
in hunting," and the other calls him "mighty in hunting [and]
in sin before the Lord, because he was a hunter of the sons of
men." Another passage, quoted in both Talmuds and in the
Midrash, from Proverbs, describes the adulteress as "hunting
the precious soul 3 ."
These passages in O.T., together with several in N.T. that
imply the metaphor of Satan hunting for the souls of men,
force on us the conclusion that if Jesus really said to His
disciples "I will make you become fishers of men," He said
something that would be very startling indeed to His hearers 4 .
1 Origen on Gen. x. 9 Kwrjyos. Comp. Gen. xxv. 27 "Esau was
a skilful hunter (Kvvrjyelv)." Origen says 'O Kvvrjybs OVK eVi 8i<aio)v
Kflrat vvv KOI rj^pei p.r)7roT ov8e aXXorf. I have rendered v\>v "in the
present [passage]." But the meaning is obscure. In i Chr. i. 10
(LXX) Kwyyos, Heb. does not insert "hunter."
2 Hab. i. 14 15. So Rashi ad loc. "Before [i.e. in the view of]
that evil one [Nebuchadnezzar], men are common as the fishes of
the sea."
3 Prov. vi. 26.
4 It is remarkable that Philo's Greek text i. 272 quotes (Gen. x. 8)
"began to be a giant on the earth" without here mentioning (Gen.
x. 9) "hunting." Also his Latin text (Quaest. Gen. ad loc. "non
frustra se habet illud (Gen. x. 9) 'erat gigas contra deum') " omits
"hunting" in quotation, though it adds, in comment, "ars eius
venatoria." Josephus (Ant. i. 4. 2 roX/i^po? Sc KOI <ara x W a yfvvaios)
also omits "hunting." So does Onkelos (who renders "hunter" by
"powerful"). Perhaps some first-century writers, and especially
those writing for Greeks, dropped the "hunting" as being obscure
to Greek readers. To Jews, however, who at an early period
(Gen. r. and Jer. Targ. on Gen. xi. 27 8) regarded Nimrod as the
58 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
On the surface, it would mean, "I will make you like Satan, or
like Nimrod, or like the adulteress, secret ensnarers, or open
hunters and devourers, of the souls of the sons of men." It
can only be explained, if genuine, as a paradoxical use of the
metaphor in a good sense, for which no precedent or authority
has hitherto been alleged from Hebrew or from Jewish litera-
ture 1 .
This conclusion leads us to examine every word in the
Marcan context and in its parallels in case they may reveal
some underlying intention to soften the paradox. How it
might be softened we see from the promise to Peter in the
quasi-parallel Luke. It is, literally, in Greek, "Men shalt
thou be catching-alive*." But in Syriac it is "men shalt thou
be catching \un\to life." This alone should suffice to make us
ask whether "to become" might not be confused with "to life,"
so that Mark's "fishers of men will I make you to become"
might have been originally "catchers of men will I make you
to life." We shall shew that (i) the Marcan insertion of "to
become" is against Greek as well as Hebrew idiom, that (2) "to
become" in Hebrew closely resembles "to life," and "becoming"
and "living" have been confused in a prominent passage of
the LXX. Then it will be reasonable to infer not only that
Matthew was justified in omitting "to become" as wrong, but
also that Luke was justified in substituting what was right,
namely, some words implying that the "catching" was, in
effect, "life-giving."
idolatrous persecutor of Abraham (whom he cast into a furnace)
"hunter" would be by no means obscure.
1 On Mk i. 17, Swete refers to no O.T. instance except the above-
quoted Prov. vi. 26, Jerem. xvi. 16. On Mt. iv. 19, Hor. Heb. refers
only to a saying of Maimonides about "the fishers of the Law."
Schottgen is silent, while Wetstein draws all his instances of the
word used in a good sense (to which add Epict. iii. 6. 9) from Greek
literature, which uses the metaphor in a good as well as in a bad
sense.
2 Lk. v. 10.
59 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
(1) The Hebrew "to become" (with the preposition denot-
ing the infinitive) is frequent in O.T. But in all the instance
of it (more than fifty) in the Historical Books, it is very
rarely rendered by the Greek "to become 1 ." It is never used
after ''make" applied to persons in such phrases as "I will
make thee a great people 2 ," etc. In such phrases, the Hebrew
is "I will make (lit. appoint or give) thee to [i.e. so that thou
mayest become] a great people." Sometimes "to" is omitted,
but the Heb. "to become" is never inserted. Also in Greek,
from Homer downwards, we may speak of Circe as "making"
men apes, wolves, etc., or of "making" a person an "example,"
a "friend," an "enemy," a "partner," but "to become" is not
alleged in the Thesaurus as being ever inserted. Prof. Swete
refers to Winer-Moulton for one instance of it, but Teubner
gives a different reading. Even if the word were genuine, that
instance would not be a parallel one 3 .
(2) The Hebrew "to life" is found in Daniel and Proverbs
meaning "to life eternal" or "to the life of righteousness," and
it is represented in Syriac by the same phrase as that in the
1 See Mandelkern p. 315, and Oxf. Cone. p. 257 foil.
2 TevevBai occurs about five times in the Historical Books as a
rendering of the Heb. "to become," e.g. Exod. xxiii. i "put not thy
hand with the wicked [so as] to become an unrighteous witness."
The Heb. frequently means "[so as] to become," but not after
"make."
3 See Mk i. 17 (ed. Swete) "Mt. omits yevftrBai (nrr6) ; see WM.
pp. 757, 760." WM. pp. 757, 760 quotes only Demosth. Epist. in.
13 (1477) on "education (TraiSet'a)," thus, fj nal -rovs dvaia-dr^Tovs dv<-
TOVS Troieu/ So/eel yivea-dai. This, if it were correct, would probably
emphasize yivca-tiai, " seems to make them become [that which they are
not by nature, namely] tolerable." But Teubner has dvvaa-dai, "seems
to have the power of making them tolerable." WM. does not
render yivea-Bai in Demosthenes or ytvco-Om in Mark, and illustrates
only by Acts iii. 3 Xa/3elr, Virg. JEn. 5. 262 " donat habere," and
Exod. xxiii. 15 <uAuao-0e noielv (AF om. Troteu'), an insertion imitating
Deut. v. i etc. (see Gesen. 1037 a}. It should be added that Delitzsch's
rendering of Mk i. 17 does not contain "to become (nvr6)."
60 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
Syriac of Luke "thou shall be catching men [un\to life 1 ." The
words "become" and "live" are very similar in Hebrew, and
the latter is so much rarer than the former that "he lived"
meaning "he was made to live, or restored to life" might easily
be taken as meaning "it became." Then the context would be
adapted. " And he revived" in the story of the revivification of
the widow's child by Elijah, has been rendered by the LXX
"and it became" and then "thus" has been added 2 .
We conclude that the Marcan "to-become" is an error for
"unto life" which was either part of the actual utterance of
Jesus, or was added in the earliest traditions to the verb "fish"
(i.e. "catch") in order to make the meaning clear. Then the
question arises, "What connection is there, if any, between
the Marcan saying to Peter in the Calling and the Lucan saying
to Peter in the Reminding?" This will now be considered.
18. "Fear not, from henceforth thou shalt catch men*"
We have seen above that, in Jeremiah, "fishers" of men
was interpreted by the Targum and by Rashi as "killers" or
"catchers unto death" and "hunters" of men by Rashi as
"catchers" unto life in captivity, where the Syriac had but one
word "catchers" to signify "fishers" and "hunters." It was
also shewn that the Marcan "become fishers" pointed to an
original "fishers unto life." But "fish unto life," according
to Rashi and the Targum, would seem an absurdity. "The
fishes are drawn out of their element and killed ; you must say
'hunt unto life' " : that seems to be Rashi's view. A writer
like Luke, not without poetic feeling but anxious to distinguish
1 Dan. xii. 2 "awake to the life of eternity," Prov. x. 16, xi. 19
"[tendeth] to life."
2 i Kings xvii. 22. The LXX has contextual omissions and
differences, but the Oxf. Com. takes it, without query, as rendering
PITI "live" as if it were HM "become." Aq. has <a\ e^o-ei/, but LXX
Kill fy(VTO OVTtoS.
3 Lk. V. IO d-TTO TOV vvv dvBpwjrovs fvrj faypcov. R.V. txt "catch,"
but marg. "Gr. take alive."
6 1 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
poetry from history, adopting this view about "fishing," might
naturally substitute for it a Greek word that meant "capture-
alive." In classical Greek it meant "spare the life of," "hold
to ransom," or "take and enslave." In the LXX, it is not
used for "hold to ransom," but means only "spare the lives
of" implying usually (but not always) "keep as slaves" those
taken in war, etc. 1
In the LXX instances, the Hebrew original is always a
causative form of the verb "live." This, besides meaning
"spare," "let-live," can also mean, and does more naturally
mean in Hebrew "cause-to-live 2 ." Perhaps some intention
to suggest this Hebraic meaning ("cause to live") may have
influenced Luke here. But if so, he cannot be acquitted of
obscurity and artificial abstruseness. For the Greek word
itself never has this meaning except in a single passage of
Homer not imitated in Greek literature 3 . In the only other
N.T. passage where the word occurs, the A.V. and the R.V.
are divided as to whether the "taking captive" is the act of the
devil or of the Lord's servant 4 . Probably it is the act of the
Lord Himself. Other Pauline metaphors imply that the Lord
"overtakes" us, or "takes us captive," or "leads us in triumph
as captives," being rescued by Him from Satan 5 ; and this
1 Eight times, including 2 Chr. xxv. 12 "they carried-away
alive," where e^yprjo-av represents two Hebrew words, "carry-
away" and "alive."
2 Gesen. 311. It is the Pi. or Hiph. of rpn.
3 See Steph. Thes. quoting only Aretaeus as imitating Iliad v. 698
77-f/n 8e jrvoir) Bopeao Za>ypci. . . where it is said to be derived from
farj and dyeip&> and to mean "restore to life."
4 2 Tim. ii. 26 A.V. " . . .out of the snare of the devil, who are
taken captive flit, taken alive] by him. . .," R.V. txt "out of the snare
of the devil, having been taken captive (lit. taken alive] by the Lord's
servant. . ." (but see R.V. marg.).
5 Comp. 2 Cor. ii. 14 Bpia/jL^evovn f)p.as, and Phil. iii. 12 "if per-
chance I might catch (or, overtake] (KaraAa/3a>) that for which I was
caught by Christ." Comp. Lk. v. 10 (in Diatess. Ed. Hogg) "and
thus also were James and John. ..overtaken," and Lk. v. 9 (SS) lit.
" For amazement took him. . .at that catch of fishes which they took."
62 (Mark i. 1620)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
appears to be the meaning of Luke here. But his phrasing
would raise many difficulties for those who were accustomed to
the Greek word "take-alive" in the sense of "ransom." It
is significant that Luke's word occurs nowhere in the early
Fathers and Apologists except in a single passage where Tatian
says that demons act like robbers, who "take [people] alive"
and then restore them to their friends for a ransom^-. This
instance shews the difficulty of applying the Lucan word to
Christ's disciples. For, in Luke, as in Mark-Matthew, the
meaning required is that the "fishes" are not to be "restored" to
their former element. They are not to be "ransomed" They
are to be "for ever with the Lord 2 ." This forced and obscure
use of the Greek word "take-alive" greatly increases the
probability that Luke did not use it as it were spontaneously,
but was driven to use it as the best way of including that
notion of "life" (or "living") which Mark had omitted in his
record of Christ's promise to Peter. If so, it would be worth
considering whether other details in Mark and in Luke may not
have sprung from one and the same origin 3 . But the full
1 Tatian 18.
2 Comp. the poem of Clem. Alex. 312 " O Fisher of men (pfporruv),
Of them that are being saved (T>V o-G>opfi/a>i/), Of the sea of evil-
doing (Ko/ci'ay) Enticing the pure fishes (Ix^vs ayvovs) Of the hostile
wave With [the bait of] sweet life (yAuKepa 0)77 &eAea<oi>)" where the
sense would have been quite spoiled, for Greeks, by the use of
^co-ypeo) applied to the "Fisher." Also the noun faypeiov means a
"stew-pond," and suggests that, when fishes are described as efayprj-
fjifvoi, they are not taken out of their old element, but kept in it,
only with lessened liberty.
3 For example, if there were an original "fishers of men shall ye
be for me," the words " shall ye be for me" might be rendered in Mark
by "/ will make you" and in Luke by "ye shall be." See 2 S. viii. 7
" [the shields] that were," A 01 rja-av, but LXX ot>s f-noi^a-fv, and Is.
xxxix. 7 "they shall be," LXX Tronjaovo-i, and compare Exod. xix. 6
" Ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests " with Rev. i. 6 (and v. 10)
"he hath made us a kingdom and priests."
The question whether a dative of equivalence, ^ (in "for fishers")
might be confused with a pronominal dative 'h ("to me"), raises
63 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
consideration is not adapted for this section, which has coi
fined itself to the thought of the Lucan "catching-alive,"
compared with the Mark-Matthew "fishers." It will be founc
that the associations with the metaphor of "fish" and "fishing"
are very complex and require careful consideration.
19. Complexities in Synoptic metaphor and circumstance
Let us review the Synoptic tradition, and the questions
that would have to be answered directly or indirectly by John
if he wished to present its spiritual essence to his readers.
First, what was Christ's spiritual meaning, or meanings, at
the bottom of the Mark-Matthew phrase "fishers of men,"
and the Lucan phrase "taking men alive" ?
Fishes, when drawn out of their element, die. Did Jesus
base His saying on this, and was it a paradox ? In the Talmud,
when Alexander the Great asked the wise men of the South
"What has a man to do in order to live [long] ? " they replied
" kill himself 1 ." Did Jesus mean this ? Did He say, in effect, to
the fishermen, "I will cause you to draw men out of the sea of
sin so that they shall die unto sin and live unto righteousness" ?
Luke's phrase "thou shalt be taking men alive" implies (at all
events on the surface) something quite different and not
paradoxical at all. The Marcan tradition implies drawing
fish out of the water into the air. The Lucan implies drawing
them out of the freedom of their native waters into the cap-
tivity of an artificial fish-pond. How was John to deal with
these two traditions, in their spiritual aspect ?
other similar questions, e.g. whether the 1 signifying the plural, in
"come ye (ID*?) after me (nnN)," may have been taken by Luke as
a 1 ("and") prefixed to the following word, so as to mean "come
thou, and afterwards (iHN) thou shalt catch men." "Afterwards"
(Gesen. 296) is a frequent meaning of TIN which might be confused
with nnx "after-me." But of course it is not so appropriate as " from
henceforth" (of which the Hebrew would be quite different).
1 See Levy iii. 596 quoting Tamid 31 a, and also Berach. 63 b
"words of Torah are established only for him who kills himself on
[the service of] it."
64 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
In the next place, how was John to deal with the Synoptic
circumstances of time, place, and person ? Was there (as the
Diatessaron says) first (Mark-Matthew) a Calling of the four
fishermen apostles and then (Luke) a Reminding, addressed
to Peter alone ? If so, was Luke right in connecting the
Reminding with a wonderful draught of fishes ? According
to Luke, Jesus had been to Peter's house and healed his mother-
in-law before the Reminding 1 . This would be compatible
with Mark if we could place the events thus, 1st, the Calling,
2nd, the Healing, 3rd, the Reminding. But the Diatessaron
places the Reminding, as well as the Calling, before the Healing.
Thus it commits itself, if not to a preference of Mark's
chronological arrangement as better than Luke's, at all events
to a condemnation of Luke's arrangement 2 .
If John intended to avoid a similar preference, or condem-
nation, he could not venture into detail covering the same
ground. But he could bring before the reader some new
traditions about minor Apostles or Disciples (such as Papias
in later days sought after), shewing how Philip of Bethsaida,
the House of Fishing, and Nathanael (in some sense, Philip's
convert) were led to Jesus soon after Andrew and all of
them led by some kind of attraction which we in modern
times might call magnetic. Calling it by no name, the
Fourth Evangelist might endeavour to shew its reality and
its immediate results, in such a way as to suggest deeper
results that were to be revealed later on. Without mentioning
the word "fish" or "fishing," he could make the reader feel
that Christ had some mysterious attractive power that might
be likened to that of a divine Fisherman, disclosed in glimpses
at the beginning of the Gospel in a rudimentary form, and to
be manifested at the end of the Gospel in a fuller revelation.
1 Lk. iv. 38 foil, v. i foil.
2 Mark places in the following order (i. 16 foil.) the Calling,
(i. 21 foil.) the Exorcism, (i. 29 foil.) the Healing.
A. p. 65 (Mark i. 16 20) 5
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
He could also shew, dramatically, how the first of those attracted
thus attracted others to the Fisherman, and thereby proved
that He had made them fishermen, in some degree, like Him-
self, fishers of the souls of men.
20. Greek metaphor, and Luke
Greek thought, as well as Jewish tradition, would confront
Greek evangelists recording the Galilaean traditions about
Christ's fishermen. For example, Plato speaks of the possi-
bility that men might rise out of the dense and misty atmosphere
of earth into the pure air of heaven "as fishes peeping up from
the sea 1 ." This first step toward the metaphor of the fish
is natural for all thinkers about reality. After this there
might follow particular questions of detail, questions raised
by this or that seeker, as to the life of (so to speak) "the
new fish." Is it "killed" and replaced by an altogether "new
creature"? Or does it remain a "fish," but a fish endowed
with new powers of breathing the terrestrial air ? Aristotle
denied, what Anaxagoras asserted and others later on the
breathing of fishes 2 . Having presumably such discussions in
view, Philo says that fishes are the lowest creatures in the
world of living creatures or "Zoogony," and that they are,
"after a fashion, living things and not living things, self-
moving but soulless 3 ." Clement of Alexandria appears to be
referring to such discussions when he describes the Egyptians
as forbidding their priests to eat fish 4 .
The above-quoted passage about the Philonian view of
fishes, in relation to the "Zoogony," leads us to ask whether
1 Plato Phaedo 109 E. 2 See Mayor on Clem. Alex. 850.
3 Philo i. 14 15. In the context he says that "the semblance
of a soul is scattered about in them" like salt in meat, but yet they
are "after a fashion,. . .soulless (rpoirov riva. . .a^vxa)."
4 Clem. Alex. 850, where see context and Mayor's note. See
also Plutarch I sis 7, as to Egyptian abstinence from some kinds
of fish.
66 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
any form of this word is mentioned in the LXX and in the
Gospels. Zoogonein, literally, "bring forth alive 1 ," is used
in the LXX (like zoopoiein, "make-living") to represent the
Hebrew causative, meaning (i) "cause-to-live," (2) "let-live,"
"spare," "take-alive 2 ." It occurs only once in the Gospels,
and then somewhat remarkably, where Luke deviates from the
earliest Evangelists after first agreeing with them, as follows.
Before the Transfiguration, Luke, following Mark and
Matthew, represents Jesus as saying "Whosoever shall lose
(or, destroy) his soul (or, life) for my sake . . . shall save (so
Mk-Lk., but Mt. find) it 3 ." But later on, "being asked when
the kingdom of God cometh," Jesus says, "Remember Lot's
wife. Whosoever shall seek to preserve his soul (or, life) shall
lose (or, destroy) it, but whosoever shall lose (or, destroy) [it]
shall (lit.) bring-it-forth-alive*."
Here we find Luke again, as in the narrative of the Fishing,
apparently discontented with the Marcan forms of expression.
There, instead of "fishers of men," he preferred "capture
men alive" ; here, instead of the simple word "save," he prefers,
"preserve" and "bring-forth-alive" words disagreeably re-
condite to some readers, but having this advantage, that they
do not represent man as doing what in strictness, and in
accordance with the usual language of Christians only the
Saviour can do, i.e. "save" his own soul. Presumably Luke
meant, what John has expressed as follows in one of the very
rare passages where he seems to write on Lucan lines, " He that
1 By Aristotle it is used of viviparous, as distinct from oviparous
animals.
2 See above, p. 62.
3 Mk viii. 35, Mt. XVI. 25, Lk. ix. 24 6? S' av aTroXeVi; rrjv ^fvx^v
avrov evfKfv f/jiov ovros <rco<rei avrrjv '. Mt., for (raxret, has vprjo~ei.
But, in the first part of the antithesis, Mt. agrees with Mk and
Lk. in using croxrat, "save," os. . .$eAj/ TTJV "^v^rjv ai/rov
4 Lk. xvii. 33 os eav forr/crr) rr]v "^v^v avrov irepnroirjO'ao'
v, os 8' av diro\(j-ei ^a>oyovi]o~i, avrrjv.
67 (Mark i. 16 20) 5 2
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
loveth his soul loseth (or, destroyeth) it, and he that hateth his
soul in this world, to life eternal shall he guard it. If anyone
is for ministering unto me let him follow me. . . x "
Yet Luke, in spite of all his pains, did not do all that was
needed to be done by an Evangelist writing for Greeks to
explain Christ's metaphor of the fish. His application of
zoogonia to the individual believer reminds us of the only
other N.T. use of the word in a spiritual sense. There it
refers to God, who alone, so it is implied, " quickeneth (or,
preserveth alive) all things 2 ." And the ambiguity recognised
by our Revisers in that passage affords but one of many
indications that Luke's use of the word was also ambiguous.
21. How does John express "fishers of men"?
John deals with all these questionings, variations, and com-
plexities after his manner dramatically and indirectly. He
implies rather than states. And what he implies is that the
" fishing " is a " drawing upward." The Fisherman is the Word,
Life, or Light, who became Man in order to draw men to
Himself 3 . Becoming Man, He descended into the waters of
darkness that He might raise men up into the atmosphere of
light. In the waters they could not breathe and had no
need of breath. But when they rose up with Him from the
waters, they received the Breath or Spirit of a new life, being
born again. Those who were thus drawn up by Jesus, and
1 Jn xii. 25 <uAaei ''shall guard" represents an attitude appro-
priate for the Christian warrior, and is free from the objections that
might be raised against the Lucan faoyovrjo-ei by those ignorant of
its LXX use. Also the addition of "in this world" softens what
Luke says (xiv. 26) et TIS...OV /xio-et. . . ert re KOL rr)v ^rvxn v auTo{/.
2 i Tim. vi. 13. R.V. txt "quickeneth," R.V. marg. "pre-
serveth alive," which does not so well suit the context. The only
other N.T. instance is Acts vii. 19, R.V. txt "that they should cast
out their babes to the end they might not live" marg. "Gr. be pre-
served alive"
3 Jn xii. 32.
68 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
toward Jesus, began by "following" Him on earth in a literal
sense, and ended by "following" Him in a spiritual sense,
which could not be comprehended till He was "lifted up" on
the Cross. To speak of the Apostles as fishermen would not
accord with the tone and thought of the Fourth Evangelist.
Still less could he call Christ Himself the Fisherman. But he
goes far beyond that in venturesome implication. Adopting, or
originating, a very early mystical image of Christ, as the first
to rise out of the waters from which He drew others, he
leads us to conceive of Him, not only as the one Bread or
Loaf, but also as the one Fish, which we must receive as our
spiritual food if we are to follow the Lord indeed into the
heavenly life.
The necessity of receiving this spiritual viaticum the
Evangelist nowhere definitely states. But he suggests it in
a picture, at the close of his Gospel, in which the Lord is
brought before us inviting His disciples to a "breakfast"
where the food is a single loaf and a single fish 1 . The rest,
the mystical interpretation, the Evangelist leaves us to supply
for ourselves. At the same time, he connects this silent emblem,
the mystical food, the fish and the bread, with a spoken
doctrine about "following," with which the last words of Jesus
conclude.
But all this is told so gradually, line upon line or rather
it is insinuated and suggested so imperceptibly, thought upon
thought that we cannot follow the spiritual development
unless we keep our eyes as well as our ears open. The mere
reading of the words of the Fourth Gospel is sometimes of
comparatively little use, especially at its commencement,
unless we remember that it is to be read as a play, with the
stage-directions left out to be supplied by the reader. Actions,
1 Jn xxi. 13. This is to be distinguished from the (plural)
"fishes" and the "five barley loaves" distributed in the Feeding of
the Five Thousand. On the meaning of opsarion, used in Jn xxi. 13
instead of ichthus, see below, p. 86.
69 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
and actors with their names added, except where one of them
is conspicuously left unnamed 1 these come first in order.
Doctrines and discourses come afterwards.
Before discussing the Johannine attitude toward the Synoptic
metaphor of "fishing," if we compare the first and the last
Johannine instances of "following," we shall see (I think)
that the former metaphor is not altogether disconnected from
the latter in the Evangelist's mind, even at the beginning,
and that the two are closely connected at the end. The first
instance of "following" is one of an obviously literal and
rudimentary kind based on the testimony of John the Baptist,
two of whose disciples, Andrew and another, "heard him
speak," and "they followed Jesus 2 ." The sequel implies that
their "abiding" with Jesus which came after the "following"
not only made them converts but also made them bring
others, their brothers, to become converts in their turn 3 . Thus
already Andrew and his companion have become, in fact,
"fishers of men," though the phrase has not been uttered.
Next Peter is introduced. But still there is no promise
about becoming " fishers of men " nor any command to " follow."
But after the introduction of Peter, Jesus "findeth Philip,
and Jesus saith unto him, Follow me." Then it is added
that "Philip was from Bethsaida 4 ." "Bethsaida" means
House of Fishing. For those who know this, there is a con-
nection between the call of Philip and " following " and " fishing."
Is this intentional ? That Philip is made, in some sense, a
"fisherman" by Christ's call is at all events implied by the
fact that he at once draws into Christ's net Nathanael, who
is called "an Israelite indeed 5 ." Later on, Philip is again
1 Jn i. 3740.
2 Jn i. 37. It is added (ib. 38) that Jesus " turned and beheld
them following."
3 Jn i. 41. The plural "brothers" is not mentioned but char-
acteristically implied (Son 3374 c, 3626 a) in "first" (which implies
a "second").
4 Jn i. 44. See p. 27, n. 6. 5 Jn i. 47.
70 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
connected with the place of his domicile. "Greeks," we are
told, "came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida of Galilee...
saying, Sir, we desire to see Jesus 1 ." Why is the place repeated ?
It is because Philip is once more playing "the fisherman."
And why is "of Galilee" added ? It is because the Greeks are
"Gentiles," and "Galilee" represents "Galilee of the Gentiles."
Isaiah called them "the people that sat in darkness"; but
now they are being drawn, through the agency of "Philip of
the House of Fishing," toward the Light of Life.
Yet about this same Apostle, so faithful in following, up
to his ability, and so powerful to draw Israelite and Greek
toward the Lord Jesus, it is implied that he had not really
"known" the Lord, even after he had brought the Greeks to
Him. For Jesus Himself says to Philip, on the night before
the Crucifixion, "Have I been so long time with you [all], and
dost thou, Philip, not know me 2 ?" Had he not "followed"
the Lord? Yes. He had "followed" Jesus in some sense.
He had "been with" Jesus in some sense for what Jesus
Himself calls "a long time." But Jesus needed something
more.
Take, as a contrast, the unnamed disciple, whom Jesus
loved, and who, along with Andrew, "followed" Jesus literally
at the very beginning, and not only "followed" but also
"abode with" Him. We are almost certainly intended 3 to
regard him as immediately bringing his brother James to
Jesus, as Andrew brings Simon. If so, he too, like Andrew
and Philip, was one of the "fishermen" as well as the
"followers" from the beginning.
And what as to the end ? First, as regards the fishing or
drawing of souls toward Christ, we find the beloved disciple
saying "It is the Lord" to Peter, so that the latter plunged
into the sea to swim to Him. And secondly, as regards the
1 Jn xii. 21. 2 Jn xiv. 9.
3 See below, p. 114, and Son 3374 c.
71 (Mark i. 16 20
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
following, an answer is given in the words "Peter, turning
about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved, following 1 ." This,
then, is the disciple who both followed at the beginning and
also followed at the end. He was not bidden to do so at the
beginning, like Philip, nor at the end, like Peter. Yet he
followed. The reason seems to be set before us, if we will see
it, in the words "whom Jesus loved." It was the attracting
love of Jesus in the heart of the beloved disciple that led him
to say to Peter "It is the Lord," and to "follow," in his own
way, though not bidden to "follow."
22. The "Ichthus," or Fish, an early Christian emblem
At this point, the investigation brings before us a question
suggested by a remark of Tertullian, but one that can be shewn
to have been brought before Christians long before Tertullian's
time as to the relation between the baptism of Jesus Himself
and the baptism of His disciples. " If baptism implies a drawing
out of a lower into a higher region, as a fish is drawn out of water
into air, and if we, in view of that aspect of baptism, are to
call ourselves 'fishes' lifted up in the 'net' of the Spirit, did
the Lord Jesus, in view of His own baptism, desire us to regard
Him in the same aspect ? "^so Christians might ask in the
first century. Tertullian uses language that seems to favour
an affirmative reply. It is at the outset of his treatise on
Baptism : "But we, little fishes, in accordance with our
Ichthus, Jesus Christ, are born [again, each one of us] (nascimur)
in water 2 ." Why does Tertullian here use the Greek word
Ichthus, instead of the Latin "piscis" (which appears only in
1 Jn xxi. 7, 20.
2 Tertull. De Bapt. i. He does not say "nati sumus" but
"nascimur," meaning apparently "born day by day," as each is
brought to the font. He adds "Nor are we safe otherwise than
by remaining in the water." It would be interesting to ascertain
how he would reconcile this with Mt. xiii. 47 foil. He regards the
water (De Bapt. 3) as ordained (i) "animas proferre," (2) "in
baptismo animare."
72 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
the context as "little-fishes (pisciculi) ") ? It is because the
Greek Ichthus was used, certainly in the second century, and
almost certainly in the first, to denote "Jesus Christ the Son
of God, the Saviour."
This answer is supported by many facts which point back
to a time, not realised by us without some difficulty a time
later than Nero's days and therefore not traceable in the
Pauline Epistles when Christians, under stress of systematic
persecution, began to use the Ichthus, the Fish, as the secret
sign of their religion 1 . It was natural for some to regard it
as the sign of their baptism, which sealed them as the baptized
followers of the Protobaptized, their Lord. They were, as
Tertullian says, His "little fishes," following Him the Great
One. How naturally this must have tended to increase the
belief in the efficacy of baptism in water, as distinct from
baptism with the Spirit, may be easily imagined; and we
know that many, including Constantine, delayed to be baptized,
owing to their belief that all the sins they might commit before
baptism were assuredly washed away, while as to post-baptismal
sins they could never feel a similar assurance.
1 Diet. Christ. Ant. i. 674 a. "There can be little doubt that. . .
till Constantine's time, no public use of the cross was made, as a
sign of the person of the Lord. Till then, the fish-anagram was
perhaps in special and prevailing use, and it may have yielded its
place from that time to the cross, the sign of full confession of Jesus
Christ." See Orac. Sibyll. viii. 217 foil, and Lightfoot on Ignatius
Vol. i. 480 containing an ancient poem by Abercius, also Diet.
Christ. Ant. i. 713 a. King's Antique Gems and Rings ii. pp. 27, 37
prints a "signet" with MAGIC above SX HI and adds "El, the
Kabbalistic title of the Sephira, Mercy, was often applied to Christ,
as may be read on the Basle altar frontal (Cluny Museum)
' Quis sicut Hel fortis, medicus, soter, benedictus ? ' '
He accounts for H I i.e. the inverted I H instead of the inverted I HC,
the usual form by reference to "the Hebrew Jod and He." But
IH occurs where there is no suspicion of Hebrew, in Boeckh 9082
where IH is above SX. I have been unable to find from books, or
from experts whom I have consulted, a single ancient instance of
this "often applied" EL
73 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
23. Influence of this emblem on Johannine doctrine
Against such an attitude of mind (that of Tertullian) the
Fourth Gospel sets itself from the beginning. It does not
narrate the baptism of Jesus in the water, and therefore does
not mention the simultaneous "opening of the heaven" above
Him. But it does represent Jesus, in His first promise to the
disciples, as apparently referring to this opening of the heaven,
and as promising that they shall "see" it and shall "see"
"the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of
Man 1 ." That is to say, baptism must be more than a washing.
It must bring with it a "seeing." And this "seeing" is to be
connected with "the Son of Man" as the mediator between
earth and heaven. In the next stage of doctrine, Nicodemus is
warned that the baptized cannot "see" those super-terrestrial
realities which constitute "the kingdom of God," unless they
are "born from above 2 ." The baptism of John a baptism
1 Jni. 51.
2 Jn iii. 3. (For the rendering of awdev "from above" (as R.V.
marg.) see Joh. Gr. 1904 5, 2573). We must remember that, about
the middle of the first century, if not before, the question would
arise concerning little children born of Christian parents who were
prepared for the Coming of the Lord from heaven at any time,
"If these little ones are not baptized as soon as born, will they be
regarded by the Lord as outside His Church ? " Paul indirectly
answers the question by saying to parents of whom one alone is a
believer, that the belief of even one parent sanctifies the child
(i Cor. vii. 14) "Else were your children unclean, but now are they
holy."
Connecting this verse with Jn iii. 6, Clement of Alexandria (549)
says "That which is begotten (yevv^ufvov) of the flesh is flesh, so
that which is from the spirit [is] Spirit (OVTO> TO f< nvevp-aros nvcvp-a}
not only as to the [act of] childbearing but also as to the [act of] learning
(ov fiovov Kara TTJV O.TTOKVTJO'IV aXXa KOL Kara TTJV fj.ddrjo'iv) . auric a (l Cor.
vii. 14) ayta ra TfKva al (vapeo-rrjcreis ra> $ea> rooi/ KvpiciK&v \6yav vvp.-
fava-dvTwv TTJV tyvxnv." The meaning of this is obscure to me. But
comp. Tertull. De Anim. 39 " Hinc enim et Apostolus ex sanctificato
alterutro sexu sanctos procreari ait, tarn ex seminis praerogativa
quam ex institutionis disciplina." Tertullian's context implies that
74 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
with water alone will not suffice. "Except a man be born
from water and wind (or, spirit, or breath) he cannot enter
into the kingdom of God 1 ." The context appears to play on
the different meanings of one and the same word "wind,"
"spirit," "breath" very much as in the vision of Ezekiel
where the prophet declares concerning the "dry bones" of
Israel that "there was no breath in them" and then is bidden
to appeal to "the breath": "Come from the four Breaths,
O Breath, and breathe upon these slain that they may live 2 ."
And it is probable that the "water" here mentioned, as well as
the "wind (or, breath)," is celestial not terrestrial, being the
"fountain of the Holy Spirit," in which an ancient Hebrew
Gospel declares that Jesus Himself was baptized 3 .
If this is the meaning of the "water" and the "breath (or,
spirit) " in the Dialogue with Nicodemus, it answers the question,
raised elsewhere, as to what is to become of the human "fishes"
when taken out of the water, the answer being, "They are
endued with a power of breathing the celestial air, the very
breath of God, concerning which Ezekiel said, 'Breathe upon
from birth and onwards the child of heathen parents is polluted by
worship of false gods, but he does not attempt to shew how the child
of one heathen parent and one Christian parent must necessarily be
free from such pollution and must be called "holy." Paul indicates
that the influence of even one Christian parent would prevail over
unholy influences so as to make the child "holy." Baptism he does
not mention, but his remark seems to assume that the child could be
"holy" before baptism. The logic of the argument is not clear.
But he seems to see, and to try to make us see, the Holy Spirit
breathing and quickening and conquering in ways past under-
standing.
1 Jn iii. 5. 2 Ezek. xxxvii. 9 foil.
3 For the baptism of Jesus with the "whole fountain of the Holy
Spirit descending," as described in a Hebrew Gospel quoted by
Jerome on Is. xi. 2, see From Letter 1042. The second-century
poem of Abercius (Light! on Ignatius Vol. i. 480) speaks of Christ
as "the fish from the fountain." Diet. Christ. Ant. ("Fisherman")
gives a print of an early representation of the "fisherman" drawing
the fish from "waters which flow from the rock in Horeb."
75 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
these slain that they may live.' " And the rest of the Johannine
chapter goes on to shew how the "lifting up" of "the Son of
Man" is to help those who believe in Him to receive "eternal
life," and to "come to the light" and be "saved 1 ."
No further mention is made in the Gospel of the effect
of baptism. But the Evangelist represents Jesus as em-
phasizing the need of the internal and "living water" as
compared with that of "Jacob's well 2 ." He also suggests,
by a typical sign at the pool of Bethesda, the ineffectually
of the purifications of the Jews as compared with the power
of "making-alive" given by the Father to the Son and
exerted by the Spirit 3 . This imparting of life is described as
the result of the Son's act in giving His own flesh and blood to
men, as their "living bread." And, in various scenes, the
"drawing" power of the Father or of the Son is mentioned or
implied 4 . But it is reserved for the last scene of all after the
Lord has breathed upon the disciples and bestowed on them
the Holy Spirit to represent Jesus as, in effect, the Fisherman
directing the "fishing" of the Seven Missionaries, and also,
immediately afterwards, as the Bread (or Loaf) and Fish that
is to be their morning food preparing them to go forth to
preach His Gospel.
In Jerome's letters the only reference that I have found to
this Johannine "breakfast" appears to be a phrase included in
a confused reference to quite a different event, related by
1 Jn iii. 14 foil. 2 Jn iv. 5 foil.
3 Jn v. i 21 "quickeneth," faorroicl, comp. vi. 63 "it is the
spirit that quickeneth." "Water" is not there mentioned in Christ's
words. Christ's only other mention of water is in vii. 38 "rivers of
living water." But the Evangelist mentions it in (xiii. 5) the
Washing of Feet, and (xix. 34) the "blood and water" from Jesus
on the Cross.
4 Jn vi. 44, xii. 32 both mention " drawing (eX/cuco) " ; but Jn vi. 68
"Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast words of eternal life,"
and other passages, suggest it perhaps even more forcibly by
implication.
76 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
Luke : "He asked for a fish broiled on the coals that He might
confirm the doubting Apostles [i.e. by His eating], who did
not dare approach Him because they thought they saw not
a body but a spirit 1 /' This is neither Lucan nor Johannine.
In Luke, the question asked by Jesus is " Have ye anything to
eat here?" and there is no mention of "coals." In John,
the question asked by Jesus may be interpreted as asking
about "fish" ("Have ye any fish [taken by your nets]?")
and there is a mention of "a fire of coals" and "a fish laid
thereon" ; but this fish is regarded as provided by Jesus, not
by the disciples. The disciples eat. Jesus gives the food.
Chrysostom, in his comment on John, remarks, with a
careful negative, "It is not said here that He ate with them."
But the language of Jerome indicates that he took a different
view. It also suggests that he may have confused the
Johannine "Have ye [caught] any fish?" with the Lucan
"Have ye anything for me to eat [that I may shew you that I
am not a disembodied spirit] ? " We shall now compare the
two.
24. "'Have ye anything to-eat here?' And they gave
him part of a broiled fish," in Luke 2
The Lucan word meaning "to-eat," or "eatable," occurs
nowhere in the Old and New Greek Testament except here,
and in rendering the extremely rare O.T. phrase "every tree-of
1 Letters and Select Works of St Jerome (Oxford, 1893) p. 442
referring to Jn xxi. 9. [The Index gives Jn xxi. 9 as referred to on
p. 376, but it should be Acts xxi. 9. The Index also gives Jn xxi.
13 as referred to on p. 401, but the reference appears to be chiefly to
Luke ("part of a broiled fish and of a honeycomb").] On p. 442,
the preceding words are "Why did our Lord eat a honeycomb ? To
prove the resurrection. . .," and then " He asked for a fish broiled on
the coals. .."
2 Lk. xxiv. 41 2 e'xere n /Spdxri/ioi/ evQdde perhaps a better
rendering would be "Ye have [of course'] something to-eat here ? "
Comp. x. T * n Aristoph. Eccles. 68.
77 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
food (lit. tree-of eating) 1 .'' This phrase apart from the
Pentateuch and Nehemiah, where it means literally "fruit-
tree" occurs only in Ezekiel's description of ''every tree of
food" that grows by the river of life that proceeds out of the
Temple: "It shall bring forth new fruit every month, because
the waters thereof issue out of the sanctuary, and the fruit
thereof shall be for food, and the leaf thereof for healing 2 ."
This apparently refers to the fuller form "tree good for food"
which occurs in Genesis, "every tree that is pleasant to the
sight and good for food 3 ." In Revelation, though "food"
is merged in "fruit," the imagery of Ezekiel is retained, thus,
" On this side of the river and on that, the tree of life, bearing
twelve [manner of] fruits, yielding its fruit every month ; and
the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations 4 ."
Thus it happens that, to readers familiar with the language
of the LXX and with the imagery of the Scripture, Luke's
rare word " [fit] to eat" would suggest the thought of the "fruit "
of the Tree of Life, or, in other words, "spiritual fruit." This
thought pervades the Hebrew prophecies. The cry of the last
of their prophets was "Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of
repentance 5 ." We all know how prominent the thought is
(even where the word "fruit" is not mentioned) in Christ's
parables and doctrines, and we might fairly anticipate that
it would find a place in any precepts, traditions, or revelations,
recorded by the disciples in closest sympathy with Him as
having proceeded from the risen Saviour. It is therefore
reasonable to ask (i) whether Luke intended his readers
here to assume some allusion to this doctrine, (2) whether
1 In O.T., 3pwo-t/ios-, i.e. "fit-to-eat," occurs only in irav uAoi/
v (three times); Heb. "tree-of eating" occurs (Gesen. 38 a)
four times. In Lev. xix. 23, Nehem. ix. 25, Ezek. xlvii. 12, LXX
has /3pcocri/ioi>. In Deut. xx. 20, with neg., it has ov
2 Ezek. xlvii. 12. "For food" is els ftp&aiv.
3 Gen. ii. 9, rep. iii. 6. 4 Rev. xxii. 2.
5 Mt. iii. 8, Lk. iii. 8.
78 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
the original tradition implied some such allusion (although Luke
has not drawn it out but has contented himself with faithfully
setting down the expressions that point to it).
The first of these two questions must be answered in the
negative. There is no indication whatever that Luke regarded
the question as having any spiritual meaning or as being any-
thing more than an introduction to a "proof" of the Lord's
bodily resurrection. The Lucan tendency to give undue
prominence to "proofs" has been discussed already 1 . But
this tendency makes it all the more necessary for us to ascertain
whether his own language does not reveal something deeper
than his own thought. It may of course be the historical
fact that Jesus, instead of saying "Bring me a morsel of bread,"
used an extremely rare epithet, which, by a mere coincidence,
suggested what Ezekiel calls "tree of food," and what Revela-
tion calls the "fruit" of "the tree of life." But such a
coincidence ought not to be accepted as casual except after
close investigation.
A parable in Luke represents the Lord of the Vineyard as
coming to the Gardener and seeking fruit 2 from a fig-tree.
A Mark-Matthew narrative represents Jesus as coming to a
fig-tree for the same purpose 3 . These traditions shew that
the question "Have ye aught fit for eating?" might mean
"fit for me to eat." Jesus had appointed the Apostles to bring
forth fruit. He desired that "fruit" from them that is to
say, the fruit due from Apostles, the salvation of the souls
of men. In that sense the Saviour might say to them after
His resurrection, in order to stimulate them to their apostolic
toil, " Have ye any food food for me and food for yourselves,
because it is your food and mine to do the will of the Father
by saving the souls of men ? " But of course this meaning
would be lost by those who took the words to mean simply
1 Introduction p. 122 foil. z Lk. xiii. 6.
3 Mk xi. 13, Mt. xxi. 19.
79 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
"Have ye anything here that I might eat in your presence,
so as to prove to you that I have a body capable of eating ? "
Here we must point out that in the passage of Ezekiel
mentioning "every tree of food" there is a preceding mention
of "fishers" and of "fish" that are to be "exceeding many 1 ."
All the Synoptic Gospels assume that Jesus, at the outset of
the Gospel, used the metaphor of "catching fish" as a symbol
of fruitful apostolic action. We are now invited to believe
that He used, at its close, language blending the two thoughts.
It will presently appear that the Johannine ''Have ye any
food?" actually blends the two thoughts, since, in vernacular
Greek, it may mean, in effect, "Have ye [caught] any fish ?"
But before passing to that, we must touch on a very small
point, the epithet "broiled," applied by Luke to the fish.
Admitting readily that Luke's reason for recording it was
simply, or at all events mainly, that he found it, or thought he
found it, recorded by predecessors, we still have to ask why
they took the trouble to register so small a detail as this
which did not strengthen the proof namely, that the food by
eating which the Lord proved that He was not an apparition
was not only a "fish" but also a "broiled fish."
Clement of Alexandria adduces Luke's phrase and context
in support of simple diet, probably having in view the saying
in Plato's Republic, that Homer favoured the use of meat
"broiled rather than boiled 2 ." It is also interesting to note
1 Ezek. xlvii. 9 10.
2 Clem. Alex, in a discourse against (171) "gluttony (<
speaks of the Lord as (172) "having blessed the loaves and the
broiled (OTTTOVS) fishes with which He feasted the disciples." Then
(173 4) after praising a diet of vegetables, he says "And if there be
need of broiled meat, or boiled, it must be shared [with others] (<av
OTTTOV 8er) Kpea>s r) c<p6ov, pcraSoTfov ." Then he quotes Luke : "Have ye
aught to eat here? said the Lord to the disciples after the Resur-
rection. And they, as having been taught by Him to practise
frugality, presented (eVe'So^ai/) to Him a portion of a broiled fish. . . .
And having eaten before them, He said to them (says Luke) what
80 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
that, although Clement agrees with Luke's correct text in
omitting what our A.V. inserts, and our R.V. places in the
margin "and (of) an honeycomb 1 /' Clement adds, as a con-
secutive remark of his own, that feasters according to
the Logos ought not to be deprived of " [honeyj-combs 1 ."
Clement's application of the passage will, of course, strike us
as a far-fetched explanation. But it ought also to strike us
as indicating that he perceived something that needed to be
explained.
The true explanation, however, seems to have been
hidden from Clement by Plato, who overshadowed Moses in
his mind. For in fact this apparently superfluous Lucan
epithet "broiled" points back to the institution of the Passover.
The only passage in LXX that uses Luke's word is that which
enjoins repeating the word twice that, in the first Passover
meal, the lamb is to be "broiled with fire," adding "not boiled
at all with water but broiled with fire," and to be eaten "with
loins girded, shoes on feet, staff in hand 2 ." And why ? The
reason is obvious. It is a military order. The army of the
Lord is to march forth at short notice from Egypt to the
Promised Land. This Passover is their viaticum. No doubt
Plato used similar language about "broiled food, not boiled,"
being best for soldiers, and Plutarch repeated it from Plato.
But the original of the Lucan tradition is much more likely
He did say. In addition to these things it is not to be suffered that
those who dine in accordance with the Word should be deprived
of sweetmeats and honeycombs (Trpbs rovrois ovde Tpa-yr)p,dTO)v <al
Krjplutv dfioipovs TTfpiopareov TOVS dfirrvovvTas Kara Aoyov) ." I have given
the Greek of passages where my translation differs from that of
T. and T. Clark, which has " If flesh is wanted, let roast rather than
boiled be set down ... it is not to be overlooked that those who feed
according to the Word are not debarred from dainties in the shape
of honey-combs."
1 Lk. xxiv. 42 fjL^pos [<al OTTO /tifXto-o-t'ou KJjplov], Clem, has Krjpt&v.
W. H. has the bracketed words in the list of "rejected readings."
2 Exod. xii. 8 ii.
A. p. 81 (Mark i. 16 20) 6
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
to have been derived from allusion to the Passover in Exodus
than from Plato or copies of Plato even though Luke failed
to perceive the allusion 1 .
From a very different point of view there presents itself a
second-century literary jest about "broiled fish," which has
no signs of being a jibe derived from the Lucan tradition, and
which, if it is not derived from Luke, points back to an early
recognition of a play on the words "broiled" and "visible."
It is preserved by Athenaeus, who wrote about the end of the
second century, quoting from an anonymous poet who must
have been some years earlier.
It happens that the Lucan word optos is identical with
another optos (connected with our "optic" in its various
forms) meaning "visible." Hence this ancient poet under-
took to prove that a raw fish was "broiled" by pointing
out that it was "visible 2 ." Now Luke is the only writer
of N.T. to use the verb akin to optos expressing visibility.
It is mostly used of divine things divinely seen in visions.
Luke uses it but once, and that at the beginning of the
Acts, to describe Jesus as "divinely-appearing unto the dis-
ciples 3 ." Could Luke have been influenced by some obscure
1 Plat. Pol. iii. 13, 404 c notes that Homer "feasts his heroes
neither with fish... nor with boiled flesh, but only with broiled, which
would be most convenient for soldiers" ; Plutarch speaking about
Scipio's regulations as to "breakfast," to be taken by the men
"standing" and with "fireless food" probably has Plato in view :
Moral. 2OI C dpiarav p,tv earwras "nrvpov o\^oi>, denrvdv 5e KaraKfip.evovs
apTov rj TTO\TOV cnr\a>s <al Kpeas OTTTOV r) e(j)d6v.
2 See Steph. Thes. v. 2121, which also quotes Hesychius as
saying " Opticon and opton have the same meaning ' visible,' manifest,
foresighted," and " 'OTTTOJ, (ptuvopevos." Thomas deprecates this use of
the word : KaroTrra Ae'ye, KO.\ p.rj OTTTO, r'/Toi deard. Neither grammarian
mentions the extreme rarity of the word in this sense. Steph. Thes.
alleges only one instance of it, and that from Lucian Lexiph. 9
where it occurs amidst a group of pedantical misuses of words.
3 Acts i. 3 foil. ofTTavop-evos avrois. See Notes 2892 907 on this
difficult passage.
82 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
Greek traditions in which this verb might mean either "broiled"
or "made visible" ? It is true that no instance is alleged of
the verb as meaning "broil" till quite late times 1 ; but
it is not unreasonable to suspect in view of the jest above
mentioned that some confusion may have existed in first-
century Greek traditions about the divine Fish as being optos
in two senses, first as "made-visible" after the Resurrection,
secondly, as "broiled" like the flesh of the Paschal Lamb.
Avoiding such a confusion, or such a play on words, the Fourth
Evangelist, instead of " broiled," substitutes " a fire of charcoal,"
and "a fish lying thereon 2 ."
It will be obvious that if "broiled," in Luke, refers to the
Passover meal, it will not be appropriate to food given by the
disciples to Jesus. It would be appropriate only to food given by
" Christ, our Passover," giving Himself to the disciples. There is
probably some error in Luke. The alteration of a single letter
would turn "they gave" into "he gave 3 ." The Curetonian
Syriac of Luke adds that Jesus also gave some of the fish to
the disciples 4 . Origen, laying stress on "portion," appears to
regard the "portion of broiled fish" presented by the Apostles
to Jesus as representing the very inadequate return which
was all that they could make at present for the Word that had
1 Steph. Thes. alleges only one from Nicetas Chon. in Andronicus
Comnenus. But it gives an instance where oTrraWa, "an oven,"
was erroneously explained as "looking-at," d-rrofiXc^ts, in Suidas.
2 Jn xxi. 9.
3 See Prof. Burkitt's Evang. Da-Mepharreshe ii. 305 "Clement
of Alexandria (p. 174) definitely quotes the passage," i.e. Lk. xxiv.
42 4 "thus: circ8a>Kfv.. . ." This would mean "he gave." But
in fact Clement quotes it correctly, e-rredaxav, i.e. "they gave."
Prof. Burkitt's volumes are conspicuously accurate as a rule, and
therefore I have selected this misprint of e for a to shew how easily
"he gave" and "they gave" might be confused.
4 Lk. xxiv. 43 Curet Syr. (Burkitt, vol. ii. p. 305) "And while
he took [and] ate before their eyes and took up that which was
over [and] gave to them "
83 (Mark i. 16 20) 6 2
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
been imparted to them 1 . Luke (as has been admitted above)
seems to have had no such allegorical meaning. But if we
presently find John combining a presentation of fishes by the
disciples to Jesus with a presentation of fish, in return, from
Jesus to the disciples, we shall then have to ask whether this
double act, this action and reaction, is not in spiritual accord
with Christ's doctrine as a whole, and with the manifestations
of Christ's resurrection in particular 2 .
In concluding these remarks about the Lucan presentation
of "broiled fish," we must not overlook the cumulative evidence
derived from Luke's contextual 3 use of unique or rare ex-
pressions. Luke appears to be feeling his way through ancient
and obscure traditions, which he sets down as he found them
even though he is doubtful about their exact meaning.
25. (R.V.) ' 'Children, have ye aught to eat?' They
answered him, 'No,'"* in John
The Johannine question is couched in Greek that may be
described as at once vernacular and technical. The first part
1 Origen Comm. Matth. xi. 2 (Lomm. iii. 69) "He ate of a broiled
fish . . . taking ' a part ' from the disciples and receiving from [them]
such divine-teaching as they were able, [but only] 'in part,' to report
to Him about the Father."
2 On firi8i8a>pi "give" or "present" (Lk. xxiv. 42 frredoxav, used
also in ib. 30 cVcdidou) see Hermas Sim. viii. i 2 foil, where the
branches that Michael "presents" to men for fruitful use are "pre-
sented" again by them to Michael that he may inspect their
fruitfulness.
3 "Contextual" should include the beginning of the Acts, e.g.
i. 3 4 St' r)H(pa>v (see Notes 2892 a, 2904) onravopfvos, and (rwaXi^o/jifvos.
4 Jn xxi. 5 IlaiSm, fir] TI TrpofTtpdytov fX fTf air*Kpi6ij(Ftu> aurai Ou.
Blass adds " fyov attice Clem. Al." Perhaps "You have caught
no fish, have you ? " would be a more faithful rendering (see Joh.
Gr. 2235d, 2307a, 2703 (3)). Clem Alex. 104 has o-ra<9eW (fao-lv) 6
Kvpios (TT\ ra> (Jn els, Or eVi, rov) atyiaXai (Jn bv) vrpbs TOVS p.adr)Tcis
aXifvovTfS Se frv^ov fv<pa>vr)o-v re, Ilaidia, p.rj TI o^fov c^ere ; Steph.
Thes., which gives no other instance of f^cpuvflv, suggests dvecpuvrjaev,
i.e. "shouted." But there remains the difficulty of the superfluous
84 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
of it is what Greeks used to say when asking a fisherman or
bird-catcher whether he had "got anything 1 ." The other part,
"anything-to-eat" literally meaning "anything to be eaten
with [bread]," a "relish," including fruit, vegetables, and fish
is not alleged to be connected with fishing or hunting. It is
regularly used in contracts about the daily food forming part
of a workman's wages. Those who are questioned here are
fishermen at their work. Hence, not only must the "relish"
mean "fish," but also the whole question must mean "Have
you [caught] any fish to eat with your bread [as the fruit, or
wages, of your labour in fishing] ? " This tends to bring the
Johannine question into harmony with the interpretation as-
signed above to the corresponding Lucan question "Have ye
anything to eat ? "
We traced back the latter to Ezekiel. And Luke's Greek
word " eatable " was shewn to be identical with the very
rare word applied in LXX to the fruit of the trees described
by the prophet as growing near the mystical river that flowed
from the Sanctuary. " In John," it may be objected, "Tiberias,
not Jerusalem, is the scene." The reply is, ist, that the
prophet himself speaks of the mystical river as extending to
various regions, 2nd, that the first of these is called by the
LXX Galilee, 3rd, that Rashi explains this as referring to
Tiberias 2 .
Now against the hypothesis of a mystical or emblematic
re. For 7rpoa-(f)dyiov, "fish," see Joh. Gr. 2235 d, and add that the
Indices of Berlin Urkunde (i 1209) give n. in 916 (time of Ves-
pasian) in an agreement as to wages and food of workmen, placed
after "oil," but with no distinct intimation of its meaning.
1 See Field on Jn xxi. 5, quoting the Scholiast on Aristoph.
Nub. 733 fx fis Tl > where the words are said to contain "a witty
allusion to the question commonly put to fishermen or bird-catchers."
Field adds a quotation from Nonnus, ?/ p' exopcv n ; where the
Scholiast has dpa etfr/pao-a/zeV rt ;
2 See Rashi on Ezek. xlvii 8 (LXX) "This water that goeth forth
to Galilee that is to the east (els rrjv TaXtXaiav TTJV rrpos dvaroXds)."
85 (Mark i. 1620)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
purpose in the Johannine narrative, it may be objected, that
the word ichthus which has been shewn to have had an
emblematic meaning toward the end of the first or beginning
of the second century is not used here at all to represent the
Lord Jesus, or to represent His gift to the disciples. This is
true. We may almost say that ichthus, in this high sense, is
conspicuously put aside to make way for another word, a
humble one, opsarion, which has no pretensions to an emblem-
atic meaning 1 .
But is not this consistent with a mystical purpose that
deprecates some emblems and substitutes others ? The
Ichthus was an emblem of Greek not Jewish origin. In the
minds of some, connecting "Jesus Christ the Son of God 2 "
with the thought of Him as the Fish in the Waters of Baptism,
it tended to a disproportionate estimate of the external puri-
fication with water. As an antidote for such an error, the
word opsarion came appropriately as meaning "something that
was to be eaten with bread." That implied combination with the
Bread, the Living Bread a metaphor emphasized in the
Fourth Gospel. John, and John alone, uses the word opsarion
when speaking of the "two fishes" in the Feeding of the Five
Thousand. Now he repeats it in the Feeding of the Seven
Disciples. In both cases the choice of the word appears to
be deliberate.
As regards John's preference of other words ("a fire of
charcoal, and a fish laid thereon") to Luke's word "broiled"
(which appeared to allude to the Passover) it has been pointed
out above that the Lucan word was liable to jibes from those
1 This does not appear in our English Versions. But in Jn xxi.
6, 8, n, " fishes " = IxOvw (in narrative), ib. xxi. 10 "fishes" (R.V.
"fish," but the word is plural) = tyapiwv (in Christ's words). In
Jn xxi. 9, 13, "fish" = fydpiov (in narrative). In the Miracle of the
Five Thousand, John alone uses the word (vi. 9, n) 8vo fydpia, oc
TO>I> fyapiw. On fydpiov meaning "sauce," "flavour," "fish," see
Joh. Gr. 2235 rf.
2 See above, p. 73, on Ichthus, as an abbreviation of this title.
86 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
who did not understand its allusion. And the description in
John, besides being more vivid, and more like what would be
seen in a vision, has perhaps a significance in view of the
previous mention the only other one in N.T. of "a fire of
charcoal 1 /' It is an ancient observation that Peter thrice
denied his Master near "a fire of charcoal" ; and now the time
has come when, near another "fire of charcoal," he is thrice
to affirm his faithful devotion to that same Master, who, while
accepting it, will predict that he will be faithful unto death 2 .
26. Clement of Alexandria on "one fishing"
Clement of Alexandria, in his Instructor, says, " Let our
seals be either a dove, or a fish, or a ship running before the
wind, or a musical lyre (used by Polycrates) or a ship's anchor
(which Seleucus used as his engraved device) ; and, if it be one
fishing, he [i.e. the wearer] will thereby remember an apostle
and the 'children ' caught-up [like fish} out of water . . . . 3 "
"One fishing" is probabl^ Jesus ; and "children" may be
explained by an earlier reference in the Instructor to "children 4 ."
1 Jn xviii. 18 "the servants and the officers. . .having made a
fire of charcoal." 'AvdpaKid, "fire of charcoal," does not occur in
N.T. except in Jn xviii. 18, xxi. 9.
2 See Ephrem Syrus quoted in Joh. Voc. 1711 /. foil., and Son of
Man 3369 a foil.
3 Clem. Alex. 289 K&V aXifvwv TLS y, aTrorrroAou /ue^ir^crerai KCU ra>i/
' vSaros dva(nra>p.fvu)V 7rai<W. The next words are ot> yap i8u>\a)v
Trpoo-wira evaTroTVTruiTeov, " for we must not engrave on them the faces
of idols" a caution necessary for Greeks, who would not worship
the Dove or the Fish, but might worship the Fisherman.
For avacnrda, used of an angler "hoisting up" or "jerking up"
a fish out of water, see Steph. Thes. quoting ^Elian and Lucian (e.g.
Pise. 48, i. 615) "It [i.e. the fish] nears the hook!. . .It is caught
(Xi77rTcu) ! Let us hoist up (dvaa-n-do-MfjLfv) ! " Luke xiv. 5 " hoist
" out of a "well (<ppeap)" is parall. to Mt. xii. n "lift
out of a "pit ([Bodwos]," where dvao-Trda-fi implies more
haste than eyepel. The word might also be applied to a quick
"drawing up" of "nets," etc. Comp. Acts xi. 10.
4 The title of the treatise, noiSayooyo?, naturally leads to the
thought Of TraTSey and hence to Christ's naidia.
87 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
There, in a discourse on Children of God, Clement gives the first
place (in a long list of quotations) to the utterance of Christ
on the shore to the disciples fishing on the sea of Tiberias,
"Children 1 !" That "one fishing" means Jesus is indicated
by the hymn at the end of the Instructor where Christ is called
"'Fisher" as well as Shepherd : "Fisher of articulate-speaking
[men], of those who are being saved, enticing the pure fishes of
the sea of evil, the hostile surge, with the sweet [bait of] life 2 ."
Greeks were accustomed to worship Artemis as "the Huntress."
Becoming Christians, they might be tempted to worship Christ
as "the Fisherman," especially if they saw His figure engraved
on Christian seals in that character. Clement warns them that
they are not to worship Him thus. The figure is to arouse,
not worship, but remembrance " remembrance of an apostle
and of the [other] 'children'...," that is, those whom the
Lord hailed as "children" on the sea of Tiberias, where they
had been fishing in vain, and He, the Fisherman, taught them
how to fish to good purpose.
Elsewhere, "fishing" is attributed to Peter, practising the
art that he had learned from Jesus : "But better is this kind
of catching [of fish] which the Lord granted to the disciple,
teaching him to fish for men, even as [we fish] for fishes,
through water 3 ." But where "an apostle and the children" are
1 See above, p. 84, n. 4.
2 Clem. Alex. 312. "Enticing (deXfdfav) " suggests fishing with
a hook rather than with a net. "Articulate-speaking (p-epoTrw) "
is used for "men," because "fishes," both in Greek and Latin, are
proverbially " dumb." See also Notes 2999 (vii)a quoting Clem. Alex.
172 TWV e| vdaros dviovTW eVi ro rfjs diKatoo-vvrjs 8f\eap.
3 Clem. Alex. 284 avrrj de (BeXricov f] ay pa fjv e^apiVaro 6 Kvpios ra>
fjLadrjTTj, Kaddnfp l%Qvs 5ia vdaros dvdpd)Trovs dXteveiv didd^as. Comp.
Acts ii. 38 41 where Peter, after his preaching, says "repent and
be baptized," and "they that had received his word were baptized,"
to the number of three thousand. See Notes 2999 (vii) b quoting
Origen on Mt. XVli. 24 7 (Lomm. iii. 232 3) TrapanaXav rbv ^aBrjr^v
[i.e. Peter] . . . didoxriv avr<a 8vvap.iv TOV a\ifva~ai l%dvv irp&TOv, Iva
avrov 7rapiiK\T)0ii .. .where the meaning seems to be that
88 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
mentioned, it is implied that Peter, and those who are called
"children" along with him, are caught up out of the water
by the Fisherman previously mentioned as "one fishing."
In other words, before Peter "catches fish," he is regarded as
being "caught" himself.
Clement's obscure allusion to the Johannine fishing on
Tiberias, where he lays such emphasis on "children" when
supplemented by his mention of "children" in his interpretation
of "one fishing" engraved on Christian gems, and then by his
hymnal appeal to Christ as "Fisherman" leads us to see that
the Johannine picture may have been regarded by Clement
perhaps in accordance with John's intention as suggesting,
first, Baptism, and secondly, Eucharist. The penitent Peter,
as the representative of the Seven Disciples, plunges into the
lake and is drawn to Himself by the Saviour. Thus he is
taught to be "a fisher of men through water" by being himself
drawn "through water" to the Fisherman. That is Baptism.
Peter and the Apostles have nowhere before been described
as having been baptized. Now they are baptized. The next
thing is to receive the Eucharistic "breakfast," the one loaf
and the one fish.
Obscure though they are, these allusions of Clement to the
Johannine story are of greater value than the clear-cut state-
ments of Jerome : "How do you explain," says the latter to a
heretic, "the fact that Peter saw the Lord standing on the shore
and eating a piece of a roasted fish and a honey-comb ? // He
stood, He must certainly have had feet 1 ." Both here and else-
where Jerome, besides making serious mistakes in quoting the
Peter is "comforted" by being allowed to be the first to catch a
fish, or to catch the first fish. On dva$aiva> here and Jn xxi. n, and
on "comforting," see Notes 2999 (vii).
1 Letters cvm. 24. Comp. To Pammachius 34 (Letters p. 442)
" He asked for a fish broiled on the coals that He might confirm the
doubting Apostles, who did not dare approach Him because they
thought they saw, not a body, but a spirit."
89 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
text, introduces materialistic conjectures of his own th;
appear far more distant from the truth than are the symbolist
imaginations of Clement 1 . Jerome represents the belovec
disciple as being the first to recognise the Lord because he
was "a virgin" and therefore "recognised a virgin body."
But he ignores the fact that there was no recognition, even by
the beloved disciple, till the Seven had obeyed the Lord's
command to "cast the net," and had proved themselves
"fishers." Then, and not till then, did the Chief Fisherman
begin to draw His "children" towards Himself, using the
spiritual insight of the beloved disciple as His instrument, and
thus drawing first Peter, "through water," and then the rest,
"in the little boat."
It will be noted that in Clement's list of Christian seals
one was a "fish" and another was an "anchor." The anchor
is found on Jewish coins as early as Seleucus. The Cross, by
itself, somewhat resembles an anchor, but wants something
at its foot to express the anchor's prong. When a gem contains
the Christian ichthus placed transversely at the foot of the
Cross so as to represent the prong, the two make up a close
resemblance to an anchor 2 . The Gospel of Peter represents
the Cross as following Jesus in His ascension to heaven. The
Cross is questioned " Hast thou preached to them that are asleep
1 E.g. Against Jovinianus i. 26 (Letters p. 365) "The virgin alone
[i.e. John] recognised a virgin, and said to Peter 'It is the Lord'. . .
Our Lord said to him [i.e. to Peter] 'What is that to thee if I wish
him so to be [i.e. to remain a virgin] ? '. . .Here we have a proof that
virginity does not die, and that the defilement of marriage [in the
case of Peter] is not washed away by the blood of martyrdom. ..."
Comp. To Pammachius 35 (Letters p. 443) "Virginity is the first to
recognise a virgin body." These passages reveal the extent to which
materialistic prepossessions may weaken a commentator's sense of
spiritual fitness, and his power of accurate interpretation.
2 See Diet, of Christ. Ant. i. 7136 for this combination on a gem
apparently much more ancient than one that represents (ib. i. 714 b)
a perfect anchor with a dolphin twisted round it.
90 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
[i.e. in Hades] 1 ?" It replies "Yea." In other words, the
Cross and the Ichthus have already gone down like the Anchor
of Hope into the waters of Sheol to carry the Gospel of Hope.
Now they are going up in triumph to be "an anchor of the
soul, [a hope] both sure and stedfast, and one that entereth
into that which is within the veil 2 ." There seems some
mixture of metaphor in an "anchor," likened to a hope that
"entereth" into a heavenly region, that is to say, goes up.
But the objection to it disappears when we regard it as a
phase of Christian thought arising out of an earlier phase in
which Christ descending into Sheol was regarded as "the
anchor" going down.
All this is Greek thought, not Hebrew. But it is also from
Greek thought and Greek vocabulary that the mystical
ICHTHUS came into the Church. This consideration should
warn us against ignoring the possibility that Greek vocabulary
may have influenced Luke that one of the Evangelists who
writes most in the style of a Greek historian in describing
the Reminding of Peter.
27. Peter swimming to Jesus 3
Is there anything in Luke's narrative about Peter in the
Draught of Fishes corresponding to the most striking of the
Johannine details namely, that Peter swam to Jesus 4 ?
1 Evang. Petr. 10.
2 Heb. vi. 19. It is a Greek thought. The word "anchor"
does not occur in O.T.
3 On the subject of this section see Preface, pp. vi vii.
4 Jn xxi. 7 8. The others did not swim. They came "in the
little boat." This seems curiously distinguished from "the boat"
mentioned just before. To TrXoToi/ occurs in xxi. 3, 6, but TO
7r\oidpiov in xxi. 8. Luke's narrative mentions two rrXoia. See
below, pp. 96 7, as to the Talmudic distinction between "a little
boat" and "a big vessel" in crossing the "waters of swimming"
in Ezekiel. Westcott says " The change of word may point to the
use of some smaller vessel which was attached to the 'ship/ as the
words are distinguished in vi. 22 ; or it may be a more exact
description of the vessel."
91 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
" Swimming," it is true, is not mentioned, but only "he threw
himself into the sea." Yet, as the distance from the shore is
said to be "two hundred cubits," swimming may fairly be
said to be implied. We shall proceed to investigate whether
not only in Luke but also in ancient traditions or expositions
connected with Luke or with John there is anything that
points to the conclusion that what John took to mean
"swimming," Luke had previously taken to mean something
else 1 .
An affirmative reply is indicated by the following coi
siderations. As we have seen above, both the Lucan ant
the Johannine narratives appear to allude to the River
of Life in Ezekiel with its "trees of food" on the bank.
Now concerning that River, after it has been measured out
four times in spaces of "a thousand cubits," it is said that
its waters became "waters of swimming 2 ." The regular Greek
word for "swimming," neusis, might also, in theory, mean
"making signs 3 ." The learned author of the Greek Thesaurus
himself has confused the present tense of "swim" with the
1 In Jn xxi. 7, SS includes in its paraphrase "and was swim-
ming," NonnuS ^elpas eper/xco'cra?, ChryS. vrj^6p,vos.
2 Ezek. xlvii. 5. The Heb. noun there used for "swimming"
(Gesen. 965 b) occurs only there in the Bible (though existent in New
Hebrew, Aramaic, and Syriac) and it is omitted by LXX.
3 Neuo-i? (from i/<?a>, vfixrop-at, "I swim") is regularly used for
(i) "swimming." NeOo-ts- (from vva>, vfva-v, "I incline," "bow,"
"nod") often means (2) "inclination," "tendency." It might,
in theory, mean (3) "nodding," but it never does.
The Lexicons are somewhat confusing. L.S. says "i/e'o>. . .aor.
evfvcra, cf. Eur. Hipp. 470, Thuc. ii. 90." But these passages do
not contain evev&a but eKveia-ai and e4rtv<rav. And a reference to
Trpoa-j/ea), eWo>, eirivfto in Steph. Thes. shews that, although compound
verbs in -eva-a mean "swam," no instance is given where the un-
compounded eWvo-a means "swam." Yet in view of veva-reov in Plato
453 D "one must swim," and egevcvo-a (as L.S.) in Thuc. and Eurip.,
no Greek author could be blamed for similarly using KdTtvfvo-a,
"/ swam to shore" (or other compounds, if the context made the
meaning clear .
92 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
present tense of "make-signs 1 ." If therefore we discover in
Luke's Draught of Fishes a statement that Peter and his crew
"made- signs," that will, in itself, suggest that the Lucan
expression "made-signs" corresponds to the Johannine impli-
cation "swam." If we also discover other authorities indepen-
dently mentioning the "making of signs," either about Jesus or
about the fishermen in connection with the Lucan or the
Johannine narrative, the two discoveries will go far toward
demonstrating that there has been a confusion of the two
words.
But before shewing that this is the case we must point out
that in Luke's "they beckoned unto their partners 2 ," the verb
is, as the Thesaurus indicates, unusually if not inaccurately
employed. Its usual meaning is "nodded assent." No instance
has ever been alleged where it really means "beckoned for
help 3 ." On the other hand although it might, analogously to
Attic usage, mean "swim to shore," yet no instance is alleged
of that either 4 . Luke, therefore, choosing between two inter-
pretations (i) "Peter swam to shore" and (2) "Peter made
signs of assent," and believing the former to be out of the
question, might adopt the latter, faithfully adhering to the
exact form of the difficult word, but using it quite exceptionally
to mean "beckoned for help" The substitution of Peter's
1 See Steph. Thes. v. 1470 where the Editor concerning the
dictum of Steph. " Nemo, . . . nato " says "HSt. non recte finxit
praesens."
2 Lk. v. 7.
3 See Steph. Thes, shewing that K.a.Taveva> regularly means "nutu
confirmo." In Odyss. xv. 463 the meaning is "nodded that all was
arranged," in accordance with preconcerted agreement. In Polyb.
xxxix. 1.3 it is ironically said that Hasdrubal, described as Kev68ogos
Kdl dXa&v, instead of advancing to pay his respects to a prince,
" [graciously] nodded to him [permission] to advance (Karevtvev at-raJ
TT po'i(vai) ."
4 That is to say, if e'e'veucra in Thuc. and Eurip. means " I swam
out," KaTfvfvo-a might analogously mean "I swam to shore," KOTO.
being the regular prefix to denote "return to port" etc.
93 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
companions ("those round Peter") for "Peter" would present
no difficulty, since such Greek expressions are constantly
interchanged 1 . Luke might easily come to the conclusion that
it was not Peter by himself who made these signs, but the
immediate companions, or crew of Peter, who made signs to
his more distant companions or partners. This Luke took to
mean that " Peter and his companions made-signs to James and
John, to come and help them 2 ."
Let us suppose, then, that there was an early oral Greek
metaphorical tradition connected with Peter, to the effect that
he "swam to the shore" to Jesus, and that "swam" was
erroneously taken by some to mean "made signs." Since, in
this sense, the compound verb often implied signs of assent,
or consent, as coming from a superior, interpreters adopting this
sense would have either to alter the context as Luke alters it
according to our hypothesis ("made-signs" [not to Jesus,
but] "to their partners*"), or else to alter the word. Nonnus
1 For oi Trepi Tldrpov " those round Peter" interchangeable with
see Notes 2999 (xvii) g h.
2 The only instance where John uses i/euco is in xiii. 24. The
context there is entirely different from that of Luke, except in this
single respect, that the person to whom Peter "makes signs" is the
beloved disciple, presumably John the son of Zebedee. But it must
be added that Luke uses eWfuo> (only here in N.T.) about the friends
of the father of John the Baptist, who (i. 62) " beckoned to his father
[asking] what he would wish him to be called." Such a tradition
might be expressed in Greek thus : " Those about [the infant] John
beckoned [to his father] saying 'Say what is [to be] his name.'"
This, if it referred to John the son of Zebedee, might have quite a
different meaning. Placed on the night of the Last Supper it might
mean (as in Jn xiii. 24) " [The companions of John the son of Zebedee,
and especially] Peter, made signs [to John] saying, 'Say [to Jesus],
What is his name [i.e. the name of the traitor] ? " It will be seen
below that the Acts of John describes a companion of John not
however Peter, but his brother James as saying to John that
Jesus is "the little-child that is beckoning to us."
3 If Luke combined this with a paraphrase of KareWuo-f as
e in the sense of Eurip. Iph. Taur. 1330 "made signs
94 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
and Chrysostom (according to our hypothesis) alter the word.
In their paraphrase or comment on the Johannine narrative,
they both say that Peter and his companions "made signs
negatively" to Jesus in answer to the question "Have ye aught
to eat 1 ?" The Acts of John alters both the word and the agent.
In describing the Call of the Fishermen, it attributes the
" making-of-signs " (using the uncompounded neuein) to Jesus
Himself. Also, it mentions Him, not as using the word
"children" to the fishermen, but as appearing to James, the
brother of John, in the form of a "child" : "For when He had
chosen Peter and Andrew, who were brethren, He cometh
unto me and my brother James, saying, 'I have need of you.
Come unto me.' And my brother said this, 'John, this child,
that called to us on the shore what does it want ? ' And I
said, ' What child ? ' And he [said] to me again, ' The one
that is making-signs to us 2 . ' '
It may be said, in explanation of this last passage, that the
word "make-signs" has been derived by the Acts of John not
from the Fourth Gospel but from the Third : "The author has
that we should go away (eei/eu<r' diroo-Ttjvai) " the paraphrase
might be developed into a tradition saying that Peter exclaimed
(Lk. v. 8) "Depart from me, O Lord."
Comp. Justin Martyr Tryph. 9 "It seemed good to Trypho also
that we should do so [i.e. that we should retire to a quiet place from
noisy companions] ; and accordingly, slipping-away (<ai 8r) eKvcvo-avTes)
we came to the middle stadium of the Xystus." The sense seems to
demand this meaning. But the Latin renders fKVfvo-avrcs
" quumque inter nos innuissemus." And the English has (T. and T.
Clark) "and accordingly having agreed upon it."
1 It might be objected that Nonnus was constrained by the
necessities of metre, which obliged him to use avavcva in order to
reproduce in hexameters the prosaic Jn xxi. 5 drreKpidijo-av avru> Ov
which he paraphrases by auei/3o/zei>oi e jua^rat Ovdev fX tv dvfvevov.
But the futility of such an objection would be shewn by Nonnus'
paraphrase of the very same expression in Jn i. 21 KOI dneKpidr) Ov
where he does not use dvavevv. It does not occur again in Nonnus.
Chrys. says 'fly Se dvevevcrav p.r)8ev e^eiv.
2 Acts of John 2 "child," naiSiov, " making- signs,"
95 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
borrowed 'child' from John, and 'making signs' from Luke, and
has transferred both words from the disciples to Jesus 1 ." But
this would not explain the "making signs" attributed to the
fishermen in John by Chrysostom and Nonnus. They can
hardly be supposed to be borrowing it from Luke. Still less
could they have borrowed it from the Acts of John. The
combined evidence points back to some very early tradition,
earlier even than Luke and John, in which a Semitic original
was interpreted by an ambiguous Greek word.
If this is the case, and if the Lucan "making-signs" and
the Johannine description of swimming are two interpretations
of one Hebrew original, there can be little doubt that the latter
is the correct one. For we have seen that the form of Luke's
question (" aught-to-eat ") pointed to the poetic description of
the River including the "waters of swimming" in Ezekiel.
It is more likely that Luke, in his desire to emphasize historical
"proofs," has reduced poetry to prose, than that John has
sublimated prose to poetry. Moreover the Johannine impli-
cation of swimming, taken along with the curious distinction
between "the boat." and "the little boat," seems to correspond
to Talmudic distinctions which are connected with Ezekiel's
1 The transposition of rrmSia might be explained from a tradition
that Jesus "called to them as [to] children (aJs- Trai&iW)." This,
if LOG TTAiAioic were taken as coc rr&iAioic, would mean "As a child,
Jesus called to them." See Clem. Alex. 104 12, a section on
spiritual "children." It begins with a loose quotation of the
passage we are considering (Jn xxi. 4 5 "children") and ends
with a declaration that Jesus is the "Child" ; "O the great God !
O the perfect (or, full-grown) Child (-n-aidiov) . . . the Son of God,
the Infant (r6i/ v^mov) of the Father." In quoting Jn, he says
(rradcis. ..6 Kvptos err I rw aryicrAo) npos TOVS fj.a6rjTas . . .(?) fve(p<i>vr)o-ev Tf,
IlaiSta, p.rj ri o\^ov e\ere; TOVS fj8rj ev eft TWV yveopt'/zcov iralbas Trpocrfnrvv.
That is to say, he describes Jesus as "calling aloud 'children' " and
then "accosting [as] children (Traldas rrpoa-enrajv)" those that were
already in the position of disciples. His reason for passing from
iraiMa, lit. "little children," to Traloas, "children" or "boys," is
perhaps that he is beginning a treatise about TralSes to be entitled
IlotSaycoyor.
96 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
River, and which distinguish between (i) "swimming," (2) pass-
ing in a "small boat," (3) passing in a "large boat 1 ."
In the preceding paragraphs the possibility of confusing
the two meanings of kat-eneusa "I made signs of assent" should
have been illustrated by the various meanings of di-eneusa,
namely (i) "swam through," (2) "winked" or "made signs,"
(3) "avoided"; and of an-eneusa (i) "made signs of dissent,"
(2) "lifted up the head," (3) "swam up 2 ." Also kat-eneusa might
easily be confused with kat-enusa "I accomplished [my course}*."
28. "Swimming" and "stretching out (or, spreading
out) the hands"
Each correspondence of detail between the story of the
Fishermen in John and the vision of the Fishermen in Ezekiel
strengthens the inference that other apparent correspondences,
which, if taken singly, would not have a claim to be regarded
as more than casual coincidences, are something more than
casual. Such is the Johannine "right hand parts of the boat,"
mentioned above as possibly alluding to "the right hand of the
1 See Jer. Shekalim vi. 2 (3) (Schwab v. 304) which quotes Ezek.
xlvii. 2 5 (including "waters of swimming") and Is. xxxiii. 216
(mentioning vessels of two kinds, see Rashi) and goes on to speak
of "swimming" in Is. xxv. n. Rashi, on Is. xxv. n "he shall
spread out Ms hands... for swimming," takes the first clause as
implying sorrow, and illustrates the second from Ezek. xlvii. 5.
On "stretching out the hands," applied to Peter in Jn xxi. 18, see the
next section.
2 See Steph. Thes. on diaveixo and avaveva, quoting Clem. Alex. 83
dvav vo-aT rrjs yrjs is aWepa " lift up your heads from earth to heaven "
and Ael. N. A. v. 22 dimi/eCcrai (fr. dvavea>) " swim up," "emerge."
3 See Clem. Rom. 25 diavva, v. r. ftiavevfi, Syr. migrat volans,
where Lightf. says "Several instances of the confusion of diavveiv
and diaveveiv by transcribers are given by Jahn Methodius n.
p. no." In Berlin Urkunde 1119. 24, 1120. 30, Karaveixov must be
corrupt, and may be meant for Karavvow "finishing in a workman-
like manner," but the context makes the inference doubtful.
A. P. 97 (Mark i. 16 20) 7
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
altar" in Ezekiel 1 . Such, too, might be the measurements
*' cubits " introduced by both into their descriptions of the waters
of fishing. The contexts, and the purpose of these symbolic
measurements in the two writings are, of course, very different.
In Ezekiel, the mentions of a "thousand cubits" symbolize
the development of the River of Life. In John, the "two
hundred cubits," through which Peter and his companions
have to pass in order to reach Jesus, perhaps suggests
"repentance 2 ."
But we have now to ask whether in correspondence to
Ezekiel's "waters of swimming," we find in John, later on,
something that corresponds more closely to Jewish thought
about "swimming" than does the bare phrase "cast himself
into the sea" which describes Peter's actual plunge. The only
passage in which human "swimming" is mentioned in the
Bible 3 the swimming of the dragon of Egypt being set
aside connects the action with "spreading out [the hands]."
And "spreading out" is frequently represented in the LXX by
"stretching out." Thus Peter's swimming "he cast himself
into the sea" which is, in effect, "swam" prepares the way
for the prophecy that he shall die his Master's death : "When
thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch out thy hands" that is to
say, upon the Cross. If this is allusive, we may go on to say
that Peter's other previous action, "he girt his coat about
1 See above, p. 37 foil.
2 Jn xxi. 8 "But the other disciples came in the little boat (for
they were not far from the land, but about two hundred cubits off)
dragging the net [full] of fishes." On this, see Notes 2999 (xvii) o
4 'They are 'not far' from Him. It is only 'about two hundred
cubits.' This number of years (according to Philo on Gen. v. 21 4
(LXX) represents the length of the penitence of Enoch." The
numbers in Gen. v. 21 4 (LXX) differ from those in the Hebrew
text. "Two" is freq. used in connection with probation, or waiting,
see Paradosis, Index, "Two."
3 Is. xxv. ii "as he that swimmeth spreadeth out [his hands] to
swim." R.V. has "spread forth" in Isaiah, but Gesen. 831 gives
"spread out."
98 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
him," is allusive also. It prepares the way for the other part
of the prediction, "Another shall gird thee." That it is pre-
dictive of crucifixion is indicated by the following words, "Now
this he spake signifying by what manner of death he should
glorify God 1 ."
If the thought of Peter "swimming" was really at the
bottom of the tradition from which Luke as well as John
derived the tradition of the Draught of Fishes, we are led to
important inferences bearing on future investigation. One
is, that Greek as well as Hebrew corruption must be reckoned
with as a factor in the origination of divergencies. But a still
more important one is, that sometimes, where we may have
been disposed to regard John as simply writing poetry of his
own imagination, he may be drawing out the meaning of early
Christian poetic tradition, that recorded, under picturesque
symbols, a history of spiritual fact.
Not that we are to discard motive also as a factor.
Motive is apparent all through this Johannine Appendix. In
it the Evangelist appears to reveal his unwillingness to close
his Gospel with a mere external "proof" such as convinced
Thomas that the Saviour is living. The only real proof
(he feels and makes us feel) is that of an inward energizing
"love." This it is that saves the swimming Apostle, drawing
him penitent, humbled, and purified to his Master on the
shore. This it is that gives food and strength to him, when
saved, that he may go forth and bring salvation to others. And
this it is also that prepares Peter's special companion, the
1 Jn xxi. 1 8 19. The Heb. of Is. xxv. n "spread" is rendered
Seven times by LXX e/creiVo), e.g. in Is. i. 15 orav eKreiV^re ras xetpas-,
which is the Johannine phrase here. See Notes 2929 on the double
meaning (i) " stretch out the hands " in prayer to God, (2) " stretch out the
hands," literally, at the bidding of the executioner. But it should have
been added that the Evangelist prepares the way for this play on
words by first presenting Peter to us "stretching out the hands"
as a swimmer, passing through the deep waters to the Saviour who
is drawing him and his companions safe to the shore.
99 (Mark i. 1620) 7 2
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
unnamed disciple, to work for his Lord. The two work for tl
Shepherd by working for His sheep in various ways, one
them "following," the other "tarrying."
All this manifest motive, and the dramatic beauty of il
expression, must not induce us to do the author the injusti<
of supposing that the whole story is a fiction. On the con-
trary, whereas the Three Synoptists are incomplete or
leading, the Fourth Gospel, though perhaps mixing vision wit]
fact, or substituting metaphor for fact, appears at all events to
set before us the spiritual reality what may be described as
the real Calling in closer accordance with history and in its
correct chronological position, the Johannine view being to this
effect: "The original tradition taught that Peter, who had
been called to be a fisher of men and had abandoned his task
for a time, returned to it after the Resurrection. This
'returning' was called, in Christian poetry, 'swimming' a
swimming back through the deep waters of repentance. Coming
after the Resurrection, it has been omitted in the extant
Gospel of Mark. Matthew placed a version of it in the story
of a storm, during which Christ walked on the waters. Matthew
described Peter as attempting to come to Jesus over the water 1 ,
and as in danger of sinking, if Jesus had not taken hold of
him. But Mark, though describing the storm and the walking
of Jesus on the water, omits all mention of Peter's attempt.
" Luke omits the whole narrative, even the walking of
Jesus on the water. But he places what seems to be a version
of it shortly after the Call of Peter in a story of the Reminding
of Peter. Here Peter and Jesus are described as being together
in a boat. But the context is quite different. The boat is
filled and in danger of sinking; but it is filled with fishes,
not with water. Luke also appears to have confused 'Peter
swimming' with 'Peter making signs.' Neither Mark nor
Matthew has any such story as Luke's in any part of the
1 Mt. xiv. 31.
100 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
Gospel. The right course seems to be to relate the 'swimming/
as ' swimming/ perhaps accepting it as a literal fact (though it
was more probably in part or whole a vision) but at all events
describing it in its right place, after the Resurrection, and
giving to it a spiritual as well as a literal significance."
29. Jesus "going on (or, forward] "
Evidence has been adduced to shew that, in the Synoptic
accounts of the Calling (or Reminding) of Peter, there have
probably been errors of chronology as well as Greek verbal
confusions. Luke seems to have confused the Greek for
"swim to the shore" with the Greek for "make signs of assent,"
and in Mark or Matthew there seems some confusion between
"cast about [a net]" and "cast about [in one's mind]"; but
Luke seems also to have placed much too early an account of
a miraculous Draught of Fishes which John places much later 1 .
These probabilities, if accepted as such, should induce us
not only to investigate thoroughly and patiently other verbal
differences between Mark-Matthew and the quasi-parallel Luke,
especially if the language used by any of the three is rare, but
also to bear in mind that we may have to look much further
on, to the close of the Gospel, in order to find those differences
explained.
Here we have to deal with :
Mk i. 19 (R.V.) Mt. iv. 21 (R.V.) Lk. v. 3 (R.V.)
And going-on a And going-on from to put-out 4 a little
little further 2 . thence 3 . from the land.
1 See above n and 28.
2 Kai Trpopas 6\iyov , SS "and when he walked-on again a
little/' where "walk-on" = -|^n, the word used by Delitzsch in
Lk. v. 3. Syr. Walton has "passed." R.V. "further" should have
been omitted here, or else inserted also in Mt. iv. 21, the Greek
Trpojds being identical. Codex D has npocBAC, but with the first c
cancelled (d "progressus ").
For notes 3 and 4 see next page.
101 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
The phrase " went-forward a little" is applied by Mark-
Matthew to Jesus again though the Greek words differ in
the narrative of Gethsemane.
Mk xiv. 35 (R.V.) Mt. xxvi. 39 (R.V.) Lk. xxii. 41 (R.V.)
And he went-for- And he went-for- And he was part-
ward a little 1 . ward a little 2 . ed from them about
a stone's cast 8 .
In the latter narrative, the Lucan "about a stone's cast"
as a substitute for " a little" may be illustrated by
3 Km Trpofias eKcWtv, Curet. "and when he removed thence,"
SS "and he drew-near again and..." (which would partly agree
with Mk (D*)), Syr. Walton "passed thence," b " praecedens
hide."
'EiceWfv might represent an original Heb. "from them," i.e. from
the people mentioned in the context, see note on Mt. xii. 15 below,
p. 105, n. 2.
4 SS and Walton "put-it-out," using (see Brederek's Concordance
p. 145) an Aramaic equiv. of the Heb. hif. of -j^n "go," which
Delitzsch has here, lit. " cause- to-go." The Lat. codd. vary: a
"producerent terra," b "inducerent ad terrain," Brix. "a terra
reducere," Corb. "ut duceret a terra," Gat. "ducere" ; e has "ut
exaltaretur a terra."
1 Kal rrpof A$a>i> /juicpbv . . . , several MSS, including D, have
7rpo(T\6a)v piKpbv (d " processisset paululum"), SS "and he (lit.)
separated [himself] a little," the Syr. means "take-away" and
hence "withdraw" in various senses (Burk. "departed a little"),
but Syr. Walton has "accessit paululum" (perhaps meaning "drew
near [to God]" in prayer for help), a "et progressus paulum," Brix.
" et cum processisset paululum." npoep^o/nm in LXX, as a rendering
of Heb., occurs only twice, and then with various readings. It = Heb.
"pass."
2 Km irpofKdwv piKpbv . . . , several MSS, including D, have
7rpoo-f\6o)v p.iKpbv, d "accedens pusillum"; but SS has "and he
removed from them a little," Syr. Pesh. has "and he separated
[himself] a little" (Walton, "recessit paululum"); the Lat. codd.
have "progressus modicum, or, pusillum."
3 Ktti CIVTOS aTTfanrdcrBr) drr' avrwv axrei \idov jSoA^z/, SS " and he
(Curet. -J- himself) separated [himself] from them about a stone's cast,"
Latin codd. "avolsus" etc. except Brix. "discessit."
102 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
Mk xiv. 70 (R.V.) Mt. xxvi. 73 (R.V.) Lk. xxii. 59 (R.V.)
And after a little And after a little And after the
while again 1 . while 2 . space of about one
hour 3 .
Luke, writing as a historian, tries to define what Mark-
Matthew describes vaguely as "a little" in these two passages.
The Hebrew for "a very little," "just a little" etc., is very
often "as-it-were a little 4 ." Perhaps this partly explains
Luke's use of "as-if" (i.e. "about") in both cases. In Peter's
Denial, he decides, partly perhaps from the Mark-Matthew
context, and partly from other information, that the interval,
which is clearly one of time, is "about one hour 5 ." In the
narrative of Gethsemane, he first decides that the interval is
not one of time (a quite possible meaning, "he separated him-
self from them for a little [time] ") but one of space. Then he
has to consider that the interval of space must be such that
the disciples were able to see Jesus though it was night. Homer
says that in a night favourable to thieves "one sees as far as
1 Kat /iera piKpbv 7rd\iv, Cod. a " et post pusillum iterum."
2 Mera pi<pbv Se, SS and Syr. Walton lit. "and from after a little,"
Lat. codd. "post pusillum."
Lk. xxii. 58 has /*era /Spa^u, but that is parallel to Mk xiv. 69 nd\iv
(Mt. xxvi. 71 om.).
3 Lk. xxii. 58 9 combines two expressions of time, Kat fiera
ftpaxi> . . .teal dia(TTd(rr)s oooVi topas p.ids, Curet. "and after a little. . .and
after one hour," but SS "and after a little. . .and it came to pass
[in] about one hour," Codex a omits "little" and "hour," and
inserts "door," perh. from Mk-Mt., "et egressum ilium ad januam
vidit alia et... quern paulo post cum vidisset quidam" ; b "et
iterum post pusillum. . .et intervallo facto horae unius" (and sim.
Brix., Corb. and e}. See Clue 127 for confusion arising from Heb.
"hour" in Dan. iv. 19 (A.V.) "one hour," (R.V.) "awhile."
4 See Gesen. 590, comp. Cant. iii. 4 "I had as-it-were a little
passed from them and I found," cos fjuKpbv ore TraprjXdov drr y avTtoV.
5 Note Luke's deviation from Mark-Matthew, as to the hour ;
he inserts (xxii. 66) "as soon as it was day" where Mk xiv. 55,
Mt. xxvi. 59 have no such detail; and, later on (Lk. xxiii. i) he
omits the reference to "morning" in Mk xv. i, Mt. xxvii i.
103 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
one can cast a stone," and Eustathius, using Luke's expressioi
says that this is "a stone's cast 1 ."
If Luke's expression is suggested by Homer and in the
Thesaurus no other instance has been alleged of the "stone's
cast" as a recognised distance that is an indication that
are in a part of his narrative likely to be influenced by Greek
expression and poetic paraphrase. It happens that the change
of a single letter might convert "casting [of a stone]" into
"a-draught-of-fishes 2 ." Adapting to Greek phrases the Jewish
habit of "paronomasia," a Christian poet of the first century
might say, "Read not that Jesus went before the Fishermen
disciples as if for ' the [space of the] casting of a stone ' ; but
read rather that He, the Fisherman, went before them 'for
the casting of the Net of the Gospel,' which was to enclose
the fishes of this world."
It must be observed that the object has been, throughout
this section, not to explain the origin of Luke's narrative of
the Draught of Fishes, but to explain its position. Its origin
might well be some metaphorical account of Peter's repentance
followed by his converting the "three thousand" and the
"five thousand" in Jerusalem 3 . But its position would still
require to be explained, coming as a Lucan insertion in the
Reminding of the Fishermen which is a quasi-parallel to the
Mark-Matthew Calling of the Fishermen. This Lucan in-
sertion about Christ as sitting m a boat with Peter needs
1 See Wetstein, on Lk. xxii. 41, quoting Eustathius on Iliad iii. 12,
Toaro-ov TIS T' eViXevo-o-et oo-oi/ r' irl \aav ITJCTIV, where the Scholiast says,
"Ocrov 7Ti \i6ov fBoXfjv.
2 That is to say, BoAHN, "casting," would become BoAoN (see
Steph. Thes. ii. 319) which might mean (i) "net," (2) "a-cast-
of the-net," (3) "[the result of] a cast of the net," i.e. "a draught
of fishes." In Aramaic the phrase would be (as it is in SS) "the
casting of Cephas," which might lend itself to poetic developments
taking Cephas as Cephas the Apostle.
3 Acts ii. 41, iv. 4.
104 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
to be considered along with Lucan omissions of similar
incidents :
Mk iii. 7 9
(7) And Jesus
with his disciples
withdrew to the
sea *. . . .
(9) And he spake
to his disciples that a
little boat should wait
on him because of
the crowd, lest they
should throng him.
Mt. xii. 1 5 [iv. 24 25]
And Jesus per-
ceiving [it] withdrew
from thence 2 .
Lk. vi. 17 19
Omits.
Still more remarkable is the Lucan omission before the
Parable of the Sower :
Mk iv. i 2
(1) And again he
began to teach by
the sea side. And
there is gathered unto
him a very great mul-
titude, so that he en-
tered into a boat, and
sat in the sea; and all
the multitude were by
the sea on the land.
(2) And he taught
them many things in
parables. . . .
Mt. xiii. i 3
(1) On that day
went Jesus out of the
house, and sat by the
sea side.
(2) And there
were gathered unto
him great multitudes,
so that he entered
into a boat, and sat ;
and all the multitude
stood on the beach.
(3) And he spake
to them many things
in parables....
Lk. viii. 4
And when a great
multitude came to-
gether, and they of
every city resorted
unto him, he spake
by a parable.
1 Mk iii. 7& 8 is parall. to Mt. iv. 24 5, Lk. vi. ijb.
2 In Judg. xiv. 19 (A), Is. xxx. 6 (LXX) t Kf Wfv, the Heb.
is "from them," so that Matthew's eKeWev might imply "from those
[mentioned in the context]," i.e., as Mark says, "from the crowd," or
"because of the crowd."
105 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
The impression left by the Lucan insertion and omissions,
taken together, is that Luke regarded Mark as having misunder-
stood the tradition connecting Jesus with Peter, James, and
John, the three leading Apostles, in the Reminding of the
Fishermen on the Lake of Gennesaret. Mark's narrative (he
might think) had destroyed the prominence that should have
been given to Peter and to the promise made specially to him
("thou shalt catch men") in response to the cry of his alarmed
conscience (" fear not "). Mark seemed to Luke (in the narrative
of Gennesaret) to have broken the story in two by taking
Christ's " going forward a little" in the boat, with Peter, from the
land, as though it meant "passing onward" from calling Peter
to call the sons of Zebedee. But that (according to Luke's view)
was not the case. The three fishermen were practically to-
gether, " partners and sharers " in the work of fishing. But they
had failed. Jesus came to their aid. First, He "went forward
a little" in the boat with Peter in order that He might Himself
teach the Gospel, which was, in effect, the casting of the net.
Then, and not till then, He bade Peter go still further forward
into the deep water, that Peter, too, might cast the net after
the example of his Master 1 .
How John's narrative of the Draught of Fishes deviates
from, and at the same time supplements, that of Luke and
1 It should be added that Luke, as a stylist, may have had a
special objection to the phrasing of Mk i. 19, Mt. iv. 21 -rrpopds
"going forward." It does not occur elsewhere in N.T., except in
Lk. i. 7, 18, ii. 36, and there it always means "advanced in years."
This is also its meaning in LXX, seven times out of ten where it
represents a Hebrew word. It occurs twice in Hernias Vis. iv. i. 5,
Sim. vi. 2. 5, and both times with p.i<p6v meaning simply "went
on a little [further]." But this, like other peculiarities of Hermas,
may be borrowed from the vernacular Greek of Mark. The only
instance in canon. LXX where n-po/SaiVo), applied to persons,
does not mean "advanced in years," is Gen. xxvi. 13 (lit.) "and he
went-on going-on" (Field "et procedebat procedendo"), LXX
jcm Trpofiaivotv, al. exempl. KOI 7ropVTo Trpo/ScuVcoi/, where the meaning
is "and he prospered exceedingly."
1 06 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
perhaps other Lucan traditions has been in part described
above. Here we may add that if it should be ascertained
that Luke's ''about a stone's cast" meant in the first century
a distance of "about a hundred yards" (that is, about two
hundred cubits) which is antecedently a very probable esti-
mate we should then find one more detail in which John
agreed, and at the same time disagreed, with Luke. Luke
took the "stone's cast" as a material distance not too great
to prevent the disciples from seeing their Master who had
separated Himself from them in order to pray. John took the
" stone's cast" as "two hundred cubits," a spiritual distance,
arising from the fact that the disciples had for a time separated
themselves from their Master, and even now needed some
further repentant experience to teach them to depend on Him,
as their sustenance and food, in their attempts to do His work.
"They were not far off from the land," says John, meaning,
the land where Jesus was waiting for them, "but [only] as it
were a distance of two hundred cubits 1 ." The "as-it-were"
reproduces the "as-if" of Luke, and the "not far. . .but [only]"
reproduces the "little" of Mark and Matthew. The "two
hundred cubits" reproduces the Lucan "stone's cast," but adds
(as has been shewn above) a symbolical suggestion of returning
through repentance 2 .
30. "Zebedee"
We have now come to the first of several Marcan passages
relating, directly or indirectly, to Zebedee or his family. Some
1 Jn xxi. 8.
2 Since these hypotheses about such phrases as "going on" and
"a stone's cast" phrases far removed from one another and
belonging to different narratives lead at present to no definite
conclusion, it might have seemed well to defer them till they could
be more fully considered in their order. But the facts here collected
will be of use later on when the time comes for their fuller con-
sideration.
107 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
of these appear to contradict the rule of Johannine Inter-
vention. For example, "Zebedee," apart from "son(s) of,"
is here mentioned by Mark-Matthew, but not by Luke in his
parallel :
Mk i. 1920 (R.V.)
(19) He saw
James the [son] of
Zebedee, and John
his brother, who also
were in the boat....
(20) ...and they
left their father Zeb-
edee in, the boat with
the hired servants....
Mt. iv. 2i2 (R.V.)
(21) He saw other
two brethren, James
the [son] of Zebedee,
and John his brother,
in the boat with Zeb-
edee their father, . . .
(22) And they
straightway left the
boat and their
father. . .
Lk. v. 10 n(R.V.)
(10) And so were
also James and John,
sons of Zebedee,
which were partners
with Simon....
(n) And... they
left all.
Here Mark (followed by Matthew) describes Zebedee as still
living. But, later on, he is not mentioned in any Gospel
except in special phrases (e.g. "the sons of Zebedee" and "the
mother of Zebedee's sons") such as would either imply, or
accord with, the supposition that he was dead.
Mark, and Mark alone, here describes Zebedee as being left
" with the hired servants." Also, later on, Mark alone describes
the two sons of Zebedee as being called by Jesus "Boanerges"
or "sons of thunder." And immediately after the Crucifixion,
Mark alone twice mentions among the women near, or coming
to, Christ's tomb "Salome," whom modern writers identify,
as Origen did, with "the mother of the sons of Zebedee 1 ."
The most remarkable of Luke's deviations from Mark-
Matthew on this point relates to the petition of the sons of
Zebedee (or their mother) to sit on Christ's right and left hand
in His kingdom. Christ's answer, mentioning His "cup"
and "baptism," might naturally be taken to predict martyrdom
1 Mk xv. 40, xvi. i. See Origen on Mt. xxvii. 56 (Lomm.
v. 76 8), where he refers to Mk xv. 40.
1 08 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
for the questioners 1 . Yet only James actually suffered death.
Luke, possibly for this reason, omits both the petition and the
answer 2 .
On the other hand, Luke alone relates that "a village of
the Samaritans" rejected Jesus, and "when his disciples,
James and John, saw [it]," they said, "Lord, wilt thou that we
bid fire to come down from heaven and consume them 3 ? "
Somewhat similar to this in tone is a passage peculiar to Mark
and Luke the only passage in the Gospels 4 where "John,"
used absolutely and without a contextual "James," means
anything but "John the Baptist." It says that, while the
doctrine of "receiving" a "little child" was being taught by
Jesus, "John said unto him, Master, we saw one casting out
devils in thy name ; and we forbade him, because he followeth
not with us 5 ."
The impression that would be left by these Marcan passages
on Greeks and probably the impression left on most modern
readers is that the sons of Zebedee were called "sons of
thunder" because of a certain masterful or tempestuous
element in their characters. They seem to resemble Elijah,
who was rebuked by the vision that culminated in the still
small voice 6 . This impression is confirmed by the Lucan
tradition above quoted concerning Samaria. It will be shewn
that the Fourth Gospel apparently differs from this. But
before considering the Johannine view, we must discuss the
words, peculiar to Mark in the present passage, saying that
Zebedee was left by his sons "with the hired servants." Un-
important in themselves, the words acquire importance from
1 Mk x. 35 40, Mt. xx. 20 3.
2 See Notes 2935 foil, controverting "The modern hypothesis
of the early death of John the son of Zebedee."
3 Lk. ix. 54.
4 Jn i. 42, xxi. 15 17 "Simon son of John" ought perhaps to be
mentioned as exceptions.
5 Mk ix. 38, Lk. ix. 49. 6 i K. xix. 12.
109 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
the fact that they must affect our views of the origin of Marcan
traditions in general, as well as our views of the motives of
Matthew and Luke in rejecting this particular tradition.
31. "With the hired servants*"
If the sons of Zebedee "left him in the boat," in the midst
of his work, alone, they might be blamed by some as undutiful.
If they left him "with the hired servants" the blame is avoided,
or softened. Why then should Matthew omit this detail ?
That he does omit it indicates either that he was ignorant of
its existence, or that he rejected it 2 .
If Matthew rejected it, we may suppose that he rejected it
as an early gloss, and if it was a gloss based on prophecy, the
prophecy to which we should look as a source would be the one
alleged in the parallel Matthew to have been fulfilled by Jesus
about this time: "He came and dwelt in Capernaum which
is by the sea, in the borders of Zebulon and Naphtali . . . that
it might be fulfilled . . . ' The land of Zebulon and the land of
Naphtali, Galilee of the Gentiles... 3 .'" This is Matthew's
preface to the Call of the Fishermen. Two of them, namely,
Peter and Andrew, lived in Capernaum, which is in "the
land of Naphtali." This fulfils "Naphtali," but what fulfils
" Zebulon " ? Jerome's reply in commenting on this prophecy
1 Mk i. 20 "And they left their father Zebedee in the boat with
the hired servants (/iera TO>V luo-dvTwv), and went after him,"
Mt. iv. 22 "And they straightway left the boat and their father,
and followed him."
For other explanations of the clause see pp. 138 40. The
one given in this section appears to me improbable, taken by itself,
but not improbable if taken with other traditions which (p. 140,
n. i) shew "navy" and "servants" in parallel passages of O.T.
2 Pseudo-Jerome implies that the "hired-servants (mercenarii) "
as well as the "net" and the "boat," and the "father" himself,
are all evil ("navem pristinae conversationis," "Adam, qui genitor
est noster secundum carnem" etc.). Mio-#o>ror is mostly used in a
bad sense.
3 Mt. iv. 13 15.
no (Mark i. 1 6 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
of Isaiah is derived from the Psalms : " The princes of Zebulon
and the princes of Naphtali, their leaders." He adds "Because
in these tribes were the villages [coming] from which our
'leaders/ the Apostles, became-believers 1 ." That Jerome
followed a much earlier tradition is shewn by a fragment
of Irenaeus, which after saying that Christ was prefigured in
Joseph, descended from Levi and Judah, and acknowledged
by Simeon in the Temple adds "Through Zebulon He was
believed on among the Gentiles, as says the prophet, 'the land
of Zebulon' ; and through Benjamin, [that is] Paul, His glory
was proclaimed and carried into all the world 2 ."
In the early Galilaean Church we may reasonably suppose
that there would be a tendency to emphasize any circum-
stances that seemed to bring out a coincidence between the
Galilaean Calling and the prophecy of Isaiah about Galilee.
In particular, there would be a desire to indicate a con-
nection with "Zebulon," since it was not in itself obvious,
Zebulon not being known to be the residence of any of
the Apostles. Now James and John are not introduced as
Peter is, simply by their names 3 . They are called "sons of
Zebedee." "Zebedee" is an O.T. name derived from zdbad
"endow," zebed "endowment." The noun and the verb occur
only once in the Bible, "God hath endowed (zdbad) me with
a good endowment ; now will my husband dwell (zdbal) with
me... and she called his name Zebulun*." The reader will
perceive here the play on the roots of the words "Zebedee"
and "Zebulon." But, further, the preceding context in
Genesis describes the birth and naming of "Issachar," which
1 Jerome on Is. ix. i, quoting Ps. Ixviii. 27.
2 Iren. Fragm. Grabe pp. 469 70, Clark vol. ii. p. 168, No. 17.
Irenaeus might have included (Lk. ii. 36) "the tribe of Asher."
3 One reason for this would be that "John," by itself, at this
stage, would naturally mean "John the Baptist."
4 Gen. xxx. 20. Jer. Targ. retains zdbad and zebed. See Gesen.
256 a which quotes 2 Chr. xxiv. 26 "Zabad" (elsewhere Jozacar
2 K. xii. 21), LXX Zabel, Zabeth, Zabath.
in (Mark i. 1 6 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
name means either "a man of hire," or "there is hire." Jewish
traditions recognise a very close connection between Zebulon
and Issachar. The Song of Moses says "Rejoice, Zebulon, in
thy going out, and Issachar, in thy tents," and the Midrash on
Genesis, alluding to this juxtaposition, says " There is hire in
the tents of Zebulon 1 ."
Thus we find, in the first Biblical mention of "Zebulon," a
connection between that name and other names or words that
suggest the name of "Zebedee" and the thought of "hire,"
and this in a context describing the origin of the tribes of
Galilee 2 . When these facts are combined with Matthew's
emphatic statement that the action of Jesus fulfilled a prophecy
about "Zebulon," "Naphtali," and "Galilee," it becomes
more easy for us to realise that an early Jewish tradition may
have added to "Zebulon" some such phrase as "along with
Issachar" and that this was taken to mean "along with the
men-of-hire, or hirelings."
If we accept this as a working hypothesis, it is creditable
to Matthew that he rejected it because he knew it did not
belong to the original Tradition of Mark. It is also less dis-
creditable to the Marcan editor to suppose that he inserted it
because he found it in existence, and because it seemed a
probable extraneous explanation, than to suppose that he
invented it for the purpose of shewing that the sons of Zebedee
were not so undutiful as at first sight appeared 3 .
1 Midr. on Gen. xxx. 18 20, quoting Deut. xxxiii. 18.
2 Gen. xxx. 8 20 Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Issachar, Zebulun.
3 Comp. i Chr. xii. 32 "And of the sons of Issachar, men that had
understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do. . ." and
note Rashi's application of this to Judg. v. 14 15 "Out of Zebulun
they that handle the marshal's staff ; and the princes of Issachar
were with Deborah ; as was Issachar, so was Barak. ..." Rashi
says that the princes of Issachar "were continually with Deborah
to teach statutes and judgment in Israel." Thus apparently he
would explain the silence about Issachar previously, when Barak
is bidden by Deborah to summon Naphtali and Zebulon to the
112 (Mark i. 1 6 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
32. "Sons of Zebedee," in John
Zebedee, by himself, is nowhere mentioned in the Fourth
Gospel. The sons of Zebedee are mentioned once, at its
conclusion: "There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas
(called Didymus), and Nathanael (from Cana of Galilee), and
the [sons] of Zebedee, and others of his disciples, two [in
number] 1 ." At first sight, therefore, it seems hardly worth
while to say anything about " 'sons of Zebedee' in John"
except to call attention to this single mention, this unemphatic
abbreviation 2 (as it were, "the Zebedaeans," not "the sons of
war (Judg. iv. 6, 10). Someone might ask why this tribe had not
been mentioned before and might infer that it did not actively help
Barak. Rashi replies by quoting "and [as] Issachar so Barak,"
which he renders "and the rest of the tribe of Issachar was also
with Barak, ready to fulfil all his behests." So here, an early Gali-
laean tradition applying to the rise of the Church the prophecy of
Isaiah concerning Galilee, Zebulon, and Naphtali, may have added
that these were "also with Issachar." And this might suggest, later
on, Mark's clause about "hired servants."
The passage in Chronicles above quoted gives to the tribe
of Issachar a special and non-military character, and indicates that
in any traditions of Galilaean Christians about the rise of the Gospel
among the northern tribes of Galilee some reference to Issachar
would seem appropriate. In some sense it was "a gathering of the
clans," like that under Deborah and Barak, and a Galilaean might
say, "Where Zebulun finds mention, Issachar should be mentioned
as well."
It might be supposed that, in view of the permanent captivity
of the ten tribes, Jews could no longer regard themselves in Galilee
as representing Zebulon and Naphtali and the rest. But comp.
Test. XII Pair. Joseph xix. 4 (Arm.) "there gathered to them"
i.e. to the "three harts" previously mentioned "the nine harts,
and they became as twelve sheep," and the Editor's comment "As
our author addresses the Twelve Tribes in his twelve Testaments, it
is to be presumed that he regarded them as all actually present
in Palestine." And comp. Lk. ii. 36 "of the tribe of Asher."
1 Jn xxi. 2.
1 The abbreviated phrase "the [son] of" is not used by the
Synoptists with "Zebedee," without "James," or "John," or both.
In Mk x. 35, Mt. xx. 20, xxvi. 37, xxvii. 56, Lk. v. 10, vloi is inserted.
A. p. 113 (Mark i. 1 6 20) 8
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
Zebedee") and to add, "The Synoptists give great prominence
to the sons of Zebedee, John gives them but one unobtrusive
mention."
But it will be found, on close examination, that, without
this unobtrusive phrase, we should miss much of the Evan-
gelist's meaning. We should not even know that he wrote in
the name of John the son of Zebedee 1 .
It will also be found that this unobtrusiveness which we
may call Zebedaean self-suppression if we suppose the writer
to be identifying himself with a son of Zebedee begins from
the moment when Jesus is described as attracting followers.
The same passage that relates how two disciples of the Baptist
"followed Jesus," adds that "one of the two... was Andrew,
Simon Peter's brother," but suppresses the name of the other.
The writer proceeds "He [i.e. Andrew] findeth first his own
brother Simon 2 ." What does "first" mean? Does it mean
that "first" that is, in the first place Andrew found his own
brother, Peter, and secondly the unnamed disciple found his
own brother ? We are not told this, either here or anywhere ;
but, if we look onward, we shall see that it cannot well mean
anything else. It is gradually revealed to us that there is,
among the disciples, one, unnamed, whom "Jesus loved."
He is mentioned as present on various occasions with other
disciples. From these, one by one, as they come before us
and are mentioned by name, we gradually learn to distinguish
him.
The last mention of this specially loved disciple shews that
he was in the above-mentioned group of seven : " Peter, turning
1 For the stages of evidence through which this conclusion is
reached, and for its dependence on Jn xxi. 2, see Son 3374 c,
3460 a i.
2 Jn i. 40 41. It has been suggested that for irpwrov "first"
(N TTpwros) we should read Trp&n "in the morning," comp. codd.
b and e. But the temptation to alter irp&Tov (or Trpooroy) to IT put
would be so great that the slight evidence for the latter may be
fairly put aside as insufficient.
114 (Mark i. 1 6 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved, following 1 ." Hence
he must have been either (i) one of "the [sons] of Zebedee"
or else (2) one of "others of the disciples two [in number]."
Logically, we have no definite reason for rejecting the latter
alternative, but we are made to feel that the Evangelist intends
us to reject it 2 . It follows that he was either James or John
the son of Zebedee. But he could not have been James because
the context goes on to imply that his life would be prolonged,
whereas James is described in the Acts as having been executed
by Herod Agrippa in the days of Claudius. Thus by a series
of exclusions, and silences, and ambiguous utterances, we are
led to infer that this disciple whom Jesus loved was John the
son of Zebedee. Peter, when bidden by Jesus to "follow"
Him, saw this disciple also "following," and, when he asked
"What shall this man do ? " received the reply "If I will that
he tarry till I come, what is that to thee ? " Then the Gospel
adds "This is the disciple that beareth witness of these things
and wrote these things : and we know that his witness is
true 3 ."
Comparing the Synoptic with the Johannine aspect taken
as a whole, omissions as well as insertions we perceive that
while the former, in a Calling, or Reminding, names the sons of
Zebedee, James and John, at the beginning, when Jesus, their
1 Jn xxi. 20.
2 See Son 3460 g h "No sufficient data are given. . .till the end
of the gospel (see xxi. 2, 7, 20, 23). Even then, the problem needs
patience. To this day, some critics doubt as to the solution."
In theory, the beloved disciple might be any one of the Twelve
not named by John, such as Matthew the Publican. But in fact we
are made to feel that, with the addition of Thomas the Doubter, the
six disciples who are united at the beginning are here united at the
end Andrew, Peter, Philip, Nathanael, the sons of Zebedee. Then
they were called. Now they are confirmed. To suppose that any
one of these first six disciples could be here left out is we are made
to feel to suppose what was not spiritually possible. Comp. p. 28,
n. 2.
3 Jn xxi. 20 24.
115 (Mark i. 1 6 20) 8 2
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
Lord, first came preaching the Gospel by the shore of Gen-
nesaret, and preparing them to preach it, the latter mentions
the Zebedaean pair nowhere but at the end (though implying
their presence at the beginning). They are by the same shore
indeed, and they are being prepared to preach the same Gospel,
and to follow the same Lord ; but there is this difference, that
they are now to receive from the Lo/d that food which is to
give them a vital knowledge of what they had not known
before, the nature of the way on which they are to " follow "-
that is, the Way of the Cross.
The Marcan tradition, rejected by Matthew and Luke, that
the pair were called "sons of thunder," whatever may have
been its origin and meaning, was almost certain to be mis-
interpreted in the West 1 . And the Mark-Matthew tradition,
that the two brothers asked to sit next to Jesus in the Kingdom,
not only represented the pair as coveting supremacy, but also
assigned to Jesus words implying that both the brothers would
drink the same "cup" of martyrdom as Jesus Himself was
to drink. Luke rejects this. John, in the narrative con-
taining his only mention of "the sons of Zebedee," seems t<
say, or to imply, that, whatever may have been their errors
before Christ's death, they had learned their lesson now, and
that in different aspects, yet treading the same path, the two
brothers unobtrusively "followed" Jesus on the way of the
Cross. The one, James, he does not mention. All Christians
knew that he was the first of the Apostles to die for the Lord.
The other, John, was the last of all the Apostles to die, and
did not die technically as a " martyr," i.e. as a " witness [through
violent death]." Yet he was, in the spiritual sense, a martyr,
being a "witness" to the Lord: "This is the disciple that
beareth-witness of these things 2 ."
In consistency with this Zebedaean self-suppression, James
1 See Notes 296977.
2 Jn xxi. 24.
116 (Mark i. 1 6 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
the son of Zebedee is absolutely mute throughout the Gospel 1 .
And the only words that John the son of Zebedee utters by
himself, and of himself, are "It is the Lord," whom he is the
first to perceive on the shore of Tiberias 2 . This cannot be
said to contradict, though it contrasts with, the Synoptic
aspect of the two brothers. Nor is there anything manifestly
incompatible with the earlier Gospels in the frequently conveyed
suggestion that John was "the disciple whom Jesus loved."
33. "Salome," in Mark
We cannot conveniently pass from the discussion of "the
sons of Zebedee" without some notice of their mother, whose
name appears to have been Salome, if we may trust the
parallelism in :
Mt. xxvii. 55 6
(55) And many
Mk xv. 40 i
(40) And there
were also women be-
Lk. xxiii. 49
And all his ac-
women were there quaintance, and the
holding from afar : beholding from afar, women that followed
among whom [were] which had followed with him from Gali-
Jesus from Galilee,
both Mary Magda-
lene, and Mary the
mother of James the (56) Among whom
less, and of Joses, was Mary Magdalene,
and Salome ; and Mary the mother
(41) Who, when of James and Joses,
he was in Galilee, and the mother of
followed him, and
ministered unto him ;
and many other
women which came
up with him unto
Jerusalem.
lee, stood afar off,
ministering unto him: seeing these things.
the sons of Zebedee.
1 So, it may be said, are Matthew, Bartholomew, etc. But
they are not brought on the stage, or mentioned in the Fourth
Gospel. "James," being included in "the sons of Zebedee," is
consequently brought on the stage.
2 Jn xxi. 7. Previously he says (i. 38) "Rabbi, where abidest
117 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
In John, a corresponding passage, but not mentioning
"far off," says "But there were standing by the cross of Jesus
his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the [wife] of Clopas,
and Mary Magdalene 1 ." John adds "When Jesus therefore
saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved,
he saith unto his mother, Woman, see, thy son 2 ! " This, with
the following context, is absent in the Synoptists. And the
question seems to arise, "Were all the Synoptists ignorant
of this historical utterance of Jesus and of its historical con-
sequence, or has John derived it from some non-historical
source ? "
The full discussion of the Marcan " Salome " must be deferred
till it claims our attention in its proper place. But here the
following reasons may be given for thinking that Mark has
preserved an ancient and obscure Galilaean tradition which
John has attempted to explain. In the Talmuds and Midrash,
" Salom(e)" occurs as the name of the wife of R. Eliezer. But
there is attached to it "Imma" or "Emma." This, as a rule,
means "the mother," or "mother" (corresponding to Abba
"father" or "the father"). But when added to "Salome"
it is treated by modern Hebraists, though by some doubtfully,
as part of her name: "Mother (or Imma, Emma) Salome,
wife of R. Eliezer, sister of Rabban Gamaliel 3 ." It occurs
several times in the Talmuds thus. But the Midrash, instead
of "R. Eliezer said to Imma Salome his wife," takes "Imma"
as "the mother" and "Salome" as "peace," thus: "said to
the mother, Peace*." Although these are much later traditions
thou ? " but this is with Andrew, of whom he is the unnamed com-
panion. He also says (Jn xiii. 25) "Lord, who is it ?" but this is
but a repetition of words suggested to him by Peter (ib. 24).
1 Jn xix. 25. 2 Jn xix. 26.
3 So Levy i. 92 b, referring to j. Git. i. 43 b, Sabb. 116 a b, j. Shebi.
vi. 36. But Goldschmidt and Schwab (vol. ii. 378) give "Imma'
without query as a proper name.
4 So Wiinsche p. 134 in Lev. r. (on Lev. xvi. i). It connects
"wife" with what follows.
118 (Marki. 1620)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
than our Gospels, yet they shew possibilities of confusion
connected with this particular name, when used with the
word "mother." Moreover, both for Jews and for Greeks
(especially if they happened to know something of the history
of the Herods) there were associations that might induce the
later Evangelists to omit the name used by Mark. One Salome
was a sister of Herod. Another was a daughter of Herodias.
A name thus associated with the Herodian family might be
offensive to Christians. We also know that in very early times
startling utterances of Jesus were connected by heretics with
Salome. These things may have contributed to bring the use
of the name into disrepute 1 .
This being the case, it would be natural for Matthew and
Luke to avoid the name. One way of doing this was obvious.
It was agreed that the Marcan Salome was the mother of the
sons of Zebedee. Then why not say "the mother of the sons
of Zebedee" ? Matthew at all events uses this appellation
both here and on a previous occasion 2 . Or again, if, as was
said by many, she was also the sister of the Mother of the
Lord, she might be called "His Mother's sister." John uses
this appellation, and apparently, as quoted above, applies it
to Salome. This would explain the three variations in the
nomenclature of one of the women mentioned as beholding the
crucifixion : (i) "Salome" (in Mark), (2) "mother of the sons
of Zebedee" (in Matthew), (3) "his (i.e. Christ's) mother's
sister" (in John).
But further, the name "Salome," in Hebrew, might be
regarded, either literally or allusively, as shel-imma, i.e.
1 Comp. Anc. Horn. Clem. Rom. 12 "The Lord being questioned
by some-one (TWOS)," where Lightfoot adds "By Salome," and
shews that Salome's question was reported in the Gospel of the
Egyptians.
2 See Mk x. 35 "And there come near unto him James and
John, the sons of Zebedee," parall. to Mt. xx. 20 "Then came to him
the mother of the sons of Zebedee with her sons."
119 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
"belonging to the Mother 1 ." It would be noted that it did n<
occur in any Gospel till the Crucifixion, but that it was there
used by Mark where "mother of the sons of Zebedee" was
used by Matthew. The inference would follow that "a son of
Zebedee" was also "a son of Salome," which meant, in effect
"a son of one belonging to the Mother of the Lord" But
this, in Hebrew, might be practically indistinguishable from
"a son belonging to the Mother of the Lord." From a state-
ment that this name was for the first time given in the Gospels
when Jesus was described as hanging on the Cross, there might
be no very violent transition to a statement that the name,
in effect, was actually given by Jesus Himself at that moment
to "a son of Zebedee" to whom He entrusted His Mother 2 .
Amid much that appears doubtful and obscure in connection
with this Marcan name, this at least appears to be fairly clear-
that John adds something to what Matthew tells us indirectly
about the Marcan Salome, about whom, whether directly or
indirectly, Luke tells us nothing.
34. "Sons of peace"
The suggested tradition about a "son of Salome" as being
also appointed to be "son belonging to my mother (Shelimme)"
leads us to think of a much more obvious play on the name.
"Shalom" means "peace," and "Salome" would mean "my
peace." That Jesus, teaching in the midst of the Twelve, and
speaking of the Gospel of Peace, would sometimes play on
the appropriateness of "the sons of Salome" for "the Gospel
of Shalom," would be all the more probable if He had "sons of
Salome" in that small circle. Luke says that Jesus bade His
missionaries, when preaching that Gospel, to say, on entering
a house, "Peace [Shalom] be unto this house!" According
1 See above, p. 118, for the connection of Shalom, i.e. Salome,
with Imma or Emma, i.e. Mother.
2 Jn vii. 5 "even his brethren did not believe on him" accords
with the Johannine tradition about Mary's adopted son.
120 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
to Matthew's parallel, Jesus added "And if the house be worthy,
your peace shall light upon it." But Luke almost certainly
approaches more closely to the original thus, "And if a son
of peace [Shalom] be there 1 ."
In the Johannine account of the Last Supper Jesus is repre-
sented as applying to Judas the quotation "he that eateth my
bread 2 " ; but Origen adds the context, which is, both in Greek
and in Hebrew, "the man of my peace (Shalome)." And the
context in the Gospel suggests an antithesis, between Christ's
false and pretended "son of peace" who was to betray Him,
and Christ's true " son of peace " who was " at the table, reclining
in Jesus' bosom, one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved 3 ." The
first Johannine actual mention of "peace" does not occur till
a little later, but this Eucharistic scene indicates what it is
that Judas rejects and the son of Salome receives. It is the
inexpressible influence of the Love of Christ. It cannot make
its way into the heart of one given over to self. But it comes
freely, as to its home, into the heart of one whose love for Jesus
is such that it may be described rather as the Lord's gift. or
grace given to the disciple, than as the offering given by the
disciple to the Lord.
The Johannine tradition that Jesus commended His own
mother to the son of Salome in the words "See, thy mother,"
is not likely to have been based on a mere misinterpretation of
any passage of Mark 4 . The Gospel adds "And from that hour
the disciple took her unto his own [home]." This would
1 Lk. x. 56, Mt. x. 1213. Comp. Deut. xxv. 2 (Heb. lit.)
"a son of stripes," and i S. xxvi. 16, 2 S. xii. 5 (Heb. lit.) "a son of
death," where either the LXX, or Sym., has "worthy." This
suggests that in Mt. v. 9 "Blessed are the peacemakers," the original
was "sons of Shalom," and not, as SS, "workers," Delitzsch "pur-
suers," of Shalom.
2 Jn xiii. 1 8, quoting Ps. xli. 9. See Origen, Comm. Joann.
xxxii. 8 (Lomm. ii. 419 21).
3 Jn xiii. 23.
4 See below, p. 470 foil., on Mk iii. 34.
121 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
hardly have been stated if it were not the fact that John did
henceforth regard Mary the Lord's mother as his own. And
it is conceivable some might say natural that while the
crucifixion was going on, the penitent and remorseful disciple,
who, with the rest of the Twelve, had fled from his Master for
the time, received some vision, or some germs of a vision, in
which this adoption of the Lord's Mother was enjoined on him
by the Lord Himself 1 .
Summing up, we may say that although the Fourth Evan-
gelist nowhere intervenes verbally to tell us that "Boanerges"
was not in the Western sense, "sons of thunder," or that
"Salome" meant "peace," or to vindicate the character of
"the sons of Zebedee," as meaning sons of "dowry," yet he
does succeed in conveying to us, from the beginning of the
book of his Gospel, that the book was written by, or in the
name of, a genuine "son of Salome," a genuine "son of
peace " one who feels a deep ultimate peace and concord
between the visible and the invisible, feeling at home in heaven
with the Eternal Son, but at home also on earth with the
1 It must of course be admitted that the Fourth Gospel does
not relate any abandonment of Jesus by the disciples at the moment
of the arrest. But compare the vision in the Acts of John 12
"The Lord went forth [to trial and death] and we, like people
led astray, or like people that have snatched a moment's slumber
[and then awakened], fled each his own way. Then I for my part,
having seen Him [on the Cross] did not even abide by the place of
His passion (eyo> /JLCV ovv avTov t5d>i>, ov&e 7rpo<re/iewa avrov T<U irddd)
but fled to the Mount of Olives, weeping over that which had come
to pass. And when He was hanged on the Bush of the Cross, at
the sixth hour of the day, there came darkness over all the earth.
And our Lord stood in the midst of the cave and lighted it up and
said, 'John, unto .the multitude down below in Jerusalem I am
being crucified and pierced with lances and reeds, and gall and
vinegar is given me to drink : but unto thee I am speaking, and
that which I am speaking do thou hear. It was I that put it into
thy heart to come up into this mountain, that thou mightest hear
matters needful to be learned by disciple from teacher and by man
from God.' " See p. 473.
122 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
incarnate Son whose mother, Mary, had been commended to
him as his own. A homely and domestic scene a home
dependent on "love" seems to be his view of the life to come :
"If a man love me he will keep my word and my Father will
love him ; and we will come unto him and make our abiding
with him 1 ."
Somewhat similarly, in a primitive way, Leah says in
Genesis about the "dower" which she calls Zebed and which
she connects with Zebulon "God hath dowered me with a
good dowry, now will my husband dwell with me 2 ." The
"dwelling," "abiding," or "tabernacling," of the Lord with
Man this, and nothing else, is the Gospel of Peace. "Where
abidest thou ? " is the first question put to Jesus by the un-
named Evangelist. It is "abiding" not "teaching" that
makes him and Andrew converts: "They came, therefore,
and they saw where he abode, and they abode with him 3 ."
That is all that the son of Salome tells us expressly about the
nature of his conversion.
This sense of unity between the home in heaven and the
home on earth pervades the Fourth Gospel. It is manifest
through the whole of the introductory Prologue, which closes
with a mention of the invisible God in heaven as being declared
on earth by the Only-begotten, who is "in the bosom of the
Father 4 ." It is manifest in Christ's introductory calling of
apostles or disciples, which concludes with a promise that they
shall see the heaven opened, and "the angels of God ascending"
-"ascending" from earth before they "descend" from heaven
-"upon the Son of man 5 ." It is manifest in Christ's intro-
ductory miracle, or "sign," wrought in a homely circle at
Cana, where Christ's mother is one of the guests, and where,
through her friendly intercession, the host is spared the shame
of saying what she says to her Son, quietly between them-
selves, "They have no wine 6 ."
1 Jn xiv. 23. 2 Gen. xxx. 20. 3 Jn i. 38 9.
4 Jn i. 18. 5 Jn i. 51. 6 Jn ii. 3.
123 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
From the water and the wine that are Christ's sign at
Cana the transition is great indeed to the water and the blood
that are Christ's sign on the Cross. But it may be taken as
certain that we are intended by the Evangelist to connect
the two. The water becoming wine, at the feast or "joy 1 "
at Cana, represents a prediction of the "joy" that is in heaven
over one sinner that repenteth and is redeemed. The water
and the blood, the Passion at Golgotha, represent the fulfilment
of that prediction, and the bringing into the world of the new
Love the Love that redeems. Thus Jesus died, says the
Epistle to the Colossians, "having made-peace through the blood
of his cross," and again " Ye that once were far off are made
nigh in the blood of Christ ; for he is our peace. . . . 2 " To see this
vision of the redemptive stream of Peace was not given to all.
No Gospel but the Fourth records it. And the Fourth records
the "seeing" of it as if it were a vision, and the "witnessing"
of it as if it were the duty of the seer : " And he that hath seen
hath borne witness, and his witness is true ; and he knoweth
that he saith true that ye also may believe 3 ." To see it was
appropriate for the son of Salome by birth "a son of Peace,"
and by adoption the son of that Mary who had long ago called
forth from Jesus the response about His "hour" regarded as
coming, though "not yet" in answer to her indirect petition
"They have no wine 4 ."
35. "And straightway he called them 5 "
Returning to our immediate subject, the Calling of the
Fishermen, we note a slight contextual difference between
1 For "joy" meaning "feast," see Son 3492 c, 3583 (viii).
2 Col. i. 20, Eph. ii. 13 14.
3 Jn xix. 35. See Joh. Gr. 23834.
4 Jn ii. 34-
5 Mk i. 20 "And straightway he called them, and they left.
Mt. iv. 21 2 "And he called them, and they straightway left. . . ."
"Call" is KaAe'w, here and throughout this section.
124 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
Mark and Matthew. The latter, by transposing "straightway"
("and they straightway left") seems to say: "I do not feel
sure that the act itself, the calling of James and John, followed
'straightway' that of Simon and Andrew. It is safer to say
that 'they themselves followed straightway' i.e. without delaying.
For the same reason, instead of saying, with Mark, that Jesus
'went on a little,' I have said that He 'went on from thence.'
There may have been some interval between the two events,
an interval both of place and of time."
Antecedently, there is something to be said, either for
Matthew's view that there was perhaps a considerable interval,
or for the view (which might be called the Lucan view but
for the fact that Luke is probably describing a Reminding and
not the Calling) that there was no interval at all. Mark's
view is intermediate, and presents some difficulty if it obliges
us to suppose that, when Jesus had uttered those impressive
words to Peter and Andrew, He walked on, for a hundred
yards or so, and then, after a few minutes' interval, repeated
them to the sons of Zebedee.
John describes no Calling or Reminding by the sea of
Galilee or Tiberias till he comes to the period after the Resur-
rection. But he mentions what amounts to a first Calling of
the four fishermen, as occurring earlier even than the Synoptic
Calling. This was not by the sea, but in the place where Jesus
was abiding, beyond Jordan, where the Baptist was baptizing.
According to John though he veils the facts in enigmatic
expression, not made clear till the reader reaches the end of
the Gospel Andrew and his unnamed companion, John, were
not so much "called" by Jesus as rather callers to Jesus,
callers for guidance, addressing Him as " Rabbi," and asking
"Where abidest thou ? " Then it is said that Andrew who
was introduced as "Simon Peter's brother" "findeth first
his own brother Simon" and "brought him unto Jesus." It
is at this point that John introduces the first of the only two
Johannine instances of the word "call." "Jesus looked upon
125 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
him [i.e. Simon] and said, Thou art Simon, son of John ; thou
shalt be called Cephas (which is by interpretation Stone
(Petros))*."
In this immediate explanation of the surname in "Simon
Peter" there is a superiority to Luke's unexplained intro-
duction of the surname for the first time thus: "But Simon
Peter, when he saw it [i.e. the draught of fishes], fell down at
Jesus' knees, saying, Depart from me ; for I am a sinful man,
O Lord 2 ." In preceding verses, as well as in the preceding
chapter, Luke repeatedly called the fisherman "Simon 3 ."
Yet now, in the very sentence that describes him as falling
down in alarm at his sins, Luke calls him "Simon Peter," that
is, "Simon [strong as] stone" \ Then "Peter" is dropped till
the Naming of the Apostles 4 . The Lucan narrative goes on
to tell us who were "Simon's partners" and what Jesus "said
unto Simon."
John might naturally be expected to correct what might
appear to him a dislocation in Luke. But there is reason to
suppose that he found also in Matthew a deviation from Mark
that seemed to him to demand correction. For Matthew not
only describes Simon here as "Simon who is [now] called
1 Jn i. 42. 2 Lk. v. 8.
3 Lk. iv. 38 (bis) "into the house of Simon," rep. v. 3, 4, 5,
10 (bis). Mark's first mention of "Peter" is in the Naming of the
Apostles (Mk iii. 16) eiredrjicev ovopa TO> Si/icom UeVpoi/. Matthew calls
him Peter at the moment when Jesus first sees him, by the sea of
Galilee, but tells the reader that he is anticipating, (iv. 18) St/zcoi/a rbv
\fyopifvnv rtcVpoi/, " Simon who is [now] called Peter." But even in the
parallel to the Marcan Naming of the Apostles, Matthew omits the
act of naming, and repeats "Simon who is [now] called Peter" (x. 2)
TrpMTos 2i'/icoi> 6 Af-yo'/iei/os- Ilfrpos. This might give the impression
that Simon was not called Peter for the first time by Jesus until
the Confession followed by the blessing in Mt. xvi. 18 "and I say
unto thee that thou art Peter ..." But, if Mark is right, the meaning '
of "thou art Peter," in Matthew, would seem to be "thou art Peter
indeed," i.e. "true to the name of Peter which I formerly bestowed on
thee"
4 Lk. vi. 14 2i/itoj/a ov KOI wvop-aaev TLfTpov.
126 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
Peter," but also later on, where Mark says that Jesus "gave
Simon the name of Peter/' Matthew still has "First, Simon,
who is [now] called Peter" making no mention of the act of
naming. Indeed there is no mention of the act at all in
Matthew, unless we can suppose that he dramatizes it in a
passage peculiar to his Gospel, recording the blessing that
follows Peter's Confession, "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar
Jona. . . and I say unto thee that thou art Peter." This certainly
gives the impression that now, for the first time, was this
name given to Simon, that is to say, on an occasion when the
other two Synoptists describe the Confession but make no
mention of a name-giving.
36. How John expresses "calling"
The Johannine account of the first interview between the
fishermen and Jesus supplements the Lucan and Matthaean
traditions in some points (or corrects the interpretations likely
to be put on them) while accepting them in others.
In the first place, John agrees with Matthew in dramatically
representing Jesus as calling Simon " stone," that is, in Aramaic,
Cephas, or in Greek, Petros. Also, except that he corrects
" Jonah " into "John," he admits that Matthew is approximately
right in word at all events, though not in thought in saying
that Jesus addressed Simon as "son of Jonah (or John)." In
the second place, agreeing (in some sense) with Luke, he
implies that Simon's name of "stone" is rightly connected
with the first interview between the Master and the Disciple.
But he puts all these things in a new light. Matthew, beside
substituting "Jonah" for John, might seem to have regarded
"son of Jonah" as an honorific part of Christ's blessing. But,
in accordance with Semitic usage 1 , it is if not depreciative
1 Comp. Numb, xxiii. 18 19 " Rise up, Balak, and hear ; hearken
unto me, thou son of Zippor . . . God is not a man . . . neither the son
of man," where there is a manifest intention (see Rashi and Origen
ad loc.) to shew that Balak is below the level of the prophet who is
127 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
.. ' ' -
at all events suggestive of a lower spiritual level from which
the Apostle has now emerged to a higher one. And the Fourth
Evangelist uses it thus, only with reference to a future, not a
present, emergence.
"Son of John," in the Fourth Gospel, means that
Simon was at present only "son of John," but that he
was hereafter to be transmuted into the nature of "the
living stone." "Christ's words" so the Fourth Evangelist
appears to maintain "were predictive 1 , not descriptive;
He did not say Thou art even now 'stone' (or, to be exact,
Cephas, which is somewhat different from the Greek word 2 ).
He said Thou art to be, or, Thou shalt be called by God,
'stone.' That meant, 'Thou art destined for the building of
the Temple of God, thyself to be both stone and builder but
not yet.' What the Lord meant here in saying 'son of John'
I shall shew more clearly later on when He repeats it after
the Resurrection. Simon had thrice denied Him. The Lord,
after the Resurrection, while preparing him to receive the
full assurance of forgiveness, thrice called him ' Simon, [son] of
John 3 .' That was not a title of honour but an appellation of
rebuking him. Somewhat akin to this is (Gesen. 1206) son of
"without personal name (often with implication of contempt),"
e.g. i S. xx. 27 "wherefore cometh not the son of Jesse to meat?"
(rep. ib. 30). To be called "son of" an obscure person such as
"Kish," "Remaliah," "Tabeel," often implied that the "son" was
an upstart. Jerome (on Mt. xvi. 17 where e has variana) gives the
two interpretations, "Jonah" dove, and "John" grace of God, but
makes no comment on "son of." Gesenius gives no instance of
"son of [an obscure person]" used honorifically.
1 Some may say, "Yes, predictive after the event an un-
justifiable invention." John is frequently found to have been
adapting something that he appeared at first sight to be inventing.
It is probably rash to charge him with "inventing" here. It is
certainly ungrateful to ignore the debt due to him for elucidating the
full meaning of the appellation "son of John."
2 In Greek, "stone," applied to a person, would mostly imply
callousness or stupidity.
3 Jn xxi. 15 17.
128 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
rebuke. It was thrice accompanied by the question 'Lovest
thou me ? ' a gentle reproach, but still a reproach, intended
to prepare the disciple to rise above the weakness of 'Simon,
son of John' into the strength denoted by the honourable
title of 'Cephas.' "
Passing to the consideration of the Johannine method of
expressing "calling" in general, we find that John, in "thou
shalt be called [i.e. named] Cephas," uses the same Greek
word as the one in Mark-Matthew here, "he called [i.e. sum-
moned, or invited] them 1 ." In the latter sense, John says, a
little later, that "Jesus also was called [i.e. invited], and his
disciples, to the marriage" at Cana 2 . He never uses the word
again in any sense 3 . Yet we might suppose he could hardly
avoid a word that is not only frequent in Matthew and Luke,
but also found in the threefold tradition : "I came not to
call [the] righteous, but sinners 4 ."
But here we must stop to modify the phrase "in the
threefold tradition." For though Matthew is identical with
Mark, Luke is not. Luke adds "to repentance." ''Call to
repentance" is not the same thing as "call" The addition is
really an alteration though not technically so indicating that
Luke deemed Mark too indefinite. It is therefore a case where
John might naturally intervene ; and we are led to ask, "What,
according to John, is the essence of the divine 'calling' intro-
duced by Jesus, and how does John express it ? "
In the first place, to answer this question negatively, he
does not accept the Lucan modification, "to repentance"
This is a word that John never uses. Nor does he substitute
"choose" a word that Matthew distinguishes from "call,"
in the saying which he alone assigns to Jesus, "Many are
1 Mk i. 20, Mt. iv. 21 fKakfo-ev, Jn i. 42
2 Jn ii. 2 (R.V.) "was bidden."
3 In Jn x. 3 txt rec. has KaXel /car' ovopa, but it is an error for
vel Kar' ovop.a.
4 Mk ii. 17, Mt. ix. 13, comp. Lk. v. 32.
A. p. 129 (Mark i. 16 20) 9
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
called, but few are chosen 1 ." Negatively, therefore, it mi
be said that John does not use any of the Synoptic terms t(
express the effectual "calling" of Jesus. But positively,
expresses it in part by dramatic representation of concrete
instances, and in part by metaphor.
The metaphors are varied. There is the metaphor of
attraction or "drawing," when Jesus says, "I, if I be lifted
up. . . , will draw all men unto me 2 ." There is the metaphor of
a "voice," like that of thunder, addressed to the dead by the
Son, so that all those who are in the tombs, and who hear,
awake, and come to Him and live 3 . There is also the metaphor
of light, falling on those who are in darkness, and causing those
who come to it to reach the salvation of the Truth. But th<
particular metaphor that is most appropriate for our purpose
of comparing the Fourth Gospel with the Three is that of the
shepherd "calling (or, 'calling to') his own sheep by name 4 ."
37. The "calling" of the sheep by the shepherd
The Greek word for the shepherd's "calling (phonein)"-
latent in the English "phon-etic" and " tele-phone" is quite
distinct from the word we have been hitherto discussing
(kdlein). In LXX, both these Greek words represent one
1 Mt. xxii. 14. John describes Jesus as mysteriously recognising
that even His own "choosing" might include one that had a devil
so far at least as concerned His initial choosing of the Twelve. See
Jn vi. 70 "Did not I [myself] choose you, the Twelve, and one of
you is a devil ?" In Jn xiii. 18 "I know whom (rivas) I chose,"
rivas is not noiovs, but it includes iroiovs : " I know who they
are [and of what kind they are] whom I chose." Jesus "chose"
all the Twelve, and "washed the feet" of all. But neither the
"choosing" nor the "washing" could avail for Judas. Jn xv. 16, 19,
"I chose you out of the world" does not exclude the Son's prayer
to the Father (Jn xvii. 15) "that thou keep them from the evil
[one]."
2 Jn xii. 32. 3 Jn v. 25 8.
4 Jn x. 3 "he calleth ($o>i/ei) his own sheep byname (<UT
130 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
Hebrew word (kdrd) which means "call" in a great number of
senses. Among these are (i) "call to a meeting, interview,
feast etc.," (2) "call by name," (3) "call to, by name." Kdlein
may be used in all three senses, but would not be used in the
third sense if oral "calling" needed to be emphasized 1 . In
Luke, Jesus seems to say, in effect, to those who are preparing
a feast, "Do not merely call orally and familiarly (phonein)
your neighbours and relations to your feast, but send-and-invite
(kaleiri) strangers, the poor, the maimed, and the blind 2 ."
Here phonein is used by Luke to imply antecedent personal
relations between the "caller" and the "called."
That is also what is implied by John when he uses phonein
in the Parable of the Good Shepherd. The language of the
Johannine Parable is quite different from that of the Synoptists,
but its thought may be found in an interpretation of Mark's
phrase about "calling." Rejecting the Lucan addition "to
repentance," John seems to say, in effect : "The Good Shepherd
did not ' come to call sinners to this or that condition of mind or
soul for example, to repentance.' It would have been truer
perhaps to say that John the Baptist came to do this. John
indeed 'came to call sinners to repentance,' or, at all events,
to the Son through repentance. But this was before the coming
of the Son. When the Son came, His call was not 'to repent-
ance/ but through repentance, to Himself. That is what
Mark's tradition, though it is brief and obscure, most naturally
means. When a man 'calls' another, to whom does he 'call'
him if not to himself ? "
1 In Gen. xii. 18, xx. 9 where Pharaoh and Abimelech "called
(enaXfo-ev) Abraham and said...," the meaning is, "called by
messenger."
2 Lk. xiv. 12 13. For <a\el o-e meaning "invites you," or
"requests the pleasure of your company," see Oxy. Pap. 747,
926, 927. Of course it is not to be understood that letters of in-
vitation are sent to "the poor," but it is understood that they are
to be courteously "invited."
131 (Mark i. 16 20) 9 2
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
38. Effective "calling"
But how, in fact, did Jesus, in the Johannine Gospel, call
His earliest disciples, or perhaps we should say make His
earliest converts six in number ? To Andrew and Andrew's
unnamed companion (John, the son of Zebedee) who asked
Him where He abode, He said "Come, and ye shall see V The
third, Peter, was brought to Jesus by Andrew. On him Jesus
looked stedfastly and said "Thou art Simon, the son of John ;
thou shalt be called Cephas 2 ." It is implied, but not stated,
that he at once became a convert. The fourth, James the son
of Zebedee, is assumed to have been brought to Jesus by the
unnamed disciple, his brother, but neither the bringing nor tl
conversion is described 3 . To the fifth, Philip and to Philip
alone is given a calling direct and unmistakeable, "Follow
me 4 ." The sixth, Nathanael, is not called at all. Jesus says
of him that he is "truly an Israelite," and adds "I saw thee,"
and the circumstances in which He " saw 5 ." And that is enough.
Though not called in word, he is called in fact, if the essence
of being called by Christ consists in being drawn into Christ.
The impression left upon us by this rapid succession of
"callings" is that they are acts rather than phrases. In
different spiritual shapes, adapted to the different characters
and circumstances of the several converts, the regenerating or
leavening seed of the Word has been invisibly passing into the
heart of each. Nothing has been audible except a brief phrase
or two. But under these phrases the Spirit has been breathing.
And the breathing has resulted in words and acts of spiritual
life.
Of the four thus called, three 6 shew the effect of the seed
1 Jn i. 39- * J n i- 42.
3 See pp. 71, 114, 133, n - 2 -
4 Jn i. 43. 5 Jn i. 478-
6 "Three," namely, (i) Andrew, (2) the unnamed (presumably),
and (3) Philip.
132 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
at once by bringing converts to Jesus. Peter does not. He is
the only one that is "called" by a new name. But it is pro-
spective. He brings no converts now. But the readers of
the Gospel are made to feel that he is as it were kept in reserve,
to bring converts on a vast scale hereafter.
Nathanael is the only one of the six that receives a title
of honour ; yet he is not included in the Synoptic Twelve 1 .
Andrew and the unnamed are together in going to Jesus.
But Andrew remains Andrew to the last. The unnamed
receives the greatest name of all greater even, we must
needs think, than that of Simon. For he becomes "the
disciple whom Jesus loved" and about whom He said to His
mother, "See, thy son 2 ."
What are we to say about the anticipatory use of the
name "Simon Peter" ("Andrew, brother of Simon Peter")
where "Peter" need not have been inserted? It is closely
followed by a statement that at present the disciple's name
was merely "Simon" ("Thou art Simon the son of John, thou
shalt be called (kalein) Cephas (which is, by interpretation,
Peter) 3 "). Are we to suppose that although "shalt be called"
1 See Hastings' Diet. iii. 489 a, "The now widely accepted identi-
fication of Nathanael with Bartholomew is not known to have been
adopted until the Qth century."
2 What are we to say about James the son of Zebedee, the
brother of the unnamed ? No words of Jesus to him are recorded.
Even the fact that he was brought to Jesus by John is not stated as
a fact but left as an inference. Perhaps the Evangelist felt that
the unique glory of James consisted in his being the protomartyr of
the Twelve. In this respect James, the first to die, surpassed
John, who was the last to "tarry" (Jn xxi. 22). John, suppressing
himself in this Gospel, suppresses his brother still more absolutely,
with the feeling that his brother's name is of a .kind to be " written
in heaven " and not in that most inadequate of records of personality,
"a book" (comp. Jn xxi. 25).
3 Jn i. 40, 42. In Mark, "Peter" does not occur till Mk iii. 16.
In Matthew (iv. 18), the first mention of "Peter" is with sifimv
6 Xfyo/xfi/o?. As to Luke, see above, p. 126 foil. John perhaps takes
a pleasure in introducing Andrew as " the brother of [him whom all
133 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
means, on the surface, merely "thou shalt be called by name'
yet it implies also "thou shalt be called to become," so that it
predicts a summons to fulfil a newly revealed destiny, a purpose
of God ? This is in accordance with Hebrew precedent and
doctrine. When God calls Abram Abraham, or calls Jacob
Israel, not only does He call both by new names, but He also
calls both into new characters, so that Abraham becomes, in
the very act of being newly named, " a father of many nations,"
and Jacob becomes at once consecrated by a connection with
"God 1 ."
Isaiah describes the Lord as "calling the generations from
the beginning," and as saying to Jacob "I have called thee
by thy name, thou art mine 2 ." Ibn Ezra, on the former
passage, says that God "knows all future generations and
cites each of them to appear in its right time." This thought is
probably at the bottom of John's unique mention of "calling"
applied to Cephas. Whenever God, so to speak, mentions a
new name such as "light" the mysticism of Hebrew thought
assumes that the thing springs into existence, because God
has, as it were, taken the thought by His Hand or by His
Word, and brought it into the region of reality.
And so it was with Simon. When Jesus looked sted-
fastly on him 3 , and said "Thou shalt be called [by name]
Cephas," the "look," and the prospect of the "calling [by
name]," must be regarded (if we accept the Johannine view
of things) as acting together immediately, and with a force
that was to increase during a long future. They constituted
the Church knows as] Simon Peter," as much as to say: "Andrew
was first in point of time, and I assert this, though well knowing that
he was not first in point of fame."
1 The precise meaning of "Israel" (Gen. xxxii. 28) is disputed.
But all agree that the word includes "God."
2 Is. xli. 4, xliii. i.
3 See Joh. Gr. 2649 a quoting Judg. vi. 14 "And the Lord looked
on him [Gideon]."
134 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
(so it would seem) an immediate "calling" in the sense of
"summons" a calling to the work of a disciple. And yet,
later on, we are to find Simon thrice denying discipleship and
thrice hearing from Jesus his old earthly designation, without
his title of honour, "Simon, son of John, lovest thou me ? "
Here is a paradox, that Simon, in the Fourth Gospel, is
the only disciple whose name is connected with "calling," the
only disciple who denies discipleship, and the only disciple to
whom the Lord thrice gives the precept to feed His sheep,
accompanied with the prediction that he shall be honoured
by dying the death of his Master. Taken all together, this
exalting promise to "Simon" that he shall be "called Peter,"
and the momentary casting down to the degenerate condition
of "Simon," and then the permanent re-exaltation to a level
with his Master's Cross, seem to be the acts of a drama of
warning and comfort warning, not to trust in man's dreams
or dogmas about God's "calling," in any technical outward
sense apart from inward reception of the Son ; comfort, from
the thought that God's "calling," in spite of all appearance
to the contrary, will never be found in the end to have been
ineffectual.
39- What did the fishermen "leave" ?
Mark and Matthew say that the first pair of fishermen "left
the nets," and that the second (Mark) "left their father Zebedee
in the boat with the hired servants," or (Matthew) "left the boat
and their father 1 ." Luke says, that all the (three) fishermen
"brought the boats (R.V. their boats) to the land and left all 2 ."
1 Mk i. 18, 20, Mt. iv. 20, 22.
2 Lk. V. II KCU KarayayovTfS ra TrXoia .eVt TTJV yijv, d(f)VTS irdvra. . .
Luke gives only three names. He does not mention Andrew. See
above, p. 26. On Vi, lit. "toward," or "on-to," see below, p. 140 foil.
The same verb for "leaving," d<f>ir)p.i, is used throughout this
narrative by the three Synoptists.
135 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
Luke's "left all" is repeated later on by Mark-Matthew, but
not by Luke, thus :
Mk x. 28 (R.V.)
Peter began to
say unto him, Lo,
we have left all, and
have followed thee.
Mt. xix. 27 (R.V.)
Then answered
Peter and said unto
Lk. xviii. 28 (R.V.)
And Peter said,
Lo, we have left our
him, Lo, we have left own [marg. or, our
all, and followed thee. own (homes)] and
What then shall we followed thee.
have?
This last variation may be explained from an original
Hebrew "We have left our home (lit. house) and followed thee."
The Hebrew "house" is expressed in LXX, and could be
expressed in N.T., both by "own" and by "all [things] 1 ."
There are noteworthy variations in Christ's reply enumerating
the things "left" :
Mk x. 29
There is no man
that hath left house,
or brethren, or sisters,
or mother, or father,
Mt. xix. 29
And every one
that hath left houses,
or brethren, or sisters,
or father, or mother,
or children, or lands or children, or lands
Lk. xviii. 29
There is no man
that hath left house,
or wife, or brethren,
or parents, or chil-
dren. . .
(lit. fields)....
(lit. fields)....
This invites comparison with the Call to Abraham (LXX)
"Go forth from thy land and from thy kindred and from the
house of thy father 2 ." In O.T. "house of thy father " that is,
home, comes last and crowns the list. In N.T. it comes
first. This would naturally be the case if it were the only
word actually used by Jesus the other words being merely
1 See Corrections 447 (iv) quoting Esth. viii. 2 "over the house of
Haman," LXX eVi Trdvrwv TWV 'A., and Esth. v. 10, vi. 12 "to
his house (etc TO. tfoa)." On Lev. xvi. 17 "for himself and for his
(lit.) house," the Mishna in Joma 2 a says "that means his wife."
z Gen. xii. i, on which see Philo i. 436, as to the spiritual meaning
of Abraham's threefold leaving.
136 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
evangelistic interpretations, shewing that "house 1 " included
household, and kindred, and everything that we have on
earth. Luke inserts "wife" This may be because Peter, the
questioner, was married, and because (according to Luke) Peter,
after he had been reminded of his duty by Jesus, left his wife,
"and followed him," that is, followed Jesus to the various
"cities" mentioned immediately afterwards 2 .
It was not quite so in Mark. There, after the Calling of
Peter and the rest, they "go into Capernaum," and into the
synagogue, and, from the synagogue, they "came into the
hotise of Simon and Andrew," where Jesus heals "Simon's wife's
mother*." The presence of the "wife" in the house would
make it seem inconsistent to say that Peter left his "wife"
immediately after he was called. Indeed it might be objected
that Peter did not leave his "house" either; for he went
back to his "house" from the synagogue. Perhaps for that
reason Matthew altered "house" into "houses." But the
real meaning was "house" in the sense of "home." In the
case of some of Christ's disciples, and at certain times, the
"leaving," and the "home," were literal and local. In the
case of others, and in later times, it might be recognised as
possible to "leave all that they had" in a spiritual sense, if,
remaining where they were, they devoted themselves and all
that they had to the service of the Father in heaven 4 .
Why does Mark (followed by Matthew) insert "fields"
1 Matthew alters the sense by adopting the plural, "houses"
which makes the word mean "house-property."
2 Lk. v. ii 12 "left all and followed him. And it came to pass,
while he was in one of the cities . . . . " See below, pp. 143 4, on Peter
and Peter's wife.
3 Mk i. 21, 29.
4 According to Mark i. 38 "Let us go elsewhere into the next
towns," Jesus went forth on a missionary journey on the morning
after He had healed Peter's mother-in-law, and Mark assumes that
Peter accompanied Him. Philo, while not denying that Abraham's
threefold leaving is literal and local, maintains that it is also
spiritual.
137 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
(among the things "left"), which Luke omits? Perha]
because Mark confusedly follows the threefold classification
in Genesis, only reversing the order so as to make it (i) "house
of his father" ; (2) "kindred" ; (3) "land." Only, as Matthew
altered "house" into "houses," so Mark altered "land" into
"lands." Luke puts Genesis aside, as being inapplicable to
the Apostles, since Abraham took his wife and all his belongings
with him, when he obeyed God's call.
In Mark and Matthew (but not in Luke) this question,
and the reply to it about "leaving one's house and home" for
Christ's sake, are followed almost immediately by the petition
of the sons of Zebedee (or their mother) for places near Christ's
throne. The juxtaposition suggests that they thought though
they did not say "We, too, have 'left all and followed thee,'
as Peter did." According to Mark and Matthew, they might
say "We have done more, in one respect. For we left our
father 1 ." This leads us back to a question that previously
came before us, as to the origin of the Marcan tradition that the
sons of Zebedee "left their father in the boat with the hired-
servants," supposing Luke to be right in omitting it as erroneous.
It has been maintained above that Zebedee was probably
dead at the time of the Calling. This view may be illustrated
from Genesis where the death of Abraham's father, Terah, is
described first, and yet the command follows afterwards "Get
thee out of thy father's house 2 ." One of Rashi's explanations
is, that Terah's death was related before its chronological
order so as to avoid the inference that Abraham neglected his
father. The other is, that Terah, being an idolater, was
1 Mk x. 29 "mother or father," Mt. xix. 29 "father or mother"
becomes in Lk. xviii. 29 "parents." The change is perhaps not
merely for brevity. The sons of Zebedee could not say that they had
left their "parents," since their mother was with them. But they
could say (according to Mk-Mt.) that they had left their "father."
D omits "father" both in Mk and in Mt.
2 Gen. xi. 32, xii. i, comp. Josh. xxiv. 2.
138 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
called "dead" before the time of his literal death. This would
suggest a parallelism between the Call of Abraham as described
in Jewish tradition, and the Call of Philip of Bethsaida as
described in the early Christian tradition of Clement of Alex-
andria, who represents Philip as being the disciple to whom
Jesus said, "Follow me" and "Let the dead bury their dead 1 ."
Philip is the only one of the disciples, in the Fourth Gospel,
whom Jesus calls with the words "Follow me," and the only
one whose place of residence is mentioned. Jesus called him
"from Bethsaida," that is, "from the House of Fishing."
This might be explained, in accordance with the Synoptic
narrative, "Jesus called him from the house of earthly occupa-
tion, and from the service of the flesh, to the house of heavenly
occupation, and to the service of the Gospel, from catching
fish in the sea, to catching souls for heaven."
40. "They left all," in Luke
Let us consider the bearing of all these facts on the
parallelism in :
Mk Mt. Lk.
left their father left the boat and left all.
Zebedee in the boat their father,
with the hired ser-
vants.
Does it not appear probable in the light of the later
Gospel parallels between the Greek "all" and the Greek "own"
indicated as pointing to an original "house" or "father's
house" that, here too, the original was "left their father's
home" and that this was paraphrased very fully by Mark and
less fully by Matthew and rendered "all" by Luke 2 ? "The
1 Mt. viii. 22, Lk. ix. 59 60, comp. Jn i. 43 4. See Son
3377 a.
2 As regards fulness of paraphrase, it should be noted that
Mk x. 29 30 is much fuller than the parallel Mt. xix. 29, Lk. xviii.
29 30.
139 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
house of their father" might be interpreted as meaning "the
household and their father," or "their belongings and their
father" in the abstract, or "their boat and their father 1 " in
the concrete.
Here we must note something unusual in the Lucan use of
"bring (lit. bring down) 2 ." Elsewhere Luke uses it with the
preposition "to," but not with "on." And the Thesaurus
gives no instance of its use (in its naval sense) with "on" or
"on [to]" instead of "into 3 ." The Acts of John implies that
there was first a bringing of the ship to the land, and then a
"settling" of it on the land 4 . Something of this kind may be
Luke's intention. But, if he found "on" the land in his
original, the question arises whether he may not have mistaken
1 If "their father [together] with the boat" were altered to "their
father with the hired-servants," we might illustrate from i K. x. n
"the navy also of Hiram" = 2 Chr. ix. 10 "the servants also of
Huram" ; i K. x. 22 "with the navy of Hiram" =2 Chr. ix. 21
"with the servants of Huram." It may be added that the Greek
7Trpt " father' s-house " freq. represents Heb. "father" (e.g. Exod.
vi. 14, 25 etc.). And note the Greek corruption in i Chr. xvi. 28
"Give unto the Lord, the Father (rrarp\} of the nations," where
A has, correctly, "the families (al irarptat) of the nations." In
Mark, "with the boat" might be explained as meaning "with
the [boat's] crew, or servants," and then the two might be combined.
Such a paraphrase, combined with a tradition connecting the sons
of Zebulon, or Zebedee, with the sons of Issachar implying sons of
hire (s. above, pp. in 12) might combine to form the Marcan text
now extant.
2 Lk. V. II KdTayayovTfs TO. TrXota eVt TTJV yfjv, lit. "having brought
down the vessels on-to the land."
3 See Karayco els in Steph. Thes. Comp. Acts ix. 30 etc. (many of
which instances are naval).
4 Acts of John 2 ie at ourcoy is yrjv TO TrXotoj/ dyaydvTes etdopfv KOI
ai/rctv a/^ia fjfjuv ftorjQovvTa OTTCO? TO TrXotoi' epci(ra>/iei>, i.e. " to Settle it"
on its "rollers" (Steph. Thes. e'Spaa>) or "on the land." We should
expect eTri Tys yrjs not rrjv yrjv, but see Mt. xiii. 2 eVi TOV alyiaXbv
to-r/jKet, and Jn xxi. 4 eW^. . .ds (marg. eVl) TOV alyiaXdv. SS in Lk.
v. ii has "brought the ships near to the land," not explaining how
the disciples came ashore (comp. Jn xxi. 8 "in the little boat").
Perhaps it means "made the ships touch the land."
140 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
"on the earth" for "on the land," and then have transposed the
phrase to make sense. If so, the original would have been
"Having lef t . . . everything [that they had} on the earth, they
followed him."
Whatever may be the most probable conclusion about the
origin of the Lucan narrative as a whole, it is certain that
this particular Lucan phrase, "bring-down on-to the earth,"
when used in LXX, means, not "bring-back to the land" from
the sea, but "bring-down to the ground" in humiliation or
destruction 1 . There are also the possibilities of minute Greek
verbal corruption, as well as those of paraphrastic error, latent
in the Lucan context 2 . Taken as a whole, the Lucan narrative,
touching on one of its sides the Mark-Matthew Call of the
Fishermen, and on the other the Johannine Draught of Fishes
which might perhaps be called the Return of the Fishermen
appears to indicate a mixture of Hebrew and Greek, of prose
and poetry, of metaphor and literalism, that points back to
a very early stage of tradition much earlier than Luke's
work when this part of the Gospel story consisted largely of
Songs "Songs," perhaps, "of the Fisherman," or "of Cephas,"
or (in Greek) " Songs of the Ichthus" out of which a scrupulous
and painstaking historian, such as Luke was, would have great
difficulty in framing a narrative that should be at once con-
sistent with itself and yet not inconsistent with the Gospels
of Mark and Matthew 3 .
1 Ob. 3 Tis fie Kara eVt rr)v yrjv \ The Heb. phrase "They that
go down to the sea" suggests that the idiomatic Greek "bring-down
(Karayo)) into port," i.e. "bring back from the sea," would be alien
from Jewish idiom.
2 E.g. "they left their father with the servants" if expressed by
(rvv TOLS iraia-iv, might be confused with a-vv rols Trao-i, which, though
not very good Greek, might be taken to mean "together with
everything." Comp. 2 S. viii. 14 (rep. i Chr. xviii. 13) eV Trao-iv,
"in all things." Lk. xxiv. 21 vvv -rrda-i rourots, "together with all
these things." For naicrlv v.r. traa-iv, see i Chr. xx. 3, comp. xxii.
17. Less probably Trdvra might be confused with Trarepa.
3 Take, for example, the following comment on Jn xxi. 7 " [Peter]
141 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
How does John deal with these manifold traditions about
the fishermen's "leaving all things" and subsequently asking
"What shall we have 1 ? " He puts them all aside. Not that
he denies them. But he calls the reader's attention away from
what the apostles "left" to what they "found." "We have
found the Messiah," says Andrew to Peter, and, still more fully,
Philip to Nathanael, " We have found him of whom Moses (in the
law) and the prophets did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of
Joseph 2 ."
This indeed is startling. What "law" and "prophets" did
Philip refer to? Philip, above all, who did not even know
enough about the "prophets" to be aware that the Messiah
must be born in Bethlehem ! We cannot answer this question
logically. But we can answer it illogically thus. Philip had
been "walking in darkness," and in Jerusalem there had
flashed on him "a great light." In a moment of ecstasy, he
thought of the Bringer of this Light as summing up in Himself
all that was good and blessed in the Deliverer of Israel promised
by the Scriptures. Isaiah had connected the "great light" in
"Galilee" with a manifestation of a "Prince of Peace." Here
. . . cast himself into the sea," made by so late a writer as Chrysostom,
"He cast-away (fppi-^c) everything (iravra), both the fishes and
the nets." Also, at the same point, Nonnus, taking five lines to
describe the "coat" which Peter "girt about him," calls it a/i^i'/SA^a.
We have seen above what a large part a/z(i/3aAAo>, in the sense of
"cast-about," plays in Petrine stories and in early comments on
them. And it does not seem fanciful to suppose that Nonnus, here,
is giving us one more allusion to the word. If so, we may suppose
that Chrysostom's strained introduction of iravra eppi^c arises from
a desire to repeat, even in a Johannine comment, something like the
Marcan phrase (Mk i. 18, Mt. iv. 20) "having left the nets," or the
Lucan phrase (v. n) "having left all things."
1 These words are only in Mt. xix. 27 (not in the parall. Mk-Lk.).
But the thought is in the parall. Mk x. 28, Lk. xviii. 28. Comp.
Gen. xv. 2 "And Abram said. . .What wilt thou give me ?"
2 Jn i. 41, 45-
142 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
was the Deliverer, this Jesus of Nazareth, who had brought
eternal peace to Philip's soul 1 .
Later on, in a time of defection, when Jesus says to
Peter, ''Do ye also desire to go-back ?" Peter implies that he,
too, has "found" the greatest of treasures, when he exclaims
in answer, "Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the
words of eternal life 2 ." And similarly as regards the first
two converts, Andrew and his unnamed companion who
"abode with" Jesus from "the tenth hour" onward what
they "found" is not indeed described, but the result is that
Andrew "finds his own brother Simon and says, We have
found the Messiah." The inference is obvious and rises in
our minds much more clearly than if the fact had been stated :
"These first converts also found in Jesus words of eternal
life." Combining the Synoptic with the Johannine language
we may say that those who "left houses" for the sake of
Christ "abode with him" and were received into His Father's
house.
So far John could proceed without contradicting any of
the Synoptists. But what as to the doctrine of renouncing
home and wife and kinsfolk in detail ? We have seen above
that Luke, and Luke alone, mentioned a "wife" in the list
of the personal renunciations of Christ's disciples ; and he
placed the mention of Peter's "house" and "wife" before, not
after, Christ's words to Peter, "Thou shalt be catching men,"
so as to leave it open to suppose that Peter left his wife from
the time when he heard these words. About Peter's wife no
mention is made in the Fourth Gospel. Probably Peter did
leave her when he accompanied Jesus on His missionary
journeying, but we know from the Epistle to the Corinthians
1 Is. ix. i 6, mentioning "Galilee," "the people that walked in
darkness," "a great light," and "unto us a child is born. . .Prince of
Peace."
2 Jn vi. 68.
143 (Mark i. 1620)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
that this leaving was only temporary 1 . About such a renun-
ciation, temporary or otherwise, the Fourth Gospel has nothing
to say. But indirectly it conveys two lessons bearing on the
subject. By placing, at its outset, Christ's presence at a
wedding, and by making His first "sign" the production of
wine for the wedding-feast, it suggests that Jesus was not one
who would bid a disciple "leave his wife," as one might "leave
houses or fields," for the mere sake of self-training and spiritual
development. And yet, at the close, when Jesus places before
Peter the Way of the Cross, and predicts to him "by what
manner of death he should glorify God," we are manifestly
taught that a disciple might sometimes be called to "leave
all" including wife and life itself in fulfilment of the com-
mand that is the last utterance of Jesus in this Gospel "follow
thou me."
41. "They followed him... they departed after him 2 '
The best explanation of these different Marcan phrases is,
that they mean different things. The former means that Peter
and Andrew "came after Jesus" in the sense of "became the
followers of Jesus" ; the latter means that James and John
(perhaps accompanied by Peter and Andrew) "followed Jesus
away from the place where they were to another place." The
thought of "another place" may be illustrated by what the
Acts of John says concerning James and John, immediately
after they had "settled their boat" on the beach. "We
removed from the place having gladly made-up-our-minds to
1 i Cor. ix. 5 (R.V.) "to lead about a wife that is a believer
(afieX$jyi/ ywaiKa irepuiyav) even as. . .Cephas." Chrysostom does not
even mention the notion that yvvaina, in such a context, could mean
"a woman." But Jerome says (Letters cxviii. 4) "Peter was
married, too, but when he forsook his ship and his nets he
forsook his wife also."
2 Mk i. 1 8 2O T)KO\ovdrj(Tav at/r&>. ..a.irr)\0ov OTriVa) aurov, Mt. iv.
2O 22 i]KO\ov6r)(rav avra> (bis), Lk. V. II r)KO\ov6r)(rav avra>.
144 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
follow Him 1 ." According to Mark, it could hardly have been
said that Peter and Andrew " removed from the place," if Jesus,
whom they "followed," merely moved on a little way along the
shore to call James and John. But it might be said about James
and John. For the next words in Mark are "And they go
into Capernaum." This involves at all events a change of
scene, from the shore to the city. And further, Mark, and
Mark alone, after thus making his first mention of Capernaum,
and of the synagogue there, differs as follows from Matthew
and Luke :
Mk i. 29 Mt. viii. 14 Lk. iv. 38
And straightway, And when Jesus And he rose up
when they were come was come into Peter's from the synagogue
out of the synagogue, house. and entered into the
they came into the house of Simon.
house of Simon and
Andrew with James
and John.
This seems to differentiate (in Mark's view) the two pairs of
converts. Peter and Andrew return from the synagogue to their
own house. James and John, instead of returning to their own
house, "went after Jesus" to a house that was not their own.
Perhaps however Mark, or Mark's original tradition, intended
to distinguish, not one pair of disciples from another, but one
stage of "following" from another. Jesus said, in the first
stage, " Hither ! Come ye after me on the Way of Salvation."
The disciples responded by "following," that is, by ranking
themselves among His followers in the Way 2 . But in the
1 Acts of John 2 03s Se aTre'crrq/zei/ TOV TOTTOV at>r fBovXr)0evTes
Both in Jas. i. 18 pov\r)0is (on which see Mayor, quoting Clem.
Alex. 114, 855 as to God's 6f\r)p.a and ^ovX^a) and in Mt. i. 19
(fiov\r)6r) ("had made-up-his-mind ") the past tense adds to the
weight of the verb. Avr<a is emphasized by its position " to follow
Him [and no other]."
2 See Light 3755 c j on " The Way of the Lord " and " The Way."
A. P. 145 (Mark i. 16 20) 10
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
second stage it became necessary that they should "follow"
Jesus, literally as well as spiritually, "going after" Him ii
His missionary journeys and finally "up to Jerusalem."
42. "Departed after" implies a missionary journey
The failure to recognise this apparently unimportant
distinction between the Marcan "followed him" and the
Marcan "departed after him" might hinder us from recognising
three important facts. The first and most important of these
is, for our purpose, fundamental : that Mark, though he
many faults, has not that fault of artificiality which leads
some writers to vary words for variety's sake. This the
reader of these pages has probably perceived already, and it
will be made still clearer as we advance. The second is, that
"following" had a kind of technical significance in popular
Stoical philosophy so far affecting some very early Christian
writers that they agreed in saying that men ought not to" follow "
anyone or anything except God 1 . The third is, that "went
after him," if interpreted according to Hebrew and Jewish
tradition, is free from the objection that might be raised by
Greeks against the sacrifice of freedom implied in "followed
him."
The third is the only point that need detain us here. The
illustration of it is complicated by the fact that "follow" is in
Hebrew most naturally represented by "go (or walk) after" ;
and the past tense of the Hebrew "go" is expressed in English
sometimes by "went" and sometimes by "came." There
may be a great difference between "go after" and "come after 2 /'
Take the first instance of "follow" in A.V. The speaker is
the servant whom Abraham is sending to Mesopotamia to bring
back a wife for Isaac, "Perhaps the woman will not be willing
1 See above, p. 50.
2 The Heb. "walk," "go" (used in "go after strange gods" etc.)
is rendered Tropevo^ai some hundreds of times, fp^o/icu comparatively
seldom, less than thirty times.
146 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
to follow me. . . V The Hebrew is "go after me." The LXX
has "go with me. . .," but one MS has "come with me." The
rendering of the LXX is explained by the conclusion of the
Hebrew sentence "to go after me to this land." That is, in
effect, "to come with me back from the house of her father to
this [Abraham's] house." Hence the LXX takes "after" as
"back" (which is often the meaning of the Hebrew) and para-
phrases thus : "go (v.r. come) with me back to this land."
In this instance, then, "go after" means "go after"
iterally, as one following the indications of a guide. Else-
where in the Bible it means "go after" literally, as one
following the commands of a military leader. But in the Bible
it does not mean "go after" a person metaphorically, that is,
in the sense of following imitatively or morally 2 . From the
Talmud, too, no instance has been alleged where it has that
meaning 3 . "Sit before," rather than "walk after," would
appear to be (at all events in some Jewish traditions) the
designation of a pupil 4 .
It is therefore in accordance with Jewish tradition to
suppose that the Marcan phrase at the conclusion of the Call
of the Fishermen originally denoted (even though Mark may
1 Gen. xxiv. 5, LXX TropfvOijvat (D, eXBelv) /zer' e/zoC . ..
2 In the Bible, the nearest approach to the meaning of moral
imitation is in 2 K. xiii. 2 "walked after the sins of Jeroboam." But
"sins" makes all the difference. Without it "walked (or, went)
after Jeroboam" would mean "seceded to him."
3 In the Talmud there are several anecdotes about disciples
"walking (or, going) after a Rabbi." But they all imply (so far as
I have seen) a literal "walking." Sometimes the Rabbi is riding on
an ass and the disciple "going after him." See Schlatter on
Jn i. 7, 43. Paul never uses the word "follow" in a moral sense.
Where A.V. (as freq.) has "followers" in this sense, the Greek and
R.V. have "imitators," or "zealous for," e.g. i Cor. iv. 16, xi. i,
Eph. v. i (comp. Philipp. iii. 17 etc.).
4 For instances where a pupil is designated as "sitting before"
his instructor, see Wetstein on Acts xxii. 3, and Gen. r. on Gen. xlix.
14 (Wii. pp. 486, 499).
147 (Mark i. 16 20) 10 2
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
not have understood the special denotation) that those thus
called quitted their occupation and went forth following Jesus
henceforth literally on some missionary journey or journeys.
But at the same time the act, and the language in which the
act was expressed, prepared the way for later words of Christ
in which He appeared to speak mysteriously of His last journey
to Jerusalem in connection with the words "to-day" and "to-
morrow" and being "perfected" on "the third day 1 " alluding
to similar words in which Hosea exhorted his countrymen :
"After two days will he revive us, on the third day he will
raise us up, and we shall live before him. And let us know,
let us follow on to know the Lord 2 ." Thus it is easy to see
how Jewish phrases about literal following might pass into
Christian phrases about spiritual following.
43. Philip "following"
How John expressed the doctrine of spiritual following in
various metaphors and scenes culminating in the dialogue of
Jesus with Peter, and the precept "Follow thou me" has
been detailed above. But something remains to be said
about the calling of Philip for this reason, that this Apostle
is connected by John with the coming of "Greeks" to Jesus,
and what we read about him may perhaps bear on the Greek
objection mentioned above, "We must follow God, in accord-
ance with Nature, not Man."
Remembering, then, that Philip is the only Apostle to
whom Jesus said "Follow me" until we come to the very
1 Lk. xiii. 323.
2 Hos. vi. 2 3. Here "follow-on" = Heb. "pursue," "chase,"
"press-hard," almost always used in a hostile sense. It is once
used in Heb. and Targ. concerning a leader saying to his troops
(Judg. iii. 28) "Follow-on, or press-hard, or chase, after me," but
the LXX (perhaps correctly) reads " go down after me" (Gesen. 922 b).
Delitzsch has Heb. "chase after" to express Mk i. 36 Karfbiagcv
UVTOV, lit. "chased him down," where R.V. " followed-after him"
does not express the Greek.
148 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
end of the Gospel we ought to ask in what sense and with
what success he obeyed this command. That he "followed"
Jesus literally and locally from the place where Jesus "found"
him we may assume as certain. But to what extent did he,
in the above-quoted words of Hosea, "follow on to know the
Lord " ? The answer is contained in the words of Jesus, " Have
I been so long time with you [all], and dost thou not know me,
Philip 1 ?" He had "followed," but he had not "known"
whom he followed. There is no reproach in this that does
not apply to all the Apostles including Peter to whom Jesus
said, "Thou canst not follow me now." But the context, and
the dialogue as a whole, seem to shew what would have been
the Evangelist's answer to the above-mentioned objection of
the Greeks. Jesus has previously described Himself as the
Way, the Truth, and the Life, adding "No one cometh unto
the Father, save through me." It is Jesus as the utterer of
these words, and as the avenue to the Father, whom Philip
has "not known." Philip asks for a material manifestation
("Shew us the Father") and thereby brings on himself his
Master's reproach.
By this, the Evangelist seems to say to us, "The Philo-
sophers tell us that ' we ought not to follow men, but only Nature
or God.' This is true. But how can we know God except
through knowing that which is most like God ? And has not
Plato said, 'God is righteous in the highest degree, and there is
nothing more like God than whosoever of us is righteous in the
highest degree 2 ' ? We Christians follow the Man whom we believe
to have been 'righteous in the highest degree.' But we follow
Him, not merely because of what we believe Him to have been
in the past, but also because of what He is to us still only
more manifestly than before namely the perfection of Love.
1 Jn xiv. 9 "with you [all] (vp.>v) " pi., followed by the sing,
"thou."
2 Plato 176 c, Theaet. 25.
149 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
In following Him we follow God and Nature. For He, th(
Son, was proclaimed to be at one with the Father, and
voice to be in accord with the voice of spiritual Nature, when
it became manifested that His love could not be conquered
or silenced by death. In the hearts of His disciples death
made Him stronger, not weaker, drawing us on still to follow
Him on the Way of the Cross, the Way of Love and Truth
and Life, that we might > pass through the love of the Son
on earth to the love of the Father in heaven. There is no
servitude in such 'following' as this. This ' following-on to
know the Lord ' is a ' following ' that leads us if we really and
truly follow out of the servile squalour of the fear of death
into ' the liberty of the glory of the children of God 1 . ' '
44. Inferences from Mark
If this distinction between "following" and "departing
after" is to hold good as to the original tradition of Mark, so
that the latter is to suggest "departed after Jesus [on a mission
ary journey, or on a journey up to Jerusalem]," the question
will arise, "How far does this agree with John ?" It is also
natural to ask, "Does John take the view that henceforth the
disciples constantly followed Jesus ? "
These questions we cannot discuss fully till we come to the
Naming of the Twelve and the Precepts to the Twelve in the
Three Gospels, along with the Precepts to the Seventy peculiar
to Luke. Here we must merely add that John nowhere
represents Jesus as sending away the Twelve to preach the
Gospel apart from Himself. From the moment when the
first converts are made in the Fourth Gospel, they are repre-
sented as being with their Master, and we receive the impression
that they never leave Him. When He is "invited" to Cana
they are "invited" too, though His own brethren are not
1 Rom. viii. 21.
150 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
said to be invited 1 . They are then mentioned as accompanying
Him to Capernaum 2 . After that, though they are not men-
tioned as accompanying Him to Jerusalem, their presence is
implied 3 , and they are mentioned as going with Him (apparently
from Jerusalem) into the land of Judaea 4 . Henceforth they
appear to be practically inseparable from Him 5 .
This is important as a positive aspect. But there is
also a still more important negative aspect. John does not
seem to leave in his Gospel though it covers three visits to
Jerusalem any place whatever into which we might fit in a
narrative of the Sending Forth of the Twelve, or of the Seventy.
Can it be that he believed the Precepts to the Twelve like
the Lucan Precepts to the Seventy and the Lucan Draught
of Fishes to have been antedated, and to refer (if rightly
placed) to a period after the Resurrection ? Stated barely,
that is improbable. But there may have been a mixture of
precepts given before the Resurrection, with those given
after it.
Without aiming at a premature conclusion on this difficult
question, we may strengthen ourselves in keeping a mind
open to evidence on both sides by the following considerations,
(i) The Fourth Gospel openly proclaims itself, as it were, a
Gospel of incompleteness, by omitting all mention of the death
of John the Baptist while stating that, at a certain date, he
had "not yet" been cast into prison. (2) The imprisonment
should probably be placed about, or shortly after, the Dialogue
1 Jn ii. i 2. This is the more striking because His "mother"
as well as His "disciples" are said to be "invited," and because His
"brethren" are mentioned a little later along with His "mother"
and disciples (ib. ii. 12) as going down to Capernaum.
2 Jn ii. 12. 3 Jn ii. 22.
4 Jn iii. 22.
5 They are absent from Him for a brief interval during the
dialogue with the Samaritan woman, and for a few hours during the
storm on the sea of Tiberias. That is all.
151 (Mark i. 16 20)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
with the Samaritan woman 1 . (3) At the close of this Dialogue,
Jesus addresses the disciples who had left Him for a brief
interval that they might purchase provisions on the Harvest
of the Gospel and on the wages of the reapers 2 . (4) Similar
language is placed by Matthew and Luke, severally, just before
Matthew's Precepts to the Twelve, and at the outset of Luke's
Precepts to the Seventy 3 . (5) The death of John the Baptist
was antecedently likely to induce Jesus to appoint successors
to carry on His work in case He also should be put to death.
(6) The Fourth Evangelist may have omitted the Precepts to
the Twelve for nearly the same reasons that induced him to
omit the death of John the Baptist because he considered
that the Precepts had been detailed at some length by Matthew
and (if we include the Precepts to the Seventy) by Luke ; and
the Baptist's death had been narrated at great length by Mark
and Matthew. (7) The Evangelist tells us that Jesus, in the
neighbourhood of John the Baptist, "baptized 4 " ; then he
adds " Howbeit Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples 5 ";
then, later on, "The Spirit was not yet [given] 6 " thus leaving
us under the impression that what the disciples did in the way
of proselytizing was done, not at a distance from their Master,
but round Him as their centre, and that it was of a rudimentary
nature, repeating the baptism of John, with perhaps some
additions so that nothing in their action or in their doctrine
could afford an exact precedent to the Church, the Holy Spirit
being not yet present.
There is much to be said for the historical correctness of
this view. It is noteworthy that none of the Synoptists says
that the Twelve (or the Seventy) received a precept to
1 The Baptist's last words in the Fourth Gospel are (Jn iii, 30)
"He must increase but I must decrease." The Dialogue with the
Samaritan woman begins at iv. 7.
2 Jn iv. 358. 3 Mt. ix. 37, Lk. x. 2.
4 Jn iii. 22. 5 Jn iv. I 2.
6 Jn vii. 39.
152 (Mark i 1620)
THE CALLING OF THE FISHERMEN
" baptize 1 . " But there can be little doubt that they did "bap-
tize." The admission of this fact raised an awkward question,
like that in the Acts "Unto what then were ye baptized 2 ?"
John alone helps us to understand the state of things. It
was altogether rudimentary "baptism," with the Holy Spirit
left out.
1 Mk vi. 8 13, Mt. x. i 15, Lk. ix. i 5, comp. Lk. x. I 12,
2 Acts xix. 3 foil.
ADDENDUM ON ev ro> WITH TEMPORAL INFINITIVE
In Introduction pp. 112 13 (comp. pp. 121, 126) and Beginning
p. in, attention was called to the Lucan use of eV rw as a sign of
translation from, or imitation of, Hebrew. It was my intention to
include in the present volume all the Lucan instances of this idiom,
illustrating them from LXX. But the results proved too bulky.
I must therefore refer the reader to Son 3333 e g, making two
additional remarks, (i) Aquila uses eV r<u as a literal rendering of
Heb. in O.T. (2) Of the relatively very rare passages (seven at the
utmost) that may claim to exemplify this idiom in the Acts (in some
of which the infinitive can hardly be called temporal) three are either
in Petrine speeches or in an apostolic Hymn of Praise, and two have
in their context the Lucan lylvero " it came to pass that," which is a
sign of Hebraic style (though not necessarily of translation).
153 (Mark i. 16 20)
CHAPTER II*
AUTHORITY " AND " UNCLEAN SPIRITS 1 "
[Mark i. 218]
i. "The unclean spirit," in Zechariah
MARK, after relating the Call of the Fishermen, represents
Christ's first act to have been what the multitude described as
"a new teaching! with authority he commandeth even the
unclean spirits, and they obey him 2 ."
What was Mark's motive in selecting this to stand first in
his narrative of the acts of Jesus ? No other Evangelist does
this. It is hardly enough to say that Mark believed it to be
the first. We may be sure that he would not have related it
so fully giving to it as much space as he gives to the Lord's
Supper if he had not regarded it as a fit beginning for the
* For titles of previous Parts of Diatessarica referred to by
abbreviations in this Volume, see pp. 545 6. For other abbrevia-
tions see pp. xxiii xxvi.
1 This section covers Mk i. 21 8 "And they go into Capernaum
. . .all the region of Galilee round about," Lk. iv. 31 7 "And he
came down to Capernaum a city of Galilee . . . every place of the
region round about." Matthew (vii. 28 9 "astonished at his teach-
ing. . .having authority") inserts a parallel to the statement of Mk-
Lk. about the "astonishment" at the "authority" of Christ, but
places it long after Mt. iv. 13 "leaving Nazareth he came and dwelt
in Capernaum." Matthew wholly omits the casting out of the
unclean spirit. For the parallel texts see pp. 158 9.
2 Mk i. 27 "What is this ? A new teaching ! " Comp. Lk. iv. 36
"What is this word ?"
154 (Mark i. 21 8)
"AUTHORITY" AND "UNCLEAN SPIRITS"
Messiah's Gospel. Now what could seem "a fit beginning,"
in the eyes of the Christians of the first century, if it did not
point back to prophecy, or rest on prophecy ? It is true that
Mark seldom quotes prophecy. But he habitually rests on it
and frequently alludes to it 1 . Our first task, therefore, must be
to inquire whether any prophet has written about the casting
out of an "unclean spirit" as an act to be accomplished in the
days of the Messiah.
There is but one such prophecy. But it comes from one
of the most Messianic of prophets, to whom Christians most
frequently appealed from the earliest times, Zechariah. He,
after the mysterious prediction "They shall look unto me
(or, unto him) whom they pierced," and the description of the
mourning that will follow, says : "In that day there shall be
a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants
of Jerusalem for sin and for defilement 2 , . . . and I will cut off
the names of the idols out of the land . . . and also I will cause
the prophets and the unclean spirit to pass out of the land 3 ."
This is Targumized as follows : "At that time there shall be
the teaching of the Law, opened like a fountain of waters for
the house of David and for the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and
I will remit their sins even as they are cleansed with the water
of sprinkling and with the ashes of the heifer 4 that is [offered]
for sin ... And I will cut off the name of the idols of the
peoples from the land . . . and also I will cause the false prophets
and the unclean spirit to cease from the land."
The word "unclean" occurs in our Version of O.T. about
one hundred and sixty times, but "unclean spirit" only here.
1 See Son 3518 d.
2 A.V. (followed by R.V.) has "uncleanness." But the Heb.
niddah (often meaning "separation," "that from which one must
separate oneself") is different from the word rendered below (and
regularly) "unclean."
3 Zech. xii. 10 14, xiii. I 2.
4 See Numb. xix. 2.
155 (Mark i. 21 8)
AUTHORITY" AND "UNCLEAN SPIRITS
The juxtaposition of "[false] prophets" and "unclean" recalls
the Levitical prohibition against resorting to "necromancers"
(R.V. "those that have familiar spirits") "to be made-unclean
by them 1 ." But Kimchi (on Zechariah) separates the "pro-
phets" from the "unclean spirit," making three stages of evil :
ist, idolatry, before the First Temple ; 2nd, false prophecy,
during the First Temple; 3rd, "evil desire," after the First
Temple. R. Jochanan, like the Targumist, connected tl
prophecy of Zechariah with the purification by means of the
Red Heifer. A Gentile confronting the Rabbi in the midst
of his pupils had objected to it as being a kind of sorcery.
Jochanan asked the Gentile what his own people did when an
evil spirit entered into anyone: "We burn roots under his
nose," said the man, "and dash water over him, and the evil
spirit flees." Jochanan explained that the Jews achieved
just the same result with "the water of defilement (lit. separa-
tion 2 ) " that had received the ashes of the Red Heifer, in
accordance with the words of Zechariah.
The Gentile, who then departed, was apparently satisfied.
But the Jewish pupils were not. "You have put this man
off," they said, "with a straw. What do you say to us ? "
Jochanan replied, "By your life! it is not the slaughtered
1 Lev. xix. 31. See Gesen. 15 a on the Heb. 'owb "skin-bottle,
necromancer," always meaning "necromancer" except in Job xxxii.
1 8 19 (Elihu) "I am full of words. The spirit of my belly con-
straineth me ; behold, my belly is as wine that hath no vent, like
new wine-skins that are ready to burst." The Heb. 'owb is mostly
(Tromm. 10) rendered by LXX eyyaa-rpifjivdos, i.e." speaker through the
belly," or ventriloquist. This suggests a new and Jewish aspect of
Philipp. iii. 19 and Rom. xvi. 18, illustrated by Ezek. xiv. 3. A man
serving idols may serve (as one of them) his own egotistic and
artificial verbosity.
The Heb. is rendered 6e\rjTf)s (Hesych. = TrpoaipertKos) twice by
LXX and five times by other translators (perhaps meaning "one
that does as he likes," "serves his own will").
2 Numb. xix. 9 (R.V.) "water of separation," marg. "im-
purity."
156 (Mark i. 21 8)
"AUTHORITY" AND "UNCLEAN SPIRITS"
animal that takes away uncleanness, nor does the water cleanse.
But it is the decree of the King of Kings. God has said 'A
statute have I given, a decree have I made binding. No
man shall transgress my decree/ as it is written, This is the
statute of the law 1 . " The passage is remarkable as indicating
that in R. Jochanan's time it was customary to attempt (and
the Rabbi implies, with success) to cast out devils with "the
water of defilement 2 ." To some such practice Jesus may be
referring when He says to the Pharisees "By whom do your
children cast them out 3 ? " But if the attempts had been to
any great extent successful we should have heard more about
them in the Gospels, the Talmuds, and Josephus 4 .
2. "An unclean spirit" and "authority," in Mark
and Luke 5
From "the unclean spirit" in Zechariah, unique in O.T.,
we pass to the first mention of "unclean spirit" in Mark. It is
in a narrative of exorcism, wholly omitted by Matthew, who
1 See Numb. r. on Numb. xix. 2, and also Pesikt. iv, Wii.
p. 47.
2 HOY. Heb. t on Mt. xii. 27, referring to Joma 57 a, says " In the
Gloss, mention is made of a devil cast out by a Jew at Rome."
The text mentions "sprinkling," but not the casting out of a
devil.
3 Mt. xii. 27, Lk. xi. 19. Jerome admits this as one explanation
but prefers to explain "your children" as the "apostles."
4 The only mention of "Exorcism" in Schwab's Index to Jer.
Talmud is to Sanhedr. x. i, where the Mishna forbids the " muttering "
of the words in Exod. xv. 26 as a charm, to avert some plague.
Josephus (Ant. viii. 2. 5) indicates that a Jewish exorcist sometimes
used "incantations" and "roots" supposed to have been discovered
by Solomon (which apparently Jochanan would have altogether
disowned) .
5 Luke, in iv. 6 "I will give unto thee all this authority," has
mentioned " authority " before. Mark has not. In both, " unclean "
occurs here for the first time.
157 (Mark i. 21 8)
AUTHORITY" AND "UNCLEAN SPIRITS"
however has (in various parts of his Gospel) one or two phrases
of agreement printed in black below :
Mki. 21-8 (R.V.)
(21) And they
go into Capernaum ;
and straightway on
the sabbath day he
entered into the syna-
gogue and taught.
(22) And they
were astonished at
his teaching; for he
taught them as having
authority, and not as
the scribes.
(23) And straight-
way there was in their
synagogue a man with
an unclean spirit; and
he cried out,
(24) Say ing, What
have we to do with
thee, thou Jesus of
Nazareth ? art thou
come to destroy us ?
I know thee who
thou art, the Holy
One of God.
(25) And Jesus
rebuked him (or, it),
saying, Hold thy
peace, and come out
of him.
(26) And the un-
clean spirit, tearing
(or, convulsing) him 1
Mt. iv. 12 3,
vii. 289 (R.V.)
(12) Now when
he heard that John
was delivered up, he
withdrew into Gali-
lee;
(13) And leaving
Nazareth, he came
and dwelt in Ca-
pernaum, which is
by the sea, in the
borders of Zebulon
and Naphtali :
(28) And it
came to pass, when
Jesus ended these
words, the multitudes
were astonished
at his teaching :
(29) For he
taught them as
[one] having au-
thority, and not as
their scribes.
Lk. iv. 317 (R.V.)
(31) And he
came down to Ca-
pernaum, a city
Galilee. And he was
teaching them on the
sabbath day :
(32) And they
were astonished at
his teaching; for his
word was with au-
thority.
(33) And in the
synagogue there was
a man, which had a
spirit of an unclean
devil; and he cried
out with a loud voice,
(34) Ah!(*r,Let
alone !) what have we
to do with thee, thou
Jesus of Nazareth?
art thou come to
destroy us ? I know
thee who thou art,
the Holy One of God.
(35) And Jesus
rebuked him, saying,
Hold thy peace, and
come out of him.
And when the devil
had thrown him
down 1 in the midst,
he came out of him,
1 "Tearing (o-Trapdgav}," parall. to "thrown down (pfyav)," may
158 (Mark i. 218)
'AUTHORITY" AND "UNCLEAN SPIRITS"
Mki. 2i8 (R.V.)
(contd.)
and crying with a
loud voice, came out
of him.
(27) And they
were all amazed, in-
somuch that they
questioned among
themselves, saying,
What is this? a new
teaching ! with au-
thority he command-
eth even the unclean
spirits, and they obey
him.
(28) And the
report of him went
out straightway every-
where into all the
region of Galilee
round about.
Mt. iv. 12 3,
vii. 289 (R.V.)
(contd.)
Lk. iv. 317 (R.V.)
(contd.)
having done him no
hurt.
(36) And amaze-
ment came upon all,
and they spake to-
gether, one with an-
other, saying, What
is this word ? for (or,
this word, that) with
authority and power
he commandeth the
unclean spirits, and
they come out
(37) And there
went forth a rumour
concerning him into
every place of the
region round about.
It will be observed that Luke alters "he taught them as having
authority" into "his word was with authority." Later on, he
again alters "a new teaching I" into "what is this word ? "
and, instead of "with authority," he has "with authority and
power" (before "he commandeth the unclean spirits"). He
also cancels Mark's addition "not as the scribes" (after "having
authority"). One object of all these changes seems to be to
shew that the "authority" had nothing to do with "teaching."
"No 'teaching,'" Luke seems to say, "can expel an evil spirit.
be illustrated by Dan. viii. 7 " cast down," LXX ecnrdpagev, Theod.
pi\lfev. STrttpao-o-o) may mean "tear [a thing] up and down" (as a
dog "worries" anything). In Daniel (and probably in Mark) it is
more picturesque but less accurate than /jiVrco.
159 (Mark i. 21 8)
"AUTHORITY" AND "UNCLEAN SPIRITS"
Nothing but a fiat can do this, a ' word ' from the Master wl
has 'authority' over every evil spirit, and who can say to it,
'Go/ and it goeth."
Mark's view appears to have been that the "teaching,"
of itself by reason of something in it that Mark calle
"authority" had power to rouse in one of Christ's hearei
a sense of hostility. The man uneasily perceived that ai
unclean spirit within himself, one that he at that moment fell
to be part of himself, was being threatened with expulsion as
it listened or as he listened, or as both together listened to
the Gospel of the Kingdom of God which made war against all
the power of Satan. The listener was possessed with more
wills than one. The "I" had become "we." And first tl
"we" cried out "Hast thou come to destroy us ?" Then, in
the same moment the "I" confessed "/ know thee who thou
art, the Holy One of God ! " Then and not till then came the
"rebuke" to the unclean spirit, even as, in Zechariah, "The
Lord said unto Satan, The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan ; yea,
the Lord that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee ! Is not this
a brand plucked out of the fire 1 ? "
Perhaps if Mark had been writing in his own person, he
would have distinguished between the authority of the teaching
and the authority of the exorcism ; but he seems to set before
us in a very natural way the confusion of the two notions that
might have actually occurred in the mind of the multitude,
and just what the multitude might have said. At the same
time it must be added that this typical act of Messianic power,
redeeming a soul from bondage to Satan, might naturally be
1 Zech. iii. 2. See Gesen. 172 a on Heb. " rebuke," LXX eViri/ua'a>.
It is applied to the sea in Ps. cvi. 9 etc., as it is to the " wind(s) "
in Mk iv. 39, Mt. viii. 26, Lk. viii. 24. It is applied to "evil spirits"
again in Mk iii. 12, and to a "fever" and "devils" in Lk. iv. 39, 41.
All the Synoptists represent Jesus as healing the "fever" of Peter's
wife's mother, but Luke alone describes Him as "rebuking" it.
See below, pp. 192 5.
160 (Mark i. 218)
"AUTHORITY" AND "UNCLEAN SPIRITS"
regarded by the early Jewish evangelists as a kind of first-
fruits of a second Redemption, a second Exodus and a second
Passover.
Is there anything in this Marcan narrative even a mere
word or phrase that might recall to Jews (though not to us)
some feature in the institution of the first Passover? It will
be found that there is, if we have patience to consider the
ancient Biblical associations with the words "What is this?"
First, we must distinguish "this," here used absolutely,
from the very frequent use of "this," not used absolutely (in
such phrases as "what is this that thou hast done?" etc.).
Secondly, we must distinguish it from the saying "What is it
(or, that) ? " about the first appearance of "manna 1 ," although
that, too, was mystically interpreted in the first century by
Philo and probably by others. Thirdly, we must recognise the
frequency of the Jewish mystical use of "this" (to which
attention was called in the Johannine Grammar) as referring
to the Messiah 2 . Lastly, we must ask whether the phrase
1 Exod. xvi. 15 "They said, one to another, What is it?" lit.
"What [is] that?" R.V. marg. "It is manna. Heb. Man hu."
Mechilt. gives as the explanation of the allegorizers ("die Erklarer
nach Andeutungen") "The Israelites named it Man, i.e. 'pre-
pared.' ' On this, see Philo i. 121 "They question one another
these souls that have already experienced the Word (Logos), but
have it not in them to say ' What it is ' (7re7roi/#inat per rfdrj rbv Xoyoi/,
OVK e'xouo-at oe elirelv TO ' rl earn')." He then quotes "This is the bread
that the Lord hath given you to eat. This is the thing (LXX pij^a)
that the Lord hath commanded, Gather of it. ..." first paraphrasing
it so as to distinguish between pfjp.a and \6yos, and then quoting it
so as to suit his distinction, thus : OVTOS CO-TIV 6 cipros, rj Tpo(pfj fjv
edo>Kei> 6 6eos TTJ tyvxi]-) 7rpoo~eveyKao~dai TO eavTov prjfJ-a, KOL TOV eavTov \6yov
OVTOS yap 6 apTos ov dedaxev rj^lv (paye'iv, TOVTO TO pfjp,a. Comp. ib. 566
" OVTOS eo~Tiv 6 apTos ov c8o>K Kvpios avTols (payelv." Tiff ovv 6 apTos;
EtTre. " Touro," <^)77<rt, "TO pyp-a o wveTa^e Kvpios."
2 Joh. Gr. 2396 " Schottgen (ii. 45) gives a multitude of instances
in which 'this thing,' represented by the Hebrew feminine 'this'
(mostly altered as to gender in LXX) is mystically interpreted as
referring to the Messiah." This Heb. fern, is not used in Exod. xvi. 15.
A. p. 161 (Mark i. 21 8) n
AUTHORITY" AND "UNCLEAN SPIRITS"
"What is this?" so familiar and commonplace to us both in
written and in spoken English, would seem equally common-
place to Jewish readers of the Hebrew Bible.
The answer to this last question may be as surprising to many
of my readers as it was to me. "What is this (Heb. fern.) ?"
occurs nowhere in the Bible (so far as can be ascertained from
the English Concordance) except in the question to be put by
the son to the father concerning the redemption of the first-
born instituted in connection with the Passover, "And it shall
be when thy son asketh thee in time to come, saying, What
is this 1 ?"
The Jerusalem Talmud, commenting on this question,
describes four classes of questioners, the infant, the simple-
minded, the bad, the wise. The wise questioner would ask in
detail concerning the laws, precepts, and ordinances of the
Lord. But the simple-minded one, just above an infant,
would merely ask "What is this 2 ?" All Jewish boys, as a
rule, in Christ's time, had asked "What is this?" and had
heard it asked, at the Passover. Peter would be no exception
to the rule. There is nothing surprising if the multitude in
the synagogue of Capernaum, amazed at the first exposition
of Christ's exorcistic power, startling them in the midst of
His interrupted preaching, exclaimed some words equivalent
to "What is this ?" And if they did, nothing could be more
natural or justifiable than that the Petrine Gospel, describing
the exclamations of the multitude, should include this one in
particular, endeared as it was by its redemptive associations 3 .
In Deut. xxxii. 29 "this (fern.)" LXX has ravra but Aq.
Schottgen's instances are from the Cabbala. Levy i. 51 3 a includes
one fern, instance. 1 Exod. xiii. 14.
2 See Rashi, Mechilta, and /. Pesach x (4) (Schwab v. 151) on
Exod. xiii. 14.
3 In that case a Hebrew Gospel would give the words of Exod.
xiii. 14 as Delitzsch does in Mk i. 27 "what this (Heb. fern.) ?" In
LXX Greek, this would be Ti TOVTO ; or ' e'<m TOVTO ; but in literal
Greek it would be avrr,, not TOVTO. Alteration of the literal Greek
162 (Mark i. 218)
"AUTHORITY" AND "UNCLEAN SPIRITS"
3. "Authority" and "law" in Matthew
Matthew, after the Call of the Fishermen, ending with
"followed him," instead of describing the exorcism of a
particular "unclean spirit," gives a general description of acts
of "healing" (not of "casting out") as follows: "And Jesus
went about in all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and
preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner
of disease and all manner of sickness among the people. And
the report of him went forth into all Syria : and they brought
unto him all that were sick, holden with divers diseases and
torments, possessed with devils, and epileptic, and palsied ; and
he healed them. And there followed him great multitudes
from. . . and [from] beyond Jordan. And seeing the multitudes,
he went up into the mountain. . . V Then follows the whole
of the Sermon on the Mount, with the appended comment,
"He taught them as [one] having authority..." Matthew's
first mention of "authority*."
Not till after this does Matthew mention particular acts of
healing : (i) the cleansing of a leper, (2) the healing of the
centurion's "boy" at a distance, (3) the healing of Peter's
wife's mother 3 . Then follows a second general description
in which "casting out " is included : " And when even was come,
they brought unto him many possessed with devils ; and he
cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all that were sick :
that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the
prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities and bare our
diseases 4 ."
It will be observed that Matthew not only mentions
feminine might cause other alterations, and, inter alia, the intro-
duction of didaxrj Kaivrj in Mark. In Exod. xiii. 14, "what is this?"
is expanded by Jer. Targ. into " What is this precept as to the first-
born?"
1 Mt. iv. 23 v. i (R.V.). 2 Mt. v. 2 vii. 29.
3 Mt. viii. i 15.
4 Mt. viii. 1 6 17, quoting from Is. liii. 4.
163 (Mark i. 21 8)
"AUTHORITY" AND "UNCLEAN SPIRITS"
"healing" without "casting out" in his first description, b\
also crowns his second description with a quotation from
Isaiah about the Messianic "bearing" of "diseases." He
does not mention "authority" in connection with healing of
any kind except so far as it is indirectly suggested in the words
of the centurion to Jesus "Only say [it] with a word 1 , and my
boy will be healed. For I also am a man under authority,
having under myself soldiers. . .," that is to say, "Thou hast
authority over diseases as I have authority over soldiers, and
canst say to the disease 'Go,' and it goeth 2 ."
Even here, it is not shewn that Matthew, speaking in his
own person, would have used or would have regarded as
anything but a popular usage this language about " authority."
Matthew himself seems to say "The Messiah's authority was
revealed in its highest form, not when He cast out spirits with
a word, but when He ascended the mountain and gave the
New Law, teaching with authority and not as the scribes, and
saying to His disciples, 'This or that was said in old days, but
/ say unto you something that is better and higher.' '
One disadvantage of Matthew's arrangement is that he
does not give us the historical facts in their historical order.
Indeed he hardly professes to do so. He throws into one Law,
or Discourse, doctrines that Luke assigns to several distinct
times and occasions. Perhaps Matthew did not recognise any
fitness and indeed perceived some unfitness in the Marcan
arrangement, which brought Christ for the first time before our
eyes as the Healer, casually, so to speak, and in consequence of
a madman's outburst, in a synagogue where He happened to
be preaching.
1 Comp. Mt. viii. 16 "cast out the spirits with a word," where
the parall. Mk i. 34 has simply " cast out many devils," and Lk. iv. 41
"there went out devils from many."
* Mt. viii. 8 9 parall. to Lk. vii. 7 8. Comp. Lk. iv. 36 "What
is this word ? " The words of the centurion are practically identical
in Mt. and Lk.
164 (Mark i. 21 8)
"AUTHORITY" AND "UNCLEAN SPIRITS"
We must be thankful to Mark for doing this. It helps us
to realise how strangely prolonged for a Messiah was that
period of waiting during which the power of Jesus lay un-
revealed, and through what unexpected occasions it revealed
and developed itself. But Matthew's view also deserves
sympathetic consideration. He depicts Jesus, not as the un-
expected Exorcist of "the unclean spirit" from Israel, but as
the Servant of the Lord, foreordained to heal. And the healing
is to be, not by casting out but by "bearing" and suffering.
According to the LXX version of Isaiah, the Messiah was to
be one who "is under the stroke [of affliction] and knoweth
how to bear sickness," or (with Symmachus) " born-to-distress
and known to disease 1 ." The word used here by the LXX for
"sickness" occurs but thrice in N.T. The three instances are
all in Matthew, and all in the phrase "heal (ing) every disease
and every sickness." There can be little doubt that Matthew
uses this as a kind of Messianic refrain, first, to describe the
beginning of the Messiah's unassisted work, immediately after
He had called the fishermen 2 ; secondly, at a considerable
interval, to describe the conclusion of that stage, when Jesus
repeated a round of teaching, preaching, and healing, but
felt that there was need of more '"'labourers 3 " ; thirdly, and
that immediately afterwards, when He "called his twelve
disciples" and gave them "authority" to continue the work
that He had been doing 4 .
1 Is. liii. 3 (Field) Vir dolorum et notus (familiaris) morbo. LXX
civ6pa)7ros ev 7T\r)yfj &v } KOL fidtos (foepfiv paXaKiav. Aq. (avdpa) dXyrjdovodv
KOI yvaxTTov dppaMTTiq. Sym. dvrjp eirivovog, KOL yvaxj-ros v6(ra>. Theod
(dvrjp) d\yr)86vo>v Kal yvaxrrbs paXaKia.
2 Mt. iv. 23.
3 Mt. ix. 358.
4 Mt. x. i "And he called unto him his twelve disciples, and
gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to
heal every disease and every sickness." This is the only instance
where Matthew mentions "unclean spirits (pi.)/' and here he agrees
with Mk vi. 7 "the unclean spirits." In the only instance where
165 (Mark i. 218)
"AUTHORITY" AND "UNCLEAN SPIRITS"
Thus, by his arrangement, by his choice of words, and
his use of refrains, Matthew warns us as it were that we are ii
a region of poetic history, describing fulfilments of prophecies.
The fulfilments are actual and historical, but couched in
language borrowed from the past and not always exactly and
literally applicable to the present as, for example, the state-
ment that Jesus healed "every disease and every sickness."
This must not be taken as if it meant "every" disease,
even "every kind of" disease in Palestine.
Such statements may be illustrated by the Odes of Solomoi
where the first mention of God's Kingdom is connected wil
sickness, "Sicknesses have removed far from my body, and it
stood up to [serve] the Lord in His good-pleasure, because His
Kingdom is true 1 ." The author of the Odes was thinking
mainly of the promises made in the Law, and especially the
promise concerning the banishment of "every sickness" from
Israel 2 . Our Evangelist, too, is thinking of that. But he is
thinking also of the promise made in the Prophets concerning
the Messiah who was to be "known to disease*." Elsewhere
Matthew, also, if he does not disparage exorcism, at all events
warns readers against supposing that this, or the claim to it,
was a test of spiritual goodness. His Gospel (and no other)
contains, as an ineffectual appeal from "workers of iniquity,"
the words "Lord, did we not cast out devils in thy
Matthew has (xii. 43) "the unclean spirit (sing.)" he is followed
Luke (xi. 24) "the unclean spirit."
1 Odes xviii. 3, on which see Light 3940 a.
2 See Light 3940 a " In Hebraic Greek which does not use the
word rravTolos, but only TTO.V yevos where iravroios is urgently needed
'every sickness' may mean 'all sickness.' The ambiguous phrase is
rare. It occurs nowhere in LXX except Deut. vii. 15 'The Lord will
take away from thee every (R.V. all] sickness, and he will put none
of the evil diseases of Egypt. . .upon thee/ ib. xxviii. 60 61 'He
will bring upon thee all the diseases of Egypt. . .also every (so R.V.)
sickness and every plague....'"
3 Is. liii. 3 according to Symmachus, see above, p. 165.
166 (Mark i. 218)
"AUTHORITY" AND "UNCLEAN SPIRITS"
name 1 ? " He also rejects the Marcan tradition (accepted by
Luke) that Jesus forbade John to hinder certain exorcists who
used His name without following Him 2 . Other peculiarities of
his Gospel will come before us later on, not important in them-
selves, but tending to shew that the subject of exorcism was
much discussed in the first century and that he believed the
Marcan account of it to be inadequate 3 . Everyone will now
admit that Matthew's picture of the Messiah as bearing sins
appeals to the whole world more powerfully and deeply in
these days than Mark's picture of the Messiah as casting out
devils ; but that must not prevent us from recognising that
Mark is in this matter historically and chronologically right,
and Matthew wrong.
4. "Authority" and Christ's "word," in Luke
In Luke, "authority" is the power possessed by a ruler to
accomplish his will as he utters it to those over whom he rules.
In O.T. the highest form of this authority is that of the Creator,
who "spake and it was done 4 ." But Luke's first mention of
"authority" is assigned to Satan, who claims "all the kingdoms
of the world," saying to Jesus, "To thee will I give all this
authority and the glory of them ; for it hath been delivered
1 Mt. vii. 22. They add " And in thy name we did many mighty-
works." And perhaps both claims are to be regarded as false.
In the parallel Lk. xiii. 26, the claim is " We have eaten and drunk
in thy presence. . ." Celsus attacks Mt. vii. 22, as a confession on
Christ's part that exorcism was an imposture. Origen (Cels. i. 6,
ii. 49) admits that sometimes the name of "Jesus," uttered by "un-
worthy (<J)av\a>v) " exorcists, has had power to exorcise.
2 Mk ix. 38 9, Lk. ix. 49 50.
3 Among several minute details is Mt.'s use (peculiar to him) of
"lunatic" in Mt. iv. 24 (pec.) daifj-ovifrnevovs KOL creXrjviagofjievovs, and,
still more remarkably, in Mt. xvii. 15 o-fXTjvid^erai KOI KUKWS fx ft
(where the parall. Mk-Lk., though very full, does not contain
"lunatic"). The word is discussed by Origen (on Mt. xvii. 15).
It is not in LXX, and Steph. Thes. gives no early authority for it.
4 Ps. xxxiii. 9.
167 (Mark i. 21 8)
AUTHORITY" AND "UNCLEAN SPIRITS"
unto me, and to whomsoever I will I give it 1 ." Jesus, in
scriptural quotation, puts the claim aside. But the whole oi
Luke's Gospel indicates that, in some sense, de facto though
not de jure, Satan at present possesses an "authority" a fals
authority, from which he is to be dispossessed by the true
authority of the Messiah 2 .
The nature of the false authority, and the nature of the
true authority, are indicated immediately afterwards by
Christ's first public words in the synagogue of Nazareth :
"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he anointed me t<
preach good tidings to the poor ; he hath sent me to pro-
claim release to the captives. . . 3 ." Who is the captor of these
"captives" ? According to the Acts, it is Satan. For Peter
tells us there, about the "good tidings" of Jesus, how "God
anointed him with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went
about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed by the
devil*." The first mention of "captive" in the Bible is where
Abraham, hearing that "his brother, Lot, was taken captive"
arms "Eliezer" (as Jewish tradition interprets the passage)
the symbol of the Help of God and brings back the
captives rescued 5 . In Luke's Gospel, Jesus is regarded as
the seed of Abraham, similarly rescuing those who are
"taken captive" by the devil. Luke also is the only Evan-
gelist that has put on record Christ's words about a woman
1 Lk. iv. 6. For this, Mt. iv. 9 has simply " I will give thee all
these things."
2 Comp. Acts xxvi. 18 "that they may turn from darkness unto
light, and from the [false] authority of Satan unto God," with
Rom. xiii. i " there is no [true] authority save [ordained] by (vrro) God."
On two occasions, where Mark (i. 27, vi. 7) has only "authority,"
Luke (iv. 36, ix. i) combines "power" with "authority" in order to
shew that it is, from his point of view, true "authority."
3 Lk. iv. 18 quoting Is. Ixi. i 2. 4 Acts x. 38.
5 Gen. xiv. 14. The text mentions " 318"; for the interpretation
"Eliezer" see Notes 2994 quoting Philo i. 481, Gen. r. ad loc., and
Barn. ix. 8, also Light 3730 c.
1 68 (Mark i. 218)
"AUTHORITY" AND "UNCLEAN SPIRITS"
whom Luke himself describes as one that "had a spirit of
infirmity eighteen years," but Jesus as " a daughter of Abraham,
whom Satan had bound, lo, [these] eighteen years 1 ."
Consistently with this view, Luke dwells, more than any
other Synoptist, on that Messianic act of "rebuking," referred
to above in the words of Zechariah "the Lord rebuke thee,
Satan ! " Where Mark says simply " He suffered not the devils
to speak," Luke prefixes "rebuking them 2 /' Where Mark
(and similarly Matthew) says of Peter's mother-in-law, that
Jesus "took her by the hand and raised her up and the fever
left her," Luke says that Jesus "stood over her and rebuked the
fever and it left her 3 ." Apparently Luke sees no connection
between the authority expressed by this effectual "rebuking,"
and the authority expressed by Christ's "teaching." At all
events, as has been shewn above, besides making these Lucan
additions, he substitutes a mention of the "word with authority"
for the Marcan "taught them as having authority," and has,
later on, "What is this word? " where Mark has "What is this?
a new teaching* ! "
5. "Authority," in Greek writers of the first century
A glance at the Indices or Concordances to Plato, Aristotle,
LXX, Epictetus, Early Fathers and Apologists, will shew that
the Greek exousia has different meanings varying with their
contexts. It is a term savouring of law and not used by
Aristophanes. The Definitions of Plato call it the "permission
1 Lk. xiii. ii 1 6. 2 Mk i. 34, Lk. iv. 41.
3 Mk i. 31, Mt. viii. 15, Lk. iv. 39.
4 Mk i. 22, 27, Lk. iv. 32, 36. See above, pp. 158 60. Lk. iv. 32
"for his word was with authority/' may be taken as meaning "He
cast out the spirits by a direct 'word/ or fiat, and not, in part, in-
directly and preparatively, by His 'teaching/ " Origen instructively
recognises that the power of Christian exorcists in his day was
exercised (Cels. i. 6) "by the name of 'Jesus' along with the narration
of His acts and words (/zero r^s aTrayyeXias T>V Trept avrbv i<rTopi)v) ."
169 (Mark i. 21 8)
"AUTHORITY" AND "UNCLEAN SPIRITS"
(or, commission) of Law 1 ." Etymologically, perhaps, it means
"that which is [permitted in a special province removed] from
[interference] 2 ." Hence, dropping one of the two qualifications,
it branches out into two opposite meanings : (i) power in a
special province, (2) power that is free from interference, i.e.
absolute. In the LXX, outside Daniel, it is rare and mostly
implies limitation 3 . But in Daniel, besides being used of
earthly rulers of places, and especially of the authority
given to Nebuchadnezzar, it is also used of God's power,
and especially of the power of the Messianic kingdom, which
is to be for ever 4 . "Permission," applied to the power of the
Supreme, would seem a misnomer. Yet Philo applies exousia
thus, saying " In the one and only true God the highest and
first powers 5 are two goodness and authority (exousia). By
means of goodness God begot all that is. By authority (exousia)
He rules the begotten." This suggests no basis such as
Wisdom or Love for Authority. It leaves us still in the
dark as to how God can be said to "rule" by anything that is.
1 See Plato Defin. 415 B 'E^ovo-ia, eVirpoTr?) vonov. The only N.T.
instance Of eVtrpOTT^ COUpled with e^ovo-m is Acts XXVI. 12 /xer' egov<rias
Koi eTTiTpoirrjs TTJS T>V ap^tepewi', closely followed by a contrast in ib. 18
OTTO. . .rfjs e^ovcrias TOV Sarava eirl rbv deov.
2 Lucian's Index gives it mostly as referring to iraTpinr) e'ovo-i'a.
3 In Ps. cxxxvi. 8 9, 2 K. xx. 13, Is. xxxix. 2 it describes the
sun's power by day and the moon's by night, and Hezekiah's power
(R.V. "dominion") boastfully exhibited to the Babylonians. But
see also Ps. cxiv. 2 (R.V.) "Israel his dominion," i.e. the Lord's
peculiar and favoured dominion.
4 See Dan. iv. 17 foil. (LXX), vii. 12 foil. R.V. "and as for the rest
of the beasts, their dominion (fgovcria) was taken away . . . there came
one like unto a son of man . . . and there was given him dominion
. . .his dominion is an everlasting dominion. . ."
5 Philo i. 143 4 "Powers," 8v v dpcis. Having thus used 8vvapis
generically Philo was precluded from using it again specially. The
context indicates that Philo believed this conception to have come
to him by some kind of inspiration. He adds that "Thirdly],
uniting both together, midmost, is Logos (rpirov Se a-wayaybv df
P.<TOV elvai Ao'yoi/)."
170 (Mark i. 21 8)
"AUTHORITY" AND "UNCLEAN SPIRITS'
according to the Platonic Definitions, of the nature of "per-
mission."
Much more definite and satisfying is the language of
Epictetus, who recognises two kinds of authority, one fleshly,
the other spiritual, following a treatise attributed to Aristotle,
which says, "It is the sign of greatness of soul to bear aright
both good fortune and ill fortune . . . and not to admire [blindly]
[a position that commands] luxury, and obsequious service,
and authority' 1 ." The context shews that this does not con-
demn respect or admiration for wise and just and good
"authority." But it does condemn admiration for a great
deal of "authority" pompous, unjust, self-seeking which
the world admires. This condemnation Epictetus repeatedly
and pointedly expresses, representing the young and rising
philosophers as saying to their Teacher: "Here on earth,
Master, these robbers and thieves, these courts of justice and
kings, have the upper hand. These creatures fancy that they
have some sort of authority over us, simply because they
have a hold on our paltry flesh and its possessions ! Suffer
us, Master, to shew them that they have authority over
nothing 2 ."
What then is the basis of true authority and whither must
we look for it ? No one can have it, says Epictetus, who has
not knowledge. Unless the judge knows what the truth is,
his "authority" is no authority. But he recognises that
"God has bestowed on all men, if they will but accept and use
it, authority over their own wills, so that we may conform our
wills to His, as children do with a Father 3 ." And, in a special
1 De Virtut. 5 MeyaXo\^u^ia$' 8e eVrt. . . KOI TO davp.deiv pr)T( rpv(f)r]v
6 c pair f lav /i^re eovcn'ai>. . .. This is condensed by Bonitz into
pr] 6avp.d^iv e^ova-iav which might mislead.
2 Quoted from Silanus the Christian p. 17. See Notes 2801 for
a full list of the Epictetian references to egovo-ta contained in the
context, i. 9. 15, i. 30. 6 7, ii. 13. 21 7, etc.
3 Silanus p. 19. Comp. Gen. iv. 7 Jer. Targ. where God says to
Cain " Into thy hand have I given authority over evil desire itself
171 (Mark i. 218)
'AUTHORITY" AND "UNCLEAN SPIRITS"
and higher form, "authority" has been bestowed by God on
a few mortal natures akin to Himself, whereby they receive a
spiritual kingship. "Kings and tyrants receive from their
armed guards the power of rebuking and punishing wrong-
doing, though they may be rascals themselves. But on the
Cynic" that is the term he uses "this power is bestowed
by the conscience." By "conscience" he means "the con-
sciousness of a life of wise, watchful, and unwearied toil for
man, in co-operation with God 1 ."
Before passing to the Fourth Gospel, we may note some
instances of exousia in the earliest of the Fathers and Apologists.
Clement of Rome, in the only passage where he uses the word,
says, "Thou, Lord-and-Master, hast given to them [i.e. to our
rulers and governors upon the earth] the authority of the
kingdom. . .thou. . .givest to the sons of men glory and honour
and authority over those things that are upon the earth 2 ."
This means deputed power. Barnabas tells us that we ought
to take heed, "times being evil and [the evil one] himself he
that is inwardly-working [the evil] having the authority*." He
also warns us not to slacken our energies "lest the evil ruler
(potestatem ipsius concupiscentiae malae)." It is added "et ad te
erit appetitus ejus, et tu dominaberis illi, sive ad justitiam sive ad
peccatum." The Aramaic (which is also Hebrew) here used for
"authority" occurs repeatedly in Midrash quoted by Schlatter on
Jn i. 12 "he gave them authority to become children of God"
(Schlatter, " Vollmacht").
1 Silanus p. 20.
2 Clem. Rom. 6l edaxas Trjv cgovo-iav TT/S ftaartXtias should be taken
with the following appellation /3ao-iAeC TO>V ai'Jj/coi/. God is the King,
but deputes "the authority of the kingdom."
Barn. ii. I Tjp.pS)V ovv ovawv irovripwv K.OL avTov TOV evepyovvTos
ZXOVTOS TTJV egovo-iav. Either TOV novrjpov, or TO irovijpov, or both, must
be supplied from the preceding Trovrjpwv. The evil days proceed from
an evil worker. Later on, vi. 18 (on Gen. i. 26) TO apxi/ fovo-ias
<TTIV means that "ruling" over beasts implies "authority" over
beasts, "so that one should exercise-lordship by mere command
vo-T))" to which men have "not yet" attained.
172 (Mark i. 21 8)
"AUTHORITY" AND "UNCLEAN SPIRITS"
receiving the authority over us [that would be permitted by
reason of our slackness] should thrust us away from the kingdom
of the Lord 1 ." On the other hand he speaks of those to whom
the Lord has given "the authority of the Gospel, twelve in
number for a testimony to the tribes 2 ." Finally he says
"There are two ways (?) of teaching and of authority t the
[way] of light and the [way] of darkness 3 ." We might be
disposed to assume that "teaching and authority" is here
loosely used for the Synoptic "teaching with authority.'' But
the context gives no support to this view. The Didache also
favours a different interpretation, namely, that Christ's
"teaching" and Satan's "authority" are here contrasted as
"light" and "darkness" or as "life" and "death." Barnabas
goes on to say "Over the former Way are set light-proclaiming
angels of God ; over the latter, angels of Satan. And the
former [namely, God] is Lord from [the] ages and to the ages,
but the latter [namely, Satan] is ruler of the season that now
is, [the season] of lawlessness." We should therefore probably
adopt the rendering : "There are two ways [one] of [heaven's]
teaching and [one] of [this world's] authority." But the fact
that a Christian writer could write thus, either late in the first
century or early in the second, adds to the proof that if the
author of the Fourth Gospel desired to bring home to the
hearts of his readers the real nature and the real basis of that
1 Barn. IV. 13 Iva p^-rroTe. . .KCU 6 Trovrjpbs apx<ov Xa/3o>i/ TTJV /tatf
e^ovariav aTraxr^rai jy/xas 1 OTTO rrjs jSatrtXeias 1 TOV nvpiov.
2 Barn. viii. 3.
3 Barn, xviii. I 'OSoi dvo io~lv dida^s KOI eovo~ias ff re TOV
cal 17 TOV oxorovs. Comp. Diddch. i. I 'OSot duo fieri /iia TTJS o>f)s Kal
fu'a rov 6a.va.Tov. The Latin fragment of the latter (p. 102) has
"Viae duae sunt in saeculo, vitae et mortis, lucis et tenebrarum."
It may be added that e'ovo-m does not occur in the DidacM.
In Canon. Eccles. 14 egovo-iav eav exrjTe should perhaps be e ov
eav (with V). But ib. 30 represents Peter as saying raGra, dde\<poi,
ovx 6)S eovo~iav Ttvbs e'xovTes irpbs dvdyKrjv, aXX' eVtrayjp e^oi/res Trapa
vp,ds (pv\dai ray eVroXay. . ..
173 (Mark i. 21 8)
"AUTHORITY" AND "UNCLEAN SPIRITS"
authority which Christ actually claimed and exercised, he
had many difficulties to surmount difficulties arising not
only from the earliest written Gospels, but also from later
Christian traditions, and from comments that might be made
on Christian views by educated Greeks.
6. "Authority" and the spirit of sonship, in John
The Johannine view of authority is, briefly, this, that it
consists in a conscious unity with God. It has not to do prim-
arily with driving out but with letting in. It is not a power
to cast out Satan from the souls of others ; it is a letting in of
the Spirit of the Son into our souls the Son, who, when we
let Him in, not only keeps Satan cast out from ourselves but
also helps us to cast out Satan from others.
"But was not this," we may ask, "the hypothesis of
Epictetus ? Did not he teach that the ' authority ' of the
Philosopher, who went about benefiting mankind, wearing the
true and invisible crown and wielding the sceptre of true
royalty, arose from the consciousness of a unity with God ? "
Yes, but from "a unity" with what kind of God ? The God
of Epictetus is not a God of love, much less of sympathy ; and
the Philosopher whom Epictetus regards as God's representative
is also accordingly unsympathetic. For Jesus, there is trouble
of heart or spirit because of the death of Lazarus and the tears
of his sister Mary and the treachery of Judas 1 . For the Epic-
tetian Philosopher there is no such trouble. At all events,
there ought not to be. Epictetus warns us against it : "Let
not what is contrary to Nature in another be an Evil to you ;
for you were not born to be depressed and unhappy, along
with others, but to be happy along with them. And, if any-
one is unhappy, remember that he is so for himself ; for God
made all men to enjoy Felicity and a settled good Condition.
He hath furnished all with Means for this Purpose, having
1 Jnxi. 33, xiii. 21.
174 (Mark i. 21 8)
"AUTHORITY" AND "UNCLEAN SPIRITS"
given them some Things for their own, others not for their
own 1 ." If John, in composing his Gospel, learned anything
from Epictetian doctrine as to the needs of the Greeks and the
best means of meeting them, this certainly was one lesson,
that the hard facts of life presented a knot that could not be
loosed by any exercise whatever of mere reason, nor even be
severed by any fervour of faith in a Supreme God, unless that
God was recognised as a Father capable of that kind of love
for His children which we call sympathy. By this we mean,
not a condescending appearance of fatherly sorrow over in-
fantile and imaginary evils, but a real fatherly sorrow over
real filial evils. In particular, the Fourth Gospel means by it
such a sympathy as might lead a father to die for his sons, or,
if that were not possible, to send one son to die for the rest.
The keynote of this theory of authority is struck in words
of the Prologue : "As many as received him [i.e. the Logos,
or Son] to them gave he authority to become children of God 2 ."
This means children of Him, and like in nature to Him, who
is the Giver of all Good, continually giving forth Himself to
men in various gifts, but above all, in His beloved Son. It is
not everyone that can thus "give." A man, as Paul says, may
"give his body to be burned," and yet it "profiteth nothing"
if he gives for fame, or for immortality, or for self in any form.
He lays down his life, but he does not lay it down in such a
way that he can say as the Son does, "I have authority to lay
it down and I have authority to take it again ; this command-
ment received I from my Father 3 ." The primary object of
1 Epictet. iii. 24. i (Mrs Carter's transl.). I have not found in
the Dissertations any repetition of Plato Theaet. 1760 Ocbs. . .<us olov
re diKctioTdTos. The nearest approach is Epictet. i. 29. 13 6 rov 6<=ov
vopos Kpdna-Tos eV KOI dt<aioTaros. But this is very far below the
passionate and loving trust and reverence expressed in the unusual
combination Jn xvii. 25 irarrjp Si'/taie. On the priority of the cir-
culation of Epictetian doctrine to the publication of it by Arrian,
see Introduction, p. 154.
2 Jn i. 12. 3 Jn x. 18.
175 (Mark i. 21 8)
AUTHORITY" AND "UNCLEAN SPIRITS"
this "authority" is not to drive out, or to take away, but to
give: "Thou [i.e. the Father] gavest him authority over all
flesh, that all that thou hast given him to them he may give
eternal life 1 ."
"Authority to judge" is not excluded. But it is sub-
ordinated. "I came not to judge the world," says Jesus,
"but to save the world 2 ." To those that refuse to be saved,
and to accept life from the Son, there must come judgment.
This judgment the Son has "authority" to execute, but it is
as it were on a lower plane, not as Son of God but as Son of
man : "As the Father hath life in himself, even so gave he to
the Son also to have life in himself, and he gave him authority
to do judgment because he is Son of man 3 ." It is interesting
to note, by contrast, how the Roman Governor, later on,
boasts of that very "authority" which is here (we may almost
say) depreciated, that of condemning or acquitting : "Speakest
thou not unto me ? K no west thou not that I have authority
to release thee and have authority to crucify thee ? " The
reply is "Thou wouldest have no authority against me except
it were given thee from above" implying (among other
things) that Pilate was ignorant of the responsibility that
rested on him as representative of the Roman Empire which
was. in some sense, ordained by God, and that he did not know
what real "authority" meant 4 .
So much for the direct Johannine doctrine about
"authority." Indirectly the Fourth Gospel appears to set
itself to shew that the power exercised by the Son was expressed
by Him rather in "drawing" men towards Himself than by
"casting out" evil from them, rather by sowing the corn than
by rooting up the tares. Once and once only does He use
the word "cast out" in any exorcistic sense, and that is not
till He has proclaimed the necessity that the "grain of corn"
1 Jn xvii. 2.
3 Jn v. 26 7.
2 Jn xii. 47.
4 Jn xix. 10 n, see Joh. Voc. 1577.
176 (Mark i. 21 8)
'AUTHORITY" AND "UNCLEAN SPIRITS"
shall die, in accordance with God's glorious Law of self-
sacrifice, which leads Him to cry "Father, glorify thy name,"
and to receive from heaven the answer that God has glorified
it and will glorify it again. Then and not till then comes the
moment of the great exorcism : "Now is the judgment of this
world ; now shall the ruler of this world be cast out. And I,
if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto
myself 1 ."
We ought not to conclude without some notice of the
Johannine frankness in representing what we should call
if speaking about an ordinary ruler the "failures" of "auth-
ority." No other Evangelist describes the desertion of Christ
by "many" of His disciples; and His sad expostulation with
the Twelve who still remain (" Will ye also depart 2 ? ") ; and the
retrogression of others who had begun to believe 3 . Above all in
intensity of gloom is the record of what appears to be Christ's
attempt unless it is to be regarded as an implied confession
that all attempt was useless to drive out Satan from Judas
at the Last Supper 4 . Matthew describes Jesus as saying
"All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth 5 ,"
but in John the corresponding saying of the Son to the Father
is (as we have seen) "authority over all flesh, that all that
thou hast given him to them he may give eternal life." It
appears to be implied that "all flesh" is not to be "given"
at present to the Son. God Himself will not, and cannot,
constrain men by bribes, or fears or in any way that does
not allow some free response on their part to receive the love
and the life that He offers. It is assumed that the Kingdom
of God which we can never hope in this life to comprehend
is better apprehended as a Family, with something at present
1 Jn xii. 24 32. It is added "But this he said signifying by
what manner of death he should die."
2 Jn vi. 66 7. 3 Jn viii. 31 foil.
4 Jn xiii. 18 26. 6 Mt. xxviii. 18.
A. p. 177 (Mark i. 21 8) 12
'AUTHORITY" AND "UNCLEAN SPIRITS"
. - -..- .. ^ __ -
outside it which we cannot understand, and which is not yet
conformed to the Father's will, than as a Despotism, which
includes all that is, and which has God as its centre and
Despot.
7. "Going down to Capernaum"
John only thrice describes Jesus as "teaching," and only
once as "teaching in synagogue 1 ." Comparing this with the
frequency of the Synoptic traditions about Christ's teaching,
we ought to be prepared to suppose that John attached special
importance to this particular "teaching in synagogue" and
some importance to the fact that it was at " Capernaum." This
supposition is confirmed by the fact that John agrees with Luke
in using the phrase "went down (or, came down) to Capernaum"
to introduce (apparently) a new stage in the proclamation of
the Gospel 2 . It is also confirmed (not weakened) by the fact
that the compiler of the Diatessaron omits the phrase in Luke 3 ,
1 Jn vi. 59 Tavra fLTTfv ev (Tvvaycoyfj di8d(TKa)v fv KcKpapvaovp,. The
other two passages mentioning Jesus as " teaching " are vii. 14 28,
viii. 20 ev TW iepo>. But comp. Christ's own words in xviii. 20
irdvroTf edida^a cv (rvvaytoyrj Kal fv rco tepo). This implies that Jesus
habitually "taught in synagogue," and that John chooses out one
of many instances to shew how He taught there and how He was
misunderstood.
2 Lk. iv. 31 KOI K.a.Tri\Qev ft'y Ka<api/aoi>/z. . . , Jn ii. 12 p,(ra TOVTO
KdTffir) els Kafpapvaovp avros <al 17 p-rjrrjp avrov /ecu. . ..
3 The omission of Lk. iv. 31 a in the Diatessaron may be explained
by the context in the Diatessaron. The compiler had just before
included a statement from Matthew about Jesus as coming and
dwelling in Capernaum (Diatess. vi. 36 foil.) " (Mt. iv. 13 16) And
he left Nazareth and came and dwelt in Capernaum by the sea shore . . .
in the shadow of death, there appeared unto them a light. (Lk. iv. 3 1 a
om.) [And he came down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee]. (Lk. iv. 31 6
foil.) And he taught them on the sabbaths. And they wondered
The preceding words in Luke describe the attempt on Christ's life
in Nazareth, Lk. iv. 30 " But he, passing through the midst of them
[i.e. the Nazarenes], went his way." The Diatessaron places this
attempt much later on, and appends to it words indicating that
Jesus did not "come down to Capernaum" after that attempt
178 (Mark i. 218)
"AUTHORITY" AND "UNCLEAN SPIRITS"
and not only the phrase, but also the context in John. That
indicates for those at least who have studied the Diatessaron
and its ways that in early times discussion was probably
frequent about this "going down to Capernaum" and about
the questions "Whence did He come down?" and "What
did He do when He had come down ? "
According to Tertullian, Marcion so mutilated the Gospel
of Luke as to make it appear that Jesus came down "from
heaven, straight to the synagogue" in Capernaum 1 . Heracleon,
dealing with the Johannine "going down to Capernaum,"
said that "the beginning of another dispensation was indicated,
since 'went down' is not without significance." He added
that Capernaum signifies "the uttermost parts of the Cosmos,
the regions of matter into which He 'came-down 2 .'"
So far, Origen, who quotes Heracleon as above, might
agree with Heracleon as to the inferior and negative character
of the revelation at Capernaum. But he demurs to what
Heracleon says concerning the following words "and there
[i.e. at Capernaum] they abode not many days. And the
passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up. . ." on
which Heracleon says "By reason of the strange and alien
(Diatess. xvii. 52 foil.) (Lk. iv. 30) "But he passed through among
them and went away. (Mk vi. 6b) And he went about in the
villages which [were] around Nazareth, and taught in their syna-
gogues."
1 Tertull. adv. Marc, on Lk. iii. i, iv. 31 "'In the fifteenth year
of the reign of Tiberius' for such is Marcion's proposition 'He
came down to the Galilaean city Capernaum ' . . . From heaven straight
to the synagogue."
z See Origen on Jn ii. 12 (Lomm. i. 291) quoting Heracleon to
this effect. Origen himself says (Lomm. i. 288) that Capernaum
means "field (dypbs) of Consolation." Jerome calls it (Onomast.
p. 64) " ager vel villa consolationis." In his comment on Mt. iv. 13,
viii. 5, Jerome is silent as to its meaning. Pseudo- Jerome, on Mk
i. 21, calls it "villa consolationis." Euseb. has (Onomast. p. 176)
"consolation of the village," (ib. p. 203) "field, or house, of conso-
lation "
179 (Mark i. 21 8) 12 2
AUTHORITY" AND "UNCLEAN SPIRITS"
nature of the place, He is not even said to have done or spoken
anything in it [i.e. in Capernaum] 1 ."
Yet Origen's only ground for demurring is that Mark and
Luke relate, as occurring during this visit, the exorcism in the
Capernaum Synagogue. To this Heracleon would have an
obvious reply : "The Marcan exorcism could not have occurred
during the Johannine visit to Capernaum; for Mark says
clearly that what he relates about Capernaum took place
after the Baptist's arrest ; John makes it no less clear that
what he relates here about Capernaum took place before the
Baptist's arrest^." It is hardly possible to doubt that Heracleon
is right at all events in calling attention to the fact that Jesus
"is not even said to have done or spoken anything" in the
first brief (Johannine) visit to Capernaum. But about the
Evangelist's motive in thus recording an apparently resultless
action of Christ there may very well be doubt or, at least,
doubt at the first view of the subject.
At the second view, we shall probably come to the con-
clusion that John did not regard this action, or any action of
Jesus, as being resultless. He identified the visit with the
Marcan visit to Capernaum. But he thought that Mark had
placed it wrongly after the Baptist's arrest and had made it
unduly prominent. "Other Jews," he might say, "some
impostors but some not, could exorcize with more or less
success. But other Jews could not work such a sign as that
of Cana. By an error of judgment Mark and Luke have
combined to make the exorcism of an unclean spirit, and the
demoniac's confession of Christ, the threshold, so to speak, of
the Gospel, the very beginning of the 'signs,' or 'mighty works/
of the Messiah. Is this right? Is it well that readers of the
Gospels should believe this to have been the beginning? "
1 "Strange and alien (dvoiKeiov)."
* Mk i. 14 "after John was delivered up" ; Jn iii. 24 "John was
not yet cast into prison," which comes at a considerable interval
after the visit to Capernaum (ii. 12).
1 80 (Mark i. 21 8)
"AUTHORITY" AND "UNCLEAN SPIRITS"
Matthew, perhaps, like John, thought it was not well. At
all events, as we have seen, Matthew goes the way to remove
the impression. He omits the detailed description of the
single act of exorcism inserting in its place a mention of the
healing of a multitude of diseases and cases of demoniacal
possession 1 and then passes to the Sermon on the Mount, the
New Law, the Law of Love, a love that might be called super-
human, summed up in the precept "Love your enemies. . .that
ye may be sons of your Father who is in heaven." Might not
this have satisfied the Fourth Evangelist ?
No doubt he welcomed it, but could he be "satisfied" with
it ? "Love your enemies" was an admirable precept to hear ;
but how were the hearers to acquire this most difficult art ?
And further, Matthew mentioned "his disciples 2 ," but who
were they ? The word has not been mentioned by him before.
All that we have heard has been that four fishermen "followed"
Jesus when He called them and said that He would make
them fishers of men. Did that suffice to make them " disciples ? "
And were others made with the same ease ? These questions
force themselves on those who read Matthew's Gospel, at this
stage, consecutively. Luke gives us a partial answer by
shewing us how some of the sayings in the Sermon were uttered
on such different occasions and in such different circumstances
as to reveal something of the personality of Him who uttered
them and of the power of His Spirit to penetrate the souls of
others. But more of that kind remained to be done to shew
or rather to indicate by brief suggestions how Jesus first
drew towards Himself, and then bound closer to Himself,
His earlier disciples.
According to John, this was not done by "teaching." The
"teaching" of Jesus is expressly said by Jesus Himself to
have been "always in synagogue and in the Temple 3 ," and it
1 Mt. iv. 23 4. This resembles Mk i. 39 and iii. 10.
2 Mt. v. i "His disciples came unto him."
8 Jn xviii. 20.
181 (Mark i. 218)
AUTHORITY" AND "UNCLEAN SPIRITS
was not there that He found His first followers. They were
found in private : "They said, Rabbi. . .where abidest thou ?
He saith unto them, Come, and ye shall see. They came
therefore and saw where he abode ; and they abode with him
that day 1 ." We are left to imagine what this thrice-mentioned
"abiding" implied, and to infer that the "seeing" it must have
included a partial "beholding" of the glory of the Son, who
is "in the bosom of the Father 2 ." Then, after a number of
utterances severally addressed and adapted to Simon, Philip,
and Nathanael, Jesus is introduced to us in the guest-chamber
in Cana, where the "sign" of the new wine is performed so
quietly that it is not even known to the ruler of the feast who
tastes it. Yet it "manifested his glory, and his disciples
believed on him 3 ."
It is at this point that John introduces that "going down
to Capernaum" which Luke also mentions as one of Christ's
earliest acts. But Luke regards the descent as being from
Nazareth, where Jesus had been rejected and violently handled ;
John regards it as being from Cana, the scene of Christ's first
sign and manifestation of glory. There are indications in
1 Jn i. 38 9. See Beginning pp. 247 8.
2 Comp. Jn i. 14 "we beheld his glory," and Jn i. 18.
3 Jn ii. ii. On this "sign," see Joh. Gr. 2281 3 and Son 3390
(iv), 3426 &, 3583 (xii) c d. "Cana" (Son 3555 a) is generally recog-
nised as meaning "acquisition" or "purchase" (comp. Ruth iv. 10
"purchased to be my wife"). Exod. r. (on Exod. xvi. 4, Wii. p. 192)
represents God as saying (Prov. ix. 5) " eat of my bread and drink
of my wine, which I have mingled" in connection with Exod. xv.
25 "he gave them a statute and an ordinance" and as adding,
"For the sake of my bread [i.e. because ye have received my
statute] ye have received the bread of the 'manna, and for the sake
of my wine which I have mingled [i.e. because ye have received my
ordinance] ye have drunk the water of the stream [that flowed from
the rock]." This indicates how John may have regarded the sign
at Cana as an anticipatory indication of a divine law, set forth
in "teaching" afterwards in the synagogue of Capernaum, and
fulfilled upon the Cross.
182 (Mark i. 21 8)
"AUTHORITY" AND "UNCLEAN SPIRITS"
Luke's Gospel itself that he found inconsistent traditions and
perhaps set them down as he found them. For he implies that
the people of Nazareth had already heard of wonders wrought
by Jesus at Capernaum 1 , and yet he mentions no visit to
Capernaum till afterwards. Origen's comment is "In Caper-
naum, so far as Luke's history is concerned, Jesus has not yet
abode, nor is he described as having worked any sign there. . .
Hence I infer that there is some mystery latent in the text
before us, and that Nazareth [was] typical of the Jews while
Capernaum preceded as typical of Gentiles 2 ." This is not very
clear or satisfactory even from an allegorical point of view, but
it is worth noting as one of many indications that " Capernaum "
would be allegorized even in the first century by some perhaps
favourably as the Village of the Comforter, and "his own
city" (as Matthew appears to call it), but by others as the type
of Christ's unbelieving fellow countrymen, those in whom
familiarity with the Messiah bred not reverence but contempt,
so that it brought on itself the curse "And thou, Capernaum,
shalt thou be exalted to heaven ? Thou shalt be cast down
to Hades 3 ."
In the "going down to Capernaum" some Jews might find
an allusion to the first city that sought to "exalt" itself. That
1 Lk. iv. 23 "Doubtless ye will say unto me . . . Whatsoever we
have heard done at Capernaum, do also here , in thine own
country."
2 Origen on Lk. iv. 23. Lomm. (v. 209) reads "In Capharnaum,
quantum ad lucem historiae pertinet, necdum moratus est Jesus. . .
Unde puto aliquid in sermone praesenti latitare mysterii, et Nazareth
in typo J adaeorum, Capharnaum in typo praecessisse gentilium. ' ' But
I have ventured to read "ad Lucae historiam." For it is only Luke,
not Mark, who puts the teaching in the synagogue of Capernaum
after the visit to Nazareth. And even Luke's order appears to have
been shifted by Marcion so as to put Capernaum before Nazareth.
See Tertull. adv. Marc, ad loc. where he refers to Lk. iv. 24, 29, 30
after referring to Lk. iv. 34, 35. Origen's comment seems obscure.
Does "in typo praecessisse" mean "went before, as a type of " ?
3 Mt. xi. 23, Lk. x. 15.
183 (Mark i. 21 8)
AUTHORITY" AND "UNCLEAN SPIRITS"
was Babel whose "top" was to reach "unto heaven." But
the Lord "came down to see the city" and the prospective
citizens were scattered through the world 1 . That is the first
instance in which the Lord is described as "coming down" in
the Bible. In Matthew, however, the context does not mention
Babel but only Sodom. Yet there, too, when the cry of it
came up to heaven, the Lord said "I will go down and see 2 ."
That is the second instance in the Bible of the Lord's "going
down." These two are instances of chastisement. In the
third instance, deliverance of the oppressed predominates
over chastisement of the oppressor. The Lord "comes down"
now "to deliver," not "to see," for He has "seen," and He
"knows," because His heart is with His oppressed people:
"And the Lord said, Surely I have seen the affliction of my
people who are in Egypt, and have heard their cry by reason
of their taskmasters ; for I know their sorrows and am come
down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians 3 ."
All these facts prepare us to believe that when such a writer
as John, toward the end of the first century, found himself
called on to deal with a much discussed tradition about Christ's
"going down to Capernaum," he could hardly have regarded it
as a mere geographical expression. They confirm Heracleon's
view, that John regarded any wonderful works that might have
been done in Christ's first visit to Capernaum as not worthy
of mention or at all events not worthy of repetition, since
Mark had already described them in comparison with the
"sign" in Cana. And later on, the typical inferiority of
Capernaum to Cana is suggested in the passage where the
"nobleman" in Capernaum has to come up to Cana for the sake
of his son's life, and needs to have his faith strengthened by
1 Gen. xi. 5, 7. 2 Gen. xviii. 21.
3 Exod. iii. 7 8 (see Gesen. 433 a which gives this and the two
preceding instances of the absolute use of the verb when meaning
divine " descending ") .
184 (Mark i. 21 8)
"AUTHORITY" AND "UNCLEAN SPIRITS"
the reproof: "Except ye [i.e. ye unbelievers in Capernaum]
see signs and wonders, ye will in no wise believe 1 ."
8. "Teaching in synagogue" at Capernaum, in John 2
We pass now to John's account of Christ's second visit to
Capernaum when He taught in the synagogue there. It was
after the Feeding of the Five Thousand, when Jesus proclaimed
in that synagogue the doctrine of the living Bread. And here
we may note that in a very striking sevenfold repetition of
the phrase "come down out of heaven 3 " a phrase used by no
other Evangelist except the Fourth John brings before us
something very much like the recently quoted 4 epigram of
Tertullian. Marcion had said "came down to the Galilaean city
1 Jn iv. 48. Diatess. omits Jn ii. 12 13 "After this he went
down to Capernaum ... and Jesus went up to Jerusalem." The
healing of the Paralytic is thus introduced by the Synoptists :
Mk ii. i 2 Mt. ix. i Lk. v. 17 a
And when he en- And he entered in- And it came to
tered again into Ca- to a boat and crossed pass on one of those
pernaum after some over and came into days that he was
days... he spake the his own city. teaching,
word unto them. Lk. v. lyfc
And there were
Pharisees ... to heal.
Diatess. omits Lk. v. 17 a. Jerome, on Mt. ix. i, says "We under-
stand 'his own city (civitatem ejus)' to be no other than Nazareth,"
but does not explain how he reconciles this with Mk ii. i. These
and many other facts point to early discrepancies in traditions about
Capernaum. Some of these might arise from various interpretations
of "his own city."
2 Jn vi. 59 Tavra flrrev cv awayayr] di8d<TK.a)v eV Ka<f)apvaovp.. The
punctuation is not certain. But R.V. marg. "in a synagogue" is
probably incorrect in view of Jn xviii. 20 " I always taught in syna-
gogue " (as we should say "in church "). Lk. vii. 5 TTJV o-waycoyrjv avrbs
uKoftoprjo-ev 77/iTi>, " He himself [at his own cost] built the synagogue
for us" appears to imply that there was only one synagogue at
Capernaum.
* Jn vi. 33 58. 4 See above, p. 179, n. i.
185 (Mark i. 21 8)
"AUTHORITY" AND "UNCLEAN SPIRITS"
of Capernaum." Tertullian's comment had been, "from heaven
straight to the synagogue." Tertullian is referring to the Marcan
scene in which the demoniac in the synagogue exclaimed "I
know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God." John places
outside the synagogue of Capernaum, but at a short interval
after the teaching in it, a scene where Peter uses precisely the
same appellation, "We believe and know that thou art the Holy
One of God 1 ."
"The Holy One of God" occurs nowhere else in the Bible,
exactly thus, except in these two passages. The coincidence
can hardly be casual. It seems scarcely credible that John, in
recording Peter's confession of "the Holy One of God" did not
say to himself, "A demoniac had previously uttered a confession
similar in words, but different in spirit. The demoniac said
he ' knew ' it. Peter said ' we believe and know it.' ' Knowledge '
of a person is nothing without belief, trust, or faith. Peter
clung to Jesus as his beloved and only Saviour, saying, ' Lord,
to whom [else] shall we go? ' Very different was the demoniac's
cry, ' Art thou come to destroy us ? ' Different also were the
words put by Luke into the mouth of Peter himself when the
latter exclaimed to Jesus, 'Depart from me, for I am a sinful
man, O Lord.' '
Following out this line of thought, let us attempt to
imagine how John, recognising the historical accuracy of
Mark's account, might attempt to draw out from it something
of the deep spiritual mystery underlying Christ's action and
inherent in Christ's nature. "Mark," he might say, "mentions
Christ's 'authority,' and also His 'new teaching' (as the
crowd called it). But he did not bring out for his readers
what was implied in these familiar terms. Without con-
tradicting anything that he has recorded as said or done by
Jesus in the Capernaum synagogue, I will set before them a
second scene in the same synagogue, where ' authority,' though
1 Jn vi. 69.
1 86 (Mark i. 21 8)
"AUTHORITY" AND "UNCLEAN SPIRITS"
not mentioned, shall be implied, and where its 'newness' and
its twofold influence repelling for the moment as well as
attracting shall be made apparent in the characters of Peter
and Judas Iscariot, as well as in the murmurings of the
multitude and the backsliding of many of the disciples.
"In Mark, the multitude exclaims 'What is this ? A new
teaching ! ' with amazed admiration ; but here they exclaim
'This is a hard saying/ In Mark, they are like children
at the Old Passover, welcoming an intelligible Feast. But
now they are confronted with a new doctrine of bread from
heaven the mystery of the flesh and blood of the Son,
given by Him to mankind that He may pass into them and
possess them for good, casting out all evil. This disappoints
or repels them. It means nothing for them, or it means too
much more than they care to try to understand. In Mark, the
visible and startling submission of the unclean spirit exclaiming
'I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God/ satisfies
the multitude that Jesus has indeed 'authority/ Here Peter
exclaims almost the same thing. Yet no one mentions
'authority/ The disappointed multitude has gone away,
leaving Jesus with the Twelve. Peter himself does not think
of Christ as having 'authority/ but rather as having 'words of
eternal life' which draw him and his fellow-disciples toward
the Lord as their only hope and help.
"In the eyes of the world, this was a great failure. And
the worst was yet to come. Not all the Twelve were faithful.
Peter said, 'We know' and * we believe/ and he probably
intended to include all the Twelve. But, if so, he was in
error. One of the Twelve did not believe. Teaching in the
synagogue of Capernaum on the first occasion Jesus cast out a
devil. Teaching in the same synagogue on the second occasion,
Jesus recognises that there is a devil, present, and that, too,
in one of the Twelve, a devil that He Himself cannot cast
out : ' Was it not I that chose you, the Twelve, and one of
you is a devil ? '
187 (Mark i. 218)
"AUTHORITY" AND "UNCLEAN SPIRITS"
"Thus the history of Israel in the Church of the Wilderness
repeated itself in the two scenes of the synagogue in Capernaum.
In the first scene, there was nothing but admiration and
fervour of belief, 'What is this? A new teaching!' That
corresponds to the night of the Passover. In the second scene,
the mystery of the living bread from heaven corresponds to
the gift of the manna, as to which they began by asking ' What
is that ? ' but soon degenerated into murmuring : ' There is
nothing at all, we have naught save this manna to look to 1 .'
"So it was with the signs and words of Jesus and His
influence on the men of His generation. They did not under-
stand that all His doctrine was based on the axioms 'God is
the Great Giver ; He is the Blessed One ; it is more blessed to
give than to receive.' When He fed the Five Thousand, He
did not make bread out of stones. He assumed that He and
His disciples must provide bread for the multitude ('Whence
must we buy bread?'). Yet it could not be 'bought'; for it
was 'without price.' Here was a paradox. Again, according
to the ancient Gospels, He said to His disciples ' Give ye them to
eat.' Here was another paradox. The giving was a necessary
part of the sign 2 . Only those who can 'give' as God gives
become like God, the Giver of all Good.
"Neither Peter nor the rest of the faithful disciples could
fully comprehend this truth at the time, nor till after the
Resurrection. But they apprehended it, even before the
Resurrection, through the vitalising power of those 'words of
eternal life/ to which Peter testifies as having already made
1 Exod. xvi. 15 foil., Numb. xi. 6.
2 That is to say, the "sign" would have been no sign at all
except such a one as Satan desired (Mt. iv. 3, Lk. iv. 3) if Jesus
had commanded stones to become bread, and if He had not said to
the Twelve "Give ye them to eat." All the Synoptists say this
(Mk vi. 37, Mt. xiv. 16, Lk. ix. 13). John does not therefore
intervene, except in the suggestive irony of the words (Jn vi. 5)
"Whence are we to buy bread that these may eat?" which must
be considered later on.
1 88 (Mark i. 21 8)
"AUTHORITY" AND "UNCLEAN SPIRITS"
some entrance into his heart and the hearts of his companions.
All the more powerful and cogent was this entrance into the
souls of the faithful few when they saw their Master abandoned
by almost all His followers.
"Thus it came to pass that even in this second scene in the
synagogue of Capernaum, though there was no visible ' casting
out' of an evil spirit, there was an invisible preparation for
that later time when Jesus exclaimed 'Now shall the prince of
this world be cast out 1 .' And, though no mention is made of
'authority/ yet there was real 'authority/ since already the
Son had begun to exercise the highest authority of all that
of the Supreme God, who does not drive men as slaves to
fulfil a despot's commands, but draws them as His children to
love His Fatherly nature, and to delight in doing His Fatherly
will."
1 Jn xii. 31.
189 (Mark i. 218)
CHAPTER III*
JESUS HEALING
[Mark i. 29 34]
i. The first miracle of healing
MARK, followed by Luke, represents Christ's first miracle
of healing as being the healing of Simon's wife's mother, which
they both place immediately after Christ's first act of exorcism.
Matthew, omitting all mention of the act of exorcism, and
confining himself to a general mention of the healing of a number
of diseases 1 , does not particularise Christ's miracles of healing
till later on, ist, the healing of a leper, 2nd, the healing of the
centurion's servant, 3rd, the healing of Simon's wife's mother 2 .
We may reasonably explain Matthew's arrangement as
follows, in accordance with his well-known habit of grouping
things according to their nature and not their chronological
order. The healing of a leper especially by "touching" the
unclean man, as to which "touching 3 " all the Synoptists are
* For titles of previous Parts of Diatessarica referred to by
abbreviations in this Volume, see pp. 545 6. For other abbrevia-
tions see pp. xxiii xxvi.
1 Mt. iv. 23 4.
* Mt. viii. i 4 (the leper) parall. to Mki. 40 44, Lk. v. 12 14 ;
Mt. viii. 5 13 (the centurion's servant) parall. to Lk. vii. i 10 ;
Mt. viii. 14 15 (Simon's wife's mother) parall. to Mk i. 29 31,
Lk. iv. 38 39.
3 Mk i. 41, Mt. viii. 3, Lk. v. 13.
190 (Mark i. 29 34)
JESUS HEALING
agreed was a particularly marvellous instance of the "mar-
vellous lovingkindnesses" of Jesus 1 . Hereby, in a special way,
He typically took uncleanness as well as disease upon Himself,
fulfilling the prophecy of Isaiah "He hath borne our griefs
(or, sicknesses) and carried our sorrows." Matthew himself,
after describing these three acts of healing, quotes these words
in a version of his own, shewing that he applied them to
"diseases 2 ." No other Evangelist quotes these words. There
is something very impressive in the position of this (literally
and superficially) unlawful miracle, coming immediately after
the proclamation of the New Law, and breaking the letter of
the Old Law. We cannot be surprised that Matthew regards
this positive infusion of purity and healthful "cleanness" as
symbolically superior to the negative ejection of "an unclean
spirit," and as entitled to stand first in his Gospel among the
miracles of healing if the first place was due to that miracle
which was first in the scale of "marvellous lovingkindness."
Nor is there any difficulty in explaining, from Matthew's
point of view, why the second place was given by him to the
cure of the centurion's servant. For that was a special instance
of the power of faith faith so great that Jesus Himself "mar-
velled" at it 3 . It was also an act of healing at a distance, of
which Mark affords no instance. But that Matthew should
give the third place to the healing of Peter's wife's mother, sick
of a fever, is not so easy to explain. Was it because of the
prominence given to it by Mark ? That is hardly a sufficient
1 Ps. xvii. 7 "Shew thy marvellous lovingkindnesses," lit. "make-
separate" or "make-unique (LXX davpaa-Taxrov) thy lovingkindnesses,"
on which Origen says that the healing of the leper and the healing of
Simon's mother-in-law were both "made-marvellous" by "touching
(a(f)rj)," which distinguished them from ordinary acts of healing.
2 Mt. viii. 17 "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by
Isaiah the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare
our diseases," quoting Is. liii. 4, where "stricken" (in the context) is
rendered by Aq. and Sym. "leprous" (see below, pp. 194, 250).
3 Mt. viii. 10 parall. to Lk. vii. 9.
191 (Mark i. 29 34)
JESUS HEALING
reason. For if Matthew omitted the Marcan exorcism, why
might he not omit the Marcan cure of fever ? Had fever, like
leprosy, any typical meaning in Matthew's estimation ? And
are there any traces of a similar view in Luke ? If we are to
attempt to answer these questions, we must examine the
Synoptic texts in detail.
2. The details of the healing
The healing is briefly introduced as follows after the state-
ment that they came into Simon Peter's house :
Mk i. 30 (R.V.) Mt. viii. 14 (R.V.) Lk. iv. 38 (R.V.)
Now Simon's And when Jesus And Simon's
wife's mother lay was come into Peter's wife's mother was
sick of a fever; and house, he saw his holden with a great
straightway they tell wife's mother lying fever; and they be-
him of her. sick of a fever. sought him for her.
Mark appears to represent the simple and homely fact.
When Jesus passed from the synagogue into Simon's house,
the women folk were in confusion because his mother-in-law
had been taken with fever ; and they had to explain their
apparent unreadiness to receive Him by "telling him about
her." Matthew omits the "telling about her," supposing that
Jesus "saw" the state of things for Himself, and perhaps
interpreting an original "behold, Peter's mother-in-law lying
sick" as "beheld*."
Luke assumes that they must have known the mighty work
of exorcism that had just been accomplished in the synagogue,
and infers that "telling about her" meant "requesting about
her 2 ," i.e. requested that He would do for her what He had
1 There is probably some corruption in Mk i. 30 i? dt ir(v6tpa
Si'/zcoi/os- (Lk. iv. 386 iTevdfpa TOV 2.), where f) de may point back to
a confusion of tfie or eiSe "behold" or "he saw." "ofif represents
Heb. "behold" in Gen. xxv. 24, xxxviii. 27, Lev. x. 16, Numb,
xxiii. 6 etc.
2 Mk \eyovaiv airai rrepl air^y, Lk. TJpo)TT)(rav avrov ?rept airf/s.
192 (Mark i. 29 34)
JESUS HEALING
done for the demoniac, and drive out the fever as He had driven
out the unclean spirit.
So far, there is no difference that cannot be explained as
being a slightly different interpretation of one and the same
original. But now come differences that seem, at first sight,
to require to be explained as resulting from difference of
motive :
Mk i. 31 Mt. viii. 15 Lk. iv. 39
And having come- And he touched And having stood
near he raised her, her hand... and she over-above her he
having taken hold of rose (///.was raised)... rebuked the fever...
[her] hand... and immediately she
rose up...
Here we may well suppose that Mark describes what
actually happened, using very nearly the same language as
later on about the "raising" of a demoniac child whom Jesus
heals 1 . In the Acts, Peter is twice described as "raising
up" with his "hand," or "taking by the right hand/' a lame
person or a lifeless one 2 . If the Marcan or Petrine Gospel is
here right, we may say that Peter in the Acts is described as
imitating what he saw Jesus do for the first time in his own house
in the healing of his mother-in-law. There is no difficulty
in this supposition. But, if this was the actual fact (and very
natural fact), how can we explain the deviations of the later
Evangelists ?
For example, Matthew has "touched her hand" instead
of " came-near . . . and took her by the hand." One cause of
this but we must remember that there may be more causes
than one may be that Matthew desires to emphasize that
1 Mk i. 31 Tjyeiptv avTTjv Kparr)(ras TTJS x fl Ros, and ix. 27 Kpa.TT)<ras rfjr
X*ipbs avrov tfyfipfv avTov. In both passages the parallel Mt. and
Lk. omit the active "raising."
2 Acts iii. 7 K( u "macras avrbv rrjs 8eias x fl P s ffyeipev OVTOV, COmp. ib.
ix. 41 8ovs 8e avrfj x ^P a ^Vfcmjo'fv avrrjv.
A. P. 193 (Mark i. 29 34) 13
JESUS HEALING
"touching" to which attention was called above. He also
takes off the emphasis from the "raising" or "lifting," by
substituting "was raised" for "he raised her." And here we
may remark, as to "touching," that the Greek noun "touching"
is often used by the LXX to mean "stroke" or "plague"
referring to a preceding mention of "leprosy." In Isaiah's
description of the Suffering Servant as "stricken," Symmachus
uses this noun and Aquila the corresponding verb, so as to
convey the notion of "leprosy 1 ." Must we infer that Matthew
has deliberately substituted "touched" for the Marcan "drew
near," in order to heighten the fulfilment of the prediction of
the Messiah as one taking on Himself the infection of disease ?
There may be some influence of this kind at work. But it would
probably not have been effectual but for the Semitic similarity
between "touching" and "drawing near." In Hebrew (both
old and new) and in Aramaic, the same word may mean "touch"
and "draw near to." And the same ambiguity exists in the
Syriac versions of the Gospels 2 . Here, then, if Matthew
interpreted "having come near" as "having touched," he natur-
ally combined it with "having taken hold of her hand" and
condensed the two into "having touched her hand." But then,
as a mere "touch" of the hand was not sufficient physically
to "raise" the sufferer, he interpreted "raised her" as meaning
" caused her to rise up [by the power of a mere touch] " express-
ing it by the passive "she was raised."
We have now to consider Luke's deviation from the Marcan
text in introducing the word "rebuked." This is not so easy to
explain as Matthew's deviation ; but it may fairly be explained,
like Matthew's, from our hypothesis of an original Hebrew
1 Is. liii. 4 "stricken" eV TTOVW, where Jerome has "And we
did esteem him unclean, or as the LXX, in sorrow, for which Aquila
and Symmachus have leprous," Aq. has 0?;/MeVoi/, Sym. eV d<#
OVTCl.
2 See Notes 2999 (i) a b quoting Dan. ix. 21, LXX Trpoa-rjyyta-f p.oi
parall. to Theod. r^aro /iov, and many other instances.
194 (Mark i. 29 34)
JESUS HEALING
word "drew near" or "touched." That word occurs in con-
nection with king Uzziah, the leper, in the sense of "touched"
or "smitten [with leprosy]" as follows:
2 K. xv. 5 (Heb.) 2 Chr. xxvi. 20 (Heb.)
And the Lord (lit.) touched And behold, he was leprous
the king so that he was a leper. ...yea, himself hasted to go out
because the Lord had (lit.)
touched him.
Here the LXX has in Kings "touched" but in Chronicles
"reproved" :
ib. LXX ib. LXX
And the Lord touched the Because the Lord reproved
king. him 1 .
No doubt "reproved," is not the same as "rebuked" But the
two words frequently occur as equivalents in A.V. and R.V. 2
Luke, if he regarded the "rebuking" of "an unclean spirit"
as being a "reproving" of "the hidden things of darkness 3 /'
may quite pardonably have substituted the former for the
latter.
In accordance with this aspect of Jesus as an authoritative
"rebuker," Luke may have taken the causative "made her
to stand" as "stood 4 ." Or perhaps he followed traditions
that applied "stood up" to Jesus as well as to the woman :
"he stood up" to rebuke the fever and "she stood up" to
1 "Touched," rj^aro, "reproved," rfXeyge. "Rebuked" would be
2 Comp. (i) Prov. ix. 8, Is. ii. 4 etc. A.V. "rebuke," R.V. "reprove,"
(2) ,2 K. xix. 4, Job xxvi. n etc. A.V. "reprove" or "reproof,"
R.V. "rebuke."
3 Eph. v. ii.
4 For to-r?7/Ai corresponding to eyetpco, comp. Dan. viii. 18 "He
touched me and made-me-to- stand (LXX ^yetpe, Theod. eo-T^arev) ."
For causative forms confused with non-causative, see Clue and
Corrections, 8, 19, 140, 142, 244, 381, 505, 510 foil.
195 (Mark i. 29 34) 13 2
JESUS HEALING
minister to the guests 1 . These Lucan modifications shew
prepossession, as also do those of Matthew. Luke desires
represent Jesus as an expeller, Matthew as a bearer, of disej
But the prepossession appears to manifest itself only in int<
pretations of an obscure original, not in alterations of it.
3. "Fever"
Assuming what few will doubt that Peter's mother-in-
law was actually cured of fever by Jesus, we have to ascertain
the aspect in which the healing of this particular disease by a
Messiah would present itself to Jews, and the manner in which
this aspect might affect our Evangelists.
The Greek word here used for fever occurs only once ii
LXX, in a list of diseases with which God will punish the sins
of Israel ; and the Hebrew word, differently translated, occurs
once previously in a similar list 2 . In Aramaic, the same word
means both "fire" and "fever." To quench the fire [of fever]
(says the Talmud) which only God can quench, is greater than
to quench the fire of Nebuchadnezzar which man kindled
and man could quench 3 . Such a saying lends itself to a
spiritual application quenching the fire of passion. We
cannot therefore be surprised if some of our Evangelists gave
this miracle a prominent place in Christ's acts of healing.
The Fourth Gospel does this. It represents Christ's first
separate act of healing as having been a cure of "fever," an
act of faith-healing at a distance, performed on a boy in
1 Lk. iv. 39 applies cirurras to Jesus, dvaa-raa-a to Peter's mother-
in-law.
2 Deut. xxviii. 22 "fever (irvpfros)," Lev. xxvi. 16 "fever (iKTfpos
or (?) IKTTJP)" on which Rashi explains the noun "fever" or
"kindling," from the verb in Deut. xxxii. 22 "a fire is kindled in
mine anger."
3 Ned. 41 a, quoted by Wetstein on Mt. viii. 14, and by Levy
iii. 403 b. On Gen. xxi. 15, the Targum says that Ishmael drank up
all the water because he was seized with a fever, having wandered,
with his mother, after strange worship.
196 (Mark i. 29 34)
JESUS HEALING
Capernaum. It is parallel in some respects to the act of faith-
healing performed on a boy in Capernaum, related by Matthew
and Luke. In both cases, the faith is not that of the patient,
but that of his master or father.
Matthew does not call the disease "fever" not at least
if his text is correct. Luke leaves the nature of the disease
an open question. They say severally :
Mt. viii. 6 (lit.) Lk. vii. 2
My boy is cast [down] in the The servant of a certain cen-
house, paralytic, terribly tortured turion, in grievous condition,
[every moment] 1 . was on the point of ending [his
life] 2 ...
John introduces a "king's officer" whose "son was sick"
in Capernaum and "on the point of dying." To him Jesus, in
Cana, says "thy son liveth." The father, returning from Cana
to Capernaum, is "met" by his "servants," who say that his
"boy" lives, and they add, "Yesterday about the seventh hour
the fever left him 3 ." Not till the last line of the narrative is
the name of the disease, as it were, casually disclosed and
shewn to be similar to that which is placed first by Mark and
Luke : " the fever left him."
Returning from the Johannine to the Matthew-Luke faith-
healing we are led to ask : "Why does not Luke mention the
name of the disease ? Why does Matthew call it 'paralytic,'
and add 'terribly tortured' which is not appropriate to
ordinary paralysis but not add ' on the point of ending
[his life]'? Is any difference of meaning intended between
1 Mt. viii. 6 'O irais (JLOV /3e/3X^rat eV rfj ol<ia TrapaAurtKoy, Seivws
2 Lk. vii. 2 'EKdTOVTapxov Se TWOS 8ov\os KCIKUS e^coi/ if/xeXAev reXeurai/.
3 Jn iv. 46 foil. (3a<Ti\iKbs ov 6 vibs rja-devei. . .jJ^eAAev yap dTrodvrjo-Keiv
(SO Lk. r)p,f\\v T\fvrav) . . .6 vlos o~ov fj . . . ot 8ov\oi avrov vTrfjvTrjcrav
avT<a \eyovres OTI 6 TTOIS avrov (SO Mt. 6 Trals /J.QV) ^rj . . ,d(f)f)Kfv avrbv 6
irvperos (so Mk-Mt. d<prJKv avrfjv 6 Trvperos-, and sim. Lk., in the healing
of Peter's mother-in-law).
197 (Mark i. 29 34)
JESUS HEALING
Matthew and Luke, where 'boy' in the former is parallel
to ' servant ' in the latter ? " Light is perhaps thrown on
these questions by the fact that, in John, the word "boy"-
attributed to the "servants" ("that his boy lives") follows
the previous reiterations of "son" ("whose son was sick," "to
come down and heal his son," "come down ere my child (Trat&iov)
die," "thy son liveth"). John appears to have deliberately
shaped his narrative so as to supplement and illuminate the
corresponding narrative in Matthew-Luke, and it becomes
reasonable to suppose that John agreed with Luke in regarding
Matthew's paralytic as an error.
If it was an error, we ought to look for the cause in some
Greek corruption (not Hebrew) since the interchange of "boy"
and "servant" points to an early Greek source 1 . I should
venture to suggest that Matthew's "paralytic" is an error for
purectic (or, puretic), i.e. attacked with fever. Or, still more
probably, puretos, "fever," may have been confused with
paretos, ''paralysed," which Matthew accepted in the form
regularly used by Mark, namely, "paralytic 2 ."
4. "Lying down" and "cast [down]"
Another question arises as to the precise meaning attached
by Matthew to the word "smitten" or " cast-[down]" used by
him thrice where the other Synoptists do not use it 3 . In the
1 On the ambiguous rrals, see Joh. Voc. 1862 b, Joh. Gr. 25846,
Son 3335 c.
2 For 7rvpe(K)riKo? and Trap** see Steph. Thes. (and Sophocl. Lex.)
quoting Diodor. iii. 26, and (inter alia) Jo. Malal. p. 262 i/do-w /3Xr/^ety
KOI irapcros (cod. irdpatros) yevopevos e'reXevra. Sophocl. refers also to
Orig. in. noi A.
ILzpaXimKos, lit. " given to paralysis," is not quoted by Steph. Thes.
from any author earlier than Mark. " Paralyticus " is used by
Pliny. Artemidorus uses TrapaXvro?. Luke never uses TrapaXim/co'?,
and in v. 24 conspicuously substitutes TrapaXeXv/itVoy, "paralysed"
(but marg. TrapaXvrtKo'y). Steph. Thes., under irapaXva-is, indicates
that the word was frequently corrupted, or corruptly introduced.
3 Mt. viii. 6, 14, ix. 2.
198 (Mark i. 29 34)
JESUS HEALING
healing of Peter's wife's mother-in-law, R.V. "lying" does
not open our eyes to the difference which may be expressed
thus 1 :
Mk i. 30 Mt. viii. 14 Lk. iv. 38
Lying-down fever- Smitten (or, cast- Racked by a great
isb. [down]) and feverish, fever.
Mark, who uses a word that elsewhere he twice applies
to "lying-down" at a meal 2 , is corrected by Matthew and
Luke. But are they simply trying to express "prostrated"
clearly and at the same time in such a way as to suggest the
thought of Messianic healing ? Or are they trying to translate
some original that Mark has not adequately translated ?
Against applying the latter view to Matthew, there appears
(at first sight) the fact that Matthew seems elsewhere to insert
(not substitute) "smitten (or, cast-[down]) " in the cure of the
palsied man, thus :
Mk ii. 3 Mt. ix. 2 Lk. v. 18
And they come And behold, they And behold, men
bringing to him a were bringing-near to bringing on a couch
paralytic, lifted by him a paralytic on a a man who was para-
four... couch smitten (or, lysed.
cast \down.
But when Mark's context is examined (Mk ii. 4 "they let
down the bed (lit.) where the paralytic was lying-down ") it
will be seen that he inserts "lying-down" here too, as above
(Mk i. 30), so that Matthew, here too, is perhaps not adding,
but substituting what he deems an adequate rendering ("cast
[down] ") for an inadequate one.
In Clue, it was suggested that Mark's "lifted" (in "lifted by
1 Mk KoreKfiro Trupeo-o-ovora, Mt. pejSXrjfjievrjv KOI 7rvpc<T(rov(rav, Lk. rji/
2 See Mk ii. 15, xiv. 3, comp. i Cor. viii. 10. But it is applied to
the sick in Jn v. 3, 6, Acts ix. 33, xxviii. 8 (comp. Lk. v. 25).
199 (Mark i. 2934)
JESUS HEALING
four") was taken by Matthew as meaning "stretched [help-
lessly on a sick bed]," the two Hebrew words "lift (natal)"
and "stretch" being interchanged in Samuel and Chronicles 1 .
But it should have been added that Horae Hebraicae explains,
by a reference to this word natal (in a peculiar sense), Matthew's
use of "smitten" in the two places where it is used absolutely.
It is said to mean "laid forth for death," in a kind of hyperbole :
"A dead man laid forth, in order to his being carried out. The
power and dominion of the disease is so expressed. The weak
person lieth so, that he is moved only by others ; he cannot
move himself, but is, as it were, next door to carrying out. So
ver. 14, of Peter's mother-in-law, fa /3e/8\?7/i,ei/77 /cal TTV pea a over a,
was laid, and sick of a fever 2 ." This phrase, "a dead man laic
forth," occurs in the Mishna of Berachoth and elsewhere and is
translated by Levy as above 3 .
It may be objected that Matthew's Greek word "cast-
[down]," far from expressing "laid out [for burial]," would
naturally signify to a Greek reader " cast-on-the-ground " or
" cast-aside," and this can hardly be denied 4 . But if the Hebrew
1 Clue 196 (i) footn. points out that ^3 " lift," which = (2) <upa>,
"is interchanged with the much more common nDJ 'stretch' in
2 S. xxiv. 12, i Chr. xxi. 10: The latter = (2) aipo>, (i) /3aAAa>,
(l) eVt/3aAAa>."
2 Hor. Heb. on Mt. viii. 6 " Be/SA^rai, lieth : ^EIE, laid forth.
Thus t>D!O no, a dead man laid forth, in order to his being carried out
etc."
3 Levy iii. 379 a quotes Mishna "Ber. 176 Jem., dessen Todter
vor ihm (TOflb) liegt fattO)" and also "trop. das. i8a, so lange
Jemdm. die Pflicht obliegt, seinen Tod ten zu begraben, so ist das
ebenso, als ob letzterer vor ihm lage." This "metaphorical" use
("as if the dead man were laid-out before his eyes") is of importance
as supporting the metaphorical interpretation asserted by Hor. Heb.
above. The phrase occurs also in Moed Kat. 23 b and (Levy says)
frequently.
4 Steph. Thes. (/3aAAo>, ii. 95) quotes Fab. JEsop. 257 AVKOS virb
KVVWV dqxdetff Kat K<IK>S ira<rx<ov e/Se'/SXi/ro, as to which, note that Matthew
alone perhaps uses (xvii. 15) KCIKWS Tra'cr^o) (W. H. marg.) and alone
applies jSt'jSXqrat to disease. In Lk. xvi. 20, e'^e'/SA^ro must be taken
200 (Mark i. 29 34)
JESUS HEALING
original was capable (i) of meaning "lift up" and (2) of being
confused with "cast-aside," and (3) of being technically used
in the sense of "laid out for burial," it becomes quite intellig-
ible that Matthew should paraphrase it from a Greek point of
view as if it meant "cast-aside-as-helpless," though it really
had the technical meaning of " laid-out-f or-burial as though
dead 1 ." We may illustrate the ambiguity of the Hebrew from
the versions of Isaiah (R.V.) "He taketh-up the isles" where
Aquila has "being cast-down," and Ibn Ezra adopts the render-
ing "throweth," while admitting that it may mean "taketh
up 2 ." All agree that the word conveys a notion of weakness
and insignificance, but as to how it is conveyed there is much
disagreement.
Returning, then, to the Synoptic narrative of the healing
of "fever," we may reasonably say that Matthew's phrase may
be explained as a rendering of a Hebrew word implying "help-
lessness" and "next door to carrying out to death," and, in any
case, not as a substitution of a new tradition for an original
Marcan one, but as a more adequate rendering of an original
that Mark had inadequately expressed. At the same time
we may admit that Matthew was also influenced in his language
as well as in his arrangement by a sense of Messianic appro-
priateness. We have seen that, in accordance with a very
ancient interpretation of a prophecy in Isaiah 3 , it would be
appropriate that the Messiah should identify Himself with the
with Trpos TOV TrvKwva "laid [by friends] at the gate." Mk vii. 30
fiefS\T)iJivov eVt (L VTTO) rr)v K\ivrjv means "lying [where she had been]
cast-down on the bed" (Swete "the exhaustion had not yet spent
itself, though the foul spirit was gone").
1 In Jn iv. 47, j^eXAei/ arrodv^a-KfLv resembles Lk. vii. 2 fjp.\\ev
2 Is. xl. 15 Aq. /3aAXo/iei/oi', other renderings are "decidit"
or aTroTTiTrro). The Editor (Friedlander) points out that ?1t3 l( can be
passive of ^B "cast" as well as active of ^D3 "lift." Rashi
takes the meaning to be "lifted up" like dust that vanishes into
the air.
3 See above, p. 191, n. 2, and p. 194.
201 (Mark i. 29 34)
JESUS HEALING
sufferings of a leper, and Matthew has given the first place
in the miracles to the healing of a leper. Somewhat similarly,
it would be in accordance with the tone of the Psalms that the
Messiah, in His two following miracles, should reveal Himself,
by typical action, as the representative of Him who "upholdeth
all them that fall," and who watches over the sufferer so that
"Even if he fall he shall not be utterly cast down, for the Lord
upholdeth his hand 1 ."
5. The Johannine view of "fever"
In John, the "fever" is not (as it is in Luke) "rebuk
Nor is the patient (as in Mark) "raised" or (as in Matthew)
"touched." The fever is regarded as being cured by the
word of Jesus. In Matthew-Luke, the centurion bids Jesus,
not to come to him, "but merely speak in word (logos) 2 ." In
John, Jesus does "merely speak in word." That is to say,
He refuses to "go down" to the patient, but says to the
father "Thy son liveth" : and it is added that "the man
believed the word (logos) that Jesus had spoken," and that the
man's servants speedily met him saying "Thy boy liveth."
As the Prologue of the Gospel says "Whatsoever was in Him,
i.e. in the complete Logos, was life," so here the uttered logos
of Jesus is "Thy son liveth," and it produces faith in the
hearer and life in the sufferer.
In view of the general Johannine avoidance of Synoptic
details about healing, and even of Synoptic names of diseases
and demonic troubles, the prominence that John gives to fever
seems to require some comment from a Greek point of view,
in addition to the illustration given above from Jewish tradition.
It may be explained perhaps in part by the fact that the fiery
fits and fancies of fever somewhat resemble the attacks of
demoniacal possession which are prominent in the Synoptists
1 See the Midrash on Ps. cxix. 116 "Uphold me according to
thy word that I may live," which quotes Ps. cxlv. 14, and xxxvii. 24.
2 Mt. viii. 8 a'XXa povov etVe Xo-yw, Lk. vii. 7 omits
202 (Mark i. 29 34)
JESUS HEALING
but not mentioned by John 1 . We note that Christ's acts of
exorcism occur apparently all in Galilee, or, at all events, not
in Jerusalem ; and Galilee is emphasized by John as the scene
of the cure of fever : "This is again a second sign that Jesus
did, having come out of Judaea into Galilee 2 ."
Another reason may be that "fever" is (really, though not
obviously) a good metaphor to describe the greedy thirst of an
uncontrolled selfishness. For utter selfishness, whether it be
that of a cold and calculating villain or that of a fervid head-
strong villain, is, in the eyes of the Allseeing, of the nature of a
feverish delirium. Regarded in that way, "fever," and the
"thirst" that accompanies fever, might well stand first in the
list of diseases cured by the Healer of mankind 3 .
Epictetus, however, selects this special disease for a dis-
cussion that seems to borrow some phrases from Christian
writers 4 , in order to hold them up to ridicule. His doctrine is
that, if we have fever, we ought not to ask to be cured of it but
rather to make it our object he almost implies, our sole object
to be virtuously feverish, or, "to have the fever rightly 5 ."
1 Comp. Origen on Jn iv. 46 foil. (Lomm. ii. 118 19), quoting
Eph. vi. 16, and describing the nobleman's son as "the race of
Israel, ailing in the worship of God and in the observance of
God's laws, and on the point of dying to God through the fire of
(7Tf7rvpo)iJ.vov) ' the fiery (irfTrvpw^vuiv} darts of the enemy,' and, on
this account, said to 'be in a fever (Trvpfcro-fiv).'"
2 Jn iv. 54, see p. 221 below.
3 It is placed by Philo (ii. 432 Trvperoi] first in the list of diseases
with which God chastens His people. See Lewis and Short for
passages shewing that there were temples erected to Fever in Rome.
4 See Epictet. iii. 10. 5 foil., and comp. ib. 8 VO^L/JLCO
with 2 Tim. ii. 5 eav /ur) vop,ifj,a>s dSXrjcrrj, also ib. 13 Kop,\ls>s ex LS
Jn iv. 52 Kop-^roTepov <rx fv > an d ib. 14 KctKtos fX fls an d <aKO)S
with Lk. vii. 2 K.CLK.WS e^toi/. All these phrases are vernacular Greek,
but their co-occurrence in a lecture on "fever" seems to point to
N.T. Mrs Carter also illustrates ib. 15 *av a-v 0e\rjs, Kvptf, Ka\>s eo>
from Mt. viii. 2 Kvpie, eav fleXys 8vva(rai fie Ka0api(rai.
5 Epict. iii. IO. 12 13 av KO\WS rrvpegys. . .ri ecrri Ka\5>s Trvpecrcrfiv ;
MT) debv fJifjL-ty-a(T0ai, p.rj avdpcoTrov. . . .
203 (Mark i. 29 34)
JESUS HEALING
"Provided that I am still a philosopher," he says, "let what
will happen," and again "What prevents you, in a fever, from
keeping your ruling faculty according to nature 1 ? "
But how can a man whose "ruling faculty," in accordance
with nature, is giving way under the influence of fever, be
expected still to "keep" it in a condition to rule over his life ?
Possibly Epictetus would reply that, in such a case, the Master
is opening the door for us to depart out of life. For in his
philosophy God is represented as (so to speak) our Master in
athletics ; He has watched our performance of the philosophic
exercises in the gymnasium, the preparatory combats that were
to prepare us for our duties and trials and combats, and pre-
sently He calls us to the arena, for the actual conflict: "Now
is your time for a fever. Bear it well. For thirst. Bear
it well. For hunger. Bear it well 2 ." Epictetus does not
represent the Master as adding "For brainlessness. Bear
that well."
6. The Johannine view of "thirst"
How, if at all, does John deal with the deep questions
arising out of the conception of spiritual "fever" and the
means of healing it ? He never mentions the word again,
after the "sign" in Galilee. But if we accept the view that
"fever " may be a metaphor for the greedy thirst of uncontrolled
selfishness, we are led back to ask how " thirst " is used in ancient
Hebrew literature and in the earlier Gospels. And then it
may occur to us that in the Pentateuch there are several
instances where Israel sins through thirst, and in the Psalms
instances where the soul "thirsts" righteously for God's
presence 3 . But the Synoptic Gospels are comparatively
deficient in any expression of the wrong and the right kind of
1 Epict. iii. 10. 5 and n.
2 Epictet. iii. 10. 8.
3 See Ps. xlii. 2 "My soul thirsteth for God. . .," Ixiii. i "My
soul thirsteth for thee," comp. Is. xli. 17, Iv. i.
204 (Mark i. 29 34)
JESUS HEALING
thirst. Philo speaks of "those who thirst and hunger for
goodness and virtue 1 ." But in the Synoptists, only one passage
of Matthew in the Double Tradition says anything about
such thirst nor indeed is the word ever used by Mark and
Luke and, where Matthew represents Jesus as saying, "Blessed
are they that hunger and thirst after righteousness," Luke
has "Blessed [are ye] that hunger now 2 " which might
include, or even be restricted to, literal hunger. Is not this a
defect that might naturally induce John to intervene we
cannot say, "in favour of Mark," but "in favour of the funda-
mental truth on which all the Synoptic Gospels were based?
At all events, whatever may be his motive, John does inter-
vene : as if to shew that the evil thirst that underlies all the
sins and miseries of men cannot be extinguished except by
calling forth and satisfying a good thirst, the thirst for God.
That is the lesson of the first of the Johannine signs at Cana.
That also is the lesson of the doctrine in Jerusalem concerning
the Brazen Serpent, signifying, as the Evangelist suggests, the
conflict between the thirst for evil and the thirst for good,
the fiery serpent and the seraph 3 . This lesson is carried on in
Samaria by the Dialogue about the living water between Jesus
and the woman with the "five husbands," who has no real
"husband 4 ." Again, in the synagogue at Capernaum, and
afterwards in the Temple, the right thirst is appealed to in the
words "He that believeth on me shall never thirst," and "If
any man thirst let him come unto me and drink 5 ." Last of all,
on the Cross, Jesus Himself, "knowing that all things are now
finished," exclaims "I thirst 6 ." These words call forth an
1 Philo i. 566 rovs 8i\lf>vTas <a\ jreiv&vras KaXoKayadias. Philo also
has i. 626 TO Trdvra Si^fjv Bfov.
2 Mt. v. 6, Lk. vi. 21.
3 See Son 3391 3407, and esp. 3397 (where however the remark
about Jerome as "probably following Origen" should be cancelled).
4 Jn iv. 13 18. 6 Jn vi. 35, vii. 37.
6 Jn xix. 28 foil.
205 (Mark i. 29 34)
JESUS HEALING
act an offering of vinegar variously reported by Mark and
Matthew, and placed earlier and in a different context by
Luke 1 .
Then, while the reader is reflecting on the strange paradox
of " I thirst," and on the apparent breaking of the implied
promise in "let him come unto me and drink," there come the
mystical words, "One of the soldiers pierced his side, and
straightway there came out blood and water... and another
scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced 2 ."
Thus Jesus might be said, in reply to Epictetus, to hear
indeed the Voice that says "Now is the time for you to thirst ;
bear it well," and to "bear it well" beyond all Epictetian
dreams of philosophic perfection. The Son, in "bearing"
thirst, bears it for others, calling forth faith from the woman
of Samaria, and kindness from the soldiers round the Cross.
In the former case there follows the gift of the living water to
Samaria ; in the latter, the vision of the mingled blood and
water that are to satisfy the thirst of all mankind 3 .
1 Mk xv. 36, Mt. xxvii. 48 (following the cry "Eloi" or "Eli");
Lk. xxiii. 36 cveir<uav...ogos 7rpoo-(epoi/rfs, parall. to Mk xv. 31, Mt.
xxvii. 41.
2 Jn xix. 347.
3 John's view of Christ's mystical thirst may be illustrated by
the following considerations, (i) In Jn iv. 6 foil., the words "Give
me to drink" are preceded by the statement that Jesus was
"wearied (KCKOTriaKas)," and followed by a repetition of Ko-mda)
(ib. iv. 38) "I sent you to reap that [over] which you have not
wearied [-yourselves-with-toil], others have wearied [-themselves-with-
toil] and ye have entered into their toil." The word occurs nowhere
else in the Fourth Gospel ; and in the first six books of O.T. it occurs
only in Deut. xxv. 18 (bis) of the rearguard of Israel ("when thou
wast faint (LXX eVeiVas) and weary") and in the words of the first
Jesus (Josh. xxiv. 13 about the Land of Promise) "a land whereon
thou hadst not wearied [thyself with toil]." It seems probable that
John sees a likeness between Israel in the wilderness under the first
Jesus, and the Church (so to speak) in Samaria under the second
Jesus; whom His disciples have left for the moment, and who,
206 (Mark i. 29 34)
JESUS HEALING
7. The Johannine view of Messianic "raising"
It was noted above that Matthew and Luke omitted Mark's
statement that Jesus "raised up" the sufferer. They omit
also several Marcan words, including "raised up," in their
account of the cure of an epileptic boy 1 . There they are so
obviously abridging Mark's very lengthy narrative that no
other explanation of their motive is necessary. Nor can it be
expected that John should intervene in a detail of this kind.
Yet the description of Jehovah as the Father (Deut. i. 31)
"carrying" the Child Israel would commend itself to such an
Evangelist. And this "carrying" or "lifting" is suggested by
Mark in two passages where he describes Jesus as "taking
in his arms" a little child, or "children." To both of these
passages, as well as to the healing of the epileptic child, there
though thirsty and faint, resists both thirst and faintness, and gains
the victory over Samaria.
(2) But John will not accept the view, suggested by eireivas, that
Jesus was "hungry." In the Fourth Gospel, Jesus, in reply to His
disciples bidding Him "eat" says (iv. 32) "I have meat to eat that
ye know not of." In the Temptation, Matthew and Luke say
that Jesus "hungered"; and "hunger" may seem so essential a
part of the story that no Evangelist, however brief, could omit it.
Yet Mark omits it. He nowhere represents Jesus as "hungering"
except for fruit from the barren fig tree of Israel (Mk xi. 12, Mt. xxi.
1 8). That kind of "hunger" is different (comp. Philipp. iv. 17 "not
that I seek for the gift, but I seek for the fruit that increaseth to
your account").
(3) Epictetus would perhaps have quoted against John Is. xl. 28
"The Lord. . .fainteth not, neither is weary." But John's view is
that the incarnate Son takes upon Himself the human weaknesses
of faintness or weariness and thirst, and triumphs, not only over
them, but through them, over the weaknesses of His brethren.
John's avoidance of the metaphor of hunger may be explained by
the fact that Israel is supposed to have had manna regularly in the
wilderness, even when they needed water.
1 Mk ix. 25 7 "Thou dumb and deaf spirit... But Jesus,
having taken him by the hand, raised him up, and he stood up."
207 (Mark i. 29 34)
JESUS HEALING
are parallels in the other Synoptists, but they omit this gesture
of tenderness 1 .
This being the case, the rule of Johannine Intervention would
lead us to expect, not only that John would emphasize passages
describing Christ's personal affection for this or that friend or
disciple, but also that he would lay stress on His character of
the Restorer or Uplifter of the fallen, or of the lifeless. This
he does repeatedly. The keynote to a succession of thoughts
of this kind is to be found in the first Johannine use of the
Marcan word : "Destroy ye this temple and in three days /
will raise it 2 ." It is implied that the purification of the temple
by the mere expulsion of the evil will be of no avail. If that
were all, the evil would return. The old must be destroyed
and the new raised up ; for (says the Evangelist) " as the Father
raiseth the dead and causeth them to live, so also the Son
causeth to live whom he will 3 /' Jesus Himself never again
uses the Marcan word "raise" transitively to express His own
action, but He implies it in various ways and especially in the
saying "I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men
unto me 4 ."
8. Medically "attending," as distinct from ''healing"
in Greek
In the Gospels, "heal" stands for two words, quite distinct
in meaning. One of these, anglicised in the rare English
word "iatric" really means "heal," but is seldom used except
by Luke 5 . The other, anglicised in the English "therapeutic"
1 See Son 3518 a quoting the Marcan passages with e'-yet'peti/,
describing Christ's gestures, and their Matthew-Luke parallels.
2 Jn ii. 19 e-yepco avrov.
3 Jn v. 21 (perhaps not the words of Jesus, see Joh. Gr. 2066 b}.
4 Jn xii. 32. Jn v. 8 has c-yetpe, and xiv. 31 fycipca-dc.
5 It is significant that Luke, the Evangelist that most frequently
uses laa-Oai, is himself called (Col. iv. 14) larpos. Mk uses ido-Gai but
once (v. 29) ; Mt. thrice, and once in quotation ; Jn once certainly
208 (Mark i. 29 34)
JESUS HEALING
is freely used by all the Synoptists ; but its exact meaning is
" attend." It is only in certain contexts that it means " attend
medically." More rarely it means "attend medically with the
result of healing." In LXX, the "iatric" word is the only
one used in the sense of healing; the "therapeutic," when it
represents a Hebrew word (which it rarely does) means six
times "attending as a worshipper, or as a courtier," and once
"attending to," or "dressing," the feet of a lame man 1 .
Obviously "attending" is different from "healing." A demo-
cracy, says Plato, expects its statesmen "both to attend and to
heal" its diseases with "pleasant remedies." In a second-
century papyrus, a physician says to a judge "I attended so-
and-so," and receives the reply "Perhaps you attended un-
satisfactorily 21 ."
To the question why Mark prefers the therapeutic to the
iatric word, two answers may be given, one derived from the
nature of the words, and the other from the nature of Christ's
acts. It happens that the Greek therapeia, "[medical] attend-
ance," is also Hebraized. In that form, it is connected by
Jewish tradition with a similar word in the Hebrew of Ezekiel,
concerning the mystical trees (on the banks of the stream from
the Temple) of which "the fruit shall be for meat and the
leaf for healing (therapeia)*." Here the LXX has "soundness"
instead of "healing," but Revelation, differing from LXX,
says " the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations 4 ."
(iv. 47), once doubtfully (v. 13, see Blass), once in quotation; Lk.
ii times.
1 Esther ii. 19, vi. 10, Prov. xix. 6, xxix. 26, Is. liv. 17, Dan. vii. 10
(LXX), 2 S. xix. 24 (R.V.) "dressed his feet."
z Plato Legg. 684 C Qfpaireveiv re KOI lao-dai, Oxy. Pap. No. 40 (early
2nd Cent.) eBepdneva'a. . . ra^a KOKMS avrovs edepciTrevcras.
3 Ezek. xlvii. 12 "the leaf for healing (LXX avafiaais avT&v els
vyifiav)." On the Hebrew therapeia see Krauss p. 594 and Levy
iv. 6746. The Heb., of which the consonants are identical with
those in therapeia, does not occur elsewhere (Gesen. 930 a).
4 Rev. xxii. 2 fls Qepaireiav TWV e6v>v.
A. p. 209 (Mark i. 29 34) 14
JESUS HEALING
Barnabas, though he does not quote these words, refers
Ezekiel's picture of the trees, applying it to the Christi,
doctrines of the Cross and Baptism, and indirectly confirming
the inference from Revelation that Jewish Christians would
connect Ezekiel's "healing" with the thought of Christ's acts
of therapeia.
It remains to add that Philo, in his treatise on the Con-
templative Life, says that those whom he calls therapeutai are
truly so called either because they practise a therapeusis,
i.e. healing, of souls, or because they have been trained to the
therapeusis, i.e. service, of the IS (i.e. that God who is Supreme
Truth) 1 . All Philo's treatises are permeated with the thought
that man, when he thus "serves," or "attends on," God, is also
"serving" or "attending on" himself, in the highest sense 2 .
These facts suffice to shew that the Marcan word therapeuein
had a history, and various meanings, before Mark used it for the
first time in his Gospel, applying it to acts of Christ. And the
question now arises, In what precise sense did Mark use it?
But before we deal with this we must examine what he says
of the diseases.
9. "Divers" or "manifold" diseases 3
The word here translated "divers" or "manifold" means
literally "various, or variable," in nature, form, colour,
1 Philo ii. 471 2.
2 See Philo i. 201 2. We are to "honour" our "father" and
our "mother." The "Father" is the Generator of the Cosmos.
The "Mother" is Wisdom : "Neither the All-including God (6 TrX^?
debs), nor the Supreme and All-accomplishing Knowledge, needs any-
thing." It follows that "the man that attends-on (depcnrfvTiKbv} these
is profiting, not those whom he attends-on since they need nothing
but, above all, himself (aXX' eWroi/ /aa'Xiara ax^eXeu/)."
3 Mk i. 34, Mt. iv. 24, Lk. iv. 40. These three passages severally
contain the first mention of pi. v 60-01 in the three Synoptists. All
have 7TOLKL\ats with voaois, but Mt. adds K.a.1 /3a<raVot? crvvxop.fvovs. For
the texts in full, and for Mt. viii. 16 17, which is the parall. to
Mk i. 34, Lk. iv. 40 (since the three describe the healing of disease
outside Peter's house), see p. 217.
210 (Mark i. 29 34)
JESUS HEALING
behaviour, etc. It often conveys a notion of art, and some-
times of too much art, as when Plato ironically describes the
luxurious people who "humorously" contrive to make their
diseases "more artistically varied and more severe than before 1 ."
But such a Platonic phrase would not suffice to explain the
fact that Mark, Matthew, and Luke, who never use this epithet
again, agree in using it in the passages in which they severally
describe Jesus as for the first time healing not one disease
as in the case of Peter's mother-in-law but many.
The Petrine Epistle appears to give us a clue to the meaning
when it applies the epithet to two opposite things. First, it
is applied to the "manifold temptations (or, trials)" that "put
men to grief" (with an apparent allusion to the "fiery trial"
of persecution that comes on men "with a view to temptation
(or, trial) 2 ." Then it is applied to "the manifold grace of
God 3 ," which enables us to pass through temptations. In the
Epistle of James the phrase "manifold temptations" recurs 4 ;
and though the context mentions man's own nature ("his own
lust") and not the devil, as the tempting agent, yet the use of
the epithet in other epistles ("manifold lusts," "manifold lusts
and pleasures," "manifold and strange teachings") shews that
the source of temptation might be traced, through "the flesh"
and f 'the world," to "the ruler of this world," or Satan 5 .
1 Plato Pol. IV. (426 A) xapiVT<i)$ 8ia.T\ovcri.v larpfvofjifvoi yap
irepaivovo-i, rrXrjv ye TrotKtXcorf^a icai /zei'^co TTOLOIKTL ra voa-^ara. In LXX
it is applied to "speckled" or " ringstraked " sheep, and to Joseph's
coat "of many colours " etc.
2 I Pet. i. 6 7, where eV Troi/a'Aois 7ripaa-uols...8ia Trvpos de doKi-
pafafjievov prepares for ib. IV. 12 TTJ eV vplv Trupoxret Trpos TTfi.paa-p.bv
vp.lv yivofifvrj.
3 I Pet. iv. 10 TTOLKiXrjs xapiros 6fov. * Jas. i. 2.
5 2 Tim. iii. 6, Tit. iii. 3, Heb. xiii. 9. Hernias Sim. vi. 3. 4
repeats Trowci'Aoy four times while describing the -n-oiKiXai ripupiai, or
/Sao-ai'oi, or da-Oeveiai, which proceed from the ayyeXo? Ttfjuopias. Comp.
2 S. xxiv. i "the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he
moved David. . .saying Go, number Israel" with i Chr. xxi. i "Satan
stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel."
2ii (Mark i. 29 34) 14 2
JESUS HEALING
Now in the Acts of the Apostles a Petrine speech, which
shews signs of very early origin, describes the Gospel as "begin-
ning from Galilee" where Jesus "went through [the land],
benefiting and healing all that were oppressed by the devil 1 ."
If therefore we can find in any Greek document of the first
century or thereabouts some instance of the word under con-
sideration, applied to "tortures" inflicted by an oppressor not
merely as being "manifold" but also as being "artistically" cal-
culated to break down resistance we should be on safe ground
in attributing to Mark a similar metaphor. "Manifold" is
so applied no less than four times in the Jewish story of the
Seven Martyrs 2 ; and the traditional word is carried on in the
Christian accounts of the martyrdoms of Polycarp and the
Christians at Lyons 3 . Other associations may have con-
tributed to the first-century prevalence, among Christians, of
this language about "manifold diseases and torments 4 "; but
one of the most powerful (in the days of persecution and
martyrdom) would be that of the many-sidedness of the shapes
assumed by oppression and temptation, proceeding from
Satan. The view of Mark's original, then, seems to have been
1 Acts X. 38 os dirj^dfv evepycTwv nai tco/zei/os rravras rovs
(TTfVO/JieVOVS VTTO TOV 8ia@6\OV.
2 4 Mace. xv. 24 TTJV TU>V o-rp^\S)v...7roiKt\l.av, xvii. 7, xviii. 21
TTotKi'Xai with fidcravot, xvi. 3 (some MSS) irotKiXas f3ao-avi(>fj.fvovs. But
note 3 Mace. ii. 6 where (somewhat as in Hermas) the epithet is
applied to the " punishments " with which God "tried" (SOKI/UUOW)
Pharaoh.
3 Mart. Polyc. 2 TTOIK/ACDI/ ftaffavtov, Euseb. H.E. V. I. 40 avr\ Tracnjs
TTJS ev rols fJiovo/Jia^iois 7roiKL\ias avrnl (l Cor. IV. 9) " 6fap.a ycvop,voi ra>
Koo-fi&>," ib. 6l roiavrrjv et^e rrjv 7roiKt\iav.
4 Comp. Justin Tryph. 134 "Jacob served for the sake of the
speckled and spotted sheep," and " Christ ... served ... for the
manifold and many-formed men from every race (TWV e< Karros ytvovs
TTOLKiXtoV /cat 7ro\vfi8a>v avOpanrw}." Philo's phrase i. IQ2 Trot/ciXo) cai
TroAimAoKO) connects ''manifold" with " many -folded" an epithet of
the Serpent (Eurip. Medea 481) and of Typhon (Plato, Phaedr. 230 A
Brjpiov Tv(pa>vos TroXuTrXo/cobrepov).
212 (Mark i. 29 34)
JESUS HEALING
this, that simultaneously with the descent of the Son of God
to reclaim fallen men for Himself, there was an uprising of the
Serpent to maintain his hold upon them as his lawful captives,
so that Satan, the Demon, compelled his victims the demoniacs
to bid Jesus go back to His own kingdom.
Matthew is the only Synoptist that inserts a mention of
"torment," along with "manifold," in his description of Christ's
first appearance as the Healer ; but the insertion is very appro-
priate if we are to regard "manifold" as referring (like the
instances in Maccabees) to the machinations of the tormenting
Adversary called in the Acts "the oppressor" and "the devil."
Matthew's list is worded as follows : " All [the class of] those that
were in grievous condition, [through] being holden with manifold
diseases and torments [namely,] demoniacs and lunatics and
paralytics 1 ." His intention seems to be to shew that he is
referring to that kind of disease which he described in the
previous verse as "all disease and all sickness," and which
Deuteronomy describes as punishment for sin 2 . He is not refer-
ring to dumbness, lameness, and blindness, but only, or mostly,
to diseases affecting the body through the mind and the will 3 .
10. "At even, when the sun did set"
The Synoptists vary, as follows :
Mk i. 32 (lit.) Mt. viii. 16 (lit.) Lk. iv. 40 (lit.)
But, it having But, it having But, the sun set-
become late, when become late... ting... 4
the sun [had] set...
1 Mt. IV. 24 rravras TOVS KCLKCOS e^ovras rroiKiXais vocrots KOI ftaaavois
(rvvfxop.vovs, 8aip,ovio[jitvovs KOI (reXrjvia^ofjievovs K.a.1 TrapaXvTtKovs.
2 Dent. vii. 15, xxviii. 61 iracrav paXaKiav, on which see above,
p. 1 66, and Light 3940 a.
3 As in Mt. viii. 16, ix. 12, xiv. 35, ot K(IKQ>S exovres is a general
term. Then the cause is expressed by the clause TroiiciXais voo-ois KOI
fiaadvois (rwc^o^vovs. Then the i/oVoi and /Sdaavoi are particularised
in three classes.
4 Mk i. 32 o\lsias Se yevop.fvr]s ore edvaev 6 77X10$-, Mt. viii. 1 6 o^rias Se
yfvop.vrjs, Lk. iv. 40 dvvovros (D 8v(ravTos) 8e rov rjXiov . . ..
213 (Mark i. 29 34)
JESUS HEALING
In Clue it was argued that Mark had combined two Gi
translations of some non-Greek original, and that the origii
mentioned only the setting of the sun. This would be probable
a priori since Mark is given to such combinations 1 . And we
might support the hypothesis by shewing that Codex D, in
Luke, has "when the sun had set 2 ." There may have been
early hesitation between "setting" and "having set." A scribe
or editor might suggest as a safe and neutral paraphrase
"late." This Mark might combine with his literal rendering.
Matthew might substitute it for a literal rendering.
But before accepting this explanation as complete, we ought
to ask whether O.T. contains any instance of a reduplication
of time-phrases of this kind any special instance that might
possibly influence Mark. And this is all the more necessary
because the Jews were accurate to a nicety in distinguishing
the exact time of the coming on of the sabbath in the evening.
It is true that Mark's noun for "late," opsid, does not occur
in O.T. 3 But the kindred adverb, "late," opse, in one of its
four LXX instances, represents the Hebrew "between the two
evenings*." This is a phrase of peculiar religious significance
and noteworthy associations for Jews. It occurs for the first
time in Exodus in connection with the killing of the passover
lamb: "Ye shall kill it between the two evenings 5 ." This
phrase, very obscure for modern readers, is explained to Jews in
a Deuteronomic phrase which contains the duplication that we
1 See Clue 12855, especially 130.
2 Comp. Deut. xxiii. n (R.V.) "when the sun is down,"
fj\iov with ib. xxiv. 13 (R.V.) "when the sun goeth down," Trpbs
dva-fjials (AF 7rrpi 8v<rpas) rj\iov, where the Heb. is the same, in both
cases, "like [i.e. about] the going down of the sun."
3 'Ox/x-ia, in LXX, occurs only in Judith xiii. i.
4 Exod. xxx. 8 (R.V.) "When Aaron lighteth the lamps at even,"
where R.V. marg. has "Heb., between the two evenings."
6 Exod. xii. 6. The second instance is ib. xvi. 12 "Between the
two evenings ye shall eat flesh, and in the morning ye shall be filled
with bread."
214 (Mark i. 29 34)
JESUS HEALING
are attempting to illustrate ; only that, instead of "late," the
Hebrew has "in the evening," thus: "Thou shalt sacrifice
the passover in the evening, about the going-down of the sun, the
appointed-time [for] thy going-forth from Egypt 1 ." These
words are quoted in Mechilta to explain "between the two
evenings " in Exodus 2 . They are also quoted in both Talmuds ;
and all the Rabbis agree (amid some differences of opinion as
to the rest of the text) that a distinction is intended between
"in the evening" and "about the going-down of the sun 3 ."
Of course it cannot be contended that Mark, or Mark's
authority, supposed the evening that he is describing to be the
evening of the Passover. But it can be contended, and that
confidently, that this particular evening the evening when
1 Deut. xvi. 6 carircpas, trpos dvo-pas 17X101;. Gesen. 7876 quotes for
this combination i K. xxii. 35 6. But this is not quite parallel, as
two actions are described, "The king died. . .in [the] evening. . .and
there went out a cry about the going down of the sun." This has a
quasi-parallel in 2 Chr. xviii. 34 " Stayed-himself-up until the evening,
and he died toward (lit. to] the time of the going down of the sun " (where
LXX has bvvavros, but A SVVOVTOS, illustrating the v. r. in Lk. iv. 40
quoted on p. 213). I have not found anything of interest in the
Talmuds bearing on i K. xxii. 35 6, except a suggestion iny. Sanhedr.
iv. 13 ad fin., that the Heb. "cry" stood for Gk. elprjvr), and, in
b. Sanhedr. 39 b, that it meant (as it usually does) a song of joy, and
especially praise to Jehovah (Gesen. 9436).
2 Mechilt. on Exod. xii. 6 (Wii. pp. 17 18).
3 See b. Berach 9 a quoting R. Eliezer and R. Jehoshua, and
j. Pesach. v(i) (Schwab v. 62), etc., also Gen. r. on Gen. xxi. 2. The
first of "the two evenings" began from the sixth hour (i.e. noon).
Note Luke's deviation from Mark-Matthew as to the "carrying"
or "leading" of the sick to Jesus :
Mk i. 32 Mt. viii. 16 Lk. iv. 40
ffapov irpo(rr]veyK.av rjyayov
If it was the sabbath, and if the sun, as Luke says, was still
"setting," the sick ought not (according to the views of strict Jews)
to be "carried" to Jesus. Luke may have considered that Mark
used fapfiv loosely, as in Mk xi. 2 <<?pfre (Mt.-Lk. ayayere) about
the ass. They were not allowed before sunset to "carry" the sick,
they were only allowed to "lead" them.
215 (Mark i. 29 34)
JESUS HEALING
Jesus was for the first time publicly proclaimed to be the Hob
One of God, the Destroyer of the spirits of evil would be
regarded by all Jewish Christians in the early Church of Galilee
as introducing a night of special solemnity. It was indeed "a
night to be much observed unto the Lord for bringing them out
of the land of Egypt" out of the spiritual Egypt, the land of
darkness and of the shadow of death, overshadowed by Satan
and "oppressed by the devil 1 ." Matthew helps us to feel
this when he describes the healing of the crowds at even as a
fulfilment of "that which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet,
saying, Himself took our infirmities and bare our diseases*."
Mark quotes nothing neither Isaiah on "bearing diseases,"
nor Exodus on "the two evenings," nor Deuteronomy on
"the evening" and the "going down of the sun." But his
non-quotation cannot reasonably be alleged to prove non-
allusion in view of the fact that elsewhere he frequently alludes
and hardly ever quotes 3 .
If the Marcan reduplication is allusive, it may reasonably
be regarded as containing a trace cancelled in Matthew
and Luke of a Petrine reminiscence. Peter could never
forget that first night of marvel upon marvel when, after
the miracle of healing within his own house, pandemonium
seemed to collect round his doors the Prince of darkness and
death breaking out, as it were, into rebellion, only to be sup-
pressed by the Healer endowed with the power of light and
life. Coming "between the two evenings," this outpouring of
deliverance might well remind him of the deliverance of the
Passover. He could not indeed at that early date have said
in the words assigned to John the Baptist in the Fourth
Gospel "Behold, the Lamb of God which taketh away the
sin of the world" ; but in after days, recalling that eventful
night, and the Great Deliverance that it introduced, he might
1 Exod. xii. 42, Acts x. 38.
2 Mt. viii. 17, quoting Is. liii. 4.
3 See Son 3518 d.
216 (Mark i. 29 34)
JESUS HEALING
naturally regard it as a recurrence, or rather as a fulfilment,
of that first night of the Passover of Israel, the night of the
Lamb of God : slain between "the evening" and "the going
down of the sun." It is a reasonable and even probable
supposition, that Peter imprinted this thought on his oral
Gospel, and that Mark has preserved a touch of it in his
written record.
ii. Was Christ's action in any cases tentative ?
The Revised Version gives the details of the healing as
follows :
Mk i. 3234 (R.V.)
(32) And at even,
when the sun did set,
they brought unto
him all that were
sick, and them that
were possessed with
devils.
(33) And all the
city was gathered to-
gether at the door.
(34) And he
healed 1 many that
were sick with divers
diseases, and cast out
many devils ; and he
suffered not the devils
to speak, because they
knew him [many anc.
auth. add to be
Christ].
Mt. viii. 1 6 17
(R.V.)
(16) And when
even was come, they
brought unto him
many possessed with
devils : and he cast
out the spirits with a
word, and healed 1 all
that were sick :
(17) That it
might be fulfilled
which was spoken by
Isaiah the prophet,
saying, Himself took
our infirmities, and
bare our diseases.
Lk.iv. 40 4i(R.V.)
(40) And when
the sun was setting,
all they that had
any sick with divers
diseases brought
them unto him ; and
he laid his hands on
every one of them,
and healed 1 them.
(41) And devils
also came out from
many, crying out,
and saying, Thou art
the Son of God.
And rebuking them,
he suffered them not
to speak, because
they knew that he
was the Christ.
But this does not express one textually slight difference of
Luke from Mark-Matthew which might make a great difference
1 "Healed (Qepa-n-fvu)," lit. "medically attended" (s. above, p. 208).
217 (Mark i. 29 34)
JESUS HEALING
in the meaning. It is that, whereas Mark-Matthew has the
aorist, "he healed," Luke has the imperfect 1 , which, whatever
may be its meaning, does at all events not mean "he healed."
It might conceivably have a tentative meaning "attempted
to heal." Take for example Luke's use of the imperfect of the
verb "persuade" in the Acts, where A.V. has "persuaded them
to continue in the grace of God 2 ." Here R.V. has "urged them
to continue," and this, or something like it, is a necessary
correction. For the imperfect must mean "began to" or
"attempted to," and only the latter seems to make sense.
Again, where the sons of Zebedee say to Jesus that they
"attempted to prevent" a stranger from exorcizing in the name
of Jesus, the MSS vary greatly, many of them having "we
prevented* "
So here, it is conceivable that Luke, writing like a very
scrupulous historian, felt that Mark and Matthew had exag-
gerated, reasoning as follows: "It was hyperbole in Mark
to say that 'all the city gathered at the door.' It was only
'all those who had any sick with manifold diseases.' And it
would convey a wrong impression to say, as Matthew is supposed
to say, 'he healed all that were sick.' Matthew says in fact
'he attended to all that were sick.' I shall therefore by a very
slight change, the mere dropping of one letter, express that the
Lord's action was in each case tentative. People take the
Synoptic verb as meaning 'heal.' Well then I shall say what
people will understand as meaning 'He attempted to heal.'
Where faith was present, healing was effected. Where it was
absent there was no healing."
1 W. H. marg. gives the aorist, but (i) the consensus of the best
authorities is decidedly for the imperf. ; (2) Luke has the imperf. in
the context (iv. 41 W. H. txt f^px fTO > marg. c&ipxovro) ; (3) the
inferior MSS would probably be influenced by the desire of scribes to
conform Luke to the text of Mark-Matthew.
2 Acts xiii. 43.
3 Mk ix. 38 f K a>\vopfv, with the best MSS, Lk. ix. 49, W. H. eW
j Tisch. Ko>\v(rafjiev. R.V. "we forbade."
218 (Mark i. 29 34)
JESUS HEALING
But this, though conceivable, is not probable. Why should
Luke use Mark's therapeutic word in the iatric sense and alter
its meaning by a mere tense-change ? Why should he not
have used the iatric word, for which, as has been shewn above,
he has a predilection 1 ? It is better to suppose that Luke
used the imperfect to imply deliberate continuousness. That
is to say, the multitude was not healed as a whole by the
mere sight of the Healer. Nor did Jesus say to the multitude
as a whole "Be ye healed" and they were healed. He moved
from this sufferer to that, offering His tendance to each. This
will explain not only the Lucan addition of the phrase that
Jesus "laid his hands" on "each" sufferer, but also the Lucan
use, unique in N.T., of the present participle in this phrase,
"[continuously] laying his hands" on sufferer after sufferer 2 .
Thus we are still left in some doubt as to the precise results
of Christ's action, because we do not know the precise meaning
attached by any of the Synoptists except Mark to the thera-
peutic word. Mark, it would seem, must mean that Jesus
"healed many." For we cannot suppose his words to mean
that Jesus merely "offered attendance to many," passing by and
neglecting some. But how is the Marcan "healed many" to
be reconciled with Matthew's statement that Jesus "healed all
that were sick" ? Only if we suppose that Matthew gives to
the Marcan word a non-Marcan significance and means "he
attended to all." Luke, at all events, would seem to have done
this that is, to have used the therapeutic word in a non-Marcan
sense, "attended to" and to have added the phrase about
"laying the hands" in order to explain the nature of the
1 See above, p. 208 foil., on tdo/i<u "heal," as distinct from
"attend [medically]"; also p. 229, n. i.
2 Lk. iv. 40 iriTi0ci$. The aorist eVi<9ei'y is very frequent. It
occurs in Mk vi. 5, viii. 23, Mt. xix. 15, Acts ix. 12, 17, xiii. 3, xix. 6,
xxviii. 8. Note the rare imperf. followed by another imperf. in
Acts viii. 17 rdre e7reTi0eo-av...Kal e'Au/x/3ni/oi', "they [duly and solemnly]
laid their hands. . .and they [duly] received the Holy Spirit."
219 (Mark i. 29 34)
JESUS HEALING
therapeusis. If this is Luke's meaning, we may suppose that
in some cases the "healing," the iatric result, was believed by
him not to have taken place till afterwards, as he relates to
have happened to a leper, who was not "healed" till some time
had elapsed after Jesus had bidden him shew himself to the
priests 1 . In that case Jesus said to the man, "Thy faith hath
saved thee." That being so, it is conceivable that in other
instances, where "faith" was not present or was very imperfect,
the therapeusis offered by Jesus was not followed by permanent
"healing." Matthew records a conditional act of healing, when
Jesus said to two blind men, "According to your faith be it
done unto you 2 ." No other Synoptist states a condition so
definitely. But it is reasonable to suppose that the condition,
even when not stated, always existed, and that, without faith
on the part of the sufferer or the sufferer's representative, no
cure was effected.
12. The Johannine view, regarded negatively
The Fourth Gospel does not verbally recognise a conditional
character the existence of an " if ," or " according to your faith "
in the performance of any of Christ's signs. But it does
recognise a conditional character in the permanence of the results
of a sign. The Evangelist represents Jesus as saying to a man
that had been healed of an "infirmity" apparently resembling
paralysis, "Sin no longer [i.e. continue no longer in sin] lest a
worse thing befall thee 3 ."
There is also a negative character in John's attitude toward
collective healing generally. He does not deny the historical
1 Lk. xvii. 14 15.
2 Mt. ix. 27 30. This is peculiar to Matthew. In the healing
of blindness near Jericho, Matthew xx. 34 omits all mention of
"faith," whereas the parallel Mk x. 52, Lk. xviii. 42 have "Thy
faith hath saved thee."
3 Jn v. 14, s. Joh. Gr. 2437 foil., Son 3148, 3154 c. Comp. Mt. xii.
44 5, Lk. xi. 25 6, which, though only a parable, may very well
be based on facts.
220 (Mark i. 29 34)
JESUS HEALING
accuracy of Mark's account of the manifestation of the Gospel
at Capernaum in what may be called an outbreak of exorcisms
and faith-healings. He assumes it and passes it over as being
a brief episode sufficiently described by all the Synoptists :
"After this, he went down to Capernaum ... and there abode
not many days 1 ." The first working of "signs," collectively,
is located at Jerusalem. There "many" are said to have
"believed" in Jesus on account of "the signs that he was
[continually] doing" ; but it is added, in what seems irony,
that Jesus did not reciprocate this "believing 2 ." Nicodemus
says indeed that "no man" can do such signs "except God be
with him" ; but instead of commending the Rabbi's faith,
Jesus directs his attention to realities, to mysteries of heaven,
to the new birth, and to higher signs, typified by the uplifting
of the brazen serpent in the wilderness 3 .
A subsequent reference to collective signs is implied in the
statement that "the Galilaeans received" Jesus because they
had "seen all the things that he did in Jerusalem"; and
disparagement of this kind of proof seems to be implied in
Christ's saying to the nobleman "Except ye [in Capernaum] see
signs and wonders ye will not believe 4 ." The nobleman
however does believe, and an act of healing is recorded thus :
"This again is a second sign that Jesus performed, having come
from Judaea into Galilee 5 ."
"A second" must, it would seem, not be confused with "the
second," so as to mean "the second of the signs wrought by Jesus
in Galilee." If it were so taken, it would exclude the possibility
of signs previously wrought in Capernaum. The Diatessaron,
1 Jn ii. 12. " Abiding " is thrice connected with the first converts
(Jn i. 38 9) and twice with the Samaritan converts (Jn iv. 40).
Here its use in a negative phrase probably implies, as Heracleon
said (see above, p. 179), that no great spiritual result was effected.
2 Jn ii. 23 4 TroXXoi e'7ri'o-revo-ai>...ra crjj/ueZa a eVoi'er avros 5e 'irjfrovs
OVK Tri(TTVV OVTOV (IVTols (Jok. Gr . 2644).
3 Jn iii. 2 14. 4 Jn iv. 45, 48. 5 Jn iv. 54.
221 (Mark i. 29 34)
JESUS HEALING
it is true, appears to take it thus. But, in order to do so,
(i) omits the Johannine account of Christ's going down to
Capernaum 1 , and (2) places the healing of the nobleman's son
before the Synoptic miracles in Capernaum at the beginning
of the Gospel, thus : "And when Jesus heard that John was
delivered up he went away into Galilee (Mt. iv. 12) and he
entered again into Cana, where he had made the water wine
(Jn iv. 46)." The truth seems to be that "a second" means a
sign that the Evangelist selects to record in detail, and to place
second in his small list of detailed "signs." He has told us
above that Jesus was " [continually] doing signs" in Jerusalem,
but he has described none of them in detail.
We can imagine the Evangelist explaining his silence thus
"I did not mention the fact that Jesus had also been working
signs during His short stay in Capernaum. All know that.
Mark and Luke have described them fully. But they were
only of rudimentary importance. They were such signs as
Jesus had in His mind when He said to the nobleman, ' Except
ye [in Capernaum] see signs and wonders, ye will not believe.'
They did not produce the higher kind of faith. The 'first'
sign at Cana was 'first,' and the 'second' sign at Cana was
'second' in spiritual order 2 . There is a tendency in some to
1 Jn ii. 12 13.
2 Comp. Chrysostom on Jn iv. 54, "He has not simply (ovSe
added the epithet 'second,' but still [further] (ert) he extols
(eVcu'pei) the wonder [of the faith] (TO 6avp.a) of the Samaritans, shewing
that, even when a ' second ' sign was wrought, these [people in Caper-
naum] who beheld [signs] did not attain to the height of those others
(fKfivmv) those who had seen nothing [of the nature of a 'sign']."
Cramer omits cVatpct. 'ATT\O>S might mean "simply" in the sense
of "superficially," " with popular inexactness."
Origen Comm. Joann. xiii. 60 ad fin. enumerates seven scenes
of Christ's early visitations (eVi&^uu) Bethany (MS Bathara), Cana,
Capernaum, Jerusalem, Judaea, Samaria, and Cana again. He con-
cludes thus: " In-the-sixth-place (C<TOV) He taught in Samaria. . .and
in-the-seventh-place (e5o/noi>) He (lit.) becomes in Cana of Galilee for-
the-second-time (eV K. T^S TaX. devrepov -yiVerai)." At the beginning of
222 (Mark i. 29 34)
JESUS HEALING
magnify all the signs of the Lord Jesus without distinction,
because they were very many, and because He seemed to some
most marvellous when He worked many signs simultaneously.
They were sometimes, in fact, healings of a multitude rather
than of individuals. I do not deny that there were such
healings. But they were not signs of the highest kind. They
might be (sometimes) such as those that may have happened
after the Lord's Resurrection, when people in Jerusalem placed
their sick folk in the street, so that the shadow of Peter, passing
by, might benefit some of them 1 . Such signs there were in
Capernaum at the beginning of the Gospel ; but I pass over
them in order to relate others in which Jesus healed this or that
individual, and taught this or that new truth in each act of
healing. I shall also give the readers the Lord's own thought
not the words, but the thought, the meaning of the words
concerning the reasons why He sometimes healed one and
not another."
13. The Johannine view, regarded positively
Some thought of this kind appears to throw light on the
narrative that immediately follows. It represents Jesus as
selecting one out of a multitude of sick folk near a pool, and
healing him alone. The narrative will come before us again
when we compare it with the Synoptic healing of the "para-
lytic 2 ," with which it has some points of similarity (though
more of contrast) ; but we must note here the exceptional
circumstance that the man did not know who had healed him,
even after he had been healed. The man's faith, therefore,
the chapter he says (in a passage where MSS vary) that Jn iv. 54
is "ambiguous" (a^$i'/3oAoi/) . But his own view is manifest, that
between the first visit to Cana and the second a hexaemeron (see
Joh. Gr. 2624, Son 3583 (ix) b, (xii) d) not literal, but mystical-
must be supposed to have elapsed.
1 Acts v. 15.
2 Origen Comm. Joann. xiii. 39 calls the man TrapaX
223 (Mark i. 29 34)
JESUS HEALING
if any, was not faith in Jesus as a well-known Healer. It
must have been faith called up in a moment by the power of
the unknown Person who said to him with an apparent sug-
gestion of reproach for his sluggish inertness "Hast thou a
desire to be made whole 1 ? "
Such a question as this has no parallel in the Gospels. And,
at first sight, it appears to have no parallel in the Hebrew
Scriptures. But when we ask what Hebrew corresponds to
the Greek "whole" or "sound," and find that it is "life" or
"living 2 ," we are led back to several passages which exhibit
Israel as having, in effect, no "desire" for the ways of life,
which are the ways of the Lord. Israel needs the Deuteronomic
warning "Choose life 3 ." And the Psalmist asks, "What man
is he that desireth life ? " before prescribing the means of
attaining to it 4 . The Petrine Epistle, perhaps blending these
words with their context, has "he that desireth to love life 5 ,"
an extraordinary phrase which at all events emphasizes the
"desire" or "will" that is required from him that is to walk in
the Lord's way. In the Fourth Gospel, it seems probable
that the man that lay "thirty-eight years" by the pool, is the
type of Israel in the wilderness, for whom a period of "thirty-
eight years" is mentioned as being terminated by the passage
"over the brook Zered 6 ." The man is made "sound" or
"living," but he is warned not to "continue in sin" lest a worse
1 Jn v. 6 deXeis vyLrjs ycvea-Qai. Delitzsch gives for 6(\fis the same
Heb. (Gesen. 3426) as that in Ps. xxxiv. 12 6 64\<av fafjv. This is
different from the LXX use of tfe'Aoo in negative phrases, where LXX
"not willing" corresponds to Heb. "refusing."
2 'Yyir]s is rare in LXX. But it represents Heb. adj. "living" in
Sir. xxx. 14, as well as in Lev. xiii. 15 16, and Heb. verb "live"
in Is. xxxviii. 21.
3 Deut. xxx. 19.
4 Ps. xxxiv. 12 (LXX) Tis fo-Tiv avdpwros 6 tfe'Acov farjv; followed
by dymrwv iftelv rj^iepcis dyaOds.
5 I Pet. iii. IO 6 yap " QeXwv farjv dyairqv KOI Idelv f)/j.epas dyaOds."
6 Deut. ii. 14.
224 (Mark i. 29 34)
JESUS HEALING
thing befall him. He does not thank Jesus, even when he
knows who Jesus is. He gives information about Jesus to His
enemies, the Jews, who persecute Him for healing on the
sabbath 1 . The outcome o.: this sign, the giving of "soundness,"
is by no means a giving of "soundness" to those who witness
it. On the contrary, Jesus exclaims to the Jews, " Ye desire
not to come to me that ye may have life 2 ." Far from coming to
Him for life, they have begun to seek His death*.
It may be asked why Jesus selected for healing, out of a
multitude of sufferers, this particular man, who apparently
proved ungrateful. We are perhaps invited to suppose that Jesus
did it in part because He "knew that he had been now a long
time" in that pitiable condition 4 . That we can understand
the motive of a special pity. But further, another and a
different cause is stated, and more than once, by Jesus Himself.
He implies that every such action of the Son corresponds to
some vision, received by the Son, of an action of the Father :
"The Son is not able to do anything from himself unless he
seeth the Father doing something 5 ." This also is the reason
given for working the sign on the sabbath.
This explanation of the "inability" of the Son, in certain
circumstances, to perform acts of healing, will come before us
again when we discuss passages where this inability is asserted
by Mark but passed over by one or both of the other Synoptists 6 .
Here we shall merely say a word in answer to the obvious
objection that this explains nothing, but merely admits that the
motives of Jesus are inexplicable as human motives, because
they are superhuman. Christ's answer does not of course
1 Jn v. 15 16. 2 Jn v. 40. 3 Jn v. 18.
4 Jn v. 6. Not only the duration of the suffering, but the hopeless
torpor of the sufferer, a defect of will, may have given cause for
special pity.
5 Jn v. 19, comp. ib. 30 "I am not able, from myself, to do
anything."
6 See Introduction p. 4 foil.
A. p. 225 (Mark i. 29 34) 15
JESUS HEALING
"explain" everything; for who can "explain" the exact
relation between even a good man and God, not to speak
the relation between the incarnate Son and the Father ? Bi
John's view does explain something. His support of M;
on this point of inability, is of historical as well as of spiritm
importance. It answers a question that might otherwise have
perplexed us: "How was it that Jesus is nowhere recorded
in the Gospels to have been accused by His enemies of failing
in an attempt at exorcism or healing ? "
The reply of the Fourth Gospel appears to be: "Although
occasionally multitudes at a time received from Jesus healing or
assuagement of suffering through His mere presence and their
faith, yet those whom He specially chose to heal were few.
When He chose this person or that, it was through revelation,
or vision, from the Father. He was always giving to the Father
His filial therapeusis, service, or attendance, in all His acts.
But sometimes the Father said to the Son ' Serve me by serving
this or that sufferer. Give him your therapeusis, and, by
giving it to him, give it to me.' Such are the signs of healing
recorded in this Gospel. They were the signs of Him whom
Isaiah described as the Suffering Servant. But the multitude
did not recognise Him as the Servant. When they followed
Jesus 'because they were continually beholding the signs that
He was doing on the sick 1 / they did not recognise that all His
signs were signs of service. To be kings, not to be servants,
was their ideal. They sought to 'snatch Him away to make
Him a king 2 .'"
The conclusion concerning this particular sign is, that it
typified what Paul calls the election of Israel. On no other
occasion did Jesus so conspicuously choose out, or "elect,'' one
1 Jn vi. 2.
2 Jn vi. 15. The preceding words "This is of a truth the prophet
that cometh into the world" are to be regarded as a proof, not of
spiritual insight, but of spiritual blindness subjection to conven-
tional terms such as (Jn i. 21) "the prophet/' and "he that cometh."
226 (Mark i. 29 34)
JESUS HEALING
out of many. The man had not besought Jesus. No one had
besought in the man's behalf. It was election pure and simple,
with no definite reason alleged for it. And the result may be
described in Paul's words, "A hardening in part hath befallen
Israel 1 ." Paul adds "until the fulness of the Gentiles be come
in," and "the fulness of the Gentiles" is probably typified in
the Fourth Gospel by the healing of the man born blind, for
which this sign is at once a preparation and a contrast.
14. The difference between the Fourth Gospel and the Three
Summing up the differences between the Synoptic and the
Johannine views of Christ's acts of healing, we may say that
the Three lay more stress than the Fourth on small details as
to the "many" or the "all 2 ," and on the number and nature
of the diseases healed, and on the consequent glorification of
God by the multitude. The Fourth, while not denying all
these things, regards them as largely superficial. It keeps in
view the ideal Shepherd of Ezekiel who does all that the
evil shepherds fail to do who feeds and protects as well as
"heals" and "strengthens" the sheep 3 . At the same time
it recognises that the sheep, too, have their part to perform.
They must "know" the Shepherd's voice and follow where He
calls 4 . It is the absence of this knowledge or insight in the
flock of Israel that Isaiah deplores. The prophet speaks
bitterly as if his own message was destined to "make fat" the
heart of the people, "lest they see with their eyes, and hear
with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn again,
and be healed 5 ." The Three represent Jesus as quoting or
1 Rom. xi. 25.
"Many" would be appropriate to Is. liii. 12 "bare the sins of
many" ; "all," to Is. liii. 6 "all we like sheep" and "laid upon him
the iniquity of us all."
3 Ezek. xxxiv. 4 16. 4 Jn x. 4.
6 Is. vi. 9 10 "Go and tell this people ...' see ye indeed but
perceive not.' Make the heart of this people fat. ..."
227 (Mark i. 29 34) 15 2
JESUS HEALING
alluding to a portion of this prophecy 1 . But Luke omits
"turn again and be healed." Mark has "turn again and be
forgiven." Matthew, with whom Luke largely agrees so far as
concerns the words of Jesus, proceeds to add a quotation of his
own from Isaiah (attributing this also to Jesus) in which he gives
the prophet's words fully as the LXX gives them, ending with
"lest they should turn again and I should heal them." John does
a somewhat similar thing in his account of the close of Christ's
public teaching, when he states the reasons for the unbelief
of the nation as a whole. There he puts forth the startling
statement, but not attributing it to Jesus, that "they were not
able to believe because Isaiah said . . . He hath blinded their
eyes. . .that they might not turn and I should heal them 2 ." But
John's preceding and following context indicates that, in his
belief, the Jews had prepared the blinding of their own eyes.
They had "loved the glory of men rather than the glory of
God 3 ," and when the greater glory fell upon the eyes that they
had habituated only to receive the lesser, they were blinded
by the excess of light.
This quotation from Isaiah attributed by Matthew to
Jesus, is the only passage in the Gospels where Jesus is repre-
sented as using the LXX " heal " ; and it is used in the national
sense, which is frequent in the prophets but occurs rarely in
the Law : "I will put none of the diseases upon thee, which
I have put upon the Egyptians ; for I am the Lord that healeth
Jewish tradition takes this primarily as referring to
1 Mk iv. 12, Mt. xiii. 13 15, Lk. viii. 10.
2 Jn xii. 39 40. 3 Jn xii. 43.
4 Exod. xv. 26 "that healeth thee," o i'o>/xei>o? o-e. Jewish tradition
regards this as referring to the health that comes (Prov. iii. 8, iv. 22)
from the Law, see Mechilt. and Rashi ad loc. In Deut. xxx. 3
IcurrjTai Kvptos ras apapTias vov, the Heb. has "urn, or, return to,
thy captivity," Jer. Targ. "accept your repentance," Aq. eVto-r^e'^et
...rr]v iri(TTpo(pTjv crov. Mk iv. 12 d<p0f] avrols is a paraphrastic parall.
to Mt. xiii. 15 ido-opai avrovs. This passage of Isaiah is also quoted
in Acts xx viii. 27.
228 (Mark i. 29 34)
JESUS HEALING
the health that comes from the Law. Luke, conspicuously
among the writers in the New Testament, uses the word in a
literal sense 1 . But in the Acts he takes it in its national and
spiritual sense in one important passage where Paul, in his final
utterance to the unbelieving Jews, includes the same quotation
from Isaiah as that attributed by Matthew to Jesus Himself.
There Paul repeats, without paraphrase, the words "lest I
should heal them 2 ."
As regards the order of the quotation, Matthew places it
early in his Gospel, in Christ's commentary on the first of His
parables, somewhat as Isaiah places it early in the book of
his prophecies, when he is first sent forth on his mission. John
in his Gospel, like Luke in the Acts, places it late, as summing
up the results of the preaching of the Gospel to the Jews, and
as recognising the deplorable and paradoxical result the
rejection of the Chosen People.
For this paradox the Fourth Gospel prepares us in a way
in which the Three do not. It represents the faith generated
by Christ's signs of healing as being, from the first, superficial.
It omits that refrain about "glorifying God" which is' so
prominent in Luke's conclusions of stories about miracles 3 .
1 Luke uses tao/zat in his Gospel n times, and always literally.
In Acts ix. 34, xxviii. 8 it is literal. In ib. x. 38 itopcvos iravras rovs
KaTa8waarTvofjLvovs VTTO TOV 5ia/3oXou, it is perhaps spiritual, besides
referring to exorcisms and acts of healing. In ib. xxviii. 27 Paul
quotes Is. vi. 10. It occurs only once in Mark (lit.), four times in
Matthew (3 lit. + * (quoting Is. vi. 10) metaph.), thrice in John
(2 lit. + i (quoting Is. vi. 10) metaph.). In the rest of N.T.
it occurs thrice, Heb. xii. 3, i Pet. ii. 24 (metaph.), Jas. v. 16
(doubtful).
2 Acts xxviii. 27.
3 &odetv TOV 6f6v occurs only once in Mark (ii. 12), twice in
Matthew, eight times in Luke (ii. 20, v. 25, 26, vii. 16, xiii. 13 etc.),
once in John (of Peter's death, xxi. 19). In connection with a
"sign," the phrase "give glory to God" occurs in Jn ix. 24. But
it means, in effect, "Glorify God by saying that Jesus is an
impostor."
229 (Mark i. 29 34)
JESUS HEALING
It warns us, in the Prologue, that the Light of the World shines
in darkness, and teaches, at an early stage, that only those who
love the Light can be drawn to the Light. It suggests in
narrative after narrative, sentence after sentence, and phrase
after phrase, that "health" and "healing" are not externalities
to be wrought by amulets or charms, but that they must come
to us, if they come at all, from the reception of this Light into
our inmost being. Then it shews us how the clouds of darkness
and death gather round the Light to suppress His attempts at
healing ; how they gather strength and power to drive Him
out of the world that He came to heal ; how all His healing
proves, and must prove, a failure for Israel after the flesh,
because Israel clings to the bondage of Egypt ; and lastly, how
nothing is left but that the Light must be hidden for a time, and
the Healer Himself must die, so that He may rise again "the
Sun of righteousness, with healing in his wings 1 ."
The attitude of the Fourth Gospel toward collective faith-
healing may be illustrated from the Appendix to Mark and the
First Epistle to the Corinthians. The Appendix gives, as Christ's
promise, "These signs shall follow them that believe," and
then after enumerating victories over sickness, "devils,"
"serpents," and "any deadly thing" it adds that the Eleven
"went forth and preached everywhere, the Lord working with
them, confirming the word by the signs that followed 2 ." The
Epistle speaks of "healing" thrice as a "gift," and implies
that it was not extended to all believers, asking "Have all
gifts of healings 3 ? " All admit that the early Christian power
of faith-healing rapidly diminished. At the end of the first
century it would become a pressing need for Christians to
1 Mai. iv. 2. 2 Mk xvi. 17 20.
3 i Cor. xii. 9, 28, 29.
230 (Mark i. 29 34)
JESUS HEALING
realise that they must no longer count upon such "signs"
as the Mark Appendix mentions, but must depend on that
permanent Spirit of which those "signs" had been only a
particular and transitory manifestation 1 .
1 i Cor. xii. i foil, insists on the unity of the Spirit as compared
with "diversities of gifts," e.g. "to another, gifts of healings, in the
one Spirit."
231 (Mark i. 29 34)
CHAPTER IV*
JESUS GOES FORTH BEFORE DAWN 1
[Mark i. 35 9]
i. Why did Matthew omit this ?
IN Mark-Luke, there are only, at the most, five narratives 2
(and those very brief) omitted by Matthew : (i) the exorcism
above discussed ; (2) the " going forth," now to be considered ;
(3) the command given to John the son of Zebedee not to
"forbid" some who exorcised in Christ's name; (4) the nar-
rative of the widow's mite ; (5) the guidance of the disciples by
"a man bearing a pitcher of water" on the night of the Last
Supper 3 .
The first of these (the exorcism) Matthew may well have
omitted as being but one of many exorcisms, which he mentions
in general terms as occurring about this time 4 ; and similarly
the second (the "going forth") he may have omitted as not
being important enough to come at the outset of the Gospel,
or Good Tidings, which, in his view, began more suitably with
the Sermon on the Mount. The third ("forbid them not")
might be used by "vagabond exorcists 5 " to justify themselves.
This is indicated by a tradition peculiar to Matthew, where
* For titles of previous Parts of Diatessarica referred to by
abbreviations in this volume, see pp. 545 6. For other abbrevia-
tions see pp. xxiii xxvi.
For notes i 5, see p. 233.
232 (Mark i. 35 9)
JESUS GOES FORTH BEFORE DAWN
exorcists receive a rebuke after appealing to the Lord, saying
" In thy name have we not cast out devils 6 ? " The fourth
("the widow's mite") may be illustrated by the fact that,
where Luke has "Blessed are ye, the poor," the parallel Matthew
1 Matthew omits all the Marcan narrative except the last verse :
Mt. iv. 23
And Jesus went
about in all Galilee,
teaching in their
synagogues, and
preaching the gos-
pel of the kingdom,
and healing all
manner of disease
and all manner of
sickness among the
people.
Lk. iv. 42 4
(42) And when
it was day, he came
out and went into a
desert place : and the
multitudes sought
after him, and came
unto him, and would
have stayed him,
that he should not
go from them.
(43) But he said
unto them, I must
preach the good
tidings of the king-
dom of God to the
other cities also : for
therefore was I sent.
(44) And he
was preaching in
the synagogues of
Judaea.
Mk i. 35 9
(35) And in the
morning, a great
while before day, he
rose up and went
out, and departed
into a desert place,
and there prayed.
(36) And Simon
and they that were
with him followed
after him;
(37) And they
found him, and say
unto him, All are
seeking thee.
(38) And he saith
unto them, Let us
go elsewhere into
the next towns, that
I may preach there
also ; for to this end
came I forth.
(39) And he went
into their synagogues
throughout all Gali-
lee, preaching and
casting out devils.
In Lk. iv. 44, R.V. instead of "Judaea," has "Galilee," but
marg. "very many ancient authorities read 'Judaea.' " W. H. has
"Judaea" without alternative (s. Beginning p. 209 foil.).
2 "Narratives." There are several instances of Mark-Luke
picturesque "details in a narrative" (e.g. Mk v. 18 20, 30 33, 35
37) omitted by Matthew, but not of separate "narratives."
3 See Mk i. 23 8, 35 8, ix. 38 40, xii. 41 4, xiv. 13 and
parallels in Luke.
4 Mt. iv. 24.
5 Acts xix. 13.
6 Mt. vii. 22, where contrast the parall. Lk. xiii. 26 "we ate and
drank in thy presence."
233 (Mark i. 35 9)
JESUS GOES FORTH BEFORE DAWN
has "Blessed are the poor in spirit*." Luke is probably giving
the exact words which happen to suit his own views about
literal poverty while Matthew is deviating from the exact
words in order to give their meaning. If so, the same fear of
being misunderstood which led Matthew there to add some-
thing to "the exact words" in order to guard against an
interpretation of them as praising poverty in itself, and for
itself may have led him here to omit the Marcan story of the
Widow. In the fifth instance ("a man bearing a pitcher of
water") it is hardly possible to conceive that Matthew can
have discerned anything that could cause believers to go wrong.
More probably he thought that it was a detail that he might
well omit on an occasion so eventful as that of the Last Supper,
in order to make room for other traditions of his own, which
Mark had not inserted 2 .
Returning to the Marcan tradition about Jesus "going
forth before dawn" and "departing into a desert place," we
may say that Matthew omits it partly because it ended in no
definite and important result, and partly because it distracted
attention from Jesus as fulfilling a prediction of Isaiah about
"the gospel" in connection with the words "beautiful upon the
mountains*." It is in accordance with his principle of grouping
events that after the first mention of "the gospel," and its
attraction for the multitude, he should add "and seeing the
multitudes, he went up into the mountain*." These words
1 Lk. vi. 20, Mt. v. 3.
2 Origen (on Mt. xxvi. 17 18, Lomm. iv. 408) interprets this
last Marcan narrative allegorically as well as literally. The " pitcher ' '
of water prepares the way for the "cup" of the New Covenant ; or
the Law prepares the way for the Gospel. He doubts whether the
water is (i) " mundatoria " or (2) "potabilis."
3 Is. lii. 7 " How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him
that bringeth good tidings (i.e. the gospel)."
4 Mt. iv. 23 v. i "And Jesus went about ... preaching the
gospel. . . . (25) And there followed him great multitudes from Galilee . . .
and [from] beyond Jordan, (v. i) And seeing the multitudes, he
went up into the mountain." The parallel Luke (vi. 20) makes no
234 (Mark i. 359)
JESUS GOES FORTH BEFORE DAWN
introduce what we call "the Sermon on the Mount" and
rightly, for Matthew intended an emphasis on "mountain."
After the Sermon, Matthew relates acts of healing, separate
and collective. And here he expressly quotes Isaiah as having
predicted them : " Himself took our infirmities and bare our
diseases 1 ." He did not quote Isaiah before about "the moun-
tains " ; but the two verses in Isaiah are divided by only a
short interval, and Matthew probably had both in view.
Having before him such an aspect of the beginning of the
Gospel of Christ, Matthew might put aside and reasonably,
from his point of view a Marcan tradition about the exact
hour in the very early morning when Jesus went forth on His
missionary work from Capernaum.
Besides seeming unimportant in fact, it might seem a
little harsh in expression. For when Mark says that "Simon
and they that were with him followed after" Jesus, he uses a
word that mostly means "pursued" in a hostile sense, or
"persecuted." On the whole, the question seems to be, not so
much why Matthew omitted such a narrative as rather why
Mark inserted it. This question we shall now attempt to answer.
2. Why did Mark insert this ?
It is not enough to say that Mark probably inserted the
"going forth before dawn" because it came to him from
Petrine sources as a historical Petrine reminiscence of actual
fact. That would apply to a multitude of reminiscences. The
question is, Why did he, when selecting a very small group out
of the multitude, include this in the selected group ? Is it
because some early poetic traditions recorded it at first as
mention of "mountain." Luke has (vi. 12) "he went out into the
mountain to pray...(vi. 17) he came down with them and stood
on a level place."
1 Mt. viii. i 17, quoting finally Is. liii. 4, which follows not long
after Is. lii. 7.
235 (Mark i. 35 9)
JESUS GOES FORTH BEFORE DAWN
symbolic, and did the record remain when the symbolism was
forgotten ?
The Bible thrice records concerning Abraham that he
"rose early in the morning." On the third of these occasions
he was going forth on a journey to sacrifice his son on Mount
Moriah 1 . Jewish traditions have preserved the Jewish belief
that whatever the hospitable Abraham did for God, when the
Three appeared to him, God did in return for Abraham's
descendants 2 . Much more might it be expected that what
Abraham did for God in sacrificing his own son Isaac, God
would, in some way, do again in recompense. Accordingly,
when God sent forth His own Son on a journey that was to
end in the sacrifice of Himself on Mount Moriah, it was fit
(so Christian Jews would think) that He, too, should "rise
early in the morning," or even "very early," while, as Mark
says, "there was still much of the night."
The Hebrew word shdcam, "rise-early," denotes eager
readiness, and Mark's paraphrase emphasizes it. But further
the " going forth" of the Messiah is predicted by Hosea in con-
nection, not only with the "morning" but also with the above-
mentioned word "pursue" Generally, as we have seen, it
implies hostile pursuit, but it does not in Hosea. Both of these
expressions occur in a passage that is at the root of Christ's
predictions about being "raised up on the third day," reiterated
in the Synoptists : "Come, and let us return unto the Lord. . .
1 Gen. xix. 27, xxi. 14, xxii. 3. On DDE? "rise-early," see Gesen.
1014 b. In Gen. xix. 27 "Abraham rose-early (R.V. gat up early)
in the morning to the place where he had stood before the Lord,"
Jewish tradition interpreted "stood" as referring to "prayer." See
From Letter 944. Mark also represents Jesus as "praying." Abra-
ham's "prayer" had been on the preceding day, but we are perhaps
to assume that he repeated it.
2 See Schottgen ii. 61 quoting Gen. r. and Numb. r. e.g. " Dixit
R. Eleasar . . . Quodcunque Abrahamus Angelis ministerialibus prae-
stitit Deus retribuit filiis ejus in exitu ex ^Egypto, et dabit quoque
temporibus Messiae. Sic de Abrahamo invenitur (Gen. xviii. 4) . ..."
236 (Mark i. 35 9)
JESUS GOES FORTH BEFORE DAWN
After two days will he revive us, on the third day he will raise
us up... And let us know, let us pursue (R.V. follow on) to
know the Lord. His going forth is sure as the morning 1 ."
If there was an allusion to Hosea, in "pursued him," Luke
seems not to have understood it, or else to have perceived that
it would not be understood by others. At all events he para-
phrases it at such length as to shew that it has no hostile
meaning. Also there appears to have been some early doubt
as to who "pursued." Perhaps the original was simply "those
with him," that is, "with Jesus in Peter's house" ; but others
took it as "the multitude that had previously gathered round
Peter's door," or "the household of Peter," or both 2 . Mark
appears to have preserved the tradition in its earliest form.
It implies that Christ's success as a Faith-healer was felt by
Him to be in danger of interfering with the work set before
Him, which Mark here calls briefly "preaching," having above
called it, more fully, "preaching the gospel of God."
3. Differences between Mark and Luke, and Johannine
illustrations of (i) "pursued," (2) "let us go 3 "
(i) Mark's bold statement that Jesus was "pursued" or
"chased," softened by Luke, may be illustrated by the words
1 Hos. vi. i 3. See Introduction p. 43 quoting Paradosis 1218,
1297, 1306. Delitzsch, in Mk i. 36 "pursued," uses the same Heb.
word that is in Hos. vi. 3. It is mostly used (Gesen. 922 3) to
mean "pursue as an enemy," "persecute" etc.
2 For instances where "Peter," or "Simon," is parallel to some
different expression, see Notes 2999 (xvii) g h, comp. 2875. Hip-
polytus, according to a commentary of Bar-Salibi, said (see Hermas
in Arcadia, Rendel Harris, p. 48) "Christus, postquam baptizatus
fuerat, abiit in desertum, et quando inquisitio facta erat de illo per
discipulos Johannis et per populum, quaerebant eum et non invenie-
bant eum, quia in deserto erat." This contains perhaps a trace
of Jn i. 37 where Jesus is "followed" by two disciples of John
another interpretation of "they that were with him."
3 Mk i. 36, 38. Luke's omission of Mk i. 35 "and was praying"
can hardly be called a disagreement, in view of Lk. v. 16 "and
praying" It seems to be rather a transposition than a disagreement.
237 (Mark i. 359)
JESUS GOES FORTH BEFORE DAWN
inserted by John alone, after the Feeding of the Five Thousand,
"Jesus, perceiving that they were about to come and snatch
him away, to make him a king 1 ." Mark does not say that
here. But, no doubt, some of those Galilaeans who "chased
after Jesus" would have liked to "make him a king." In the
Fourth Gospel, Nathanael, after a sentence or two had passed
between him and Jesus, exclaims "Thou art Israel's King 2 ."
John may well have felt that Mark's strong word conveyed a
historical fact that was not to be ignored : from the beginning,
Jesus was "pursued," blindly "followed," by multitudes, with
the result that He was soon "pursued," in a different sense,
blindly "persecuted," by the Pharisees.
(2) In connection with "let us go," the Greek agomen,
meaning "Let us go [forward]," has been fully discussed else-
where. It is used by Epictetus to mean "Let us go to the
proconsul [that he may judge between us] " ; also, being a
Hebraized word, it is used in a Jewish fable about the inferior
beasts who say "Let us go [on a deputation, to his Majesty, the
lion] 3 ." Luke avoids it here. Luke also omits it and its con-
text in the narrative of Gethsemane, where Mark and Matthew
have "arise, let us go [forward] (agomen)*." John uses it on
the night of the Last Supper, "Arise, let us go hence 5 ." There
it is ambiguous for it might mean "Let us retire from danger."
But he has previously used it, just before the raising of Lazarus,
where Jesus says "Let us go into Judaea again." Judaea was
the place where His life had been attempted, and accordingly
the disciples remonstrate. Jesus repeats "Nevertheless let us
1 Jn vi. 15. Comp. also Jn ii. 23 4 where the repetition of
indicates that Jesus did not reciprocate the "belief" of those
who "believed on his name, beholding his signs which he did." He
"did not trust himself to them."
2 Jn i. 49-
3 Paradosis 1372 7.
4 Mk xiv. 42, Mt. xxvi. 46, om. by Lk. xxii. 46 foil.
6 Jn xiv. 31.
238 (Mark i. 35 9)
JESUS GOES FORTH BEFORE DAWN
go unto him." Thomas then exclaims: "Let. us go us also,
that we may die with him 1 ."
John's threefold repetition of agomen before the raising of
Lazarus throws light on his single ambiguous use of it before
the Passion. It shews that on both occasions he means by
it "go forth to meet danger," and, at the same time, "go forth
to the performance of an appointed duty." Perhaps Luke
omitted it because he thought that "Go ye," rather than "Let
us go," suited the dignity of the Messiah. But Hosea combines
the two in saying "Come ye, and let us return unto the Lord,"
and Micah declares that this shall be the cry of many nations,
"Come ye and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord 2 ."
According to Mark, Jesus had previously uttered the "Come
ye !" to Peter and Andrew 3 . Now He adds, what might mean
in effect, "Let us go up to the mountain of the Lord," that is
to say, "Let us go up to the establishment of the New Temple
of the Lord, not made with hands." The context in Hosea
contains the words "On the third day he will raise us up."
Rashi paraphrases this as meaning "By the building of a third
temple He will revive us." Thus the drift of Mark both here,
and above, in the Call of the Fishermen leads us to think
that Jesus is already contemplating probably a literal, but
certainly a spiritual, "going up" not a mere circuit of mission-
ary journeyings and synagogue-discourses diversified with
instances of faith-healing, but some kind of active appeal to
the Father, some intention to bring matters to a crisis by
staking life on the issue of a journey to Jerusalem, knowing it
to be the Father's will that His Kingdom should speedily come,
and His spiritual Temple rise anew in Israel.
1 Jn xi. 7, 15, 16.
2 Hos. vi. i, Mic. iv. 2.
3 See above, p. 47 foil., on SeCre. In Mic. iv. 2 "come ye" is
239 (Mark i. 359)
JESUS GOES FORTH BEFORE DAWN
4. "Elsewhere into the next towns" (Mark), "to the
other cities also" (Luke) 1
Mark's word for "towns" is unique here in the Greek Bible,
and hardly occurrent elsewhere except in Strabo 2 . There the
word means towns not worthy to be called cities ; but the
meaning in Mark is not so simple. Even if it could be explained
here as meaning "towns superior to villages in that they
possessed synagogues" (as Horae Hebraicae suggests) the
question arises, " How are we to explain Mark's non-use of the
term later on among the many instances where he speaks of
'villages,' 'cities,' etc. 3 ?" Codex D and several Latin and
1 Mk i. 38 dXXa^ov fls ras f\o^fvas Kfop-onoXfis, Lk. iv. 43 KOI TOIS
ercpais TroXea-ti/. In Mark, dXXa^oi) is omitted by most versions and
MSS but inserted by the best Greek MSS. It occurs nowhere else
in N.T. or LXX. In the early Apologists and Fathers it occurs
only in Justin Martyr, once with aXXoi (Apol. 24) and thrice with
a quotation ("[he says] in another place," Apol. 37 (bis), Tryph.
122). Delitzsch renders it by the Heb. "from this fylace] " ( = LXX
fitTfvQfv), as also he renders fvrcvQfv in Jn xiv. 31 aya>^v eWeC^fi/, "let
us go hence."
2 See Strabo 537, 557, 568, 594. Swete (on Mk i. 38) refers to
Joseph. Ant. xi. 86, but it is not in Niese's xi. 86, and Niese gives
without v.r. in Ant. xi. 8. 6 raCra 8ioiKT)crdp.fvos cv rols 'lepo-
e(o-TpdTvo~v eVt ray e^opevas TroXeiy. Hor. Heb. (on Mk i. 38)
recognises (i) cities girt with walls, places of trade, and populous
(kerach) \ (2) villages, or country towns, without walls and without
a synagogue (caphar) ; (3) "cities" in an inclusive sense, including
places fortified and not fortified, with synagogues and without (ir).
By KeofioTroXeis Hor. Heb. understands here cities belonging to the
third class, i.e. "towns where there were synagogues, which never-
theless were not either fortified or towns of .trade."
3 See (i) Mk VI. 6 irepi^ycv rds /cco/xay /cuxXo) (sim. Mt. ix. 35 ray
iroXfis rrdo-as KCU rds Kco/xas), Lk. xiii. 22 Kara iro\is K. Ka>p.as...K.
iropei av TroLovfievos els 'lepoo-., where Mark describes a circuit, but Luke
a journey to Jerusalem', (2) Mk vi. 36 TOVS KVKX<U dypovs K. na>fj.as
(Mt. xiv. 15 ray Koo/xas), Lk. ix. 12 ras KVK.\a> K&JJLOS K. dypovs ',
(3) in Mkvi. 56 (Mt. om., Lk. om.) oirov...fis Kvpas fj fls TroXfisfj els
dypovs, ev rais dyopais criffeo-av, SS has " cities, or villages, or farm-
steads, in the streets," D dypovs before n-oXet? and TrXareiais for
240 (Mark i. 35 9)
JESUS GOES FORTH BEFORE DAWN
Syriac versions have "villages" and "cities" separately; but
that is so natural as a correction that it cannot be accepted as
likely to be the original text. We are led therefore to ask
whether the word may have had in the first or second century
some technical sense in this particular passage which it has not
elsewhere.
Aquila and Theodotion are said on good authority to have
used the word in connection with towns near Jerusalem 1 .
Now if Mark's original meant "the towns and villages near
[the Great] City," i.e. Jerusalem, or at least was thus inter-
preted by Luke, this would accord with the following words in
the correct text of Luke, "And he was preaching in the syna-
gogues of Judaea," that is to say, in those towns, round about
the Metropolis, which were large enough to have synagogues' 21 .
(4) Mk Vlii. 23 6 Sing. 17 *o>p7 (pec.) ; (5) viii. 27 ras KOifias Kaia-apeias,
Mt. XVI. 13 TO. pepr) Kato-apeias (Lk. IX. l8 irpoo-evxop-evov KOTO,
Luke mentions Jerusalem or Judaea in connection with
or -n-oXis in iv. 43 4 (where Mk i. 38 does not) (see Beginning
p. 2 09 foil.), and xiii. 22 (where Mk vi. 6 does not). He also has, in
describing a journey to Jerusalem, ix. 51 2 (pec.) roO nopevea-dai els
'le/3....6iy Kwnqv 2a/zapemoi/, ib. IX. 56 (pec.) els erepav KO)p.r)v. In Lk. V.
17, K Trd(TT)s Kd>p.r)s TTJS FaXiAaias /ecu 'lovSa/as KOL 'lepova-aXrjfj. appears to
mean " out of every village of Galilee and [every village of] Judaea
and [out of] Jerusalem," the Great City being contrasted with every
other place (called relatively "village").
1 Josh, xviii. 28 "Zelah, Eleph, and the Jebusite (the same is
Jerusalem), Gibeath [and] Kiriath cities fourteen with their vil-
lages." Field attributes to Aq. and Theod. Kta^oTroXts- in this
passage, and he refers to "Mk i. 38 in versione Philox." The Syr.
of Aq. and Theod. is literally "villages of the City." The LXX (B)
has certainly transliterated "cities" as Jarim. It has also probably
taken Kiriath (out of place) as being another word for "cities" and
has transposed it the result being " and cities and Gabaoth, Jarim,
cities thirteen and their villages." A has "and Gabaath (sic) and
city Jarim cities thirteen and their villages."
2 Lk. iv. 44 KC " rf v Krjpva(T(i)v els ras (rvvaywyas rfjs 'loufiaiay. It is
worth noting that Mark's epithet cxopevas is applied to the cities near
Jerusalem in Joseph. Ant. xi. 8. 6 ras ex^ vas ^o\eis "the adjacent
cities" (after a mention of "Jerusalem").
A. P. 241 (Mark i. 35 9) 16
JESUS GOES FORTH BEFORE DAWN
It would also enable us to give a literal sense to the words
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem,. . .how often have I desired to gather
thy children. . .and ye would not 1 !"
If on the other hand Jesus meant, by "the next village-
towns," the towns adjacent to Capernaum, then the following
words, "to this [end] came I forth," would seem to mean "To
this [end] I came forth out of Peter's house in Capernaum in
order to preach to the village towns near Capernaum." But is
this likely to have been a saying of the Messiah that would be
selected for permanent record? Instead of "/ came forth,"
Luke has "/ was sent," apparently taking "I came forth" to
mean "I came forth from the Father." The " coming-f orth "
will be discussed in the next section. Meantime, however, we
may say that Luke's view of it appears to suit the context.
And if the verb is to be interpreted, as Luke interprets it, with
this weighty significance, then the contextual noun, "village-
cities," would also seem to require more weight than could
attach to "the towns round about Capernaum." And it would
receive this weight if it meant "the villages, or towns, round
the City," that is, round Jerusalem.
It was natural for Jews, even for Christian Jews, to regard
Jerusalem, and the "circle" round it, as being the centre of
the spiritual world, the starting-place of the Gospel 2 . Christian
Jews would also exult in traditions about the measuring of the
1 Mt. xxiii. 37, Lk. xiii. 34. Origen and Jerome (ad loc. Matth.)
explain this as referring to the pre-incarnate Christ preaching
through "omnes prophetas." This is a difficult hypothesis. It
would be easier to suppose that Jesus uttered these words as the
saying of the Wisdom of God. But if Luke and John are right in
saying that Jesus preached often near Jerusalem the words may also
refer to His preaching in a literal sense.
2 See Beginning p. 208 foil. It is probable that this thought is
latent in Rom. xv. 19 punctuated thus, ''from Jerusalem and round
about even unto Illyricum." Paul did not preach in Jerusalem
and its circle. But he would regard it as the centre and source
from which was to issue the Gospel which (Lk. xxiv. 47) was to be
preached "to all nations beginning from Jerusalem."
242 (Mark i. 35 9)
JESUS GOES FORTH BEFORE DAWN
new and enlarged Jerusalem, concerning which Zechariah had
predicted that by reason of the influx of citizens it would be
"inhabited as villages without walls 1 ." It is a mistake to
suppose that all the countrymen of Ezekiel lost, after Ezekiel's
time, every vestige of the vision of a spiritual and personified
Temple. A tradition taught in the name of R. Jochanan says
"There are three that are named after the Name of the Holy
One (blessed be He !) the Saints, the Messiah, and Jeru-
salem 2 ." To accomplish Ezekiel's vision was assuredly Christ's
purpose whether expressed, or not, in words from the begin-
ning of His Gospel. No doubt some Jews of Essene tendencies,
and perhaps John the Baptist, held aloof from the material
Temple. But Jesus did not. There is very much to be said
for Luke's tradition here, that at an early period Jesus paid a
visit to Judaea which Mark has erroneously taken to be a visit
to Galilee. And, if Jesus did this, we are led on to a further
inference that He may have paid an early visit to Jerusalem,
recorded neither by Mark nor by Luke, but by John alone.
5. "To this [end} came I forth'* (Mark), "Toward
this [end] was I sent" (Luke)*
Luke makes it clear that the "coming forth" was not
merely a coming forth from Peter's house. It was Christ's
coming forth out of private life to public work, the preaching
of the Gospel, to which He had been sent by God. "Sent,"
then, is the term preferred here by Luke to the Marcan "came/'
All the Synoptists elsewhere describe Jesus as saying "He
that sent me 4 ." John does this more frequently than any of
1 Zech. ii. 4.
2 Bdba Bathra 75 b. And see The Yalkut of Zechariah by E. G.
King, Cambridge, 1882, p. 6 foil.
3 Mk i. 38, Lk. iv. 43.
4 Mk IX. 37, Mt. X. 40, Lk. IX. 48, X. l6 (aTroo-reXXco).
243 (Mark i. 35 9) 16 2
JESUS GOES FORTH BEFORE DAWN
them 1 . We might therefore argue that "John would see no
reason to take up this Marcan phrase 'came forth,' since it is
better expressed by 'sent.'"
But is that the case ? Is there not something better in
"going forth," if rightly qualified, as it is in Hosea, who says
" His going forth is sure as the morning, and he shall come unto
us as the rain 2 " ? Micah also speaks, in a double sense, of
the " going forth" of the "ruler in Israel," who shall be Israel's
"peace"; who is to " go forth" unto God from "Bethlehem
Ephrathah," and "whose goings forth are from of old from
everlasting 3 ." The Hebrew " going forth," or " coming forth,"
is applied to the blessings that God, through Nature, is regarded
as giving with a special spontaneousness, as well as to what we
call more particularly "offspring." This spontaneousness is
better expressed by "/ came forth from God" than by " I was
sent from God." Accordingly John uses the former as well
as the latter. He introduces John the Baptist as "a man sent
from God 4 ." But he represents Jesus as saying concerning
Himself when claiming to be loved as God's offspring and
therefore like God "If God were your Father ye would love
me, for I came forth [as offspring] and am come [to you] from
GodV
1 Jn IV. 34, V. 24 etc, John uses both 7re>7ra> and
(Joh. Voc. 1723d g).
8 Hos. vi. 3.
3 Mic. v. 2, 5. There is perhaps irony in Jn vii. 42, where the
writer puts into the mouth of the Pharisees the question " Hath not
the scripture said that the Christ cometh (Delitzsch goeth forth] of the
seed of David and from Bethlehem, the village where David was ? "
The speakers take one half of the prophecy, "Bethlehem"; but
not the other, "from everlasting."
4 Jn i. 6.
* Jn Vlii. 42. On e^ep^o/xai with , irapa, and OTTO before irarpos
in Jn xvi. 27, 28, 30 see Joh. Gr. 2326 7. But perhaps airo should
be explained as denoting inadequate understanding in the disciples,
as in Nicodemus, who says (Jn iii. 2) o^a/j-fv on ano 6eoi> e\r)\v6as
244 (Mark i. 359)
JESUS GOES FORTH BEFORE DAWN
A glance at the word "go forth" in a Hebrew Lexicon will
shew that the verb and noun together denote the "going forth,"
or "utterance," from the mouth, as well as the "dayspring"
of dawn, and "springs" of water, and the "coming forth" of
the prisoner to freedom, and of that which is hidden to the
light 1 . This accords with the tone of the Fourth Gospel,
which, while it regards the Word as a Person, yet never ceases
to regard its influence as being, in a certain sense, impersonal,
that is to say, working as the forces of Nature work, in many
forms and through various channels, a " going forth " of goodness
from the Father through the Son 2 .
1 Gesen. 422 5.
8 See Beginning p. 21 in. "The first O.T. 'coming forth' de-
scribes (Gen. ii. 10) the River, which (Philo i. 250, 690) waters the
world 'with four virtues.'"
245 (Mark i. 35 9)
CHAPTER V*
THE HEALING OF A LEPER 1
[Mark i. 4045]
I. The prominence of this miracle
THIS miracle is placed by Matthew first in the list of separate
miracles and immediately after the Sermon on the Mount.
* For titles of previous Parts of Diatessarica referred to by
abbreviations in this Volume, see pp. 545 6. For other abbrevia-
tions see pp. xxiii xxvi.
1 Mk i. 4045 (R.V.) Mt. viii. 14 (R.V.)
(1) And when
he was come down
from the mountain,
great multitudes fol-
lowed him.
(2) And behold,
there came to him a
leper and worshipped sought him, saying,
him, saying, Lord, if Lord, if thou wilt,
(40) And there
cometh to him a
leper, beseeching
him, and kneeling
down to him, and
saying unto him, If
thou wilt, thou canst
make me clean.
(41) And being
moved with compas-
sion, he stretched
forth his hand, and
touched him, and
saith unto him, I
will; be thou made
clean.
(42) And straight-
way the leprosy de-
parted from him, and
he was made clean.
(43) And he
strictly (or, sternly)
charged him, and
straightway sent him
Lk. v. 1216 (R.V.)
(12) And it came
to pass, while he was
in one of the cities,
behold, a man full of
leprosy : and when
he saw Jesus, he fell
on his face, and be-
thou wilt, thou canst
make me clean.
(3) And he
stretched forth his
hand, and touched
him, saying, I will ;
be thou made clean.
And straightway his
leprosy was cleansed.
(4) And Jesus
saith unto him, See
thou tell no man;
but go thy way,
shew thyself to the
priest, and offer the
thou canst make me
clean.
(13) And he
stretched forth his
hand, and touched
him, saying, I will;
be thou made clean.
And straightway the
leprosy departed
from him.
(14) And he
charged him to tell
no man : but go thy
way, and shew thy-
self to the priest,
246 (Mark i. 40 45)
THE HEALING OF A LEPER
Epictetus seems to allude sarcastically to a phrase in it, " [My]
lord, if thou wilt," when he bids his pupils not to "fawn on"
their physician, not to be frightened as to what he may pro-
nounce about them, and not to be delighted to excess if he says
" You are getting on nicely." In particular, they are not to say
to him " If thou wilt, [my] lord, I shall do well 1 ." It is perhaps
not a casual coincidence that, in the Healing of the Noble-
man's Son the only narrative where John introduces a petition
for healing he has a form of the phrase "get on nicely," as
well as the respectful appellation "my lord 2 ." The narrative
of John differentiates Jesus from the ordinary physician, while
at the same time not attributing to the petitioner the phrase
"if thou wilt." The Johannine view of the Son's acts of
Mk i. 4045 (R.V.) Mt. viii. 14 (R.V.)
(contd.) (contd.)
out, and saith unto gift that Moses com-
him, manded, for a testi-
(44) See thou mony unto them,
say nothing to any
man : but go thy
way, shew thyself to
the priest, and offer
for thy cleansing the
things which Moses
commanded, for a
testimony unto them .
(45) But he went
out, and began to
publish it much, and
to spread abroad the
matter (lit. word) , in-
somuch that Jesus
could no more openly
enter into a (or, the)
city, but was without
in desert places : and
they came to him
from every quarter.
1 Epict. iii. 10. 13 14. "Thou" is emphatic, eav
2 Jn iv. 52 "he inquired of them the hour at which he (lit.) got
on more nicely (KO^OT^POV eax V }>" comp. Epict. iii. 10. 13 KO/JL-^VS
fX fi5 - No form of KO^OS occurs elsewhere in the whole of the Greek
Testament.
247 (Mark i. 40 45)
Lk. v. 1216 (R.V.)
(contd.)
and offer for thy
cleansing, according
as Moses commanded,
for a testimony unto
them.
(15) But so much
the more went abroad
the report concern-
ing him : and great
multitudes came to-
gether to hear, and
to be healed of their
infirmities.
(16) But he with-
drew himself in the
deserts, and prayed.
THE HEALING OF A LEPER
healing is that they depend rather on the insight, than on
the will, of the Son : "The Son is able to do nothing of himself
but what he seeth the Father doing." When He "sees" a
work of this kind, He wills it. But the will depends on
the "seeing 1 ."
Epictetus, too, lays stress on insight in the business of
moral healing. The moral Healer, he would say meaning
the Philosopher, God's servant would go about, like a physician
on his rounds feeling men's pulses and telling this man and that
"You have this disease and you that, you must do this or
that 2 ." But in all this there is little or no mention made of
sympathy, compassion, or love. If the patient passionately
appeals for deliverance from the memories of unalterable evil-
doing, and from the haunting consciousness of sin, Epictetus
replies, in effect, "Therein the patient must minister to him-
self 3 ." The insight of Jesus is a sympathetic insight. It sees
into, and lovingly sympathizes with, the sins and sorrows of
men, and it sees into, and lovingly accords with, the desire of
God, in this case and in that, to intervene in a special way so
that the disease may be healed by the love and compassion of
the Father passing through the Son.
Now in the Marcan narrative of the Healing of the Leper
the reader will notice that Mark alone says that Jesus "strictly
charged," or, according to the margin, "sternly charged," the
man whom he had healed. Matthew and Luke omit this.
And it is not surprising, since Greeks would naturally take the
meaning of the phrase to be " He bellowed at him, or, roared at
him 4 ." There are few parallel passages in the Synoptists as
to which we can be quite so certain as here that Mark has
preserved a very early and difficult tradition, softened down by
the later Evangelists, and consequently constituting a good
test of the rule of Johannine Intervention.
1 See Introduction p. 5 quoting Jn v. 19; comp. above, p. 225.
2 Epictet. iii. 22. 72 3. 3 Macbeth v. 3. 45.
* Joh. Voc. 1811 a c.
248 (Mark i. 40 45)
THE HEALING OF A LEPER
John, though he nowhere mentions "leper" or "leprosy,"
does use this particular word to describe an utterance of Jesus,
and that twice, in the Raising of Lazarus. We shall presently
consider the meaning of it both in Mark and in John, and
John's motive in using it. But first let us note those special
and pathetic circumstances in the disease which might natur-
ally draw forth from Jesus some special manifestation of His
feelings in the act of touching the leper. "The leper," said
the Law, "shall dwell alone." He was to cry "unclean,
unclean," to warn people from approaching him.
Marcion, condemning the whole of the Law as alien from the
will of the Good God, the Father of love and pity, would con-
demn especially this Law of Leprosy. It is in connection with
the healing of the leper that Tertullian first mentions what
seems to have been an habitual phrase of Marcion's to describe
the fate that in this world awaits Christ's faithful follower ;
he is to be Christ's "partner in suffering," Christ's "partner in
being hated 1 ." Is not the leper the type of such a character ?
1 Tertull. Adv. Marc. iv. 9 "Sed quoniam attentius argumentatur
apud ilium suum nescio quern o-vvTaXairrvpov (id est, commiseronem)
et (Tv^ia-ov^fvov (id est, coodibilem) in leprosi purgationem . . . . "
Comp. iv. 36 "Age, Marcion, omnesque jam commiserones et coodibiles
ejus haeretici, quid audebitis dicere ? "
By 6 0-vnfjuo-ovfj.evos Marcion meant the typical Christian, who, if
faithful, must be "hated in partnership [with his Lord]." Comp.
Jn xv. 1 8 foil, "if the world hateth (/uo-ei) you... it hath hated me
before you." This is expressed by Luke, but not (verbally at least)
by the parall. Matthew in :
Mt. v. ii Lk. vi. 22
Blessed are ye when they Blessed are ye when men
shall revile you and persecute shall hate you, and separate you
[you] . . . f or my sake. from [themselves], and revile
[you]... for the Son of man's
sake.
Marcion, however, really combines Luke's word, "hate," with the
sense of Matthew's "persecute." For raXat7ra>peo> in LXX is used
(thrice) transitively, meaning "oppress," "despoil" (as well as
intransitively). Perhaps also the saying of Oedipus at Colonus
249 (Mark i. 40 45)
THE HEALING OF A LEPER
Aquila and Symmachus give "leprous," for "stricken," in
Isaiah's description of the Suffering Servant 1 . The Talmud also
gives "leper" as one of the Messiah's names 2 . The leper, more
than any other diseased person, might call forth from Jesus
not only compassion for the sufferer but also some kind of
protest that this particular disease was more than a mere
physical evil an evil that had power to break the bonds of
brotherhood and to convert a living and loveable being into a
semi-living unloved one. Such a sufferer, shut up in the tomb
of his solitude, might be described, with no great hyperbole, as
"dead." The Messiah, when releasing him, might be regarded
as feeling something like a personal denunciation of such an
evil, as being an enemy of mankind 3 . Ephrem Syrus concludes
one of several comments on the healing of the leper with the
words "But note that Christ was angry, not with him, but with
the leprosy*." Correct or not, this is an intelligible view. But
the discussion of it will come more appropriately in the next
section.
(1. 1136) was in Marcion's mind, "Of mortal men, those only
who have had experience are able to be partners in these sufferings
(o-wTaXanroapflv rd8f)." Marcion regards the Son of Man as the
Hated, the Persecuted, and his readers as sufferers with Him (comp.
Rom. viii. 17 "joint-heirs with Christ, that is, if we are-partners-in-
suffering with [him] (finep a-wTrdo-xopfv) that we may be also partner s-
in-glory with [him] (tva KOI arvv8oa(rd(op.cv)."
1 See Notes 2995, and Is. liii. 4 (Field) ; also above, p. 191, n. 2.
2 See Sanhedr. 98 b.
3 Comp. i Cor. xv. 55 "O death, where is thy victory ? " quoting
freely from Hos. xiii. 14 (LXX), where the Hebrew, too, as inter-
preted by R.V., contains a similar denunciation. Hosea, according
to this interpretation, describes first (xiii. i) how Ephraim "died,"
and then how the Lord said, concerning Ephraim's children, (ib. 14)
" I will ransom them from the hand of Sheol. . . . O death, where are
thy plagues ? " There are objections to this in the following context ;
but, if ib. 15 1 6 can be regarded as an abrupt insertion, the inter-
pretation (though not like the rabbinical one) appears at all events
consistent.
4 Ephrem Syrus, p. 145.
250 (Mark i. 40 45)
THE HEALING OF A LEPER
2. (R.V.) "Strictly (or, sternly) charged," in Mark 1
A collection of instances of the Greek word rendered " strictly
charged" shews that its regular meaning was "roar," "bellow,"
"murmur," etc. 2 In Matthew's two accounts of the healing of
blindness, of which the first is peculiar to Matthew while the
second corresponds to the Marcan healing of Bartimaeus, Matthew
has "roared" in the first, but " had compassion" in the second 3 .
This is note-worthy because, in the Marcan Healing of the
Leper, "had compassion" precedes "strictly-charged," and
Matthew and Luke omit both words. In Mark, instead of
"had compassion," several authorities have "was angered*."
The same Syriac verb, in different forms, has both meanings 5 .
This deserves all the more attention because Mark, besides
using the rare word "strictly-charge 6 ," is also introducing us
to a new verb in the Greek language, namely, "have-bowels"
in the sense of "have-compassion." It is not alleged to occur
1 Mk i. 43. 2 Joh. Voc. 1811 a c.
3 Mt. ix. 30 KCLL fVf^pi/jirjSr} avrols. Matthew's parall. (xx. 34) to
the story of Bartimaeus (Mk x. 52, Lk. xviii. 42), has (nra.yxvi.o-6f is,
which does not occur in Mk-Lk.'s narrative.
4 Son 3163 a. In Mk i. 41, D has opyio-tieis, a and Corb. "iratus"
(b om.).
5 See Nestle referring to Thes. Syr. 3953. Ephrem Syrus (p. 144)
mentions "anger" repeatedly in his comment, and compassion only
once : " Dominus duo . . . ostendit, reprehensionem cum ei iras-
ceretur, et misericordiam cum eum sanaret," which seems to mean
that compassion was only implied in the act, not mentioned by Mark
(according to Ephrem' s interpretation).
6 It occurs but once in the LXX, namely Dan. xi. 30, R.V. "he
shall be grieved" (Gesen. 4566 "shall be cowed (nKZ))"), LXX e'fo-
(rov<riv avTov KOI /jL/3pi/j,r)(rovTa.i CIVTCO, Theod. roTretrco^T/crfrat. The meaning
"shall be cowed," is paraphrased by LXX as "they [i.e. the Romans]
shall drive out the invader and shall threaten (lit. bully) him." It
will be noted that Mk i. 43 (lit.) " having roared against him he drove
him out" contains a similar combination. The Heb. HND occurs
thrice and is not so common as the word DJJt rendered by Theod.
in Is. xxx. 27.
251 (Mark i. 4045)
THE HEALING OF A LEPER
before Mark's Gospel. Lightfoot speaks of it as perhaps
invented by "the Greek dispersion 1 ." We are therefore led
to ask what Hebrew or Jewish traditions were likely to be in
the mind of Peter, or Mark's other authorities, concerning the
"bowels" or "compassion" of God, of such a nature that they
might be interpreted in the two senses above mentioned :
(i) "roaring" etc., (2) "having compassion."
3. God " having-compassion" on "Rachel's children,"
in Jeremiah
The "bowels of God" is a conception implied by Jeremiah
in a passage where he describes the Lord as unable to restrain
His compassion for Ephraim the grandson of Rachel in spite
of his frequent rebellions. When Ephraim once more repents
and when Rachel appears, "weeping for her children," God
exclaims "As often as I speak against him, I do earnestly
remember him still ; therefore my bowels do sound for him ;
pitying will I pity him*." The Hebrew verb here rendered
"sound" is rendered by Gesenius "murmur" "growl" "roar"
"be boisterous" and "groan 3 ." When it has "bowels" as
subject, it is said to express "the thrill of deep-felt compassion
or sympathy," followed by the dative of the "person pitied."
The LXX has completely missed the meaning. Aquila has
" my belly sounded " or " my entrails were shaken" Symmachus
has "my inner parts were troubled" It is easy to understand
that these expressions would repel many educated Greeks.
If Jeremiah's phrase was in Mark's original, Mark's "had
compassion" would very fairly express it. But it might be
1 Lightf. on Phil. i. 8. ^TrXayx^i^p-ai does not occur in the early
Apologists and Fathers except Hermas (8 times), 2 Clem. (i).
2 Jerem. xxxi. 20. LXX, for "my bowels do sound," has simply
eo-TTfvo-a, "I hastened," Aq. fjxrjo-ev rj KOiXia /xov, aliter ta-fia-Brj ra
p.ov, Sym. erapdxdrj ra eWos p.ov.
3 Gesen. 242 a, HBn.
252 (Mark i. 4045)
THE HEALING OF A LEPER
interpreted as meaning "was angry." We know from Matthew
how prominent among Christians was the thought of Rachel
weeping for her children.^ It would be especially prominent
among Jewish Christians. It is true that this passage of Jeremiah
is seldom if ever quoted by the Talmud. But it is abundantly
quoted in the Midrash, which appears to regard God as being
(like Joseph in the presence of his brethren) hardly able to
restrain His own yearnings of compassion for the sorrows of
Rachel weeping for her offspring 1 .
A similar thought is expressed by Isaiah where, after saying,
concerning God and the affliction of Israel, that in old times,
"in all their affliction, he was afflicted 2 ," the prophet introduces
Israel as expostulating with God on His change of feeling : " The
sounding of thy bowels and thy compassions are restrained
toward me 3 ." Here Rashi illustrates the "restraining" from
Genesis, where it is said about Joseph that "his bowels did
yearn upon his brother, and he sought where to weep," and,
after weeping, he "restrained himself 4 ." The scene, and the
thought to which we are introduced by these traditions about
the weeping of Rachel and the weeping of Joseph, somewhat
resemble the scene of the Raising of Lazarus in the Fourth
Gospel where Jesus "wept" in response to the weeping of Mary.
It will now be shewn that in that narrative there occurs this
rare word above rendered "strictly-charge." It is used by
John to mean some very deep emotion such as would accompany
"weeping."
1 See Rashi ad loc., who gives an imaginary dialogue between
Rachel and God. Rashi does not here comment on the "sounding"
of the "bowels." But Is. Ixiii. 15 "the sounding of thy bowels" is
illustrated by him from Jerem. xxxi. 20.
2 Is. Ixiii. 9.
3 Is. Ixiii. 15. The LXX has rr^dos, taking the word in its sense
of "noisy throng," "boisterous multitude."
4 Gen. xliii. 30 31.
253 (Mark i. 40 45)
THE HEALING OF A LEPER
4. (R.V.) "Groaned (or, was moved with indignation),"
in John 1
In earlier volumes of Diatessarica the reader will find some
notice of the textual variations in this passage, of the renderings
of the word under consideration by the different versions, and
of the uses of the word (or of forms of it) by the Greek translators
of O.T. (as distinguished from LXX) 2 . Here we shall assume
that John could not but know that Mark (and also a passage
in Matthew) had applied the word to Jesus ; and that its
ordinary meaning suggested "roaring against," "bullying,"
"angry denunciation," "violent excitement."
Opponents of Christianity, and especially those who favoured
a popularised form of Stoicism like that of Epictetus, would
naturally attack the Christian ideal of a Healer who (they
might say) "roared at those whom he healed." In answer to
such objections John says here, in effect, "I do not deny the
action what may be called the 'roaring.' But I do deny the
object or motive. I will take Mark's very word, though it is
not one that I should have chosen, and I will shew by the
context that what the Psalmist calls 'roaring by reason of
disquiet ness of heart 3 ,' was, in the case of the Saviour, not a
' disquietness ' for Himself, but for others, whom He came to
1 Jn xi. 33 (R.V.) "he groaned (marg. was moved with indignation)
in the spirit (fVf/S/n^o-aro ra> Trvev/j-aTi) and was troubled (marg. Gr.
troubled himself) (erdpa^ev eaurdi/)," ib. 38 (R.V.) "Jesus therefore
again groaning (marg. being moved with indignation) in himself
(tp.ppipap.cvos dv eavTu)." 'Erapaej> cavrov, differing altogether from the
middle eYapuaro, necessitates, as the literal rendering, "troubled
himself." It seems deliberately intended to be distinguished from
"suffered trouble."
2 'Epfipipiiopcu. It is differently rendered by SS (see Burkitt),
Palest., Walton (Syr.) and Delitzsch. The Latin versions agree in
"fremuit" or "infremuit." The LXX, besides the above-quoted
I.)an. xi. 30 pl3pip.T]o'ovTaL avrw, has a noun-form in Lam. ii. 6 epfipifjutjfta*
See Joh. Voc. 1713 e, 1811 a c, and Index, also Son 3163 a t 3545 7.
3 Ps. xxxviii. 8.
254 (Mark i. 4045)
THE HEALING OF A LEPER
save. In the Raising of Lazarus it will be perceived that the
inarticulate sound that issued from Jesus on that occasion was
not directed against men, nor caused by anger against men.
I do not venture to explain it wholly. But I know that it
was caused in part by sorrow, a sorrow that constrained even
the Lord Jesus to weep."
Chrysostom, in his comment on these Johannine phrases,
declares that John has supplied here "by the mourning [of
Jesus] " something like what the Synoptists have inserted
(but John himself has omitted) in the scene of the Agony in
Gethsemane 1 . Probably this is true. But that explanation
is inadequate. Something is needed to explain why John,
when "supplying" a detail corresponding to the Agony in
Gethsemane, introduced such a word as "roaring" a word
confessedly most difficult and (so to speak) scandal-causing.
And a good explanation is furnished by the hypothesis that
here, as elsewhere, John deliberately uses a word employed by
Mark, but rejected by Luke, to express some very strong
emotion occasionally manifested by Christ when healing
disease.
There appears also something deliberate in the Johannine
use of "the spirit" in connection with the first mention of the
"roaring." Does it mean "roared in the spirit" or "roared
against the spirit" ? "Against" would naturally be the
meaning of any ordinary dative after "roared against/' as
elsewhere 2 . But, with such a word as "spirit," the dative may
mean "in," as in the Marcan tradition that Jesus "sighed (or,
groaned) deeply in his spirit 3 ." In Chrysostom's comment,
1 (Migne ad IOC.) ovdev yovv irfpl TOV OavaTov TOLOVTOV CITTCV olov ol
XOITTOI on (Mk XIV. 34, Mt. XXVI. 38) TrepiAuTroy yeyovev, on (Lk. xxii.
44) evayoovios. He adds TO yovv eAAei0$ej> e<el dv7r\r)p<oo~fv evrav6a did
TOV TTCvOoVS.
2 Mk i. 43, xiv. 5, Mt. ix. 30, Is. xvii. 13 (Sym.).
3 Mk Vlii. 12 dvao~Tvdas ro> Trvevp-aTi avTov, COIIlp. Lk. X. 21
qyaAAtdo-aro ra> Trj/ev/zan rai <tyia>, R.V. txt "in the Holy Spirit," where
however Tisch. inserts eV, and R.V. marg. has "by the Holy Spirit."
255 (Mark i. 40 45)
THE HEALING OF A LEPER
"in the spirit" does not occur here or in the context. He says
that the phrase means "He rebuked the passion [of sorrow]" -
and this, as to both verses, making no distinction between the
phrase that contains " spirit " and the phrase that contains "in
himself 1 ." Chrysostom seems to mean, by "spirit," the human
spirit of Jesus roused to an extremity of sorrow by passionate
affection and sympathy with the sorrow of those around Him ;
this "spirit" he paraphrases as "passion" and describes as
"rebuked."
On the other hand Nonnus, with whom Chrysostom often
agrees, drops altogether the notion of "rebuking" in one or
both of the passages: (i) "He, being-shaken by the Spirit of
the Father, cried out, Shew me, where have ye laid him ? "
(2) "Drawing up a cry-of -sorrow with a roar from His grieving
mind 2 ." Neither Chrysostom nor Nonnus helps us to under-
stand what difference is intended, if any, between the phrase
that contains "spirit" and the phrase that contains "within
himself" But the remark of Chrysostom that John is filling
up his "deficiency" in the narrative of Gethsemane may be
of use in guiding us to a helpful passage in the Psalms, " Why art
thou bowed down, O my soul, and why art thou disquieted
within me 3 ? "
1 Chrys. ad he. " He shews what there was of human nature [in
Him]. For He weeps and is confused [as it were] (o-vyxclrat) . . . .Then,
having rebuked the passion (iraQa] for the phrase evejBpiprjaaro TO>
has this meaning He restrained the confusion (eWo-x* rrjv
.." Afterwards he says: "He comes therefore to the
tomb and again He rebukes the passion." See context. Cramer has
(i) "rebuked the mourning (irtvOa}," (2) "rebuked the passion
2 Nonn. (i) TTvevfJiari 7rarp<0'a> Bcdovrjpfvos ta^e (pcavrjv . . .. (2) a^-vv-
j3pL/j,ri8bv dnb <ppevbs OIKTOV dveXitav . It does not appear that
expresses or implies rebuke.
3 Ps. xlii. 5, II, xliii. 5 Iva ri TrepiXv-n-os ei, rj ^ux 1 ? Ka ' ^ a Tl ' (rvvrapdo--
<reis /ite; Except in these Psalms, the vocative in Heb. "O my soul"
is mostly dropped by LXX as in Jerem. iv. 19 (LXX) fjicovcrfv
256 (Mark i. 40 45)
THE HEALING OF A LEPER
The LXX there renders "bowed-down" by "exceeding-
sorrowful" a word extremely rare in LXX and N.T., but used
by Mark-Matthew in the phrase "exceeding-sorrowful even unto
death 1 ." The Hebrew for "disquieted" is the word "sound,"
"murmur," or "roar," which we have been so long con-
sidering; and, instead of "disquieted within me," LXX has
" altogether -troublest me," while Aquila (and similarly Symma-
chus) has " makest-uproar against me 2 ." In the Psalm, the
conflict, or rebellion, is between the "soul" and the speaker re-
presented by "I." In the Agony of Gethsemane, the "spirit"
is described as "willing," the "flesh" as merely "weak," the
"soul" as "exceeding-sorrowful." No definite enemy or rebel
is mentioned. We are made to feel that the Tempter, who, as
Luke says, left Jesus in the wilderness only "until a season,"
is now present again in Gethsemane. But the presence is only
to be inferred from Christ's warning to the disciples "Pray
that ye enter not into temptation." Luke, perhaps in part
because of its indefiniteness, omits both the confession of
"exceeding sorrowfulness" and its context 3 .
Returning to the scene near the grave of Lazarus we must
confess that there too, as in Gethsemane, much is left undefined.
Negation about it is far easier than affirmation. We feel that
no word in the passage is accidental that, for example, the
phrase "He troubled himself" must be read along with "Now is
occurs, in Heb. LXX elsewhere, only in Gen. iv. 6 and
Dan. ii. 12. In N.T., it occurs only in Mk xiv. 34, Mt. xxvi. 38
(Gethsemane), and in Mk vi. 26, Lk. xviii. 23.
2 LXX (rvvTapd(r(reis /if, Aq. 6^\d^is eV e'/zt, Sym. Oopvftrj KCLT* e'/zoC
or Qopvficls eV e'/xe. The Heb. is non, see p. 252, n. 3.
3 That is to say, Lk. xxii. 40 foil, has no parall. to Mk xiv. 33 4,
Mt. xxvi. 37 8. Luke has also no parallel to the other passage in
which Mk-Mt. speaks of Christ's "soul" (Mk x. 45, Mt. xx. 28),
whereas Jn represents Jesus as saying "my soul (or life}" thrice
(Son 3434).
If Lk. xxii. 43 4, placed in double brackets by W.H., is
accepted as genuine, it expresses, in the form of fact, what Mk-Mt.
expresses in words of Christ.
A. P. 257 (Mark i. 40 45) 17
THE HEALING OF A LEPER
my soul troubled," later on, and with "He was troubled in
spirit," latest of all, at the Last Supper ; and yet what is implied
in "He troubled himself" we cannot precisely say 1 .
This, however, we can say with confidence, that John
wrote in part with a view to meeting such a doctrine as that of
Epictetus, that no man has a right to be troubled, for "men are
troubled not by facts but by their notions about facts 2 ," and such
talk as that in the Encheiridion, that when you see anyone
weeping in mourning because a child is going on a journey, or is
dead, you are to remember that it is only the man's notion that
is really paining him ; you may indeed allow yourself to be
carried away with him up to a reasonable limit, " Nay, you may
even perhaps go so far as to groan with him ; but be careful not
to groan from within*."
There is a sense in which every Christian must admit, at
least in theory, that he " ought not to groan from within" because
there is in him, or ought to be, beneath the deepest and most
heart-rending sorrows, a still deeper peace a "within" that is
" too deep for tears." But the manner in which the Epictetian
doctrine is put forth, with its claim for philosophic superiority
to the "women" and the "simple folk," shews a tendency to
Pharisaism. John at all events in his narrative of the Raising
of Lazarus protests, directly or indirectly, against such a claim.
And that perhaps induced him in a kind of desperate attempt
1 Jn xi. 33, xii. 27, xiii. 21 (see Joh. Gr. 2614 c, Son 3476, 3548 /).
2 See Joh. Voc. 1727 c quoting Epict. Ench. 5.
3 Ench. 16 ending thus ^xP L p* VTOL Xoyov ^ 6<v
o), K&V ovrut TV^TJ^ KOI rrvvfTTicrTfvd^ai' irpocre^c p,vroi
(TTcvdt-rjs. Comp. Epict. ii. 13. 17 "No good man mourns or groans."
The philosophic superiority to women, and to "simple folk
(idimrais) ," who shed genuine tears, is illustrated by Epictetus
(i. 29. 65 6) from the Phaedo (p. 1160), where Socrates says about
his jailer 'Qs yewaius p.c d-rrodaKpixi. Socrates, he says, does not tell
the man "I sent the women away to avoid a scene of this kind";
to his disciples he tells the truth; "the jailer he humours
as if he were a little child."
258 (Mark i. 40 45)
THE HEALING OF A LEPER
to express what he could not express to say that Jesus, on
this occasion, "troubled himself." John may mean to say to
the Stoics, "Not only did the Messiah put aside that craving
for untroubledness which you Stoics feel and encourage, but
He did more. As He took our sins and infirmities upon Himself,
so He took 'trouble' into Himself. He did it, because He
felt and in order that He might feel at its keenest, tha.t kind
of trouble which is felt by the ' women ' and the ' simple folk '
whom you philosophers despise."
And perhaps something of the same indefinite kind may be
said about the inarticulate sounds recorded by John to have
been twice uttered by the Messiah along with His "weeping"
and His act of "self -troubling." Logically, the Evangelist
ought to have told us whether he used this ancient Marcan word
to mean "groan" or "rebuke"; and, if in the latter sense,
what was the person or thing rebuked ; and what was the
precise meaning of "in himself" following after a mention of
"the spirit." But is it not possible that the Evangelist himself
did not know the exact shades of distinctive meaning to be
attached to all these words ? May he not have received them,
or some of them, as part of a tradition of which the inter-
pretation may have been not uninfluenced by visions as well
as remembrances visions of the Messiah weeping over Jeru-
salem, visions of the weeping of Rachel comforted by the
sounds of the compassion of Jehovah groaning for Ephraim ?
When the Evangelist wrote of the Raising of Lazarus, at-
tempting to convey all that it meant to him as a "sign," he
may have written as he wrote about the water and the blood
that flowed from Jesus, not as a mere chronicler, but as a Seer,
a Prophet under inspiration. The difficulty of supposing this
would, from some points of view, be less than the difficulty of
supposing that John deliberately wrote with an obscurity that
has defied all attempts at confident interpretation. My own
conviction is that John used this difficult word to imply not
only "rebuke" and "sorrowful complaint," but also that
259 (Mark i. 40 45) 17 2
THE HEALING OF A LEPER
indescribable intercession which Paul has attempted to describe
as being "with groanings that cannot be uttered 1 ."
1 Rom. viii. 26. See Joh. Voc. 1752 a f, which contrasts
Mt. xii. 19 ov8e Kpavydo-ci with Jn xi. 43 e Kpavyavcv. Comp.
Heb. v. 7 p-fTa icpavyrjs icrxvpas KOI daKpvtov, of which Westcott says
"There can be little doubt that the writer refers to the scene at
Gethsemane." The verbal similarity illustrates what Chrysostom
says about John, as "supplying" in the narrative of Lazarus what
was "left out" by him in the narrative of Gethsemane. Kpavydfa
and Kpuvyr) are nowhere applied to Jesus except in Jn xi. 43 and
Heb. v. 7. But in Heb., the "crying" of Jesus is for Himself, in
Jn, it is for Lazarus.
260 (Mark i. 40 45)
CHAPTER VI*
THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS
[Mark ii. i 12]
i. The forgiveness and healing of the Paralytic,
in the Synoptists
IN this narrative, Luke follows Mark in many details where
Matthew deviates from Mark, as will be seen below 1 . This
* For titles of previous Parts of Diatessarica referred to by
abbreviations in this Volume, see pp. 545 6.
tions see pp. xxiii xxvi.
1 Mk ii. i 12 (R.V.) Mt. ix. i 8 (R.V.)
(1) And when
he entered again in-
to Capernaum after
some days, it was
noised that he was
in the house (or t at
home).
(2) And many
were gathered to-
gether, so that there
was no longer room
[for them], no, not
even about the door :
and he spake the
word unto them.
(3) And they
come, bringing unto
him a man sick of
the palsy, borne of
four.
(4) And when
they could not come
nigh (many anc. auth.
bring him) unto him
for the crowd, they
uncovered the roof
where he was : and
when they had broken
it up, they let down
the bed whereon the
sick of the palsy lay.
(5) And Jesus
(1) And he en-
tered into a boat,
and crossed over,
and came into his
own city.
(2) And behold,
they Drought to him
a man sick of the
palsy, lying on a
bed: and Jesus see-
ing their faith said
unto the sick of the
palsy, Son (lit. Child),
be of good cheer;
thy sins are forgiven.
(3) And behold,
certain of the scribes
said within them-
selves, This man
blaspheme th.
(4) And Jesus
knowing (many anc.
auth. seeing) their
thoughts said , Where-
fore think ye evil in
your hearts ?
(5) For whether
is easier, to say, Thy
sins are forgiven ; or
to say, Arise, and
walk ?
(6) But that ye
For other abbrevia-
Lk. v. 1726 (R.V.)
(17) And it came
to pass on one of
those days, that he
was teaching ; and
there were Pharisees
and doctors of the
law sitting by, which
were come out of
every village of Gali-
lee and Judaea and
Jerusalem: and the
power of the Lord
was with him to heal
(lit. that he should
heal : many anc. auth.
that [he] should heal
them).
(18) And behold,
men bring on a bed
a man that was
palsied : and they
sought to bring him
in, and to lay him
before him.
(19) And not
finding by what
[way] they might
bring him in be-
cause of the multi-
tude, they went up
to the housetop, and
let him down through
261 (Mark ii. i 12)
THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS
Mkii. i 12 (R.V.)
(contd.)
seeing their faith
saith unto the sick
of the palsy, Son,
(lit. Child) thy sins
are forgiven.
(6) But there
were certain of the
scribes sitting there,
and reasoning in
their hearts,
(7) Why doth
this man thus speak ?
he blasphemeth : who
can forgive sins but
one, [even] God ?
(8) And straight-
way Jesus, perceiving
in his spirit that they
so reasoned within
themselves, saith un-
to them, Why reason
ye these things in
your hearts?
(9) Whether is
easier, to say to the
sick of the palsy,
Thy sins are for-
given; or to say,
Arise, and take up
thy bed, and walk?
(10) But that ye
may know that the
Son of man hath
power (or, authority)
on earth to forgive
sins (he saith to the
sick of the palsy) ,
(n) I say unto
thee, Arise, take up
thy bed, and go un-
to thy house.
(12) And he
arose, and straight-
way took up the
bed, and went forth
before them all ; in-
somuch that they
were all amazed, and
glorified God, saying,
We never saw it on
this fashion.
Mt. ix. i8 (R.V.)
(contd.)
may know that the
Son of man hath
power (or, authority)
on earth to forgive
sins (then saith he to
the sick of the palsy),
Arise, and take up
thy bed, and go un-
to thy house.
(7) And he arose,
and departed to his
house.
(8) But when
the multitudes saw
it, they were afraid,
and glorified God,
which had given such
power (or, authority)
unto men.
Lk. v. 1726 (R.V.)
(contd.)
the tiles with
couch into the mh
before Jesus.
(20) And seeing
their faith, he said,
Man, thy sins are
forgiven thee.
(21) And the
scribes and the
Pharisees began to
reason, saying, Who
is this that speaketh
blasphemies ? Who
can forgive sins, but
God alone ?
(22) But Jesus
perceiving their
reasonings, answered
and said unto them,
What (or, Why)
reason ye in your
hearts ?
(23) Whether is
easier, to say, Thy
sins are forgiven
thee; or to say,
Arise and walk?
(24) But that ye
may know that the
Son of man hath
power (or, authority)
on earth to forgive
sins (he said unto
him thatwas palsied),
I say unto thee,
Arise, and take up
thy couch, and go
unto thy house.
(25) And imme-
diately he rose up
before them, and
took up that where-
on he lay, and de-
parted to his house,
glorifying God.
(26) And amaze-
ment took hold on
all, and they glorified
God ; and they were
filled with fear, say-
ing, We have seen
strange things to-day.
262 (Mark ii. i 12)
THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS
therefore is not a place where we may expect John to intervene
as to Marcan words or phrases not used by the parallel Syn-
optists. There happens to be, however, one such word here,
namely, "pallet" (instead of "bed") used by Mark here four
times. " Pallet " is also used by John four times in the narrative
of the healing of the "man in infirmity" near the pool of
Bethesda 1 . It is never used by Matthew or Luke. Its use is
expressly forbidden by the grammarian Phrynichus, and it was
perhaps distasteful to educated Greeks. That John agrees
with Mark in using it, is an instance, though only one of many
unimportant instances, of Johannine intervention.
But besides what has been said about this word in Johannine
Vocabulary, it should be added that the Greek krabattos is used
as a Hebrew word; and Rabbis appear to have distinguished
between a "krabattos" and a "bed," in questions as to what
might, and what might not, be carried on the sabbath 2 .
This is a point of more than verbal importance in John's
narrative of the healing at the pool of Bethesda, because the
charge of sabbath-breaking is there introduced. But even
this point though well worth noting is of little importance
as compared with the Synoptic doctrine of ''authority to forgive
sins on earth" and the Johannine attitude to that doctrine 3 .
"What is meant here by authority ?" is the first question
that presents itself. "To whom does this authority belong ? "
is the second. The two questions cannot perhaps be com-
pletely answered separately. But, in answer to the first, we
1 Jn v. 8 "take up thy pallet and walk," rep. v. 9, 10, n.
2 See Joh. Voc. 1736 a. But reference should also have been made
to Krauss on Kpdfiaros, and especially to p. 545 on K\ivrr)piov and
KpaftjBaTaptov . See also Levy iii. 5686 on the Rabbinical dislike of
certain words of this kind. Levy quotes Sabb. 2gb "A Rabbi took
out a stool on the sabbath" (comp. Levy i. 365 a}.
3 For Mk ii. 2 "and he spake unto them the word" om. in Mt. ix.
i 2, and parall. to Lk. v. 17 "and the power of the Lord was [with
him] to heal" see (later on) the comment on Mk iv. 14 (also comp.
Son 3162 a).
263 (Mark ii. i 12)
THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS
may say at once that "authority" does not mean "power to
do as one likes." It may be described as "lawful power,"
"power held on trust," " power based on righteousness " power,
at all events, with something more behind it than mere force
backing arbitrary "will" good or bad. There is a danger,
however, of failing to discern in the Synoptic narrative any
indication that the " authority " is of this higher kind. Readers
of it may argue, as perhaps some of the spectators at the time
argued: "The circumstances indicate that 'authority' here
meant the power of Jesus to do what He liked, with a mere
word. He proved it by doing, not by talking. He first said,
in effect, 'Be forgiven I ' No one could see the forgiveness.
But He proved its existence by saying ' Walk ! ' and everyone
could see the 'walking.' The seen proved the unseen. It
shewed that we had before us a man able to do whatever he
liked to do, a man above Nature."
Such a view seems to be suggested by Matthew at least
as being the view of "the multitudes" when he closes his
narrative with the words, "But when the multitudes saw it,
they were afraid, and glorified God in that he had given such
authority to men 1 ." These words are not in Mark and Luke,
who say nothing here about "the multitudes." Chrysostom
says "The multitudes are still trailing on the ground. ... For
the flesh blocked their view," and Theodorus says about them,
"They recognise the thing done to be divine, yet they see the
Doer [only as] a human being 2 ." According to them, Matthew
meant, in effect, "The scribes remained silent but keeping
their evil thoughts ; the ' multitudes ' saw a man that could do
1 Mt. ix. 8 TOV 6(bv TOV dovTa R.V. "God which." The
Greek seems to include two thoughts, (i) " the God that had given . . . ,"
(2) "God, in that he had given. ..."
2 See Cramer ad loc., Chrys. op.a>s ovv KCU ol 6'^Xoi en ^a/ml a-vpov-
raf...7rpotcrraro yap ovrols 17 (nipt;, Theod. dflov TO irpayfia yivw<TKOV(Tiv,
rov 8f TroirjcravTa opcocrtv uvOptoirov.
264 (Mark ii. i 12)
THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS
as he pleased, but still only one among many 'men.'" Is this
correct ?
Mark and Luke do not help us to answer this question. They
both say that "all" were "amazed" at what they had "seen 1 ."
But "all" had only "seen" the cure of paralysis. What about
that which they had not "seen" the forgiveness of sins?
Is it implied by Mark and Luke that what the multitude had
"seen" was to be regarded, in a large sense, as including what
they had heard, too the whole transaction, the twofold "word-
healing," so to speak, the visible word-healing of the body
following the invisible word-healing of the soul ? And is it
for this great and unheard of combination of deliverance that
they "glorified God" ?
Even if we accept this explanation as reasonable, we still
have to ask what moral reason there was why Jesus should
forgive the sins of the paralytic borne by his four bearers. It
is said that He pronounced the words of forgiveness "seeing
their faith." Was this the sole reason ? If so, was it "faith"
simply in His power to heal, that is to say, "faith" that
might be expressed in the words, "Jesus cured my neighbour
so-and-so, and others besides : and I am sure he can cure me,
if he likes" ? Or was it some higher kind of faith? Or was
there some other reason beside "faith" some knowledge of
the man's past life in Capernaum, and of the four friends that
were taking all this trouble in his behalf ?
Educated Gentiles would have all the more reason for asking
questions of this kind because the Old Testament vocabulary
of forgiveness uses various metaphors, some of which unless
allowance is made for anthropomorphic expression and poetic
hyperbole might give an impression that God is unjust and
partial. "Blessed is he," says the Psalmist, "whose trans-
gression is forgiven, whose sin is covered ; blessed is the man
unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity, and in whose
1 Mk ii. 12 ovTtos ovdeTTOTf f'idapfv, Lk. V. 26 ei'Sa/xei> Trapddoga (rr)p.fpov.
265 (Mark ii. i 12)
THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS
spirit there is no guile 1 ." We can dimly understand a "fc
giveness," which is in Hebrew a "taking away," or "lifting
up," of the burden of sin ; but is "covering" our sins the sort
of thing one should ask God to do, even in metaphor ? Appar-
ently the passionate imagination of Hebrew poetry would not
shrink from it. For one of the finest of the Psalms represents
David, in the anguish of a heartfelt repentance, as exclaiming
to God "Hide thy face from my sins 2 ." There is no hypocrisy
here, no desire that God should do anything that is unjust.
The petitioner has already said, "Thou desirest truth in the
inward parts," and goes on to say, "Create in me a clean heart,
O God, and renew a right spirit within me." Yet still he does
not cancel his petition uttered to the God of truth, "Hide thy
face from my sins."
The need of a solution of the problems that gather round
any theory of forgiveness, or else the need of a straightforward
acknowledgment that the problems are insoluble, becomes all
the stronger if we admit, as Matthew seems to say, that the
"authority" to forgive, exerted by Jesus on this occasion for
the first time, was intended to be "given unto men." What
"men" are to exercise this "authority" ? Towards whom are
they to exercise it ? If not towards all, how are they to
distinguish the sinner that is fit, from the unfit, to receive
forgiveness ? Such are the questions that must have presented
themselves to the Fourth Evangelist concerning the authority
to forgive, and we shall now try to find out how, if at all, he
answers them.
1 Ps. xxxii. i 2, cited in Rom. iv. 7 8. The word for "cover"
here is not cdphar, one of the three words regularly used to mean
"forgive" or "pardon" (Hastings Diet. ii. 56).
2 Ps. li. 9 foil.
266 (Mark ii. i 12)
THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS
2. The healing, without forgiveness, of the man
"in infirmity," in John 1
The heading of this section, "healing without forgiveness,"
must not be taken as precluding the possibility of learning
1 This miracle is described as that of "the paralytic man" by
Irenaeus ii. 22. 3 ; and Acta Pilati (A) 6 blends details from it with
details from the Synoptic Healing of the Paralytic. See also Son
3414 d for a passage from Clem. Alex, indicating an early tendency
to use general terms so as to include both the Synoptic and the
Johannine narratives. We cannot dispassionately criticize the latter,
if we disregard this external evidence indicating that very early
Christian writers regarded it as supplementing the former. We must
not imagine John as saying "I will create an entirely new narrative
of my own." On the other hand, we must not regard John as
limited to the Three Gospels in his choice of materials, and as supple-
menting them merely by his own interpretations and visions. There
were probably many such accounts of Jesus healing helpless sick
folk, some of them on the sabbath, and John selected such details
as symbolized Israel (as distinct from the Gentiles, symbolized later
on in "the man born blind"). Thus Jn v. 5 "thirty-eight years"
may allude to Deut. ii. 14 "thirty-eight years" both being periods
of chastisement. But that does not exclude the possibility that the
Johannine "thirty-eight" may represent what John believed to be
fact. Compare the story in the Acts of the healing of a man (iii. 2)
"lame/fom his mother's womb," whose age we subsequently find to
be (iv. 22) "more than/or/y years" that is, more than the period of
the wandering of Israel in the wilderness.
See Notes 2961 (i) c d on Lk. xiv. 2 "dropsical" quoting (i) Syr.
Pesh. "who had gathered waters," (2) Thes. Syr. 1774 "Hadrian died
in a gathering of waters" (which does not mean "in a pool," but
"in dropsy"}, (3) the Heb. phrase "by the hand of" (a river, waters,
etc.) meaning "by the side of" the water. "A house of gathering
(or congregation) " is regularly used for "synagogue." These facts
especially when considered along with Jn v. 4 ("an angel . . .troubled
the water"), an interpolation (no doubt), but one that supplies
something almost necessary for the understanding of the text
all shew how large a field of old tradition was probably open to the
Fourth Evangelist from which, without inventing new traditions,
he might illustrate the moral and spiritual doctrine latent in corre-
sponding Synoptic accounts.
267 (Mark ii. i 12)
THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS
from the Johannine narrative anything about "authority to
forgive sin." True, it contains no mention of "forgiving" ;
but it contains a warning of Jesus about "sinning," couched
in such terms as to imply, either that the man warned has not
yet been forgiven, or else that, although he has been, in some
sense, forgiven, he is in danger of falling back into a worse
state than before : "Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple
and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole; no longer
continue in sin lest a worse thing befall thee 1 ."
Also, the context of the narrative indirectly meets the
above-mentioned objection of arbitrariness, and exposes the
fallacy that "authority" consists in "power to do as one likes."
This is effected, somewhat paradoxically, in two ways. First,
the narrative accumulates outward signs of arbitrariness.
Then it represents Jesus as expressly disclaiming arbitrariness,
and as claiming to be (so to speak) the most dependent of all
men, being absolutely dependent on the will of the Father in
heaven ("The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth
the Father doing 2 ").
First, as to outward circumstances, no single sufferer is
here (as in the Synoptists) brought before the eyes of Jesus by
faithful friends. There is a mixed crowd of sufferers 3 . Out
of these one alone is chosen. No reason for the choice is stated.
Is it pity for the long duration of the man's sufferings? That
may be implied in the words, "Jesus having seen him lying,
and having understood that he had been [thus] now for a long
time 4 ." But we are left uncertain. Nor are we informed of
1 Jn v. 14 "No longer continue-in-sin (/^KeYi apdpravf)," see
Son 3148, 3154 c, 3408 foil.
2 Jn v. 19.
3 Jn v. 3 "a multitude of them that were sick, blind, halt,
withered."
4 Jn v. 6 R.V. "knew," yvovs. Tvovs is applied to Jesus by
Mk viii. 17 (parall. Mt. xvi. 8) A.V. "knew," R.V. "perceiving,"
and by Mt. xii. 15, xxii. 18, xxvi. 10. In all these passages the
meaning seems to be "perceived." When Mark desires to suggest
268 (Mark ii. i 12)
THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS
the source whence Jesus "understood" the long duration of
the suffering. The use of the word in the other Gospels rather
favours the conclusion that Jesus was informed of it by those
around Him; and this sufferer of "thirty-eight" years' stand-
ing could hardly fail to be widely known, like the man in
the Acts, lame from his birth, about whose healing (by Peter)
it is said that "all men glorified God for that which was done,
for the man was more than forty years old on whom this miracle
of healing was done 1 ."
But this and other details are left in a provoking obscurity.
For example, do the words "No longer continue in sin" imply
that the disease was the penalty of sin? And is the man's
complaint, "I have no man to put me into the pool," intended
to convey the impression that it was the man's own fault that
he had "no man" to help him whereas the paralytic had
four ? From the beginning to the end of this narrative there is
no indication that "the multitude," or anyone soever, "glorified
God," even after it had been noised abroad that Jesus had
performed this miracle. The sufferer himself, if he did not
turn against his benefactor, at all events acted in such a way
as to seem ungrateful : "The man went away and told the Jews
that it was Jesus that had made him whole, and for this cause
did the Jews persecute Jesus 2 ." And how are we to explain
the question, at the outset, "Hast thou a desire to be made
whole ? " Does it not seem that the man was destitute of
will? Destitute of faith in Jesus, before Jesus addressed him,
preternatural perception he adds "in his spirit" in Mk ii. 8 e
TO) TTvevpan. Tvovs is never applied to Jesus by Luke. In Mk xv.
45 yvovs means "[Pilate] having-been-informed [by the centurion]."
In Jn vi. 15, it means "perceiving [that there was a project to
make him king by force]."
On the single occasion when Luke uses yvovs thus not 6 yvovs
as in xii. 47, 48 it is (ix. n) in the plural and applied to the
multitudes. In the Acts it occurs once, applied to Paul (xxiii. 6)
"perceiving" the division of opinion in the Council of the Jews.
1 Acts iv. 22. z Jn v. 15 16.
269 (Mark ii. i 12)
THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS
he certainly must have been since he did not, even afterwards,
know who Jesus was. He was apparently destitute of gratitude
after Jesus had healed him. Can it then be denied that the
act of Jesus, taken by itself without His subsequent comment
("the Son can do nothing of himself"), does suggest arbi-
trariness, an exercise of authority not based on reason or
right, but simply on the will of the worker "sit pro ratione
vohmtas " ?
The answer is that we have no right to take the act without
the comment. And the comment, although it will not spiritually
satisfy anyone that has not a deep faith in Christ, will intel-
lectually satisfy even a disbeliever, who says " I do not and shall
not believe, but I want to understand." For even the purest
rationalist understands that there are such things as the
"mystics" whom he despises. The comment is altogether
mystical. It amounts to this, that Jesus healed this man
because He saw this particular act of healing performed by the
Father in heaven and therefore appointed to be performed by
the Son on earth. Perhaps the Evangelist, in his own mind,
adds "Yes, and it was also foreordained to be a type of the
Calling of Israel as distinct from the Gentiles, Israel the Chosen,
chosen without merit, sluggish in responding to the Call, and
not grateful after being called." But he does not venture to
impute to Jesus any statement of this kind, or anything more
than a general avowal of His dependence on the Father: "The
Son is able to do nothing from himself, except only that which
he seeth the Father do," and again "I can from myself do
nothing 1 ."
It will be remembered that all the Synoptic narratives of
the healing of the paralytic contain the words, "But that ye
may know that the Son of man hath authority," in connection
1 Jn v. 19 (Joh. Gr. 2516 lit. "nothing from himself [nothing]
unless he be [at the moment] seeing the Father doing something"),
ib. 30.
270 (Mark ii. i 12)
THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS
with "on the earth" and "to forgive sins." In the Johannine
comment there is no mention of "forgiving sins," but there
is a mention of "quickening," or "giving life 1 ." And, soon
after that, there comes a statement that connects "authority"
with "the Son of Man," thus: "As the Father hath life in
himself, even so gave he to the Son also to have life in him-
self. And he gave him authority to execute judgment because he
is the Son of man 2 ."
This is one of several passages where the Fourth Gospel
insinuates into its readers a perception of the versatile character
of the word "authority." It means one thing in the mouth of
Pilate ("I have authority to acquit thee and I have authority
to crucify thee 3 ") and another thing in the Prologue ("to them
he gave authority to become children of God 4 ") and another
thing here. Here it signifies, as it did in Pilate's lips, the
authority to "judge" only with a very great difference as
to the conditions of "judgment." Pilate implied with a
characteristic recklessness unworthy and unusual in a Roman
Governor that he could "judge" as he liked. The Son avows
that He cannot "judge as he likes," saying "As I hear, I judge;
and my judgment is righteous, because I seek not mine own
will, but the will of him that sent me 5 ." "As I hear " means "As
I hear from the Father 6 ." The passage perhaps contains an
allusion to Messianic intuition into the Father's will predicted
by Isaiah, who prophesied that the Messiah would not judge
"according to the hearing of the ears 7 ." The Evangelist says,
1 Jn v. 21. This is a Johannine equivalent of "forgiving sins,"
which is not mentioned till toward the close of the Gospel (xx. 23).
" Heal" is another but (in this sense) only as a quotation, Jn xii. 40,
quoting Is. vi. 10.
2 Jn v. 26 7. 3 Jn xix. 10.
4 Jn i. 12. 5 Jn v. 30.
6 Comp. Jn viii. 26 " The things that I heard from him [i.e. God],
these speak I unto the world," ib. 40 "Ye seek to kill me, a man that
hath told you the truth which I heard from God."
7 Is. xi. 3 " And he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither
271 (Mark ii. i 12)
THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS
"Yes, He will thus judge, but according to the 'hearing' of
the spiritual ' ears.' The Son, though on earth, was constantly
hearing the voice of the Father in heaven. And, as He heard,
so He judged. The Father said, about one man, ' I give thee
authority to forgive,' and the Son forgave; about another, 'I
give thee authority to judge/ and the Son judged."
These considerations may help us to perceive that, although,
strictly speaking, the healing at the pool of Bethesda is (accord-
ing to the title of this section) "Healing without Forgiveness,"
yet it is closely connected with the thought of forgiveness.
Perhaps it would be truer to say "with the thought of non-
forgiveness." "Forgiveness" is expressed by "giving life."
"Non-forgiveness" is expressed by "judging." "Judging"
not " forgiving," as in the Synoptists is connected, in John,
with the "authority" received by the Son of God because He
is "Son of man." All this makes it natural to ask, "When
and where does the Fourth Evangelist begin to use the plain
intelligible Synoptic word 'forgive ' ? When he does use it,
how does he define it ? And does the context there, too, as
here say anything about 'judging' ?"
3. Forgiving sins and retaining sins, in John
The first use of the word "forgive," in John, occurs after
the Resurrection, when Jesus fulfils His promise to "leave"
reprove after the hearing of his ears, but with righteousness shall he
judge the poor. ..." There is no contradiction spiritually. For in
the preceding words (as interpreted by the Rabbis and Ibn Ezra)
Isaiah has attributed to the Messiah a preternatural "smell" or
"scent," saying "And his scent shall be in the fear of the Lord."
Ibn Ezra calls this "investigation," and says "The sense of smell
alone is not deceived. . .he will investigate. ..by his piety." The
Rabbis said that, in Hadrian's time, Bar Cochba, whom R. Akiba
had accepted as Messiah, was killed because he could not (Is. xi. 3)
"smell." That is, he was deceived into falsely "judging," and
killing, his own uncle (see Sanhedr. 936 and Derenbourg p. 433,
quoting Gittin 57 a).
272 (Mark ii. i 12)
THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS
His peace behind Him for His disciples. The promise was
"Peace I leave unto you, the peace that is my own I give unto
you 1 ." He fulfils it when He says "Peace [be] unto you : as
the Father hath sent me, even so send I you 2 ." Then the
Evangelist adds, with an apparent allusion to God's "breathing
into man's nostrils the breath of life" in Genesis, that Jesus
as it were in a second Genesis regenerated the disciples : "He
breathed in [them] and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy
Spirit 3 ." Then Jesus says using the same word "leave" as
before, but in a quite different sense "Of whomsoever ye
leave [i.e. let go, or, forgive] the sins, they are left [i.e. let go,
or, forgiven] unto them."
So far, there is no difficulty at all in the mere words. The
Greek word for "leave" may mean "leave hold of," "let go/'
or "remit," applied to a debt. The metaphor of "remitting
debts" may be applied to remitting the due punishment for
sins. This may also sometimes be used for a higher kind of
remission where the person offended not only "lets go" any
debt that the Law might have permitted him to exact, but also
"lets go" the very thought of the offence out of his mind, and
treats the offender as though he had never offended. There is
a danger lest the lower kind of remission should be sometimes
confused with the higher, and we may complain that the
Greek phrase "let go sins" is inadequate. "Letting go sins,"
1 Jn xiv. 27 Elprjvrjv a(f)Lrjpi V/MV^ elpyvrjv TTJV eprjv fii'deotu vfuv,
R.V. "Peace I leave with you ; my peace I give unto you." "My"
(Joh. Gr. 1993, 2609 b) is emphatic, and the meaning seems to be " /
leave it to you as a legacy ; nay, I am [on the point of] giving it to
you already."
2 Jn xx. 21. The first O.T. mention of peace is connected with
the close of Abraham's work on earth (Gen. xv. 15) "And thou shalt
go to thy fathers in peace." The first Johannine mention of peace
is connected with the beginning and preparation of the work of the
Apostles, who are to preach to the world the Gospel of the fulfilment
of the Promise to Abraham.
3 Jn xx. 22. On the "in-breathing," see Son 3086 e, 3623 -^'.
A. p. 273 (Mark ii. i 12) 18
THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS
we may say, "is a very much narrower thing than "regene-
rating," or "giving life." This is true, and the Fourth Evan-
gelist, up to this time, represents Jesus as repeatedly speaking
of His mission to give "life 1 ," but never of a mission to "for-
give." But is it not possible that he intends here to perplex
us a little in order that we may make an attempt to get
down to the truth latent beneath popular language very
often unintelligent and sometimes immoral about "the letting-
go of sins" ?
At all events we shall be on a right track of investigation if
we refuse to go further afield for explanation till we have
examined the following words, apparently intended to be
antithetical to those that precede: "Whose soever [sins] ye
retain, they are retained." At first, they seem to increase the
darkness. For whereas "the forgiving of sins" is one of the
most common of phrases, "the retaining of sins" is so we are
told on high authority " without parallel " in Jewish literature 2 .
If this is so, it is surely unwise to assume that "retaining"
must be intended to express something old and familiar such
as exclusion from the community in a new phrase "without
Jewish parallel." It is reasonable to ask first whether the
Evangelist is not here, as often, writing like a poet, and with a
view to some poetic metaphor, different from the "binding"
and the "loosing," which were commonplaces with the Jews.
We have found above that, in the context, the "in-breathing"
takes us back to the first mention of such "breathing" in the
Creation of Adam. We shall now ask whether there are
1 Jn iii. 15, v. 24 etc.
2 Dalman Words p. 216 "Exclusion from the community on
account of some offence includes the ' retaining ' of the sins . . . The
only remark to be made here is that the term xparelv in John has no
Jewish parallel." Dr Dalman dismisses the rendering of it by
Salkinson ("impute"), and regards that of Delitzsch as "merely
a make-shift." Schlatter gives copious illustrations of Jn xx. 23
"forgive," but none of ib, "retain." This confirms Dalman's
"without parallel."
274 (Mark ii. i 12^
THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS
reasons for thinking that the "retaining" of "sins" takes us
back to the first mention of "sin" in the Bible, and, if so,
whether there is anything there that implies "retaining."
4. The first mention of "sin," connected with "Cain''
in the Bible, and with "retaining" in the Tar gums
The first Biblical mention of "sin" occurs in God's rejection
of Cain's sacrifice: "If thou doest well, shalt thou not be
accepted (or, shall it not be lifted up) ? And if thou doest not
well, sin coucheth at the door 1 ." The LXX completely alters
the sense of this 2 . Jewish interpretation takes "sin coucheth
at the door" to mean the evil " Yetzer" or "tendency" in man,
that is, man's tendency to sin. Symmachus and Theodotion
render the Hebrew "coucheth" here by the same word as the
LXX uses in Ezekiel's description of "the great dragon that
coucheth in the midst of his rivers" ; and the Greek word is
also applied by the LXX to a serpent "couching" on the road
and ready to spring 3 . Here it may perhaps be best conceived
as a hound, chained at the door of a prison-house, and pre-
venting the guilty soul from going forth to the world out of the
darkness that it has created for itself 4 . The thought of the
hound, or wild beast, as being always kept chained at the door,
is perhaps expressed in the Targums on the Cain-passage in
Genesis by the word "retained" or "reserved" : "If thou doest
thy work well, will not thy guilt be forgiven thee ? But if
1 Gen. iv. 7 "coucheth" (A.V. "lieth"). The Heb. is applied
to a lion in Gen. xlix. 9, Ps. civ. 22, Ezek. xix. 2 (Gesen. 918).
2 OVK eav opO&s TrporrevcyKrjs, opBws 5e fJ-rj Stf'A?;?, fjpapTfs; f}(Tv^a(rov.
" Is it not true that, if thou offerest aright but dost not divide aright,
thou hast sinned ? Be quiet." Jerome comments on this error
and its cause. Philo and Origen follow the LXX.
3 Ezek. xxix. 3 eyKa&r)p.evov, Gen. xlix. 17.
4 Jerome says ad loc. "If thou do evil, there will thy sin sit
before thy porch, and by such a door-keeper (janitore) wilt thou be
accompanied."
275 (Mark ii. i 12) 18 2
THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS
thou doest not thy work well in this world, thy sin is retained
unto the day of the great judgment, and at the doors of thy
heart lieth thy sin 1 ."
This juxtaposition of "forgiveness" and "retention [for
the day of judgment]" resembles a tradition, not in Mark,
but placed by Matthew in the Precepts to the Twelve (while
Luke places a similar one in the Precepts to the Seventy) about
any city that rejects the Gospel of Peace : "It shall be more
tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of
judgment than for that city 2 ." The preceding context in
Matthew, and in Luke (to the Seventy), has repeatedly men-
tioned "peace" as being first offered by the preachers of the
Gospel, but as "coming back again" to them, if it is rejected 3 .
In effect, therefore, this Gospel of " peace" brings, not forgiveness,
but retention of sins unto "the day of judgment," for those that
reject it. This doctrine appears throughout the Pauline Epistles
in many various expressions, and John appears to imply that
l4 So Jer. I (Etheridge), and simil. Jer. II. They combine (i) the
literal ''lieth at the door" with (2) the paraphrastic "is retained."
Onkelos drops the literal phrase (Etheridge) " If thou doest thy work
well, is it not remitted " i.e., is there not remission " to thee ? And
if thou doest not thy work well, thy sin unto the day of judgment is
reserved...." Etheridge has rendered the same Aram, "reserved"
in Onk., but "retained" in Jer. I and Jer. II. The Syr. represents
KpaTflv in Mk vii. 4 ("keep" in the sense of "observe") but also
"watch," "guard," as in Acts xvi. 23, 27 "keeper of the prison,"
Jn x. 3 "keeper of the door" (see Thes. Syr. 2353 4).
After "lieth thy sin," Jer. I (and sim. Jer. II) has (Etheridge)
"And into thy hand have I delivered the power over evil passion,
and unto thee shall be the inclination thereof, that thou mayest
have authority over it, to become righteous, or to sin." Onk. con-
cludes thus, "Thy sin is reserved unto the day of judgment, when it
will be exacted of thee if thou convert not ; but, if thou convert, it
is remitted unto thee."
- Mt. x. 15, comp. Lk. x. 12 "I say unto you that in that day it
shall be more tolerable for Sodom than for that city." This is not
in Luke's Precepts to the Twelve (ix. 3 foil.).
3 Mt. x. 12 13, Lk. x. 5 6.
276 (Mark ii. i 12)
THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS
a doctrine of the same kind was taught by Jesus after the
Resurrection. First, there was to be the Gospel of "peace"
and "forgiveness," and, in order that the disciples might
preach this Gospel and impart this peace and forgiveness, He
breathed into them His Spirit of peace. But at the same time
He said that whenever they found it rejected and pronounced
a sentence of "retention unto judgment," such "retention"
would take effect.
5. "Cain," the "man-killer,'' in the Johannine Epistle
The Fourth Evangelist, if he connects this doctrine with
the warning to Cain concerning the "retention of sin," is acting
consistently with his habit of lifting his readers out of the
region of technical and controversial terms and legalities, into
the region of personifications and types and scriptural pre-
cedents 1 . But further, he is writing in his Gospel consistently
with what he writes in his first Epistle, where Cain is a
personified principle, an "antichrist 2 ."
The Epistle does not mention the name of Cain till it has
brought the thought of Cain before the reader by the words
"Whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he
that loveth not his brother 3 ." This phrase, "loveth not," seems,
at first sight, weak. "Why," we ask, does the writer not say
'hateth'"? The reason is this, that he uses "loveth not" to
mean "breaks the commandment of God who bids us love."
This we perceive from the following words : "This is the
message that ye heard from the beginning that we should love
one another 4 ." For from these we see that the character, the
1 Comp. Mk x. 5 6 (sim. Mt., om. Lk.) "For your hardness of
heart he [Moses] wrote you this commandment. But from the
beginning of the creation (Gen. i. 27) 'Male and female created he
them,'" So Mk ii. 25 (sim. Mt.-Lk.) "Have ye never read what
David did. . . ?"
2 'Avrixpio-Tos occurs in N.T. nowhere except i Jn ii. 18, 22, iv. 3,
2 Jn 7.
3 i Jn iii. 10. 4 i Jn iii. ii.
277 (Mark ii. i 12)
THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS
antichrist, who is being brought before us, is violating two
divine precepts the precept of "righteousness" and the
precept of "love." The violation of the second means more
than that he is "unloving " in the sense of indifferent. It means
that, whereas God, through Christ, says "I bid you love," the
antichrist replies "I refuse to love." That implies antagonism
to God, the Father, and to men, His children. Thus we are
prepared for the mention of Cain as the type of the character
that humanity is to avoid : "Not as Cain was of the evil one,
and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him ? Because
his works were evil and his brother's righteous 1 ."
The Epistle passes on to shew that this attitude of "not-
loving," toward such an object as the image of God, must
end in "hating" ; and "man-hating," when carried into effect,
is "man-killing." "Man-killing," in Greek, is quite different
from "murder." It means, in Euripides and later, "killing
men [instead of beasts, as sacrifices']' 2 '." Some thought of this
kind, this peculiarly unholy "killing," some suggestion of
Cain, first offering a rejected sacrifice, and then, a moment
afterwards, "killing a human being" his own brother, out of
1 i Jn iii. 12. Comp. the above-quoted Targ. on Gen. where
God says to Cain, "If thou doest thy work well will not thy guilt
be forgiven thee ? "
2 The word seems to have come into use, in this special sense,
from Euripides. Comp. Eurip. Iph. Taur. 389 di'dpco-n-oKTovous. Clem.
Alex. 36 says that the gods "enjoy man-killing (avQpvirottTovias) "
(i) in the arena, (2) in war, (3) in pestilence, when human sacrifices
are offered up, (4) among the Taurians, systematically sacrificing
strangers to Artemis in Tauris, "as Euripides represents on the
stage." Steph. Thes. also quotes Porphyr. De abst. 2, 56, p. 203 for
a statement that all the Greeks "kill-men (dvQpwTroKToix'iv, i.e. offer
up human sacrifices] before going out to war." It is used of food
made out of men killed by the Cyclopes in Eurip. CycL 127 /3opa
xaipowiv dvQpwTTOKTQVto. Steph. Thes. quotes no other ancient passages
(except Eur. Hec. 260 v.r.), but adds "apud Greg. Naz. a. rots
Saipoo-iv, homines sacrificare." It occurs only once in Goodspeed's
Concordances, viz. Tatian 8, where ^Esculapius, who saves life, is
contrasted with Athene "killer of men."
278 (Mark ii. i 12)
THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS
envy, appears to be present in the following words : "Marvel
not, brethren, if the world hateth you. We know that we
have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren.
He that loveth not abideth in death. Whosoever hateth his
brother is a man-killer ; and ye know that no man-killer hath
eternal life abiding in him 1 ."
Here the word "man-killer" seems clearly to refer to Cain.
In the only other passage where it occurs in the whole of the
Greek Testament it refers to the devil, of whom it is said " He
was a man-killer from the beginning 2 ." This, no doubt, means
"The devil, in the beginning, brought about man's fall, and
consequently man's death." But it seems also to mean *
"There was in the beginning an antagonism of darkness against
light, of envy against love, of death against life." The Wisdom
of Solomon says, " Through the envy of the devil came death into
the world 3 ." As it came invisibly through the devil, so it
came visibly through Cain. The one is the invisible, the other
is the visible, representative of death, darkness, and hatred 4 .
Since the "killing" by Cain takes place in connection with
an act of external religion, we may perhaps be disposed to say
that Cain was destroyed by his own sacrifice to God : " If he
had not sacrificed, he would not have envied ; and if he had
not envied his brother, he would not have killed him." But
the truth is quite otherwise if Cain is to be regarded as
essentially envious. For then we see that his envy, which
manifested itself in "man-killing," was merely revealed, not
caused, by his act of religion. The Fourth Evangelist seems to
desire us to see, in those whom he calls "the Jews," a re-incar-
nation of Cain. Cain looked on at Abel, sacrificing with an
1 ijniii. 13 15. 2 Jnviii. 44.
3 Wisd. ii. 24.
4 The name "Cain" is explained by the Heb. and LXX of
Gen. iv. i as from "acquire." And Jerome always explains it so.
Eusebius regularly gives the alternative "envy," and once (Onomast.
P- J 93) t^XorvTTia, without alternative.
279 (Mark ii. i 12)
THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS
offering to which "the Lord had respect 1 ." "The Jews"
looked on at Jesus, offering to God acts of kindness for sufferers,
to which acts also if inference might be drawn from their
success "the Lord had respect." Cain envied. "The Jews,"
too, envied. Not that they are expressly said by John to have
"envied," as they are said by Mark and Matthew 2 . But John
dramatizes them as envying. " Behold how ye prevail nothing "
they say to one another "lo, the world is gone after him 3 ."
They did not despise "the world." They loved its glory, and
their rulers envied Jesus His success with the world, that is,
with the multitudes : "They loved the glory of men more than
the glory of God 4 ." Thus the effect of the Light of the World
on the rulers of the nation was to "blind their eyes 5 " ; and
the effect of the blood of "the Lamb of God that taketh away
the sin of the world" was, as regards the sins of "the Jews,"
not to "forgive," but to "retain 6 ."
6. Conclusion as to the Johannine view
This, it may be objected, is a gloomy "gospel." It is at
all events an honest gospel. It is not a gospel of charms, or
incantations, or professional magicians or priests. It throws
on each man a man's responsibility which no priest can take
1 Gen. iv. 4. Theodotion renders "had respect" by (
implying "answered with fire." Jerome approves.
2 Mk xv. 10, Mt. xxvii. 18 "He [Pilate] knew that through envy
they had delivered him up." Pilate's sense of their "envy" is
latent, but perceptible, in Jn xviii. 38 foil.
3 Jn xii. 19.
4 Jn xii. 43. 5 Jn xii. 40.
6 Comp. Wisd. ii. 12 foil. "Let us lie in wait for the righteous
[one] because he is not for our turn, and he is clean contrary to
our doings. . . . He professeth to have the knowledge of God, and he
calleth himself the child of the Lord. He was made to reprove our
thoughts." Here the sins, or sinful thoughts, of the unrighteous
are, in effect, "retained," and called out into action, by "the child
of the Lord."
280 (Mark ii. i 12)
THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS
off his shoulders. It gives to all the true disciples of Jesus, to
all the recipients of His Spirit of peace, the power of imparting
that peace, through forgiveness of sins, to every man that will
receive it. But it warns them that, along with that power of
imparting a remission of sins to those who accept that peace,
there comes also a necessary power of "retaining sins" in the
case of those who reject that peace. The Evangelist does
not attempt for a moment to persuade us that the gospel has
already triumphed over the world. It is true that he represents
Jesus as saying "Be of good cheer, I have overcome the world" ;
but in the same sentence Jesus says "In the world ye have
tribulation 1 ." Before the eyes of the Allseeing, the world
is already "overcome." But before the eyes of Christ's dis-
ciples who "walk by faith, not by sight 2 " many centuries of
tribulation and spiritual conflict were to pass away before they
could hope to say honestly, as from their own sight, not de
jure but de facto, "the world is overcome."
It is perhaps this feeling in the Fourth Evangelist that
prevents him from ending his Gospel with a note of triumph,
as Matthew and Luke do 3 . He knows indeed that Jesus, in
the sphere of reality, in the heaven of heavens, "has over-
come" already that spiritual enemy which by a convenient
metaphor is called "the world." But he knows also that it is
not overcome visibly or perceptibly at present, nor destined to
be overcome in the immediate future.
In his Epistle, he even ventures to say "the world wholly
lies in the evil one*." It may be objected "This is because his
1 Jn xvi. 33. 2 2 Cor. v. 7.
3 So also does the Mark-Appendix, but not the genuine Mark,
which ends with (xvi. 8) "they were afraid" being possibly in-
complete.
4 i Jn v. 19 "the world wholly (o KOO-^OS o\os)." This is not
inconsistent with ib. ii. 2 "He is the propitiation ... for the whole
world (-n-fpl o\ov TOV noa-p-ov}." "The world [of the flesh]," in the
technical sense of the term, "lies wholly in the evil one." But, in
281 (Mark ii. i 12)
THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS
view is narrow and false." But may it not be replied "This is
because his view is high and true"? He sees where "the
world" is, and he sees where it oupht to be, and he sees that it
is not in the same position now as before the Incarnation. If
the Light had not come there would have been a lower standard
of judgment. The Light has come and has been, in large
measure, rejected. Hence comes condemnation. "If I had
not come and spoken unto them," says Jesus, "they had not
had sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin 1 ."
But is this pessimism ? Is it not merely a frank recognition
that with every new gift from God to man there comes a new
responsibility of man to God?
Recognising consistently, to the last, the antagonism of the
World to the Spirit, and the necessity of a permanent warfare
between the servants of selfishness and the servants of the Cruci-
fied, the Fourth Evangelist places at the very end of his Gospel,
as the last words of Jesus, a precept embodying the stumbling-
block of the crucifixion, "Follow thou me," that is, "Follow me
on the Way of the Cross 2 ." In the same honest candid spirit,
looking at things as a whole, he recognises how everything in
this multiform universe works according to different circum-
stances, so as to produce infinitely differing results, some good,
some evil, yet all to be regarded as, in some sense, issuing from
One God, and all as tending toward One God. Writing in this
spirit, he gave us in the Prologue of his Gospel both sides of
the truth, by saying that "the light shineth in darkness 3 ."
Now, toward the close of his Gospel, he gives us both sides of
its non-technical sense, "the world," meaning "mankind as a whole,"
is wholly included in God's redemptive purpose. John would not
have denied that in myriads of non-Christian human souls, within
and without the limits of the Roman Empire, the Light of the
World was shining (Jn i. 9) " coming into the world," and enlightening
those who had never heard the name of Jesus.
1 Jn xv. 22.
2 Jn xxi. 22. 3 Jn i. 5.
282 (Mark ii. i 12)
THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS
the truth again, by warning us that "sins forgiven" must be
thought of in connection with "sins retained 1 ."
1 See Son 3532 on the "authority" of the Son of Man, as being
"the authority of the Man over the Beast." "The Beast" includes
the Serpent and "all the power of the enemy." Whether sins are
"forgiven" or "retained," this "authority" is exercised. The
Beast is regarded as being made to subserve ultimately, in some
inscrutable way, the righteous purposes of God. Some feeling of
a twofold authority is apparent in the Targum quoted above (p. 276,
n. i) on the "sin lying at the door" ; but the similarity is rather
verbal than spiritual : " Into thy hand have I delivered the power
over evil passion, and unto thee shall be the inclination thereof, that
thou mayest have authority over it, to become righteous, or to sin."
The Targumist protests that man has "authority" over his own
will ; the Evangelist, that righteousness has " authority " over sin.
283 (Mark ii. i 12)
CHAPTER VII*
CHRIST'S CALL TO " SINNERS "
[Mark ii. 13 17]
i. Technical terms in the Synoptists
AFTER forgiving the sins of the paralytic whom He heals,
Jesus proceeds to call a tax-gatherer (named Levi or Matthew)
as described below 1 . There follows a discussion, ending with
* For titles of previous Parts of Diatessarica referred to by
abbreviations in this Volume, see pp. 545 6.
tions see pp. xxiii xxvi.
1 Mk ii. 13 17
(R.V. txt)
(13) And he
went forth again by
the sea side; and
all the multitude
resorted unto him,
and he taught them.
(14) And as he
passed by, he saw
Levi the [son] of
Alphaeus sitting at
the place of toll,
and he saith unto
him, Follow me.
And he arose and
followed him.
(15) And it came
to pass, that he was
sitting at meat in
his house, and many
publicans and sinners
sat down with Jesus
For other abbrevia-
Mt. ix. 9 13
Lk. v. 27 32
(R.V. txt)
(R.V. txt)
(9) And as Jesus
(27) And after
passed by from
these things he went
thence, he saw a
forth, and beheld
man, called Mat-
a publican, named
thew, sitting at the
Levi, sitting at the
place of toll : and he
place of toll, and
saith unto him, Fol-
said unto him, Fol-
low me. And he
low me.
arose, and followed
(28) And he for-
him.
sook all, and rose up
(10) And it came
and followed him.
to pass, as he sat at
(29) And Levi
meat in the house,
made him a great
behold, many pub-
feast in his house :
licans and sinners
and there was a great
came and sat down
multitude of pub-
with Jesus and his
licans and of others
disciples.
that were sitting at
(n) And when
meat with them.
the Pharisees saw it,
(30) And the
they said unto his
Pharisees and their
284 (Mark ii.
1317)
CHRIST'S CALL TO "SINNERS"
the words, "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners,"
where Luke adds "to repentance."
This Synoptic tradition was probably in the mind of Celsus,
when he asserted that Christians say "It was to sinners that
God has been sent." On this, his comment is, "Why was He
not sent to those that were without sin ? What evil is it not
to have committed sin ? " and again, "What is this preference
of sinners over others 1 ? " Origen meets this by explaining
that Christ was sent to all, because all have sinned, and, even
if some have passed out of sin, they still need the Redeemer's
help. But would educated Greeks regard this as a satisfactory
explanation ? Luke, at all events, by adding "to repentance,"
seems to indicate his belief that Mark's text is either obscure or
incomplete.
The difficulty of deciding what was Mark's exact meaning
is greatly increased by the fact that "righteous," in the New
Mk ii. 13 17
(R.V. txt) (contd.}
and his disciples :
for there were many,
and they followed
him (see p. 383, n.).
(16) And the
scribes of the Phari-
sees, when they saw
that he was eating
with the sinners and
publicans, said unto
his disciples, He
eateth and drinketh
with publicans and
sinners.
(17) And when
Jesus heard it, he
saith unto them,
They that are whole
have no need of a
physician, but they
that are sick: I
came not to call the
righteous, but sin-
ners.
1 Origen Cels. iii.
Mt. ix. 9 13
(R.V. txt) (contd.}
disciples, Why eat-
eth your Master with
the publicans and
sinners ?
(12) But when
he heard it, he said,
They that are whole
have no need of a
physician, but they
that are sick.
(13) But go ye
and learn what [this]
meaneth, I desire
mercy, and not sacri-
fice: for I came not
to call the righteous,
but sinners.
Lk. v. 27 32
(R.V. txt) (contd.}
scribes murmured
against his disciples,
saying, Why do ye
eat and drink with
the publicans and
sinners ?
(31) And Jesus
answering said unto
them, They that are
whole have no need
of a physician; but
they that are sick.
(32) I am not
come to call the
righteous but sinners
to repentance.
62, 64.
285 (Mark ii 13 17
CHRIST'S CALL TO "SINNERS"
Testament, often has a technical sense, being applied to those
who fulfilled the commandments of the Law externally, without
an internal fulfilment of those two great commandments
("love God," "love thy neighbour") which Jesus described as
constituting, in reality, the whole of the Law 1 . "Except your
righteousness shall exceed [the righteousness of] the scribes and
Pharisees 2 ," said Jesus. But He did not mean that the right-
eousness of His disciples was to be more in amount than that
of the Pharisees. He meant that it was to be different in kind.
It is possible that Jesus was here using the word in the technical
sense in which it was used by those who "trusted in themselves
that they were righteous, and despised all others 3 ." If so,
although it would be true to say that Christ "was sent to all,"
yet it would be misleading in Christ to say "/ came to call all,"
without adding that the "call" would make no appeal to those
who were perfectly satisfied with their own "righteousness."
Akin to the technical sense of "righteous" is that of
"sinners." As the former sometimes implied "those who
observe the Law of Moses," so the latter sometimes implied
"those who do not observe the Law of Moses," that is, Gentiles 4 .
In the present narrative, along with "sinners" are mentioned
"publicans," i.e. "tax-gatherers" as though they, too, were
necessarily an immoral class. But the two words are on a
different footing. The technicality of "sinners" is purely
Jewish. The technicality, if it can be so called, of "tax-
gathering" and "tax-gatherers" is to be found in the Greek
language from Aristophanes downwards 5 ; and the meaning
of dishonesty attached to it arises necessarily in every country
where taxes, or customs, are so collected as to encourage (or
not discourage) over-collection and fraudulent extortion.
1 Mt. xxii. 37 40. 2 Mt. v. 20.
3 Lk. xviii. 9. R.V. txt " all others," lit. " the rest [of the world]."
4 Comp. Gal. ii. 15 "We being Jews by nature and not sinners
of the Gentiles."
6 See Wetstein on Mt. v. 46.
286 (Mark ii. 13 17)
CHRIST'S CALL TO "SINNERS"
In the use of the word "tax-gatherer," Mark differs from
Matthew and Luke by never placing it in an utterance of Jesus.
Matthew ventures to represent Jesus on several occasions as
using it in an opprobrious sense. One of these instances is
in a tradition peculiar to Matthew 1 . But in the Double
Tradition also in the Sermon on the Mount Matthew has
"tax-gatherers" where Luke has "sinners 2 ." Other words of
Jesus recorded by Matthew say that "the tax-gatherers and
the harlots" believed John the Baptist, and had precedence
over the Pharisees; but the parallel Luke omits "and the
harlots*."
Luke nowhere represents Jesus as countenancing the
opprobrious use of the word "tax-gatherer." On the contrary,
according to him, when the tax-gatherers said to John the
Baptist "What shall we do ? " instead of replying "Cease to be
tax-gatherers," he merely said "Exact no more than that which
is appointed you 4 ." Luke also records a story told by Jesus,
contrasting the prayer of a complacent Pharisee with that of
a penitent tax-gatherer 5 . Lastly, Luke represents Jesus as
saying about Zacchaeus, "a chief tax-gatherer," and "rich,"
who made restitution for wrongful exaction and gave half of
his goods to the poor, "To-day is salvation come unto this
house, forasmuch as he also is a child of Abraham 6 ."
1 Mt. xviii. 17 "Let him be unto thee as the Gentile (6 e
and the tax-gatherer." In Mt. xi. 19, Lk. vii. 34 "a friend of tax-
gatherers and sinners," Jesus is simply repeating the charge brought
against Him by others.
2 Mt. v. 46, Lk. vi. 32. In Mt. v. 47, fOvixoi is parall. to Lk. vi. 33
d/zaproaAoi. Possibly the original had "Gentiles" in all four texts.
The Heb. for " Gentile " closely resembles one Heb. word used for
" exactors of dues " or " bailiffs " (Levy i. 293 a, Aboth iii. 25 (16)).
3 Mt. xxi. 31 2, Lk. vii. 29 30.
4 Lk. iii. 12 13.
5 Lk. xviii. 10 14.
6 Lk. xix. i 9. Clem. Alex. 942 remarks that Jesus "does not
command Zacchaeus and Matthew to part with their property."
287 (Mark ii. 13 17)
CHRIST'S CALL TO "SINNERS"
2. John's use of the words "righteous" and
"righteousness"
Reviewing the technical terms above mentioned, we perceive
that the Rule of Johannine Intervention does not bind John
here to intervene as to any of them. For not one of them is
used by Mark and omitted or corrected by Luke. But it
would be absurd to suppose that John never intervenes except
when the Synoptists disagree. He might also intervene, even
where all the Synoptists agree, if he had reason to think that
the threefold agreement still left something obscure that might
be made clear, or something inadequate that might be more
fully and satisfactorily expressed, or something clear and full
in appearance, but not so in spirit and in truth.
As regards "tax-gatherers," there was no need that John
should add a word. For Mark had been silent, so far as concerns
any words of Jesus ; and Luke had corrected and supplemented
Matthew's tradition in such a way as to make it impossible to
suppose that Jesus shared in the general unfairness to them as
a class. This class, then, John never mentions.
As to "righteousness" and "righteous," John says indeed
very little, but what he does say appeals to the common sense of
all right-minded people, and yet goes down deep to a divine
foundation. "Righteousness" may be described roughly as
the faculty of judging fairly and rightly between this and that
claim " judge" and " claim" being used in their fullest senses.
When the claim was put into words before the judges of Israel,
they had the following precept of Moses for their guidance :
" Hear [the causes] between your brethren, and judge right-
eously between a man and his brother, and the stranger that
is with him. Ye shall not respect persons in judgment ; ye
shall hear the small and the great alike ; ye shall not be afraid
of the face of man; for the judgment is God's 1 ." The
1 Deut. i. 1 6 17.
288 (Mark ii. 13 17)
CHRIST'S CALL TO "SINNERS"
Jerusalem Targum explains "Hear between" thus: "So hear
your brethren that one may not [be permitted to] speak all his
words, while another is compelled to cut his words short ; and
so hearken to their words, as that it may be impossible for
you not to judge them and deliver judgment in truth...."
It is in this spirit of fairness that Nicodemus says to the
Sanhedrin "Doth our law judge a man, except it first hear
from himself and know what he doeth ? " To this their only
reply is "Art thou also of Galilee ? Search, and see that out
of Galilee ariseth no prophet 1 ."
These "judges" are hopelessly unfair hopelessly, because
they are self-blinded, shutting their eyes to the beauty and
justice of the Law. Of its essential meaning they know nothing.
And yet they have just pronounced something like a curse on
the multitude for knowing nothing of it : "Hath any of the
rulers believed on him ? Or any of the Pharisees ? But [as
for] this multitude that knoweth not the law they are [all]
under-a-curse 2 ." This is one of many instances of Johannine
irony. The judges of the Jews are here self-judged, while, in
effect, judging "the multitude." They take in their mouths
the very word of Moses "Cursed be he that confirmeth not the
words of this law to do them," and while applying the curse
to the despised rabble they bring it down on themselves 3 .
In order to emphasize the importance of this common-
sense virtue of fairness, or justice, or righteousness, John, who
uses the adjective but thrice, applies it twice to "judgment,"
and once to the word "Father" in prayer proceeding from the
1 Jn vii. 51 2 (R.V.). Probably the right rendering is "ariseth
not the prophet" (see Joh. Gr. 2492).
2 Jn vii. 48 9 endparoi. This is the equivalent, in classical Greek,
of Deut. xxvii. 26 (quoted in Gal. iii. 10) eViKaraparos-, which is
not given by Steph. Thes. as occurring anywhere in classical Greek.
'ETTiKardparos occurs once in the Index of Boeckh (No. 2664 " barbarus
titulus") whereas errdparos occurs ten times.
3 Compare Cramer (p. 271, ad loc.) TOV o^Xov 5e...eVa/jaroi/
fivai fj.d\\ov avrol Kardpas inrevdwoi yfyovacriv . . . .
A. p. 289 (Mark ii. 13 17) 19
CHRIST'S CALL TO "SINNERS"
Son ("O righteous Father ! "). In the first instance, Jesus says
"The judgment that I give is righteous," and adds the reason,
namely, that it is based on the will of God (" the will of him that
sent me") somewhat as the judges in Israel are told by
Moses "the judgment is God's 1 ." In the second instance,
Jesus appeals to a common-sense view of what God would
judge to be right to do on the sabbath, "If a man receive
circumcision on the sabbath . . . are ye wroth with me, because
I made a man every whit whole on the sabbath ? Judge not
according to appearance, but judge righteous judgment 2 ."
Here arises the question "How can a human being judge
except (in some sense) according to 'appearance' the things
that appear to the senses, the documents, the utterances, and
the demeanour, of witnesses and of the parties to the suit ? "
The answer is that the Lord's "judge" must be as far as
possible like the Lord, "who seeth not as man seeth, for man
looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on
the heart 3 ." That is to say, "Heart-knowledge, as well as
eye-knowledge and mind-knowledge, is needed to make up, in
its completeness, righteous judgment." The Fourth Gospel
teaches that the Father in heaven, and He alone, is "righteous"
in this highest sense of all ; and reserves this as the highest of
the divine attributes, above the attribute of "holiness 4 ," for
the climax of the last prayer of the Son to the Father, as
though this divinest kind of righteousness were the sphere in
which we are to conceive the knowledge of the Father by
the Son: "O righteous Father, the world knew thee not, but
I knew thee.... 5 " "Righteousness" John mentions only in
1 Jn v. 30 r) Kpio-isfjefjLT). ..(emph.) . . . (see J oh. Gr. 2559),Deut.i. 17.
2 Jn vii. 23 4. 3 i S. xvi. 7.
4 Jn xvii. ii "O holy Father (ofyie) " precedes ib. 25 "O righteous
Father (MKMC)."
5 Comp. Plato Theaet. 1760 0ebs o>y olov re SiKaidrctros-.
in the fullest sense, applied to the ideal Judge, implies (i) will,
(2) knowledge, (3) power to pronounce a self-executing judgment
290 (Mark ii. 13 17)
CHRIST'S CALL TO "SINNERS"
one passage as one of the three things in respect of which
Jesus declares that the Paraclete will "convict the world,"
namely "sin," "righteousness," and "judgment 1 ." It is
added, "of righteousness, because I go to the Father and ye
see me no more," where the meaning seems to be that to be
driven out of an unrighteous world is a proof of " righteousness."
The thought is akin to that in Wisdom, where "the ungodly"
say, about him whom they persecute and kill, "Let us lie in
wait for the righteous .. .he is clean contrary to our doings' 2 '."
Thus, in effect, they "convict" themselves of "sin," and of
hostility to "righteousness," and they pass "judgment" on
themselves. The "righteousness" here spoken of is manifestly
divine, not human, in its origin. It consists in a right relation-
ship typified by fatherhood, sonship, and brotherhood, and is
very far removed from the conception, condemned by Paul, of
"the righteousness that is from the Law 3 ," that is, from the
Law of Moses 4 .
3. What does John say or imply about "sinners" ?
In the Fourth Gospel, Jesus never mentions the word
" sinner." It occurs only in one passage a discussion between
"the Jews" and a man born blind, but recently healed by
Jesus on the sabbath 5 . There it brings into sharp contrast
that shall do that which is best for all collectively and for each
individually.
1 Jn xvi. 8 ii (Joh. Gr. 2182).
2 Wisd. ii. 12 (p. 280, n. 6). 3 Rom. x. 5.
4 The Johannine Epistle uses SI'KCUOS and diKaioa-vvrj as follows
Beginning from SIKCIIOS as applied to the Redeemer i Jn i. 9, ii. i, 29,
it passes to man's SiKaiocrvvr) (ii. 29) fav fldf)T OTL diKatos eanVj yii>d>crKT
OTL nas 6 TTOIWV TTJV SiKaioavvrjv e avrov yfycvvrjTai. That IS to Say, there
is no "righteousness" for man except in regeneration from God.
But this "righteousness" is not a mere theory (ib. iii. 7), "he that
doeth righteousness is righteous even as he [the Lord] is righteous,"
ib. 10 "everyone that doeth not righteousness is not from God." Abel's
works are (ib. 12) "righteous."
5 Jn ix. 16 34.
291 (Mark ii. 13 17) 19 2
CHRIST'S CALL TO "SINNERS"
the Pharisaic view, and the common-sense view, of the meaning
of the word. The Jews, it is said, "called a second time the
man that was blind, and said unto him, Give glory to God ; we
know that this man is a sinner*."
"Give glory to God" means (as is shewn by some of the
passages referred to in the margin) 2 , "Confess that you have
sinned." The man, when previously asked "What sayest thou
of him ? " had replied "He is a prophet." He is now required
to confess that he has sinned in saying this. But the context
seems also to shew that the Jews meant more than this
meant (as Chrysostom says) "Confess that this man did
nothing," i.e. nothing miraculous, nothing at all worth men-
tioning 3 . How the man is to say this with any appearance of
truthfulness, they do not explain. That is the man's affair, not
theirs. For them, "the rulers," the conclusion was as certain
as a demonstration of Euclid. The healer had "worked" on
the sabbath. Whoever worked on the sabbath "broke the
Law." Whoever "broke the Law " was " a sinner." Therefore
Jesus, the healer, was a sinner. " We know" they say, "that
this man is a sinner." And from their point of view, they were
quite right. If "sinner" meant what they thought it meant,
Jesus was "a sinner."
The dialogue continues with technical legality on the side
of the Pharisees, with common-sense on the side of the man
born blind, and with Johannine irony (as it were) looking
on. "We know," said the Jews, "that God hath spoken unto
Moses ; but as for this man we know not whence he is." They
were quite right on this point. The "whence" was "from the
Father." Him the Jews did not "know." Well might they
say "We know not whence he is." As for the blind man, he,
taking the common-sense view of things, does not at first
attempt to deny that Jesus may be a "sinner" from the
1 Jn ix. 24.
2 Josh. vii. 19, Jer. xiii. 16, i S. vi. 5.
3 Chrys. on Jn ix. 24.
292 (Mark ii. 13 17)
CHRIST'S CALL TO "SINNERS"
Pharisaic point of view. They say they "know" it. He
implies that such confident "knowing" belongs to professional
theologians, not to plain men like himself : "Whether he be a
sinner I know not ; one thing I know, that whereas I was blind,
now I see." And from that he passes to the conclusion that
since "God heareth not sinners," this man cannot be so called :
"If this man were not from God, he could do nothing."
The sequel ends with an instructive contrast between an
unreal, external, and (so to speak) artificial or official "binding
of sins," "retention of sins," or "excommunication," and the
real, internal, and natural act of which the former is (in this
particular instance) a parody. The blind man, for refusing to
"give God glory" by denying that he owes his sight to Jesus,
is "cast out of the synagogue." The Pharisees say that they
"see," in the very moment when they are going to commit
an act of blind injustice. They are therefore allowed to blind
themselves. Nay, they are made to "become blind." It is
the "judgment" of God on them : "For judgment came I into
this world," says Jesus, "that they that see not may become
blind" ; and then to the Pharisees, who scoffingly asked
whether they, too, were blind "If ye were blind, ye would
have no sin ; but now ye say, We see. Your sin abideth 1 ."
That is to say, it is "retained." They are excommunicated,
cast out. The blind man is cast out of the synagogue ; the
Pharisees out of the Light into "the outer darkness 2 ."
4. The "harlots" in Matthew, and the "woman
that was a sinner" in Luke
Luke's narrative, which will be discussed later on in a
comment on the Anointing at Bethany, is merely mentioned
1 Jn ix. 3941-
2 Mt. viii. ii 12 (comp. Lk. xiii. 28) on the "casting out" of
"the sons of the kingdom," and the admission of the Gentile world.
The blind man in John is generally regarded as the type of the
Gentile world.
293 (Mark ii. 13 17)
CHRIST'S CALL TO "SINNERS"
here as containing his only representation of those whom
Matthew calls "the harlots." Matthew, who alone attributes
this word to Jesus 1 and that, in only one passage represents
them, along with the tax-gatherers, as having "believed" John
the Baptist. But the parallel Luke differs, as follows :
Mt. xxi. 31 2
Verily I say unto you, that
the tax-gatherers and the harlots
go before you into the kingdom
of God. For John came to you
in the way of righteousness, and
ye believed him not, but the
tax-gatherers and the harlots be-
lieved him ; but ye, having seen
[it], did not even repent after-
wards that ye might believe him.
Lk. vii. 29 30
And all the people, having
heard, and the tax-gatherers, justi-
fied God, having been baptized
[with] the baptism of John ; but
the Pharisees and the lawyers
rejected the counsel of God
[with regard] to themselves, not
having been baptized by him.
There is difficulty in Luke, but much more in Matthew. For
neither Mark nor Matthew has made any previous mention of
" harlots " as coming to John ; nor has Luke, though mentioning
"multitudes," and "tax-gatherers," and "soldiers 2 ." More-
over, as John's baptisms seem to have been public and on a
large scale, it does not seem likely that women of this class
could have come and been baptized by him, without exciting
censure, or at all events attracting notice from such writers
as Luke and Josephus 3 . The most probable explanation is
that Matthew has been deceived by the practical identity of
the Hebrew "'proselytes" with the Aramaic "adulterers*"
The baptism of John was a baptism for " proselytism" not for
1 In the Gospels, rropvrj occurs only in Mt. xxi. 31 2 and Lk. xv.
30 (the words of the elder brother of the prodigal son) "having
devoured thy substance with harlots."
2 Lk. iii. 7, 12, 14. 3 Josephus Ant. xviii. 5. 2.
4 See Levy Ch. i. 1316 shewing that the Heb. gdr "to be a
sojourner," means, in Palestinian Aramaic, "to commit adultery."
The Heb. verbal noun ger is regularly rendered Trpoo-^Ain-os by Aquila.
294 (Mark ii. 13 17)
CHRIST'S CALL TO "SINNERS"
Levitical purification 1 . The Hebrew for "proselyte" is twice
transliterated by the LXX as geioras 2 . Matthew seems to have
taken it in its Aramaic sense of " adulterer 3 ." Luke's expression
"all the people having heard" is not without suspicion, partly
because "all the people" is a phrase practically peculiar to him
among the Evangelists 4 , and partly because it may easily be
a confused version of "all the people that were hearing, i.e.
hearkening-to , or, disciples of, John 5 "; and this may have been
Luke's way of representing an original geiorai, i.e. proselytes.
There are other possibilities of explaining Matthew's text as
an error, but none (as far as I see) of explaining it as literally
and historically correct 6 .
After rejecting Matthew's tradition concerning the " harlots "
that came to John the Baptist, Luke goes on to give, in Christ's
words, a brief contrast drawn by "this generation" between
John the Baptist and Jesus. Of the former it is said "he hath
1 See Hor. Heb. ii. 54.
2 Exod. xii. 19, Is. xiv. I
3 See Jerem. iii. 6 8 where "played the harlot" and "committed
adultery" are interchanged, and comp. Ps. Ixxiii. 27 fravra rbv
iropvevovra OTTO <rov (Targ. " aberrarunt a timore tui") with Clem.
Horn. iii. 28, which describes such a ^ux 7 ? as iropvevo-ao-a rj
4 It occurs several times in Luke, but elsewhere in the Gospels
only in Mt. xxvii. 25 (pec., a solemn execration of Israel on itself),
Jn viii. 2 (an interpolation in Lucan style).
5 SS has "all the people and the toll-gatherers that heard."
6 Baba Kama 94 b " For herdsmen (Hirten) and tax-collectors
(Zolleinnehmer) and tax-farmers (Zollpachter) repentance (die Busse)
is difficult" is worth noting; but in Hebrew neither of the two
italicised words could well be confused with -n-opvai.
Jas. iv. 4 "ye adulteresses (/ioi^aXi'Ses)," addressed to all sinful souls,
might suggest an explanation of Matthew's text, if "tax-gatherers"
did not occur in Matthew's context; and Jas. iv. 4 may help us to
understand how an original GEIORAS, meaning "proselyte," but
having been taken to mean "adulterer," was adopted in the latter
sense, first metaphorically as meaning yevea /zoi^aXts " an adulterous
generation" and then literally as iropvai.
295 (Mark ii. 13 17)
CHRIST'S CALL TO "SINNERS"
a devil" ; of the latter, "a friend of publicans and sinners*."
In this brief contrast Luke agrees verbatim with Matthew. Bi
then follows, in Luke, a long narrative, peculiar to his Gospel,
about a meal in a Pharisee's house, where Jesus "sat down to
meat, and behold, a woman that was in the city, a sinner. . . . 2 "
If Luke reflected that he had taken on himself some responsi-
bility in rejecting Matthew's tradition about the "harlots,"
who "believed," or "had faith," in John the Baptist, he migl
naturally place here a narrative about a woman of this
who had faith, not in John the Baptist (as Matthew erroneously
supposed) but in Jesus. It comes most appropriately, from
Luke's point of view, directly after the contrast between John
and Jesus ; and it exhibits Jesus as doing what John would not
have attempted to do, in consequence of the woman's "faith"
and "love" : "Her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she
loved much," "Thy faith hath saved thee ; go in peace."
5. The woman of Samaria in John
In Mark and Matthew, there is a narrative of the Anointing
of Jesus by a woman in Bethany, shortly before the Crucifixion,
resembling, in some respects, Luke's narrative above mentioned,
but differing in others and especially in that Mark and Matthew
neither state nor suggest that the woman was " a sinner." Luke
omits the anointing in Bethany. John inserts it and adds
that the woman was that Mary (the sister of Martha) whom
Luke himself describes (in the words of Jesus) as having
"chosen the good part 3 ," and whom, therefore, he could not
reasonably be supposed to identify with the "sinner 4 ." Yet
1 Lk. vii. 31 5. 2 Lk. vii. 36 50.
3 Lk. x. 42. Yet Origen (on Mt. xxvi. 6 8) says that "many"
identified the two women. The interpolation in John (viii. i n)
about the woman taken in adultery is in a palpably Lucan style.
4 It may be replied that there may have been two periods in her
life ; but, if Luke had known of them, would he not have mentioned
them (comp. Lk. viii. 2 "seven devils") ?
296 (Mark ii. 13 17)
CHRIST'S CALL TO "SINNERS"
"many" Christians, before Origen's time, identified the two
women. And if this identification prevailed even after John
had supported Mark and Matthew, it would naturally be much
more prevalent before John had written.
If it was so, and if John believed it to be an error, and if he
also desired to correct what seems to be Matthew's error about
the "harlots" that "believed" in John the Baptist, it would
be natural that he should put on record some tradition about
Christ's attitude toward such women. This he does in a
dialogue between Jesus and a woman of Samaria, who says to
Jesus "I have no husband," and to whom Jesus replies, "Thou
saidst well, ' I have no husband ' ; for thou hast had five hus-
bands, and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband 1 ."
In this dialogue, and the sequel, John illustrates Christ's
attitude, first, towards a woman that was a sinner, and secondly,
to Samaritans. The woman's hostile prejudice is disarmed by
Christ's condemnatory intuition blended with kindness. Then
hostility is changed into sympathetic faith by the revelation to
her of a new aspect of a Jewish Messiah. Here is a Jew who
will welcome all worshippers of God, whether from Jerusalem
or Gerizim, if they come to Him "in spirit and in truth." She
does not understand all of it, but she understands and feels
enough to give her a wholesome moral shock. We are led to
suppose that it might permanently alter her character. At
all events it is described as, for the time, making her an evan-
gelist among her own people.
So much for the woman herself. Secondly, as to the
Samaritans, John appears to imply a contradiction of the
1 Jn iv. 17 18. Comp. Philo i. 131 on the "seducer (fyQopfvs] "
who acts through the five senses, and i. 532 (on Gen. xiv. 9) about
the conflict between the four passions and the five senses. The
Samaritans are said to have made (2 K. xvii. 30 i) five idols corre-
sponding to their five nations. But the number "five," in this
connection, does not seem to have been much commented on in the
Talmuds and Midrash.
297 (Mark ii. 13 17)
CHRIST'S CALL TO "SINNERS"
tradition recorded by Matthew alone that Jesus forbade
His apostles to "enter into any city of the Samaritans" ; for
here Jesus is said to have "abode with" the Samaritans "two
days," and the disciples apparently along with Him 1 . Luke,
too, though he mentions no such precept of Jesus as given
either to the Twelve or to the Seventy, and though he has
several traditions, peculiar to his Gospel, that favour the
Samaritans, yet relates that Jesus was refused reception in one
Samaritan village with the result that James and John requested
to be allowed to call down fire on the inhospitable villagers 2 .
John does not deny this. But, as in several other instances,
he seems to say "Audi alter am partem; there was another
aspect of Samaritans, in which they appeared not only hospitable
but also believers, convinced that Jesus was 'The Saviour of
the world 3 .' "
6. The Syrophoenician woman in Mark and Matthew*
This narrative must be discussed later on, in its order.
Meantime it must be noted that Luke omits it, so that it is a
case where John should intervene. There is all the more
reason for intervening since Mark and Matthew apparently
represent Jesus as classing the woman with "the dogs." Pro-
bably this is an error. There are many reasons for thinking
that it was not Jesus, but the disciples, who wished to repel
the sorrowful mother in this contumelious way somewhat as
1 Origen on Jn iv. 40 i has a curious explanation "It is not the
same thing to 'abide with' the believer and to 'enter into his city,' '
while Jerome, on Mt. x. 5, does not attempt to reconcile it with
Jn. Origen who admits the plausibility of those who find a con-
tradiction (OVK airi6dva>s TIS avyKpovvfL) does not venture to assert
that the journey contemplated in Matthew is different from that
contemplated in the parallel Synoptists, who make no mention of
such a prohibition. He explains the prohibition spiritually.
2 Lk. ix. 51 5. 3 Jn iv. 42.
4 Mk vii. 24 30, Mt. xv. 21 8. See Son 3353 (iv) a _;' from
which are borrowed the few facts that will be stated here.
298 (Mark ii. 13 17)
CHRIST'S CALL TO "SINNERS"
Gehazi wished to repel another sorrowful mother from Elisha.
Elisha said to Gehazi "Let her alone 1 ." Similarly it is
probable that Jesus said to the disciples, in the uncorrupted
original, "Let her alone," perhaps using the Aramaicized Greek
word aphes ("do thou let alone") as an ejaculation addressed
to the disciples 2 . This, in Greek, being an ungrammatical
use of the singular for the plural, would lead to substitution of
the plural, and to other corruptions arising from the various
meanings of the word in Greek 3 .
The narratives in Mark and Matthew appear to be based
on a brief and obscure original. Its obscurities Mark and
Matthew severally try to remove by additions, which were
not in the original. Mark says that Jesus "desired that no
man should know" of His presence 4 . But the parallel Matthew
omits this 5 . If it is omitted, we are free to believe that
Christ's journey to the parts of Tyre and Sidon was not
purposeless or for the mere purpose of escape from danger.
It may have been to preach the Gospel as Jonah preached
it to Nineveh.
1 2 K. iv. 27 ''Let her alone" (afas avr-qv).
2 Comp. Jn xii. 7 atyes avrrjv, in the Anointing at Bethany, with
the parall. Mk xiv. 6 a<ere avrfjv, and also Mk xv. 36 a<ere with the
parall. Mt. xxvii. 49 0e$-.
3 "A<ere avTyv, if written a<^erat avrrj, might easily be confused with
a(j)LTat avrfj or d^eirai avrfj "she is forgiven," comp. Lk. vii. 47 8
(where however the form used is different) on the forgiveness of the
sins of the woman that was a sinner.
See Son 3353 (iv) h. "The drama, according to the hypothesis
stated above, would read thus :
1. The woman throws herself at Christ's feet. The disciples
attempt to prevent her.
2. Jesus says 'Let her alone,' using the Aramaic aphes as an
exclamation addressed to all the disciples.
3. The disciples say, ' It is not fit to take the bread of the children
and cast it to the dogs/
4. The woman, appealing to the Lord against His disciples, says,
'Nay, Lord, even the dogs. . . .' "
4 Mk vii. 24. 5 Mt. xv. 21.
299 (Mark ii. 13 17)
CHRIST'S CALL TO "SINNERS"
It is true that Jesus is reported by Matthew to have said
"I was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
But Mark does not report this. And how could Jesus say il
consistently with what He had said before, when He perforrm
one of His earliest miracles, the healing of the centurion'*
servant ? The centurion was rich and popular, but he was
Gentile. Jesus lauded his faith above the faith of Israel ai
healed his servant. After doing that, how could Jesus exci
Himself from healing the poor Syrophoenician's daughter
the ground that He was sent only to Israel 1 ?
If Jesus followed a precedent of the prophet Jonah, that
ought not to surprise us, since we find both Matthew and Luke
representing Him as predicting that no "sign" will be given
by the Son of Man except "the sign of Jonah 2 ." It is true that
they interpret this "sign" differently. But that does not
destroy the importance of their agreement in this point, that
out of all the prophets, Jesus selected Jonah, the Missionary
to Nineveh, as the one in whose footsteps He, in some sense,
followed.
That Luke felt compelled to omit the story of the Syro-
phoenician mother may be all the more easily understood from
the mention of the widow of Zarephath and Naaman in his
version of Christ's first public discourse. There were many
widows in Israel, it says, but Elijah was sent to none of them,
but onlv to that one in the land of Sidon ; there were many
1 See Son 3353 (iv) a foil, which suggests, as one explanation,
that Mt. xv. 24 "the lost sheep of the house of Israel" may be a
paraphrase for "sinners" generally, "Israel" being the spiritual
Israel, not " Israel after the flesh." It should have been added that
Origen takes this view (ad loc., and Comm. Joann. xx. 5) "The
simpler folk," he says, take "Israel" literally. If "Israel" is to be
taken spiritually, one version of the story may have been as follows :
"The disciples said to Jesus 'Send her away/ But Jesus answered
'Nay, I was not sent except to lost sinners and sufferers such as
this,"' comp. Lk. xv. 4 32, xix. 10 " that which was lost."
2 Mt. xii. 39 foil., Lk. xi. 29 foil., comp. Mt. xvi. 4.
300 (Mark ii. 13 17)
CHRIST'S CALL TO "SINNERS"
lepers in Israel, but none of them was cleansed by Elisha, but
only Naaman the Syrian 1 . Naaman was an idolater at the time
when he was healed. Even after he was healed, he still " bowed
in the house of Rimmon" on state occasions. Yet Jesus
speaks of the healing almost as if it might be a precedent for
acts of His own, and certainly not with reprehension. How
then was it possible for Luke to describe Jesus as treating the
poor Syrophoenician woman with a contumely none the less
bitter because it was indirect, by classing her with " the dogs 2 " ?
7. "Greek" in Mark, and "Greeks" in John
We have now to ask how John intervenes. If there were
any evidence that in the first century the Syrophoenician
woman was regarded as "a sinner," and hence supposed to be
classed with "dogs," we might say that John intervenes
indirectly in the Dialogue with the Samaritan woman. But
in the Clementine Homilies the name of the Syrophoenician is
given as Justa, without any suggestion that she was of dissolute
life. Not improbably, in publishing the Dialogue, John may
have had in view discussions about Christ's apparently harsh
and austere treatment of a foreign woman, which he meets by
saying "See how He treated the woman of Samaria, and ask
yourselves whether He could have thus treated the woman of
Syro-Phoenicia." More than this we cannot say, so far as
concerns the Dialogue.
1 Lk. iv. 25 7.
2 Clem. Horn. ii. 19 (See Son 3353 (iv);') "Jesus said, It is not
lawful to heal the Gentiles who are like dogs, because they have
different food and habits, the table that is according to the Kingdom
having been given-as-due (aTroSeSo/xeVr/s) to the sons of Israel."
In Acts xi. 3, after Peter had baptized Cornelius, "they of the
circumcision" condemned him, not for giving the converts baptism,
but for eating with them : "Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised,
and didst eat with them." The institution of the Eucharist, with its
One Loaf, brought to the front the question : "May a Christian
Jew eat with a Christian Greek ? "
301 (Mark ii. 13 17)
CHRIST'S CALL TO "SINNERS"
But more may be said in favour of the hypothesis that
John noted the difference between Mark, who calls the woman
"a Greek [woman], a Syrophoenician by race," and Matthew, who
calls her "a Canaanitish woman." John often lays stress on
typical or generic words, capable of symbolic meaning. Am
there is a great difference, even in the minds of Jews, betwe
a "Greek" and a "Canaanite." The Canaanite is regarded,
throughout the Bible, as denied and defiling ; and the prophecy
of Zechariah closes with a prediction that there shall be "no
more the Canaanite in the house of the Lord 1 ." The Greeks,
the sons of Javan, though hostile 2 , are not thus regarded. Philo
ventures to say that "Hellas is the only land that veritably
produces-men, scion of heaven and offspring of divine nature,"
meaning the philosophic mind 3 . No doubt, Philo is not a
typical Jew. But he is typical of the philosophic Jew. And
the author of the Fourth Gospel appears to have had a tincture
of his philosophy. We may therefore reasonably suppose that
John would do something to destroy the painful impression
produced on Greek readers by the fact that the only instance
of the word "Hellene " in the early Gospels mentioned a Hellenis,
i.e. Greek woman, to whose petition for help for a suffering
daughter Jesus replied at first by saying that it was not fit to
take the children's bread and to cast it unto dogs 4 . At all
events it is worth inquiring whether John ever mentions
"Hellenes," and, if so, in what light he represents them.
1 Zech. xiv. 2 1 . This is the only instance of " Canaanite " (sing.) in
the prophets (A. V.) . Ezek. xvi. 3 (R.V.) " the land of the Canaanite "
implies defilement.
2 Comp. Zech. ix. 13 "I will stir up thy sons, O Zion, against
thy sons, O Greece (Heb. Javan)."
3 Philo ii. 646 7 Movr) yap f) 'E\\as d^evdws dvOpviroyovei (pvrov
ovpdviov Kol j3\d(TTr) p,a Oelov ....
4 That pain would not be diminished when the reader met with
the phrase in the Jewish Law (Exod. xxii. 31) "Ye shall be holy men
unto me, therefore ye shall not eat any flesh that is torn by beasts
in the field ; ye shall cast it to the dogs." Rashi's note indicates
that "dogs" might be interpreted as "Gentiles."
302 (Markii. 1317)
CHRIST'S CALL TO "SINNERS"
He mentions them in two passages. The first is an utter-
ance of the Jews, after Jesus has said to them "I go unto him
that sent me ; ye shall seek me, and not find me, and, where
I am, ye cannot come." The Jews ask "Will he go unto the
Dispersion of (i.e. among) the Greeks, and teach the Greeks ? "
Here they "unconsciously predict the manner in which the
Spirit of the risen Saviour, travelling abroad in His disciples,
would teach, first, the Dispersion [i.e. the scattered Jews] among
the Greeks, and then the Greeks themselves 1 ." By "the
Greeks " are meant the civilised nations of the Roman empire
those whom Paul calls "Greeks" as distinct from "Jews" and
"Scythians."
The second passage mentioning "Hellenes" is in narrative,
not speech : "Now there were certain Greeks among those that
went up to worship at the feast. These therefore came to
Philip ... saying, Sir, we would see Jesus 2 ." When Jesus is
told this, He exclaims "The hour is come that the Son of man
shall be glorified," and sets forth the law of the dying "grain
of wheat," of life through death. A voice from heaven follows ;
and Christ predicts "judgment" for "the prince of this world,"
and "lifting up" for Himself. The "lifting up" is to be on
the Cross : "I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all
men unto myself. But this he said signifying by what manner
of death he should die." The discourse closes with the warning
to the multitude around Him, "While ye have the light, believe
on the light, that ye may become sons of light," after which
Jesus "departed and was hidden from them 3 ."
What is the connection, if any, between this coming of the
"Greeks," and the warning to "the multitude" to become
" sons of light " ? It is this. Jesus was "the light of the world,"
as well as the Son of God. The Greeks come saying "We
1 Quoted from Joh. Gr. 2046 (on Jn vii. 35). Comp. the unique
mention of "Romans" in the Gospels, which is also an unconscious
prophecy (Jn xi. 48).
2 Jn xii. 20 21. 3 Jn xii. 32 3, 36 7.
303 (Mark ii. 1317)
CHRIST'S CALL TO "SINNERS"
would see Jesus." This means that they, "the nations," come
to see the light of the world. Thus they fulfil the prophecy of
Isaiah, "Arise, shine, for thy light is come. . .The Lord shall
arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee, and nations
shall come to thy light 1 ." Isaiah's next words describe the
submission of "the nations" to Israel, a willing submission,
the result of a spiritual conquest. Zechariah describes what
Christian interpreters would call the same conquest, but he
describes it in different ' terms. He speaks of it first as the
result of words of "peace 2 ." But immediately afterwards he
speaks of it as won by the "sword" ; and here comes one of
the very few mentions of "Greece" in prophecy : "I will stir
up thy sons, O Zion, against thy sons, Greece, and will make
thee as the sword of a mighty man 3 ."
This is one of the very rare instances where the word
"Hellene" occurs in the Canonical LXX 4 ; and the rarity of
the name makes it probable that John, who has just quoted
the preceding words in Zechariah about the Messiah "riding
upon an ass 5 ," is now alluding to the same prophet's prediction
about "Greece" and the "sword" of Zion. Only he takes the
sword to be the "sword of the Spirit," which was to descend
after Jesus had been "lifted up." Wielding this "sword,"
Jesus, on the throne of the Cross, would conquer "the nations"
in a spiritual conquest, drawing them out of the darkness into
light, that is to say, into Himself. For the author of the
Fourth Gospel, it is probable that "Israel" meant "seeing
God*." "The Greeks," therefore, who came to "see Jesus,"
1 Is. lx. 13.
2 Zech. ix. 10 "he shall speak peace unto the nations."
3 Oxf. Cone, gives Joel iii. (iv.) 6, Zech. ix. 13, Is. ix. 12, Dan. viii.
2i, x. 20, xi. 2.
4 Zech. ix. 13.
5 Zech. ix. 9 quoted in Jn xii. 15.
6 That is assumed to be the meaning by Philo and Origen (see
Son 3140 a b, and add Origen in Cant. Prolog. Lomm. xiv. 313).
To these add Clement of Alexandria (334) 8iopaTi<6s.
304 (Mark ii. 13 17)
CHRIST'S CALL TO "SINNERS"
being thus drawn into Him, would be drawn into the ranks of
the spiritual Israel, and at the same time become "sons of
light."
If we were non-Christians in the first or second century,
reading the Gospels for the first time, we should probably feel
a shock much greater than the uneasiness that a few thought-
ful Christians may now feel at Christ's alleged treatment
of the Syrophoenician woman. If we were Greek-speaking
readers at the same period, we should certainly feel an additional
repulsion in the fact that this woman, in the Synoptic Gospels,
was the sole representative of the Greek world in the life of
Christ. The Johannine description of the Greeks "wishing to
see" Jesus, and of the welcome that Jesus gave to their desire,
would go far to assure us either that the Mark-Matthew narra-
tive was erroneous, or that there was something else, unre-
corded, beneath or beyond it, which would bring the picture
of Christ as drawn by the first two Evangelists into harmony
with the picture of Christ as drawn by the fourth. To produce
such an assurance was an object well worthy of the writer of
the Fourth Gospel, and the facts alleged above make it reason-
able to believe that he had this object in view.
Returning to the Marcan tradition "I have come to call
sinners," we perceive that it was a brief and fervid way of
saying "I have come to call those who feel themselves to be
unrighteous." To those who felt themselves to be righteous
enough already, Jesus addressed no call; or rather the call
that He addressed to them (as to all the world) was as if not
uttered, because their hearts were closed against it by their
self -righteousness. It was a call to enter into the family of the
One God, worshipped by Israel as Jehovah, and now revealed
in the Son as the Father of all mankind.
Logically and spiritually this call would seem to include
Gentiles as well as Jews. It is difficult to believe that Jesus
would have rejected the centurion of Capernaum if he had
presented himself as a candidate for baptism ; yet in the Acts
A. P. 305 (Mark ii. 13 17) 20
CHRIST'S CALL TO "SINNERS"
Peter is described as requiring a special revelation before he
admitted the centurion Cornelius. Is it not reasonable to
suppose that Jesus contemplated such inclusion from the first?
According to Luke, Jesus quoted as, in some sense,
precedents for His own conduct the beneficent actions of
Elijah and Elisha toward non-Israelites. Circumstances re-
stricted His action almost entirely to His own countrymen,
but we are not justified in believing that He definitely imposed
this restriction either on Himself or on His disciples. Possibly
Matthew may have misunderstood some temporary post-
resurrectional precept to the Twelve as applying to Christ's
own conduct. The permanent and essential message of Christ
seems to have been unrestricted by national limitations: "I
have come to call sinners," "Come unto me, all ye that are
weary," "If any man thirst, let him come unto me," "Blessed
are they that hunger and thirst after righteousness," " I, if I be
lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me 1 ." Only
the first of these five traditions belongs to Mark and the Synoptic
Tradition. But the other four spring out of the first the
historical utterance that Jesus "came to call sinners." The
accusation that He also "ate with" them Jesus does not
condescend to meet.
1 Mk ii. 17 and parall. Mt. and Lk. ; Mt. xi. 28; Jn vii. 37; Mt.
v. 6; Jn xii. 32.
306 (Mark ii. 13 17)
CHAPTER VIII*
THE OLD AND THE NEW
[Mark ii. 18 22]
i. A complaint of the Baptist's disciples, in the
Synoptic Gospels
THIS Chapter will deal with two contrasts between the old
and the new. The first is of a particular kind between fasting,
an old practice, and non-fasting, a new one. The second is
general insisting that old practice must not go with new
doctrine, but that both must be old, or both must be new.
To this second contrast Luke, alone among the Synoptists,
prefixes the words "and he spake also a parable unto them"
thus separating it from the first. On the other hand, Mark and
Matthew take the two contrasts as one continuous discourse.
We shall follow Luke in this matter. Reasons for this course
will be given later on, indicating that the particular saying
about "fasting" is to be kept distinct from the general saying
about the old and the new, the former being perhaps uttered
by John the Baptist, the latter by Jesus.
These reasons are derived, in part from the texts, in part
from the thoughts. First as to the texts, it will be observed
that Mark's opening words if taken by themselves, apart from
* For titles of previous Parts of Diatessarica referred to by
abbreviations in this Volume, see pp. 545 6. For other abbreviations
see pp. xxiii xxvi.
307 (Mark ii. 18 22) 20 2
THE OLD AND -THE NEW
the parallel Matthew-Luke, and apart from what follows in
Mark might be interpreted as follows: "The disciples of the
Baptist and the Pharisees happened to be at that time fasting.
And they came and said to him" that is, to John what
follows 1 . It is true that Mark's next words, "Why do John's
disciples fast?" remove this impression; for we naturally say
"If that had been the meaning, they would have said, not
'John's disciples' but 'we.'" But Matthew does substitute
"we," and the substitution of tl we" in Mark (interpreted as
above) would not destroy sense. It would only produce a
different sense: "The Baptist's disciples and the Pharisees
came to John saying Why do we and the disciples of the
Pharisees fast?"
So far, the remodelled Marcan narrative has gone on con-
sistently in the form of a complaint made to John by his own
disciples on the subject of fasting. But now comes a check.
If it is still to be consistent, it ought to proceed thus: "But
the disciples of Jesus fast not." Instead of this, the three
Synoptists have "but thy disciples (fast not)." Here, then, we
have to pause and ask whether there is evidence to shew that
"Jesus" and "thy" could be easily interchanged.
There is such evidence. The repetition of one vowel and
the insertion of another would change "thy" into " of Jesus 2 ."
Conversely, "the disciples of Jesus" might easily become "thy
Mt. ix. 14 (R.V.)
Then come to him
the disciples of John,
saying, Why do we
and the Pharisees
fast oft (some anc.
auth. omit oft), but
thy disciples fast
not?
1 Mk ii. 18 (R.V.)
And John's dis-
ciples and the Phari-
sees were fasting :
and they come and
say unto him, Why
do John's disciples
and the disciples of
the Pharisees fast,
but thy disciples fast
not?
2 That is to say, Mt. ix. 14 oi 8e /iadqral o-oO, would become 01 8e
fiadi/rm 'l^o-oi), by a corruption of AICOY into AIIHCOY (or into
A I TOY, see Corrections 504 a).
308 (Mark ii. 18 22)
Lk. v. 33 (R.V. 1 *
And they said un-
to him, The disciples
of John fast often,
and make supplica-
tions; likewise also
the [disciples] of the
Pharisees ; but thine
eat and drink.
THE OLD AND THE NEW
disciples 1 ." Above all, there is the well-known contrast in
Matthew between "Jesus Barabbas" and "Jesus Christ."
This was so offensive to Origen that he protested against it on
the ground that it was "not fit" that anyone called "Jesus"
in the Bible should be a sinner; but all that he can say for
cancelling it, on textual grounds, is that "in many copies it is
not contained that Barabbas also was called Jesus 2 ." "Jesus
Barabbas" is the reading of the recently-discovered Syro-
Sinaitic Version ; and we may now regard it as highly probable
that this was in Matthew's original Greek text 3 . If it was,
the cancelling of the name "Jesus" may be explained as being
the result, not of prejudice alone, but of prejudice combined
with obscurities arising from Greek abbreviations of the name 4 .
Applying these facts to the next verse in Mark and Matthew
"and Jesus said unto them," we see that "Jesus" is preceded,
in both, by the Greek letters that constitute the abbreviation
of the name 5 . We also note that this particular phrase for
introducing words of Jesus is not characteristically Synoptic
but Johannine 6 . These are all small points in themselves;
1 See Joh. Gr. 2661 c quoting Jn xviii. 5 (B) "I am Jesus (1C),"
where I C is probably a repetition of the first syllable of the following
word ICTHK8I. Comp. Sir. xliii. 23 (LXX) 'irjaovs where the Heb.
has "islands," i.e. vrjo-ovs, which, after a preceding v, has been cor-
rupted into 'Irjcrovs.
2 Origen on Mt. xxvii. 17 (Lomm. v. 35). He suggests that "in
haeresibus tale aliquid superadditum est."
3 See SS ed. Burkitt, vol. ii. pp. 277 8.
4 E.g. in Mt. xxvii. 16, D inserts TOV in connection with "Bar-
abbas." In ib. 17, B does the same. This may be a corruption of
IN, i.e. 'irjcrovv. Also, between IN and BAP, in ib. 17 aTroXuo-co vfj.lv
Bapa/3ai/, an intervening IN, meaning "Jesus," might be cancelled
without dishonesty, as a scribal repetition of the preceding I N .
5 Mk ii. 19 (Mt. ix. 15) K.CU ciTrev avrols followed by 6 ^Irjaovs, i.e.
01 C followed by OIC. Luke has V. 34 6 de 'Irjaovs elirev rrpbs avrovs.
6 This is the only passage in Mt. where flnev avTois 6 'tyo-. occurs
(apart from xvii. 22 orva-rp. 8c, . . eiVer avrols 6 'l^o-.). In Mk it occurs
here and i. 17. Lk. has it in xx. 34 (but with var. readings). It is
characteristic of John vi. 35, viii. 25, 42 etc. and very frequently
with ovv (vi. 32, 53 etc.).
309 (Mark ii. 18 22)
THE OLD AND THE NEW
but in view of the fact that the Fourth Gospel describes a
complaint made by John's disciples not to Jesus, but to John,
and a reply from John mentioning "the bridegroom," we are
justified in suspending our judgment about the person to whom
the complaint was made until we have studied what that
Gospel says about the complaint and about the answer made
to it. We may fairly use the word "complaint" because the
language is shewn by the context in all the Gospels to be that
of complaint, not of merely dispassionate inquiry.
In the first place it should be noted that, whereas Mark and
Matthew both describe the complainants as "coming" to some
one, whether to Jesus or to the Baptist, Luke omits all
mention of such "coming." In his Gospel, the complaint is
part of the "murmuring" just mentioned, in the house of
Levi, at the feast where Christ's disciples were eating and
drinking with tax-gatherers and sinners. Jesus has replied
that He came "to call, not righteous folk, but sinners to re-
pentance" There Luke alone has "to repentance" The retort
that follows, in Luke, perhaps implies a jibe at "repentance"
having, in effect, this meaning : " There is not much ' repentance '
in your disciples. The disciples of John fast often 1 and make
supplications, likewise also do ' those of the Pharisees,' but yours
eat and drink 2 ." According to the rule of Johannine Inter-
vention, we should expect the Fourth Gospel to correct Luke,
1 By inserting "often" here, Luke makes it clear that the
meaning is not (in his view) as one might infer from Mark, "the
disciples of John happened to be fasting at that time."
2 Lk. v. 30 33 "And the Pharisees and their scribes were
murmuring.. . .And Jesus answering said unto them. . . .And they
said unto him, The disciples of John fast often,. . .likewise also the
[disciples] of the Pharisees, but thine eat and drink." This is con-
sistent with itself except for the words italicised, where "we," or
"our disciples," would have been a more natural expression, the
speakers being themselves Pharisees. But Luke is influenced by
Mark-Matthew, which represents the complainants as mentioning
"the Pharisees" or "the disciples of the Pharisees."
310 (Mark ii. 18 22)
THE OLD AND THE NEW
and to say "There was a 'coming' that preceded this complaint.
The complaint was not a sudden retort such as Luke supposes.
And those who 'came' were the disciples of John. Only, they
'came,' not to Jesus, but to their own Master, to John." We
must not here anticipate the discussion of such a passage in
the Fourth Gospel, but will simply remind the reader of its
existence 1 .
2. Fasting
Fasting is nowhere mentioned in the Law of Moses as
binding on Israel. But it is implied in the commandment
"ye shall afflict your souls." To do this was binding on one
and only one day in the year, the Day of Atonement : "In the
seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, ye shall afflict
your souls and shall do no manner of work ... for on this day shall
atonement be made for you to purify you : from all your sins
shall ye be pure before the Lord. It is a sabbath of sabbath-
izing unto you and ye shall afflict your souls 2 ." Later on it
is said concerning this day: " Ye shall afflict your souls. . .ye
shall do no manner of work in that same day .... For what-
soever soul it be that shall not be afflicted in that same day, he
shall be cut off from his people 3 ." The second passage makes
it obvious that death would be inflicted on any Israelite who
did not manifest in some external way that he "afflicted his
soul"; and Jewish tradition assumed that one necessary
self-affliction on this day was "fasting 4 ."
We must note the emphasis laid on this unique day. On
most sabbaths it would be wrong to fast, but this day was
1 Jn iii. 26 "They [i.e. John's disciples] came unto John and said
to him, Rabbi, he that was with thee. . .the same baptizeth. ..."
2 Lev. xvi. 29 31.
8 Lev. xxiii. 27 9 "Be afflicted," LXX raTreiveo^o-erat, but
' ' "AXXo s ' ' vr)GTTv<r7).
4 See Jdma 76 a.
311 (Mark ii. 1 8 22)
THE OLD AND THE NEW
to be both "a sabbath of sabbathizing " and a fast-day 1 . The
solemn repetition of "afflict your souls" is heightened by a
repetition of what our Revised Version calls "that same day."
The literal Hebrew is "the bone, or substance, of the day." It is
a phrase applied only to epoch-making events, such as Noah's
entrance into the Ark, the Covenant of Circumcision with
Abraham, the Exodus from Egypt etc. 2 To many Israelites
this single yearly "self-affliction" would doubtless be a genuine
spiritual act, in which they would not only fast but also review
and amend their lives. But Isaiah bitterly censures the
formal "self-affliction" of the selfish hypocritical oppressor,
who bowed his head down "as a rush," in "sackcloth and
ashes," but continued his oppression and did not "let the
oppressed go free 3 ." He apparently connects the fast with
the remission of debts and restoration of lands enjoined on the
jubilee. But he also passes beyond the injunctions of the
Levitical Law into a high region of spiritual morality, when he
says "If thou draw out thy soul to the hungry, and satisfy the
afflicted soul, then shall thy light rise in darkness 4 ."
This introduces a new kind of "afflicting the soul." It is
not a "self- affliction," like that practised by the priests of Baal,
1 See Gesen. 9926 on the application of "sabbath of sabbath-
izing."
2 See Gesen. 783 a referring to Gen. vii. 13, xvii. 23.. 26, Exod. xii.
17 etc. It means "the bone, substance, or essence, of the day." It
occurs three times in Lev. xxiii. 28 30.
3 Is. Iviii. i 6 "Cry aloud. . .lift up thy voice like a trumpet. . .
let the oppressed go free and break every yoke." Comp. Lev. xxv.
9 TO " In the day of atonement shall ye send abroad the trumpet. . .
and proclaim liberty. ..."
4 Is. Iviii. 10. The phrase "draw out (or produce) thy soul" was
variously interpreted in early times, but Resch Lakisch (Lev. r.
Wu. p. 245), Jerome, Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion sub-
stantially agree in the rendering "effuderis animam tuam." It is
the opposite of (i Jn iii. 17) "shut up the bowels [of compassion]."
It is not to exclude, but to accompany, material giving. The LXX
fiws- irfivtovTL TOV aprov < ^u^s (TOV means, perhaps, " not only give,
but give from thy soul, that is, heartily, cheerfully."
312 (Mark ii. 18 22)
THE OLD AND THE NEW
who "lanced themselves" to propitiate their god. Nor is it
directed against one's own animal nature, an " affliction," or
"mortification," of the flesh. That is an action, often wise
and useful, but undertaken for one's own sake. But Isaiah's
"self-afflicting" is of a different nature, being that which arises
in the kind-hearted, who will not shrink from sympathizing
with sorrow while attempting to relieve it.
Passing to the fasting of Esther, Daniel, Ezra, and Nehemiah,
we perceive that it was for the nation, not for themselves. It
was a genuine affliction of soul brought on them by some national
crisis which led them naturally to abstain from food while they
turned to God for help and guidance. In later days even
when there was no such crisis, but only subjection to Gentiles,
and sorrow that the sceptre had departed from Jacob many
pious Jews might fast, like Anna, or Simeon, looking for
"the consolation of Israel 1 ." They fasted twice in the week.
But so (in Luke) does the Pharisee, who makes a merit of it
and shews no sign of looking for "the consolation of Israel 2 ."
In Matthew's Sermon on the Mount Jesus says to His dis-
ciples "Whenever ye are fasting, be not as the hypocrites 3 ."
This assumes that those whom He was addressing were in the
habit of fasting if not twice a week, at all events more often
than on the one Day of Atonement. Jesus does not forbid
the act, but on the contrary urges those who do it not to
destroy its efficacy by doing it ostentatiously. Luke, however,
omits this passage, and it may reasonably be supposed that he
omitted it because he regarded it as negative, partial, and
temporary, not intended for Gentiles who were not in the habit
of fasting. The fact seems to be that the great mass of Christ's
disciples were not in the habit of fasting and were not bidden
1 Lk. ii. 37 (of Anna) "worshipping with fastings and sup-
plications," ib. 25 (of Simeon) "looking for the consolation of Israel."
2 Lk. xviii. n 12 "God, I thank thee that I am not as the rest
of men. . .1 fast twice in the week."
3 Mt. vi. 1 6 1 8.
313 (Mark ii. 18 22)
THE OLD AND THE NEW
by Him to fast, but those who came to Him, confirmed in the
habit of fasting, were warned by Him to see that they did not
lose the moral benefit of it by fasting like the Pharisees.
According to Maimonides, Jewish congregations fasted
for certain calamities, and an individual fasted for corre-
sponding calamities: "If any that belong to him be sick, or
lost in the wilderness, or kept in prison, he is bound to fast
in his behalf 1 ." John the Baptist was at this time "in prison"
(according to the Synoptists). His disciples, therefore, would
have a special reason for "fasting oftentimes." And they
might not unnaturally from their point of view find fault
with Jesus for abrogating the practice of fasting among His
disciples. Perhaps it was not positively abrogated by Him,
but only negatively allowed to drop. Perhaps "do not fast"
should have been modified by "as a rule," or, "for the most
part." But we may feel sure that the complaint was actually
made, and was actually true that the disciples of Jesus did
not observe, and were not taught by Jesus to observe, the
practice, prevalent among the Pharisees, of weekly "fasting."
3. The "bridegroom" in the Synoptic reply
We pass now to the reply made to the complaint. It is
almost identical in the Three Gospels, being to this effect,
that fasting is impossible for "the sons of the bride-chamber"
while the bridegroom is with them, but that a time will come
when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them and then
they will fast 2 .
1 Hor. Heb. (on Lk. xviii. 12) quoting Maimonides on Taanith
chap. i.
Mt. ix. 15 (R.V.)
And Jesus said
unto them, Can the
sons of the bride-
chamber mourn, as
long as the bride-
groom is with them ?
314 (Mark ii. 18 22)
2 Mkii.i9 20 (R.V.)
(19) And Jesus
said unto them, Can
the sons of the bride-
chamber fast, while
the bridegroom is
with them? as long
Lk. v. 345 (R.V.)
(34) And Jesus
said unto them, Can
ye make the sons of
the bride-chamber
fast, while the bride-
groom is with them ?
THE OLD AND THE NEW
We naturally ask what the Synoptists have elsewhere to
say about "the bridegroom," thus for the first time mentioned
by them. Matthew mentions "the bridegroom" in one of the
last of his parables inculcating expectancy of the day of the
Lord 1 . But Mark and Luke never mention the word again.
As for "the children of the bride-chamber," Home Hebraicae
tells us that the exact phrase is "children of the [bridal] canopy,"
that is, of the "canopy" under which the wedded pair were
united 2 . But Jerome and almost all the Latin Versions render
it "children of the bridegroom (sponsi)." This misses the
meaning 3 . It is not "children of the bridegroom," but "the
invited guests," many of whom accompany "the bridegroom."
Still we are left in doubt as to the precise meaning of the
metaphor. Is "the bridegroom" loosely used for the central
person in any joyful feast? Or does it contain any allusion
to the Jewish mystical Bridegroom, that is, the Lord? If so,
are we to think of the Messiah, the Son of David, as being a
greater and more spiritual Solomon, a Builder of the perfect
Temple, in which the Bridegroom and the Bride, the Lord and
Mt. ix. 15 (R.V.)
(contd.)
but the days will
come, when the bride-
groom shall be taken
away from them, and
then will they fast.
Lk. v. 345 (R.V.)
(contd.)
(35) But the
days will come ; and
when the bridegroom
shall be taken away
from them, then will
they fast in those
days.
Mk ii. 19 20 (R.V.)
(contd.)
as they have the
bridegroom with
them, they cannot
fast.
(20) But the
days will come, when
the bridegroom shall
be taken away from
them, and then will
they fast in that
day.
1 Mt. xxv. i 13.
2 HOY. Heb. on Mt. ix. 15 calls it bride-chamber: "The days of
the bride-chamber, to the sons of the bride-chamber, that is, to the
friends and acquaintance, were seven." The Heb. (which is also
in Delitzsch) means "canopy" in Is. iv. 5, but "chamber" of bride
or bridegroom in Joel ii. 16, Ps. xix. 5 (Gesen. 342 b).
3 Mt. ix. 15. In Mk ii. 19, Codex b and Pseudo-Jerome have
"filii nuptiarum," but "filii sponsi" is the usual rendering.
315 (Mark ii. 18 22)
THE OLD AND THE NEW
the Nation, were to be united? The answer would depend
some extent on the personality of the speaker; John th(
Baptist might use the term in one sense, Jesus in a sense
somewhat different. It would also depend on the extent to
which, if at all, the term had been previously used by the Baptist,
or by Jesus, or by both. According to the Fourth Gospel, the
Baptist, even before he was cast into prison, called Jesus
"the Bridegroom." What if Jesus, at this later period, is
referring to that fact? In that case, He is saying to the
disciples of John, in effect, "The bridegroom [as your Master
called me]." Or, if John is speaking, then it is, "The bride-
groom [as I have called Jesus, before now, in your presence]."
These uncertainties greatly complicate our investigation.
But it is antecedently probable that the utterance, although
Christians at a very early period regarded it as a prediction of
Christ concerning His Passion, was originally not of this
character, but had some vernacular and homely meaning.
Against this view it may be urged that the word "taken-away"
("the bridegroom shall be taken away") implies the Passion
and was so interpreted in early times 1 . That it was so inter-
preted is true. But what if the interpretation sprang from some
very simple and natural misunderstanding of the customs of
a Palestinian wedding not understood by Christians in the
West? Let us look into the word.
The Greek for "taken-away" means literally "lif ted-away,"
and the Syro-Sinaitic has "taken-up." In the active, it is fre-
quently used by LXX to mean "journey," "break up [camp],"
"remove." But the passive is not known to be thus used 2 .
If we are to render it faithfully we seem driven to interpret
1 See Apostolic Constitutions v. 18 "Do you therefore fast on the
days of the Passover. . . [v.r. adds six days, in agreement with v. 15
he commanded us to fast these six days] . . . ," followed by a quotation
of the Synoptic saying about "the bridegroom" as being "taken
away." The fasting on some of the days was not to be complete.
See below, p. 325.
2 'A7raipop.ai in Hesych. = aTroS^eeo, but is probably middle.
316 (Mark ii. 18 22)
THE OLD AND THE NEW
it as meaning "lif ted-away" in some such circumstances as
would resemble those of Elijah, concerning whom the sons
of the prophets say to Elisha, "Knowest thou that the Lord
will take thy master from- above thy head to-day 1 ? " The Hebrew
of " from- above thy head" conveys the thought "from his head-
ship over thee." So the question arises, "Could it be said about
a bridegroom in Galilee that he was in any sense 'head' over
' the sons of the canopy ' during the seven days of the wedding
feast, and that, when this 'headship' terminated, the feast
terminated at the same time?"
There are reasons for thinking that this was the case. In
the first place, there is the custom of the Palestinian fellaheen
in marriage feasts : " During the seven days . . . the young couple
are treated by the villagers as king and queen .... The pro-
ceedings end with a supper, and the degradation of the king to
his proper rank 2 ." Marriage- customs often point back to very
ancient times, and, in the present instance, there are curious
indications in the Fourth Gospel that the writer was aware of
Jewish or Galilaean distinctions between "the sons of the
canopy or bride-chamber," who were many, and "the friend
of the bridegroom," whom he regards as being but one 3 . The
1 2 K. ii. 3, 5.
2 Hastings Diet. iii. 272 3 quoting J. G. Wetzstein from Zeit-
schrift fur Ethnologie, vol. v. p. 287 foil. (1873). The feast goes out
somewhat sordidly: "The festal regulations are annulled ... and
scarcely is the meal over when a pair of hands smear the king's face
from a dung-heap (ib. p. 293)."
3 Jn iii. 29 "the friend of the bridegroom." On "the friends of
the bridegroom," " shoshbenin," or " paranymphs," Wetstein quotes
Kethub. 12 a "Formerly in Judaea they used to appoint two para-
nymphs, one for the bridegroom, the other for the bride, to minister
to them when they enter the canopy (chuppam) but in Galilee there
was no such observance." He also quotes a tradition from Gen. r.
(on Gen. ii. 22) that Michael and Gabriel were "paranymphs" of
Adam, and another (Aboth Nathan iv.) that God Himself was Adam's
paranymph (which is confirmed by Erubin 18 b). HOY. Heb. on
Jn ii. i quoting Kethub. 12 a omits "in Judaea," but it is inserted
also in^. Kethub. i. i (Schwab vol. viii. p. 6). Hor. Heb. (ib.) also omits
317 (Mark ii. 18 22)
THE OLD AND THE NEW
Evangelist also introduces, in his account of the wedding at
Cana, a "governor of the triclinium," a term that in Greek
or Latin would mean a "king" of the feast elected by the
guests to regulate the toasts and songs 1 . Ben Sira mentions
such a "master" of a feast and gives him advice: "Have
they made thee Master? Be not puffed up. . . .And when thou
hast done all thine office take thy place 2 ." What were the
precise objects of the Evangelist in recording the details at
Cana it is impossible to say with confidence. But it is reason-
able to suppose that among them was the object of illustrating
the Hebrew and Jewish conception of the Bridegroom, and the
form in which it presented itself to the last of the Prophets,
John the Baptist, and the form perhaps a different form in
which it was fulfilled by the Messiah to whom the Prophet
bore witness. Along with this object, or as part of this object,
would be the desire to correct erroneous impressions about the
Bridegroom derivable from various interpretations of the
Synoptic Gospels. Returning, then, to the Synoptic version
of the reply, we ask what it could mean, first, if Jesus uttered
it, and then if John uttered it.
4. The meaning of "bridegroom," if uttered by
Jesus, or if uttered by the Baptist
If Jesus uttered the words "when the bridegroom shall be
taken away," their context must be taken as a prediction im-
plying a command, apparently meaning "My disciples will fast
" and" before " the children" in translating (though not in quoting)
Maimonides " The bridegroom and all the paranymphs and the children
of the canopy." The omission might give the impression that the
two terms meant the same thing.
1 Jn ii. 8 9 ro> dpxtrpiKXivw. . .(pavd TOP vvpfpiov 6 dpxiTpiK\ivos.
The word rpucXiviov is freq. in Hebrew (Krauss), but Levy (ii. 191 2)
does not give an instance of the word along with " king," "governor,"
or "head."
2 Sir. xxxii. (xxxv.) I foil. "Master," fjyovpfvov, Syr. "rab," Vulg.
"rectorem."
318 (Mark ii. 18 22)
THE OLD AND THE NEW
out of sorrow and longing for me in my absence." The writer
of the Apostolic Constitutions, however, takes it as a command
to bewail during the week of the Passion, not because of Christian
sorrow for Christians are "blessed" but because of the impiety
and perdition of the Jews who crucified Him : "Ye ought there-
fore to bewail over them . . . . Ye therefore are blessed .... But unto
unbelieving Israel He says.... 1 " And it cannot be denied
that this view of Christian "blessedness" accords with the
words of Jesus in the Gospels which say "I am with you alway
even unto the end of the world," and "I will see you again, and
your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no one taketh away from
you 2 ."
No doubt, to us,, it is a matter of great difficulty to realise
that the Apostles, after Christ had been taken up from them to
heaven, could feel as "blessed" as when He moved among them
in Galilee 3 . But both Paul and the Fourth Evangelist compel
1 Only as to the fasting on the Saturday before the Resurrection
is there any indication that we are to fast out of sympathy with
Jesus, and even there the impiety of the Jews in "apprehending the
Lord on their very feast-day" is perhaps the prominent thought:
Const. Apost. v. 15 "But He commanded us to fast on the fourth
and sixth days of the week ; the former on account of His being
betrayed, and the latter on account of His passion. But He ap-
pointed us to break our fast on the seventh day at the cock-
crowing " [i.e., as in v. 18, the cock-crowing of the night], "but to
fast on the Sabbath-day. Not that the Sabbath-day is a day of
fasting, being the rest from the creation, but because we ought to
fast on this one Sabbath only, while on this day the Creator was
under the earth. For on their very feast-day they apprehended
the Lord. . ."
2 Mt. xxviii. 20, Jn xvi. 22. The interval of sorrow is to be
" a little while." After that, there is to be permanent "joy." There
is no indication in the Acts of the Apostles that fasting was practised
except before the laying on of hands in appointing elders or special
missionaries.
3 Possibly we overrate the joy of that life of personal inter-
course with Jesus, because we underrate the extent to which the
disciples misunderstood His words and doubts about His future (not
to speak of their anxieties for His safety) . Certainly we underrate
319 (Mark ii. 18 22)
AND THE NEW
us to believe that it was so. And indeed, if it was not so,
would not the Gospel have been a failure a "no-gospel,"
being "tidings," not of "great joy," but of great joy becoming
sadly less? This being the case, it is hard to believe that
Jesus, almost at the outset of His Gospel, said concerning His
disciples, "The days will come when my disciples will fast,
not for one day only as under the Law, but for a whole week,
mourning that I have been taken away from them 1 ."
If Jesus had given any precept at all about fasting we might
naturally expect that it would have been on the lines of Isaiah
who bids us "draw out the soul to the hungry 2 ." Something
of this kind may be implied in the original form of a tradition
where Jesus bade us, according to Matthew, "cleanse the
inside" of the vessel, but, according to Luke, "give as alms
that which is inside" the vessel 3 . The Testaments of the
Twelve Patriarchs describes Joseph as fasting that he might
give to the needy 4 . Hermas also holds up such fasting for
imitation, and gently ridicules the unintelligent observance of
fasting technically known as a "station 5 ." But the tendency
of Christians to do some definite religious act of asceticism, such
as fasting, for Christ's sake, would be greatly strengthened by
(most of us) the joy of that life of personal intercourse with the
Spirit of Jesus (after His resurrection) which may be traced in the
Acts, the Fourth Gospel, and the Epistles.
1 Tertullian (De Jejun. 2) far from being contented with the
view that "those days in which the Bridegroom was taken away
were definitely appointed for fasts," condemns this as a heresy of
the Psychics. The Didachd uses "fast" as parallel to "pray" in a
precept where the Sermon on the Mount does not use it (i. 3) " Pray
for your enemies and fast (i/^orevere 8) for them that persecute you."
It also words the warning against "fasting with the hypocrites"
thus (viii. i) "But let not your fasts be with the hypocrites, for they
fast on the second day of the week and the fifth ; but do ye fast
during the fourth and Preparation (i.e. the sixth)."
2 See above, p. 312, n. 4. 3 Mt. xxiii. 26, Lk. xi. 41.
4 Test. XII Pair. Joseph iii. 5.
5 Hermas Sim. v. i. i 2.
320 (Mark ii. 18 22)
THE OLD AND THE NEW
periods of persecution when Christians waited for the Con-
solation of the Church, as Jews for the Consolation of Israel.
We cannot be surprised to find the Didache recognising that
the pious Christian was expected to say, no less than the pious
Pharisee, "I fast twice in the week." When allowance is made
for these tendencies we shall perceive that, although Jesus was
unlikely to enjoin fasting on His disciples, yet, when they began
actually to practise fasting, they might naturally transfer to
their own Master a logion in favour of it actually uttered by
John the Baptist 1 .
This brings us to the question what the reply would mean
if uttered by the Baptist to his own disciples. In that case,
it would seem to bespeak indulgence for the disciples of Jesus,
on the ground that they are like " the sons of the bride-chamber "
1 It would be interesting to ascertain the first instance of the
Greek word o-rariW. See Hernias Sim. v. i. i 2 "'Why have
you come hither [so] early in the morning ? ' ' Because, sir/ I answered,
'I have a station.' 'What is a station?' he asked. 'I sun fasting,
sir,' I replied. 'What is this fasting,' he continued, 'which you are
observing?' 'As I have been accustomed, sir,' I reply, 'so I fast.'
'You do not know,' he says, 'how to fast unto the Lord; nor is it
[real] fasting this useless [fasting] which you observe to Him.' "
The Shepherd proceeds to inculcate fasting from evil, and, later on,
fasting literally in order to give food to the needy.
Steph. Thes. and L.S. do not recognise the existence of o-rariW,
and Goodspeed's Concordances give only Hernias Sim. v. i (see
Light 3996 g). Perhaps it came to Hernias from Roman Jews. The
Latin " stationarius " was adopted into Hebrew. See Levy i. 119 a
"Soldaten, die auf Posten aufgestellt sind," referring to Cant. r. (on
Cant. vii. i) and also to Gen. r. (on Gen. xxvii. 28, Wii. p. 319) where
it is said that Israelites are God's "outposts" or "guards" (lit.
"stationarii") in this world and the next. The word would suit the
tone of the military metaphors in the Epistles.
The notion of the Christian life as an unmixed "joy," or "feast,"
though right in a certain sense, might lead in practice to excesses at
the Christian Agapae. Comp. Eph. v. 18 "Be not drunken with
wine, wherein is excess," i Cor. xi. 21 "One is hungry and another is
drunken." "Be sober, be vigilant" would be good antidotes. But
these would prepare the way for "Be abstinent, fast, be like sta-
ionarii."
A. P. 321 (Mark ii. 18 22) 21
THE OLD AND THE NEW
surrounding the Bridegroom, the king of the feast, in the height
of their week of joy. When that week is ended, though the
union between Bridegroom and Bride will remain as a per-
manent result, the feast will be over, and the king of the feast,
the Bridegroom, will be "taken away" from his headship over
the circle of the feasters. Then the regular course of married
life will begin, and the regular habits of holiness will be resumed.
John the Baptist might naturally have said something of this
kind, in prison, or out of prison. But it would perhaps be most
natural in prison, when he himself had not only seen himself
superseded in the minds of the multitude by Jesus, but had
also been literally "taken away" by violence from the headship
of those who still adhered to him as their teacher.
In either case it would be of the nature of an apology, the
utterance of a man believing in regular fasting as a necessary
part of a holy life, and not able to conceive that Jesus Himself-
could ultimately fail to act on the same belief. Tertullian
expresses this view of the necessity of fasting when he says
(but of course attributing the apology to Jesus) "He did not
defend the disciples but rather excused them, as if they had
not been blamed without some reason and He did not reject
the discipline of John but rather conceded it [to be right],
referring it [for the present] to the time of John, although
destining it [in the future] for His own time 1 ." In fact, how-
ever, Jesus does appear to have implied a rejection of "the
discipline of John" when He spoke of him as "coming in the
way of righteousness 2 ," that is, the righteousness of the Law,
whereas He Himself came in a new way, the way of the Gospel,
that is, the way of Grace. And accordingly here, what the
sense seems to demand is a phrase expressing this contrast
between the teaching of John and the teaching of Jesus after
the words "then will they fast in that day" something like
1 Tertull. Adv. Marc, on Lk. v. 34 5.
2 Mt. xxi. 32.
322 (Mark ii. 18 22)
THE OLD AND THE NEW
what Luke has inserted: "But Jesus spake a parable, No man
rendeth a piece from a new garment. . . . 1 "
5. Hebrew and Jewish traditions about the Bridegroom
In attempting to look at facts as they actually occurred,
and to understand John the Baptist's words as they were
understood at the moment of utterance, we must not forget
that a great prophet, like a great poet, in moments of ecstasy,
may say somewhat more than he himself fully understands.
Permeated with a belief that such prophecies as those of
Isaiah were on the point of fulfilment, John, the last of the
prophets, could hardly speak of the bridegroom at a marriage
feast without some thought of the prophetic traditions con-
cerning the wedlock uniting Israel with Jehovah. The giving
of the Old Law on Mount Sinai was regarded as a wedding in
which Jehovah was the Bridegroom meeting the Bride in the
Tabernacle 2 . The building of the Temple by Solomon, the
Temple on which the Shechinah descended, was regarded as a
ratification of that wedding; and the Song of Solomon re-
peatedly assumes that the King, in his ideal character, was
the Bridegroom's representative 3 . The Targum on that Song
also represents Israel as begging the Messiah to go up with them
to Jerusalem and to teach them the Law of the Lord that they
may drink "the old wine" together, the wine made from the
time of the creation of the world 4 .
1 Lk. v. 36 "And he spake also a parable unto them, 'No man
rendeth ....'' Of course it is not contended that Luke believed
that the preceding words were uttered by John the Baptist. But
he probably perceived that there was a break of some kind between
the two utterances, and he may have had before him some tradition
in which the second utterance was recognised as a separate " parable."
2 See Son 3583 (ix) a c.
3 See Light 3649. Codex X repeatedly inserts 6 w^Los, e.g.
Cant. i. 8, 15 etc. in order to shew that the bridegroom is speaking.
4 Targ. on Cant. viii. i foil.
323 (Mark ii. 18 22) 21 2
THE OLD AND THE NEW
The Pauline doctrine of the wedlock between Christ and
the Church, and the imagery of the Bride in Revelation, testify
to the influence of Hebrew and Jewish traditions about the
Bride and the Bridegroom from the beginning of the Gospel.
The recently discovered Odes of Solomon contain, in its Aramaic
form, the very word that we discussed above ("canopy")
and this, with a manifest reference to the union between Christ
and the Church 1 . The Midrash tells us that of the ten instances
in which Israel is called "Bride," six are in Solomon's Song,
three in Isaiah, one in Jeremiah 2 . To this we may add that
although the thought is frequent in prophecy, Isaiah alone uses
the word Bridegroom in connection with Jehovah Himself 3 .
The prophecies of Isaiah, whether quoted or not, underlie almost
all the utterances of John the Baptist and the earliest utterances
of Jesus, and make it all the more probable here that "sons of
the bridal chamber" contains an allusion to the guests gathering
round the Messiah, as the representative of the Supreme
Bridegroom 4 .
It is also possible that John, when in prison, was visited by
thoughts that a destiny or chastisement similar to that which
1 Odes xlii. n "as the canopy that is spread out [in] the house
of the wedded-pair." See Levy Ch. i. 149 a. For ''spread out"
applied to "the heavens" (as a tent) see Is. xl. 22. "Canopy"
seems a better rendering than "couch." The Aram, represents
Heb. "canopy" or "chamber" in Joel ii. 16, Ps. xix. 5 (p. 315, n. 2).
2 Pesikt. Wii. p. 209, rep. Deut. Y. Wii. p. 40.
3 Gesen. 368 b, Is. Ixi. 10, Ixii. 5.
4 See Is. Ixi. 10, Ixii. 5. According to Luke, our Lord's first
public discourse was based on a reading of Is. Ixi. i foil. "The Spirit
of the Lord God is upon me . . . . " Isaiah's first mention of a " bride-
groom" is in the same chapter (ib. 10 foil.) "I will greatly rejoice
in the Lord. . .he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness,
as a bridegroom decketh himself. ..."
The text of the Scripture might lead some readers to suppose
that "I" means the same speaker in both cases. To make it clear
that this is not the fact, Targ. inserts (Ixi. i) " The Prophet says,"
and (ib. 10) "Jerusalem says." In Ixii. 5 the metaphor is applied
not only to Jehovah but also to Israel " So shall thy sons marry thee."
324 (Mark ii. 18 22)
THE OLD AND THE NEW
had fallen on himself, might await even Jesus, the present
source of light and joy to all around Him, so that the nation
might be forced to say for a time "The breath of our nostrils,
the Anointed of the Lord, was taken in their pits, of whom we
said, Under his shadow we shall live among the nations 1 ."
6. "In that day," or "in those days"
We have seen above that, according to the Apostolic
Constitutions, Jesus was regarded as charging His disciples to
fast during the six days of the Passion-week. Later on, the
writer says that if anyone cannot fast continuously through the
Friday and the Saturday (the sabbath), he should at least
observe [i.e. fast during] the sabbath: "For the Lord saith
somewhere, Himself speaking about Himself, 'When the
Bridegroom shall be taken away from them, they shall fast
in those days 2 .' " Here he distinctly quotes from the Synop-
tists. Also Tertullian says that those whom he calls Psychics
alleged the Synoptic authority. They pointed, he says, to
definite days for fasting ordained by God. For fasting under
the Law, limited to the Day of Atonement, they quoted
Leviticus. For fasting under the Gospel, also limited (as they
believed), they quoted the Synoptists, "They think those days
were definitely appointed for fasts in which 'the Bridegroom
was taken away,' and that these are now the only legitimate
days for Christian fasts 3 " Tertullian vigorously dissents
1 Lam. iv. 20. See also King's Yalkut of Zechariah p. 69, n. 5.
And COHlp. Is. liii. 8 (LXX) atperot OTTO TTJS y^s r) far) ai>TOV, Heb.
"He was cut off out of the land of the living."
2 Const. Apost. v. 18.
3 De Jejun. 2 "Certe in Evangelic illos dies jejuniis determin-
ates putant in quibus 'ablatus est sponsus/ et hos esse jam solos
legitimos jejuniorum Christianorum . . . . " Tertullian gives the
name of Psychics to those, for example, who allowed second marriages
(see De Monogamia i).
325 (Mark ii. 18 22)
THE OLD AND THE NEW
from this view. These differences of opinion call attentic
to a difference in the Synoptic texts as to the "days":
Mk ii. 20 (lit.)
But days will
come when ... and
then will they fast
in that day.
Mt. ix. 15 (lit.)
But days will
come when ... and
then will they fast.
Lk. v. 35 (lit.)
But days will
come; and when...
then will they fa
in those days.
Why does Mark say, first, "days will come," and then, n<
"in those days," but "in that day"? Matthew presents no
difficulty. Although it may be presumed that he would not
deviate from the Marcan tradition of Christ's own words
without what seemed to him good reason, yet here he may
well have supposed that he had good reason. Mark has many
repetitions and " conflations," and Matthew may have regarded
Mark's "in that day" as a mere repetition of "then" for
emphasis, and as a repetition that might cause difficulty since
it was liable to more than one interpretation. Luke seems to
be giving a literal rendering to a form of the Hebraic idiom
"lo, days are coming and" (meaning "days are coming when") 1 .
But in Greek where "and" is not used for "when" "and"
has the effect of detaching the second part of the sentence from
the first: "But days [of trial] will come. And, when the bride-
groom shall be taken away, then will they fast in those days."
Thus Luke leaves it doubtful whether the fasting is to be
practised at intervals during "those days [of trial]," or during
"those days [in which the bridegroom shall be taken away] 2 ."
1 See Gesen. 400 a, who renders it "lo ! days are coming, when."
It is very frequent in Jeremiah, e.g. Jerem. xxx. 3 "Behold, days
are coming and (R.V. and A.V. that) I will turn again the captivity. . . "
This is followed by a description of the particular day of trouble
and deliverance (ib. 7 foil.) "Alas, for that day is great, so that none
is like it : it is even the time of Jacob's trouble, but he shall be saved
out of it. And it shall come to pass in that day ... I will break his
yoke. ..."
2 Contrast Lk. xxi. 6 e'AfiVovrm ^/zc'pcu eV als, which expresses
the Hebrew idiom, not literally, but in correct Greek.
326 (Mark ii. 18 22)
THE OLD AND THE NEW
Luke's course, like Matthew's, is intelligible. But it is difficult
to understand why Mark should have, as it were, gone out of his
way to raise a difficulty, by writing first " days " and then " day."
There are two ways of explaining Mark's text. One is
that, as in the passage quoted above from Jeremiah, a pre-
diction about "days" in general ("days are coming") is followed
by a mention of the particular day ('that day is great," "in
that day") 1 . It must be admitted, however, that in Mark,
the two phrases come much closer together than in Jeremiah,
and that, although "in that day" is very common in prophecy,
it rarely (if ever) comes as a repetition of a preceding "then 2 ."
The repetition of "in that day," as a final refrain in Isaiah, is
quite exceptional 3 . Still it is conceivable that the phrase was
here used for emphasis, not perhaps by the original speaker
(whether John or Jesus), but by the original Evangelist, who
used it with allusion to the Fasting Saturday that preceded
the early Christian Easter Sunday. About this, as we have
seen, the Apostolic Constitutions says "Not that the Sabbath-
day is a day of fasting, being the Rest from the Creation, but
because we ought to fast on this one Sabbath alone, the Creator,
during it, being still under the earth," and afterwards, "At
least let him observe [by fasting] the Sabbath-day*."
1 Jerem. xxx. 3, 7, 8.
2 In the only other passage where Mark uses "in that day," it
is with "Jesus saith," as follows:
Mk iv. 35. Mt. viii. 18 Lk. viii. 22
And in that day, Now when Jesus Now it came to
when even was come, saw great multitudes pass in one of those
he saith unto them, about him, he gave days, that he entered
Let us go over unto commandment to de- into a boat, himself
the other side. part unto the other and his disciples ;
side. and he said unto
them, Let us go over
unto the other side
of the lake : and they
launched forth.
3 Is. ii. ii "The lofty looks of man. . .in that day," ib. 17 "The
loftiness of man. . .in that day."
4 Const. Apost. v. 15, and 18. See above, pp. 319, n. i, 325.
327 (Mark ii. 18 22)
THE OLD AND THE NEW
If this view is correct, the Marcan tradition represents
very early Christian doctrine about Fasting, namely, that
as the Day of Atonement was appointed to be the only Fast-
day for Jews, so the day between the Crucifixion and the
Resurrection was to be the only Fast-day for Christians. II
was the only day during the whole of which Christ's disciples
had been constrained to "afflict their souls" because they be-
lieved that He was dead. And yet it was their Sabbath, their
literal Jewish Sabbath, on which they were bound to "rest."
Later on we shall find Luke alone calling attention to the fact
that the women at all events did "rest on the sabbath 1 ."
John says that "the day of that sabbath was a great one 2 ."
The context indicates that it was "great" from the point of
view of the Jews, who feared lest it should be desecrated. But
it can hardly be doubted that John writes also from the point
of view of the redeemed Church for whom that "sabbath"
was to be henceforth uniquely "great." Not merely did it
conclude an old Creation, but it introduced a new one.
A combination of "fasting" with " sabbathizing " is men-
tioned in the recently discovered Oxyrhynchus Papyri : "Jesus
saith, If ye fast not [as to] the world, ye shall assuredly not
find the kingdom of God, and, if ye sabbathize not the sabbath,
ye shall not see the Father 3 ." Whatever may be the detailed
1 Lk. xxiii. 55 6 "And having followed [to the tomb] the
women . . . beheld the tomb . . . and having turned back they prepared
ointments and myrrh. And during the sabbath they rested according
to the commandment. ..." Mk xvi. i has "And when the sabbath
was past (biayevofjievov) Mary. . .bought ointments. . .," Mt. xxviii. i
" Late on the sabbath day, as it began to dawn toward the first
[day] of the week, came Mary. ..."
2 Jn xix. 31.
3 Oxy. Pap. No. i. On a sabbath, at the pool of Bethesda, Jesus
sabbathized or rested, not by resting from, but by finding rest in,
an act of goodness (Jn v. 16 17). On another sabbath, concerning
which John says "the day of that sabbath was a great one," Jesus
according to the Petrine Epistle (i Pet. iii. 19) "went and preached
1o the spirits in prison."
328 (Mark ii. 18 22)
THE OLD AND THE NEW
explanation of these words, there appears nothing in the Bible
to which they can point in a literal sense, except the fasting on
the Jewish Day of Atonement, fulfilled in the fasting on the
first Christian Saturday before the first Easter Sunday.
The other way of explaining Mark's text is to suppose
that, in the original, a separate Logion terminated, as Matthew
makes it terminate, with the words "and then will they fast,"
and a separate Logion began, "In that day Jesus said." The
ambiguity may be illustrated from the Hebrew and the Greek
accounts of the entrance of the Israelites into the Promised
Land. The Hebrew, using the above-mentioned 1 emphatic
phrase, "on that self-same day," says "They did eat... un-
leavened cakes and parched corn in the self-same day. And
the manna ceased on the morrow." But the LXX says "In
the self-same day the manna ceased 2 ."
We may also illustrate the ambiguity from the Oxyrhynchus
Logia. Each one of them begins, or ends, with " saith Jesus 3 ."
An editor, combining Logia that he supposed to have been
uttered about the same time, might justifiably omit "saith
Jesus " (as Matthew appears to have done in the Sermon on the
Mount). Mark may have done this in the present instance.
But the original may have meant : "In that day, or thereabouts,
Jesus said [making a reply to the preceding words of John
the Baptist] No man seweth. ..."
This would explain Luke's deviation from Mark as being a
compromise. Luke believed that the original made no dis-
tinction between "days" in general and one great "day"
in particular. He therefore substituted "in those days" for
1 See above, p. 312, n. 2. z Josh. v. n 12.
3 It is translated by the editors as coining at the beginning of each
Logion, e.g. "^.the mote that is in thy brother's eye. Jesus
saith (AGrei K)), Except ye fast. . .ye shall not see the Father.
Jesus saith (AGPC! TC) " Probably this is correct. But the
fragmentary condition of the Logia, and the absence of the beginning
and the end of the MS, make it impossible to deny that " saith Jesus "
might be intended to come at the end of each Logion.
329 (Mark ii. 18 22)
THE OLD AND THE NEW
"in that day." At the same time he believed that "in that
day " might be intended to have a transitional force suggesting
doctrine uttered about that time, though not at that very time.
Accordingly he implies transition by saying that Jesus pro-
ceeded to speak a "parable 1 ."
In concluding this discussion of the Synoptic reply to tl
complaint of the Baptist's disciples, we have to admit that
the data are not sufficient to prove that the reply was uttered
by the Baptist himself, and therefore not sufficient to demon-
strate its exact meaning in the mind of the speaker. But we
shall have learned from an examination of the ancient inter-
pretations of the passage to recognise two truths. First,
there was a very strong tendency among pious and practical
Christians, in the days of early persecutions, to read into the
Gospels an inculcation of fasting, on the part of Christ, for
which no basis can be found in their uncorrupted texts 2 .
Secondly, there is abundant evidence to shew that Jesus, while
not forbidding fasting as means to a moral end to be used at
the discretion of His disciples, discouraged formal fasting both
by example and by precept, and regarded the Jewish " affliction
of soul" prescribed by Law on the Day of Atonement as
swallowed up in the "joy" of that "victory" over Death and
Sheol which was promised by His Gospel.
7. A complaint of the Baptist's disciples and the
reply, in the Fourth Gospel
The Fourth Gospel does not contradict the tradition that
the Baptist's disciples, after their Master's imprisonment,
complained to Jesus about the non-ascetic life of His disciples,
1 This is the first occasion where Luke uses "parable" in his
own words to describe what Jesus proceeds to say. "Parable"
occurs before (but not in Luke's own words) in Lk. iv. 23, "Doubtless
ye will say unto me this parable, 'Physician, heal thyself.' '
2 On "hungering," attributed to Jesus in the Temptation by
Matthew and Luke, but not by Mark, and never attributed to Jesus
by John, see p. 207, footnote.
330 (Mark ii. 18 22)
THE OLD AND THE NEW
and that Jesu-s called Himself "the bridegroom" in His reply.
But it sets before us a statement, of an opposite character,
concerning something that happened before the imprisonment.
At that earlier date (it says) the Baptist's disciples complained
to their own Master about Jesus, and their Master, in his reply,
called Jesus "the bridegroom." The complaint does not
mention "fasting" but only "purifying" and this, in the
introductory context, which speaks of a "questioning" on the
part of the disciples of John, "together with a Jew (or, Jews), "
about purifying. Then the complaint mentions "baptizing"
thus : " Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom
thou hast borne witness, behold, this [man] baptizeth and all
men come to him 1 ."
At first sight there may seem nothing here that is con-
nected, even remotely, with fasting. But let us put ourselves
in the position of the complainants. We are Jews. We
believe in the efficacy of the Day of Atonement. As to this it
is written "On this day shall atonement be made for you to
purify you from all your sins before the Lord ye shall be pure 2 ."
Now this is the only passage in the Law where "purification
from sins" is mentioned 3 . And the following words are "It
is a sabbath of sabbathizing unto you, and ye shall afflict your
souls." But "afflict the soul" meant, as we have seen, "fast."
Thus all Jews, even the most illiterate, if they practised the Law
at all, would recognise that there was a close connection between
"purification from sins" and "fasting."
1 Jn iii. 25 6. See Joh, Gr. 2350 c on the variations in the text
and on its probable meaning "that the Jews and some of the
Baptist's disciples wished to incite him to jealousy of Jesus"
r)rr]3-is, "questioning," meaning here "a quarrelsome discussion."
2 Lev. xvi. 30. The punctuation is doubtful, LXX "to purify
you from all your sins before the Lord, and ye shall be purified,"
Vulg. " In hac die expiatio erit vestri, atque mundatio ab omnibus
peccatis vestris; coram Domino mundabimini."
3 Gesen. 372 a. R.V. marg. refers to Ps. li. 2, Jer. xxxiii. 8,
Heb. x. i, 2, i Jn i. 7, 9.
331 (Mark ii. 18 22)
THE OLD AND THE NEW
Now John the Baptist had come, avowedly, to prepare the
way for some special purification from sins, and his message
had been "repent and be baptized.' 1 Those who were baptized
by him "confessed their sins" (as Mark and Matthew say).
Luke probably assumes this, and adds that many said "What
shall we do?" that is, "What shall we do to amend our
sinful lives?" All this is characteristic of the Jewish con-
fession of sins on the Day of Atonement 1 . No mention is made
of the fasting of the applicants for baptism. But we may be
quite sure that they did fast before being baptized. This
fact gives point to the complaint of the Baptist's disciples as
being, in effect, part of a general complaint about the hetero-
doxy of Jesus on the subject of purifying: "Master, you
taught us to prepare ourselves by baptism as for a great day of
Atonement. We fasted. We confessed our sins. This man,
Jesus, to whom you testified, he, too, baptizes. But he
baptizes on his own account, independently of you and dif-
ferently from you. He does not insist, as you did, upon
fasting. He eats and drinks with publicans and sinners.
And he is leading the multitudes after him."
The Baptist's reply is directed, not to any question about
baptism that may be implied in the word "baptizeth," but
to the personal question implied in "this man": "Ye your-
selves bear me witness that I said, 'I am not the Christ,' but
[that] 'I am sent before him [i.e. the Christ].' ' This second
statement has not been recorded before in this Gospel, though it
has been implied 2 . It is equivalent to a statement made for
the first time here that Jesus, "before" whom the Baptist
has been "sent," is the Christ. The Baptist adds, at once,
1 See Joma 36 a, 41 b, 86 a, also j. Joma iii. 6 (Schwab v. 194
and foil.).
2 In the Fourth Gospel the word " Christ " or "Messiah " is never
uttered by the Baptist except in negation. But the Baptist is
represented as implying that his successor is the person, Christ,
whom he dramatically shews to be expected by everyone, e.g.
Andrew, Philip, and the Woman of Samaria.
332 (Mark ii. 18 22)
THE OLD AND THE NEW
"He that hath the bride is the bridegroom." Here again he
utters none but a general statement a truism to the ear but
he clearly implies that Jesus, besides being the Christ, is also
"the bridegroom." As for the "questioning" about "puri-
fying" and "baptizing," the Baptist is silent. Perhaps he is
to be supposed to regard it as a "questioning" that will answer
itself when the disciples once accept the "Christ" who is also
the "Bridegroom."
"Fasting" we said above is not mentioned in the
Johannine narrative. Yet indirectly, if fasting implies self-
affliction or anything alien from joy, the Baptist implies that
fasting would be out of place for Christ's disciples, because the
presence of the bridegroom and the sound of His voice must
needs bring joy : "The friend of the bridegroom, he that stand-
eth and heareth him, rejoiceth with [exceeding] joy because of
the bridegroom's voice 1 ." The Baptist calls his "joy" emphatic-
ally "the joy that is mine," meaning "the joy of the duty
assigned to me 2 ." He it is that has been sent before the
Bridegroom's face to prepare His way. That duty has now
been discharged, and the joy of the Friend passes into the
background, having prepared the way for the joy of the Bride-
groom and the Bride, "This therefore the joy that is my own
hath been fulfilled. He must increase, but I must decrease."
It is instructive to turn to the next mention of "joy" in
this Gospel. It is a long way on, in Christ's final utterance to
His disciples, when He is on the point of leaving them : " These
things I have spoken unto you that the joy that is my own may be
in you, and that your joy may be fulfilled 3 ." If we ask what
are the "things" that He has "spoken," which are to have the
effect of making Christ's own "joy" abide in the disciples, the
context tells us: He has said "Even as the Father hath loved
1 Jn iii. 29.
2 Jn iii. 29. See Joh. Gr. 1987 8, 2581 on the emphasis implied
by 6 e/ios.
3 Jn xv. ii.
333 (Mark ii. 18 22)
THE OLD AND THE NEW
me, I also have loved you : abide ye in the love that is my own 1 ."
It is implied that a new kind of love has been brought down
from heaven to earth, and that this new love results in a new
joy.
Comparing together these two kinds of "joy," the rudi-
mentary one peculiar to the Bridegroom's Friend, and the
perfect one peculiar to the Bridegroom, now called the Son of
the Father in heaven, we see that the one prepares for the other,
and that neither of them seems to leave room for that kind oi
"self-affliction," "self-humbling," or "fasting," which would
be appropriate before the Bridegroom, or the Son, had arrived
and been recognised. We ought not to be surprised if the
Baptist's teaching, on this and other points, varied toward the
end of his career, during the interval between Christ's baptism
and his own execution in prison. There may have been
moments when John thought that the new Messiah would carry
all before Him at once as the victorious Redeemer of Israel.
There may have been others when he thought that the end
was not to come yet.
Returning to the order of the Fourth Gospel and to its
attitude toward "joy," we should note two more passages where
it is mentioned. One of these does expressly mention an in-
terval or break in which there, shall be weeping, lamenting, and
sorrow. But this appears to refer to the brief interval ("a
little while") between Christ's death and resurrection: "A
little while and ye behold me not, and again a little while and ye
shall see me .... Ye shall weep and lament, but the world
shall rejoice; ye shall be sorrowful, but your sorrow shall be
turned into joy." After this second "little while," there is to
be no repetition of such sorrow, but "joy" like that of "the
woman delivered of the child," unbroken joy: "I will see
you again, and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no one
taketh away from you .... Ask and receive, that your joy may be
1 Jn xv. 9.
334 (Mark ii. 18 22)
THE OLD AND THE NEW
fulfilled 1 ." To the same effect is the final mention of the
Messiah's joy in the Son's prayer to the Father for the dis-
ciples left in the world: "These things I speak in the world
that they may have the joy that is my own fulfilled in themselves 2 ."
These passages favour the view that, for some years after
Christ's death, before any formal rules for fasting were laid
down by the Church, many Christians spontaneously fasted on
that saddest of all days for the first generation, the most
intimate circle, of His disciples that Sabbath which they had
to pass through in the belief that their Lord's life had ended in
failure, so that they had to say to themselves "We used [once]
to hope that it was he that was destined to redeem Israel 3 ."
8. The parable of the patched garment
The lesson taught by this parable resembles that which
Philo deduces from a Levitical precept. He tells us "not to
weave together the heterogeneous substances wool and flax,"
because, "in the case of these, not only is the difference a
dissociation, but also the predominance of [the one or] the
other; and the predominant one will cause a rending instead
of a uniting when need comes to use [the garment] 4 ."
It will be seen below that Luke does not quite agree with
1 Jn xvi. 19 24.
2 Jn xvii. 13. We must beware of confusing this "joy" with
immunity from "tribulation." The disciples are to have "tribu-
lation," but at the same time a confidence in the Messiah's victory
over the world (ib. xvi. 33) "These things have I spoken unto you
that in me ye may have peace. In the world ye have tribulation,
but be of good cheer, I have conquered the world."
3 Lk. xxiv. 21. These words were uttered on the Sunday after
the Crucifixion by the two disciples walking to Emmaus. Words
like them must have been uttered by all the disciples on the pre-
ceding Saturday or Sabbath.
4 Philo ii. 370 on Lev. xix. 19 (Deut. xxii. n) *a! yap eVi TOVTCOV
ov puvov fj diii<popOTT]s dnoiV(i)vr]Tov, aXXa <al r] eViKpareta 6ar4pov PTJ^LV
dTTfpya(TOfjLVov p.a\\oi> rj ei/axriv, orav derj ^pr^trBai.
335 (Mark ii. 18 22)
THE OLD AND THE NEW
Mark and Matthew in his version of the parable 1 . They de-
scribe the patching of an old garment with a piece of new heavy
stuff which pulls the old threadbare cloak to pieces. Luke
describes the patching of an old garment with a piece out of a
new garment, with the result of disfiguring the old one and
rending the new. It is told about the Cynic philosopher,
Crates, that he "stitched a fleece on to his philosopher's cloak,"
and some recollection of this old popular story may have
influenced Mark's tradition 2 . Mark's text contains one word
("sew-on") not known to occur elsewhere in Greek, and both
the text and its interpretation are doubtful. Nor is it necessary
to discuss here in detail Luke's deviations, since Luke does not
contradict Mark but only adds something more. Consequently
the Fourth Gospel ought not to be expected to intervene.
9. "This year's wine" and "new wine-skins*"
What the Revised Version calls "new wine" is paraphrased
above as "this year's wine" in order to call attention to the
1 Mk ii. 21 (R.V.)
No man seweth a
piece of undressed
cloth on an old
garment : else that
which should fill it
up taketh from it,
the new from the old,
and a worse rent is
made.
Mt. ix. 16 (R.V.)
And no man put-
teth a piece of un-
dressed cloth upon
an old garment; for
that which should
fill it up taketh from
the garment, and a
worse rent is made.
Lk. v. 36 (R.V.)
And he spake
also a parable unto
them ; No man rend-
eth a piece from a
new garment and
putteth it upon an
old garment ; else he
will rend the new,
and also the piece
from the new will
not agree with the
old.
2 Diog. Laert. vi. 91 Ktodiov avrov (770-1 -nore rrpoa-pd-^ai ro> TpijSa>vi m
See Steph. Thes. on TrpocrpdnTO), eTTippaTrrco, efTl/SX^^uz, and pa.KOS. 'ETTip-
paTTTG) (as far as I can find) is not alleged to occur (as a correct
reading) anywhere else in Greek except in this passage of Mark.
Also 7rijSXr)p.a (which means a "shawl," as in Is. iii. 22 (LXX)) is
not alleged to mean "patch" except in Josh. ix. 5 (n) (Sym.).
sometimes means a "napkin."
3 R.V. "new wine" does not distinguish veos, used here, from
Mk xiv. 25, Mt. xxvi. 29 "when I drink it new" (Lk. xxii. 18
336 (Mark ii. 18 22)
THE OLD AND THE NEW
fact that the Hebrew Bible has two separate words to represent
(i) "wine" and (2) "new-wine," or "must 1 ." This paraphrase
also helps us to connect the metaphor with such passages in
Isaiah as speak of "the acceptable year of the Lord" the
year of the "trees of righteousness, the planting of the Lord,"
when "the Lord God will cause righteousness and praise to
spring forth" as "the earth bringeth forth her bud" and also
of "the new wine (lit. the must, or this year's wine) that is found
in the cluster 2 ." The prophet says elsewhere "Ho, every one
that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money;
come ye, buy, and eat ; yea, come, buy wine and milk without
money and without price 3 ," clearly meaning that kind of moral
"wisdom" which man was to attain through the Law by
"loving God" and "loving" his "neighbour." In the threefold
Synoptic tradition printed below, " wine of this year," commonly
called the "new- wine," appears to be the wine of "the accept-
able year of the Lord " which Jesus said He came to proclaim 4 ,
differs). Ne'os means "young," "new-born," "new by nature."
Kaivos means "newly made," "unused." Ne'os might be applied to
wine regarded as a product of nature, the juice of the grape ; naivos to
wine as made by man, or, metaphorically, in connection with the
thought of a New Covenant. Kaivos, here applied to "wine-skins,"
means "unused," or "newly tanned," so as to endure the expansive
pressure of " this year's wine." In Hebrew, separate names are given
to (Gesen. 406 a) "wine," and (Gesen. 4406) "must, fresh or new
wine." But the LXX does not observe the distinction. For it
renders the latter 36 times by olvos, and only once by ^Bva-^a, and
once by poo. "This-year's wine" is given above as a paraphrase,
intended to call attention to the difference between natural newness
and artificial newness.
1 Onkelos represents both (i) p "wine," and (2) Bnn "new-
wine," by -)Dn.
2 Is. Ixi. 2 ii ; Ixv. 8 LXX po>. The Targ. has "As Noah was
found in the generation of the deluge."
3 Is. Iv. i . Comp. Gen. r. on Gen. xxvii. 28 " the dew of heaven . . .
the fatness of the earth. . .corn. . .new-wine." This is the first men-
tion of "new-wine." One comment in Gen. r. explains "new-wine"
as meaning "the Haggada."
4 Lk. iv. 19, quoting Is. Ixi. 2.
A - P. 337 (Mark ii. 18 22) 22
THE OLD AND THE NEW
the wine of the "good tidings/' in other words, the new wine
of the Gospel.
But what are the "new wine-skins" and the "old wine-
skins" corresponding to "this year's wine" and the "old
wine " ? They are mentioned by all the Synoptists as follows :
Mk ii. 22
And no one put-
teth this year's wine
into old wine-skins.
Else, the wine will
burst the wine-skins,
and [so] the wine
perisheth and the
wine-skins [with it].
[But [men put] this
year's wine into new
wine-skins.] 1
Mt. ix. 17
Nor do [men] put
this year's wine into
old wine-skins. Else,
the wine-skins are
burst, and the wine
is spilled, and the
wine - skins perish.
But [men] put this
year's wine into new
wine-skins, and both
are kept - safe - to -
gether.
Lk. v. 37-8
And no one put-
teth this year's wine
into old wine-skins.
Else, this year's wine
will burst the wine-
skins, and will itself
be spilled, and [be-
sides] the wine-skins
will perish. But one
must put this year's
wine into new wine-
skins.
Origen's explanation is, in effect, that what Paul calls
"the old man" meaning the man not yet made young by
regeneration is not fit to drink "the new wine 2 ." The meta-
phor of the leathern bottle or wine-skin is repellent to Greek
ears. Paul adapts it to them when he writes "We have this
treasure [i.e. the Spirit] in [fragile] earthen vessels 3 ." But in
1 W. H. bracket the last sentence in Mark. BuAAo>o-ii> is omitted.
The parallel Luke supplies ftXrjreov, "one must put."
2 Origen Lev. Horn. vii. 2 "Vides ergo quia impossible est de
nova vite novum poculum bibi ab eo qui adhuc indutus est veterem
hominem cum actibus suis. 'Nemo enim,' inquit, 'mittit vinum
novum in utres veteres.' Si vis ergo et tu bibere de hoc novo vino,
innovare, et die quia 'et si exterior homo noster corrumpitur sed
quia intus est renovatur de die in diem.' "
Comp. Acts ii. 13 "Others, mocking, said, They are filled with
new-wine (yXtvKovs}." Origen (Lev. Horn. ii. 2) takes this as true,
though uttered in mockery: "Et vere haec fuerunt recentia, quia
erat novum; unde et ' musto repleti' dicebantur."
3 2 Cor. iv. 7.
338 (Mark ii. 18 22)
THE OLD AND THE NEW
Job it is unconcealed: "The spirit within me (lit. of my belly)
constraineth me. Behold, my belly is as wine that hath no
vent; like new wine-skins that are ready to burst 1 ." The wine-
skin was prepared to bear the expansive pressure of the must
by tanning and "seasoning in smoke 2 ," and this is the way in
which the Targumist explains the utterance of the Psalmist:
"My soul fainteth for thy salvation. . .mine eyes fail for thy
word, saying, When wilt thou comfort me ? for I am become
like a bottle in the smoke" ; that is, as the Targum interprets it,
"like a wine-skin hung up [to be seasoned} in the smoke 3 ."
The thought is somewhat the same, though the metaphor is
not, as in the Psalm beginning, "As the hart panteth after the
water brooks 4 ." In both, there is a thirst that longs to be
satisfied. But if the thirst for the new wine is to be satisfied,
an important condition has to be fulfilled which does not exist
with regard to the thirst for the water. There must be a
"making new," a "seasoning."
We may illustrate the need of this "seasoning" from an
interpolation that follows, in Codex D, almost immediately,
where Jesus defends His disciples against the charge of sabbath-
breaking because they picked and rubbed some ears of corn on
the sabbath: "On the same day, having beheld one working
on the sabbath, He said unto him, ' Man, if thou knowest what
thou art doing, blessed art thou. But if thou knowest not,
thou art liable to a curse, and a transgressor of the Law 5 ." 1
In other words, all depended on the spiritual state of the man.
1 Job xxxii. 19 t!)(nrfp da-Kos yXevKOVs eo>i> (A -yepo!/), COmp. Acts
xviii. 25 (of Apollos) and Rom. xii. n ro> irvcvpari fe'oi/rer. Job refers
to (Hastings i. 31 1&) "the distension that the leather underwent
once, and once only, during fermentation," not "bursting" but
"ready to burst."
2 Hastings i. 311 b.
3 Ps. cxix. 83. Walton renders the Heb. "sicut uter infumario,"
Targ. "qui pendet ad fumum." The Syr. and the Vulg. follow LXX
which renders "smoke" by Trdxvrj, "frost."
4 Ps. xlii. i. B Lk. vi. 5 (D).
339 (Mark ii. 18 22) 22 2
THE OLD AND THE NEW
If he had been "seasoned," or "made new," to such an extent
that he felt in his heart the whole of the Law to be summed up
in the love of the Father and the brethren, so that henceforth
he needed not to observe "days and months and years," then
he was blessed, rejoicing in the wine of the Spirit. But if
being a Jew, was working on the sabbath without this spirit
conviction, but acting against his conscience and in self-will-
saying (and trying to believe it) "The New Law means that
one can do as one likes" then he was accursed. Such a
man's moral nature what there had been of it was shattered
by the new doctrine, the "bottle" was "burst" by "this
year's wine," and "the wine," so far as he was concerned, had
"perished."
10. Luke and John on "good wine"
Returning to the three Synoptic parallels we observe that,
so far, they are in verbal as well as substantial agreement, and
there is no reason for expecting Johannine intervention. But
now Luke adds a brief appendix: "And no one, having drunk
old [wine], desireth this year's [wine] (lit. new). For he saith,
'the old is good 1 .'" There is nothing in the parallel Mark or
Matthew corresponding to this. It seems an attempt to explain
why some reject the New Wine of the Gospel. But by its way
of explaining, it appears to defend, the rejection. Ben Sira
says, and doubtless it was a familiar proverb in Christ's days,
"Forsake not an old friend; for the new is not comparable to
him ; a new friend, is as new wine ; when it is old thou shalt
drink it with pleasure 2 ." Such a proverb commends itself.
Luke, therefore, seems to represent Jesus as putting into the
mouths of His adversaries, when He offered them the new
wine of the Gospel, an effective retort: "You yourself have
taught us what to reply. We will have none of your 'new
wine.' For us 'the old is good.' '
?
1 Lk. v. 39.
2 Sir. ix. 10.
340 (Mark ii. 18 22)
THE OLD AND THE NEW
Possibly there were early doubts about the genuineness of
this Lucan tradition. Some good authorities omit it 1 . Mark's
tradition ends perhaps ungrammatically and certainly abruptly ;
and Luke, in amending it, may have inserted here, in a wrong
place, a truncated tradition about "the good wine" as being
"old," which, if stated fully, and in its right place, would have
explained that the "good wine" was indeed "old," being
prepared by God from the beginning, and yet it was "new,"
having been kept during the lapse of many generations, so that
it should not be manifested till the coming of the Son of Man,
the Bridegroom of humanity. But as it is, Luke's text (we may
reasonably suppose) must have presented a stumbling-block
to readers of the Gospels in the first century. We naturally
ask whether John, though silent about "fasting," and about
the "garment," has anything to the point about "good wine."
Many will at once think of the saying of the "ruler of the
feast" at Cana to the bridegroom, "Thou hast kept the good wine
until now 2 ." But probably not so many will realise that "the
good wine" is a phrase that occurs only once elsewhere in
Scripture, and then in connection with the Bridegroom de-
scribed in the Song of Songs "Thy mouth is like the good wine,"
i.e. the wine pre-eminently and uniquely good 3 . Jewish tradition
gives a mystical meaning to the context, which speaks of the
wine as "gliding through the lips of them that are asleep."
"The good wine" is regarded as the love of God expressed in
the Covenant with Abraham, which constrains the "lips,"
even of those "sleeping" in their graves, to repeat His praises 4 .
1 It is omitted by D and the best Latin MSS, and bracketed by
W.H.
2 Jn ii. 10.
3 Cant. vii. 9 (Rashi vii. 12, in Midrash sometimes vii. 10). Gesen.
373 b, 406 b renders it (like R.V.) "wine of the best sort," or "the
best wine." But the literal Heb. is "the good wine," and it occurs
nowhere else in the Bible.
4 So R.V. text (Gesen. 179 a); but R.V. marg. "causing the
lips... to move or speak." See the Targum, Rashi, Sanhedr. 906
341 (Mark ii. 18 22)
THE OLD AND THE NEW
The epithet "good," here attached to the wine of the BricU
groom, appears in another tradition with reference to the win<
drunk at the feast of the Child at Circumcision. While the
father offers it to the guests, he says, "Drink from this good
wine. From it I will give you to drink at his wedding-feast 1 ."
In the story of Cana, the visible "ruler of the feast" is, so
to speak, a mere marionette, not being the real Ruler of the
Feast, but a mere mortal unconsciously uttering a celestial
mystery. And the bridegroom of Cana, too, the visible
bridegroom, is not the real Bridegroom. It is said to him
"Thou hast kept the good wine." But he has not kept it.
Jesus, in the background, is the true Bridegroom, and Jesus
has provided the good wine. We, the readers, who are ad-
mitted to the secret, know that literally He could not be said
to have "kept" it. He made it a few moments ago. But a
Jew, a Christian Philo, taking it allegorically, might say that
the Father provided it at the feast of the Promised Son, Isaac,
the feast of the Circumcision, and is now bringing it forth at
the feast of the Son's Wedding. Or, going back still further,
he might say that "the good wine" was provided in the
moment of the Creation, when God said, "Let us make man
in our image," and that it was "kept" till the Incarnation,
when the sentence was completed and the purpose fulfilled
"after our likeness 2 ." The complete (but not completed) pur-
pose (implied in "our likeness") preceded the partial practice
("our image"). The former lay deep down in what St Paul
and /. Berach. ii. i. The Midrash varies in detail, but agrees in
referring to the belief that the departed, though dead, still speak.
1 See Eccles. r. on Eccles. iii. 2, Wii. p. 41. I have followed
Schlatter (on Jn ii. 10) who gives the Hebrew, and who differs some-
what from Wunsche.
2 See Origen on Rom. iv. 16 17 (Lomm. vi. 266) "Et hoc est
fortassis quod in initiis homo, cum propositum fuisset (Gen. i. 26)
ut 'ad imaginem et similitudinem' Dei fieret, (ib. i. 27) 'ad imaginem'
quidem factus est, 'similitude' autem dilata est, ob hoc, ut prius
confideret in Deum et ita fieret similis ei. . . . "
342 (Mark ii. 18 22)
THE OLD AND THE NEW
calls "the depth" of "God's wisdom and knowledge 1 ." It
came later to view. It fulfilled that Law of spiritual Nature
which is at the root of spiritual patience and spiritual victory,
"Nothing is hidden except that it may be manifested 2 ."
ii. The Fourth Gospel on the "old" and the "new"
The Fourth Gospel nowhere mentions the "old." But it
implies the "old" in the (almost) single passage 3 in which it
mentions the "new": "A new commandment give I unto you,
that ye love one another, even as I loved you, that ye (emph.)
also love one another." The Law of Moses commanded "love"
love both of God and of man. But these words imply the
Evangelist's belief that a new kind of love, love like that of
Christ, has been brought into the world by Him, bringing,
along with itself, the constraining force of "a new command-
ment." And John's Epistle, beginning from the results of the
Gospel, after describing how "the blood of Jesus. . .cleanseth
us from all sin," and after speedily passing to the mention
of the practical Christian life in "the love of God," adds
"Beloved, no new commandment I write unto you, but an old
commandment .... Again, a new commandment write I unto you,
which [thing] is true in him and in you. . . A " That is to say,
"I have called the commandment 'old/ I now call it 'new';
and truly the newness is manifest. It is manifest in Him, who
gave His blood for us ; it is manifest in you, who are purified
and incorporated in Him by His blood 5 ."
The pervasive thought of the contrast between the old and
the new may explain why the Evangelist lays stress on what
(apart from allegory) may seem to us quaint and insignificant
details in the miracle of Cana. Take, for example, the pre-
liminary precept to "fill to the brim" the six stone waterpots
1 Rom. xi. 33. 2 Mk iv. 22.
3 Jn xiii. 34. There is also (Jn xix. 41) "a new tomb."
4 i Jn ii. 78. * See Joh. Gr. 2412.
343 (Mark ii. 18 22)
THE OLD AND THE NEW
that were set "in accordance with the purification of the Jews.'
Not till this was done did Jesus say "Draw now [fresh water
from the well] 1 , and carry to the ruler of the feast." In itself,
all this is bewildering rather than edifying. But what if the
Evangelist desires to draw a line of demarcation between the
water of the Law, used only for external purification, and the
water of the Gospel, a type of the blood of Christ, used for
internal as well as external purifying 2 ?
Later on, as if to constrain us to keep our minds free from
bondage to any single metaphor, the Dialogue with Nicodemus
teaches the doctrine of regeneration from above through Water
and Spirit. Later still, the Dialogue with the Samaritan
woman brings us back to water, not wine, which is to quench
the thirst of the soul and to bestow spiritual life. With manifest
irony, the Evangelist describes the woman with the five hus-
bands near Jacob's well as informing the Saviour that "the
well is deep" and that He has "nothing to draw with." What
she calls "the well" the Evangelist calls "the fountain," saying
1 Or possibly "Draw now [from the waterpots]" (see Joh. Gr.
22813 on Jn ii. 68). But in the light of Joseph. Ant. iii. i. 2
quoted below, I prefer to supply "from the well," as in Indices
p. xxviii. n. 3.
2 There may be latent in this detail some allusion to mystical
Jewish traditions about the water of Marah, which was (Exod. xv. 25)
"made sweet for" the Israelites, so that they could drink it.
Josephus, Ant. iii. i. 2 (quoted and discussed in Indices p. xxi foil.),
says that Moses "ordered those [men] that were in their prime to
take their stand round [the water] and to draw off (eai/TAeu>)
[water]. What remained, he said, would be drinkable for them, when
the greater portion had been first emptied out." The two acts of
"drawing" water in Cana, one of which is implied ("fill to the
brim"), the other of which is mentioned ("draw now") may be
contrasted with those at Marah (according to Josephus) . At Marah
the water is all for drinking, some bad, some good, but all for one
purpose. At Cana the water is all good, but for two purposes.
The first supply of water is for "purifying," the second supply is
for internal joy of heart, such as comes from "the wine that maketh
glad the heart of man."
344 (Mark ii. 18 22)
THE OLD AND THE NEW
that it was "near the parcel of ground that Jacob gave to his
son Joseph, and Jacob's fountain was there 1 ." Joseph is the
only one of Jacob's sons whom Jacob's Song of Blessing con-
nects with a "fountain" ("a fruitful bough by a fountain 2 ");
and the song goes on to speak of "blessings of heaven above,
blessings of the deep that coucheth beneath." This "fountain"
therefore might well be taken as representing the depth, or
literally the "abyss," of the protecting Love, concerning which
Israel is told in the Song of Moses "The eternal God is thy
dwelling place, and underneath are the everlasting arms 3 ."
From another point of view, the Johannine "fountain"
corresponds to Synoptic doctrine expressed by quite different
metaphors. One and the same Hebrew word, En (or Ain),
represents both "fountain" and "eye." The first mention of
"fountain" in Scripture is where "the angel of the Lord found
Hagar by a. fountain*." It is said that Hagar "called the name
of the Lord that spake unto her, 'Thou art a God of seeing 5 .' "
Then she adds "Can it be that I have here seen. . .him that
seeth me 6 ?" Therefore "the well was called 'The well of the
living one that seeth me.'"
The Midrash on this passage comments on the condescension
of "the Lord" in speaking to a woman on this occasion, and its
1 Jn iv. 5 6 "fountain (77*7777) " (comp. ib. 14); but the woman
calls it a " well (<ppeap)."
2 Gen. xlix. 2,2, 25. The LXX completely misses the meaning.
The Heb. for "deep" is rendered by Aquila apvo-o-os in Gen. i. 2 etc.
3 Deut. xxxiii. 27. Deut. xxxiii. 13 repeats the phrase of Gen.
"the deep that coucheth beneath," LXX dftvao-uv.
4 Gen. xvi. 7 has 77-77717, Heb. Ain; ib. xvi. 14 has (ppe'ap, Heb.
Beer, " well " (" the well was called Beer-lahai-roi ").
5 See Gesen. 909 a. The meaning appears to be, a God that
sees all things and sees my misery.
6 Gen. xvi. 13, R.V. "have looked after him that seeth me."
This fails to shew the repetition of the same verb "see." Vulg.
has "Profectohic vidi posteriora videntis me." Does this take the
meaning to be as in Exod. xxxiii. 23 "videbis posteriora mea,"
implying the inferior attributes of God?
345 (Mark ii. 18 22)
THE OLD AND THE NEW
remarks remind us of the Johannine saying that the discipl
of Jesus "marvelled that he spake with a woman 1 ." But far
more important is the connection between God's "seeing" the
human soul, and the soul's being consequently "made to see."
To say that the eye of the Lord is like the sun in seeing all
things, is merely to say what Greek, Roman and Egyptian
theology would say. But the story of Hagar by the fountain
teaches us that the eye of the Lord not only "saw" but "caused
to see." And the Fourth Gospel goes even beyond this. For
it teaches us that those who are thus caused to see cause others
to see. God, the Father and Fountain of Light and Life, is
regarded as sending into each soul that receives Him through
the Son, a separate fountain of his own, from which each can
refresh himself and prepare others to receive what he has
received 2 . This subject will come before us again when we
consider the Synoptic metaphor of the good eye and the evil
eye, which has much in common with the implied metaphor of
that good fountain or evil fountain which may be described as
"the abundance of the heart 3 ."
1 Jn iv. 27, see Gen. r. on Gen. xvi. 13 and also ib. Wii. pp. 229, 298.
2 See Jn vii. 38. In Test. XII Patr. Judah 24, Dr Charles
brackets "this Fountain giving life unto all" (as possibly a Christian
interpolation) but with hesitation, noting Prov. xiii. 14, xiv. 27,
and Jer. ii. 13, xvii. 13. It may be added that Philo i. 575 quotes
Jer. ii. 13 as proving that God "is the most ancient of all fountains,"
just before commenting on the story of Hagar at the fountain.
3 Comp. Mt. xii. 34, Lk. vi. 45.
346 (Mark ii. 18 22)
CHAPTER IX*
JESUS AND THE SABBATH
[Mark ii. 23 iii. 6]
i. "When Abiathar was high priest," in Mark 1
THE parallel texts given below agree in all important points 2
except that Mark inserts a date for the precedent, "when
* For titles of previous Parts of Diatessarica referred to by
abbreviations in this Volume, see pp. 545 6. For other ab-
breviations see pp. xxiii xxvi.
Mt. xii. 14 (R.V.)
(i) At that sea-
son Jesus went on
the sabbath day
in
Deviations see
1 Mk ii. 236 (R.V.)
(23) And it came
to pass, that he
was going on the
sabbath day through through the corn-
the cornfields; and fields; and his dis-
his disciples began,
as they went, to
pluck (lit. began to
make [their] way
plucking) the ears of
corn.
(24) And the
Pharisees said unto
him, Behold, why do
they on the sabbath
day that which is
not lawful?
(25) And he
said unto them, Did
ye never read what
David did, when he
had need, and was
an hungred, he, and
they that were with
him ?
(26) How he
entered into the
ciples were an hun-
gred, and began to
pluck ears of corn,
and to eat.
(2) But the Pha-
risees, when they
saw it, said unto
him, Behold, thy
disciples do that
which it is not law-
ful to do upon the
sabbath.
(3) But he said
unto them, Have ye
not read what David
did, when he was an
hungred, and they
that were with him ;
(4) How he en-
tered into the house
of God, and did
(some anc. auth. and
2 For note see page 348.
Lk. vi. i4 (R.V.)
(1) Now it came
to pass on a (many
anc. auth. insert
second-first) sabbath,
that he was going
through the corn-
fields; and his dis-
ciples plucked the
ears of corn, and did
eat, rubbing them
in their hands.
(2) But certain
of the Pharisees said,
Why do ye that
which it is not law-
ful to do on the
sabbath day ?
(3) And Jesus
answering them said,
Have ye not read
even this, what
David did, when he
was an hungred, he,
and they that were
with him ;
(4) How he en-
tered into the house
347 (Mark ii. 23 iii. 6)
JESUS AND THE SABBATH
Abiathar was high priest." Jerome calls attention to the
that the high priest at the time was "not Abiathar but Ahii
lech, the same that was afterwards put to death with the rest
of the priests by Doeg at the command of Saul 3 "; and he
regards Mark as having made an error here like the error in
the opening of his Gospel, where he has attributed words of
Malachi to Isaiah.
These facts explain why Matthew and Luke omitted the
phrase, but they do not explain why Mark inserted it. Tl
error is not like that of briefly attributing to Isaiah two
prophecies combined together of which the second alone is
Isaiah's 4 . And the hypothesis of error does not explain why
any high priest's name should be inserted at all, since the event
would be known without such insertion to everyone whom
Jesus was addressing. A better explanation is, first, that
Abiathar became high priest after the eating of the shewbread,
secondly, that he is frequently connected in Scripture with
Mt. xii. i4 (R.V.)
(contd.)
they did) eat the
shewbread, which it
was not lawful for
him to eat, neither
for them that were
with him, but only
for the priests?
Lk. vi. i4 (R.V.)
(contd.)
of God, and did take
and eat the shew-
bread, and gave also
to them that were
with him; which it
is not lawful to eat
save for the priests
alone ?
Mk ii. 23^6 (R.V.)
(contd.)
house of God when
Abiathar was high
priest (some anc.
auth. in the days
of Abiathar the high
priest), and did eat
the shewbread,
which it is not law-
ful to eat save for
the priests, and gave
also to them that
were with him ?
2 On Lk. vi. i "rubbing them in their hands," see Hor. Heb.
On ib. R.V. marg. "second-first," see Jerome Epist. lii. 8 "My
teacher, Gregory of Nazianzus, when I once asked him to explain
Luke's phrase o-dfB/SaTov devTepoirpwTov, that is 'the second-first Sab-
bath,' playfully evaded my request saying: 'I will tell you about
it in church, and there, when all the people applaud me, you will be
forced against your will to know what you do not know at all. For,
if you alone remain silent, every one will put you down for a fool.' '
3 Jerome Epist. Ivii. 9, referring to i S. xxi. i, xxii. 16 18.
4 Mk i. 13.
348 (Mark ii. 23 iii. 6)
JESUS AND THE SABBATH
the "ephod," or divine oracle, consulted by David. Home
Hebraicae says, "it was common to the Jews, under ' Abiathar,'
to understand 'the Urim and Thummim.'' Adopting this
explanation, Horae Hebraicae paraphrases Mark as follows :
"David ate the shewbread given him by the high priest, who
had the oracle by Urim and Thummim present with him, and
who acted by the divine direction 1 /' This view identifying
the traditional "ephod- wearer" with "divine direction" may
be illustrated from Hosea, who prophesied that a time would
come when Israel should be "without king and without
prince . . . and without ephod " ; and Ezra and Nehemiah speak
of referring a knotty question about pedigree to a time when
it could be oracularly solved by "a priest with Urim and
Thummim' 2 '."
If this explanation is correct, we are to suppose that the
original Gospel described Jesus as alleging an argument that
would appeal to the "scribes," who declared that Christ must
be "the son of David 3 " ; and as defending His followers against
the charge of violating the sanctity of God's holy day by
pleading the precedent of David himself, who violated the
sanctity of God's holy bread. It was to be eaten by none
but priests. Yet David took it for his followers, and it is
implied that he did this with the sanction of Abiathar, who
was not only his friend and counsellor, but also afterwards
high priest, and who, more than any other character in scrip-
ture, was connected with the oracular "ephod," or "Urim and
1 HOY. Heb. quotes Sanhedr. 16 b "Benaiah, the son of Jehoiada,
that is, the Sanhedrim; Abiathar, that is, Urim and Thummim."
This is repeated in Berach. 3 b. Sanhedr. 95 b says that, if Abiathar
had not been saved from destruction, David's descendants, too,
would have been destroyed. After Abiathar, there is scarcely any
mention of the oracular ephod. R.V. marg. explains Exod. xxviii.
30 "the Urim and the Thummim" as "The Lights and the Per-
fections."
2 Hos. iii. 4, Ezr. ii. 63, Nehem. vii. 65.
3 Mk xii. 35, Mt. xxii. 42, Lk. xx. 41.
349 (Mark ii. 23 iii. 6)
JESUS AND THE SABBATH
Thummim." Accepting this explanation, we easily understand
that beside the anachronism in calling Abiathar "high
priest" the allusion to what may be called his oracular
character would be too technical and too indirect to be under-
stood by the generality of Gentiles. Matthew and Luke
therefore would naturally omit it. But then, in accordance
with our rule, we are bound to ask, "Does John insert any-
thing corresponding to it?"
2. Does John intervene ?
John omits the whole story about the disciples picking wheat
on the sabbath. His narratives of Christ's two alleged infrac-
tions of the sabbath are both connected with acts of healing.
Neither of these gives occasion for any mention of the irregular
feeding on the shewbread. But both of them give us occasion
for asking whether John recognised the existence of some
special divine revelation to the Son in this or that instance of
healing. Did John find in the Marcan mention of "Abiathar"
as representing "Urim and Thummim," some suggestion of a
principle underlying those exceptional cases where Jesus was
alleged to have broken the sabbath? Not many of these are
recorded in any Gospel. On very many sabbaths, and in very
many synagogues, there must have been sufferers in Christ's
presence whom (we may presume) He made no attempt to
heal. What dictated His exceptional action ? Did Jesus know
beforehand from His own knowledge, or did He perceive at
the moment from His own perception, the necessity that He
should work this or that sign of healing, with the certainty
that He should offend the Jews? Or did He perceive it from
a special perception a perception that He recognised to be, in
some sense, not His own, but of the nature of an "oracle"?
The answer in the Fourth Gospel given by Jesus, after
performing His first sabbath-work of healing, is "The Son can
do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do .... For
the Father loveth the Son and sheweth him all things that
350 (Mark ii. 23 iii. 6)
JESUS AND THE SABBATH
himself doeth 1 ." In other words, the Son has no need of an
"oracle," or of an Abiathar with Urim and Thummim, that is
to say, "Lights" and "Perfections." The Father Himself is
His "Abiathar." And here we may note that a Jew would
find an allusion to "Father" in the name "Abiathar," which
Jerome renders ''Father overflowing' 1 ." Also, in the preface
to the second sabbath-work of healing, the healing of the man
born blind, a Jew might find a thought of the ancient oracle.
For Jesus says that the man must needs be healed "that the
works of God should be made manifest in him .... I am the light
of the world 3 ." In the mouth of a Jewish Messiah, the words
"I am the Ur" that is, the Light, suggest that in Him the
ancient "oracle" of the "Urim" or Lights, was fulfilled or
superseded.
This discussion does not assume that the name "Abiathar"
was actually uttered by Jesus, or even that it was part of the
tradition that Mark, Matthew, and Luke had, in common.
Mark may have introduced it by error. All that is here
assumed is that John found the name established in Mark
and probably used against Christians as a proof of the Evan-
gelist's inaccuracy. Starting from these assumptions, and
working on the hypothesis of Johannine intervention, we have
endeavoured to shew how, even here, where John has not a
single word peculiar to him and Mark, the Marcan tradition
may have left its trace on the Johannine thought and expression.
1 Jn v. 19 20. See above, pp. 225, 248, 268, 270.
2 Onomast. p. 34 "pater superfluus." Eusebius has (ib. p. 186)
Kevov (v. r. r)v) which I cannot explain (even if it is meant for
Katvov}. For "Abiezrite" rendered by LXX "father of Ezri," see
Judg. vi. n, 24 and comp. viii. 32 (A).
3 Jn ix. 3 5. It is interesting to compare the Johannine " / am
the light of the world " with the Matthaean (v. 14) "Ye are the light
of the world" (omitted in the parallel Lk. xiv. 34 foil.). Jesus
certainly did not say the former. Possibly He did not say the latter.
But He meant both. He felt that the Spirit within Him, the Spirit
of Sonship and Brotherhood, was "the light of the world," and, if
His disciples were not this light, they were not His.
351 (Mark ii. 23 iii. 6)
JESUS AND THE SABBATH
3. "The sabbath was made for man," in Mark
The Synoptists all agree that Jesus said "The Son of man
is lord of the sabbath 1 ." But they differ as to what precedes
the saying. Mark and Matthew regard it as a conclusion
arising out of previous words of Jesus. Luke regards it as a
separate saying.
Mark inserts "so that" in such a -way as to prepare us to
expect, in what precedes, some statement about the Son of
Man, such as " The Son of Man was in God's thought when He
appointed the first sabbath." But, instead of that, we find a
statement about "man": "The sabbath was made for man,
and not man for the sabbath : so that the Son of man. . ."
Matthew inserts something different, perhaps feeling that
not "man" pure and simple, but man representing God, man
as a "priest," was intended : "the priests in the temple profane
the sabbath and are guiltless." Then he adds as if to shew
that the Son of Man is a very much greater person than a
"man" or even than a "priest" "I say unto you that one
1 Mk ii. 27 8
(27) And he
said unto them, The
sabbath was made
for man, and not
man for the sabbath :
(28) So that the
Son of man is lord
even of the sabbath.
Mt. xii. 58
(5) Or have ye
not read in the law,
how that on the
sabbath day the
priests in the temple
profane the sabbath,
and are guiltless?
(6) But I say
unto you, that one
greater (lit. a greater
thing) than the tem-
ple is here.
(7) But if ye
had known what this
meaneth, I desire
mercy, and not sacri-
fice, ye would not
have condemned the
guiltless.
(8) For the Son
of man is lord of
the sabbath.
Lk. vi. 5
(5) And he
said unto them, The
Son of man is lord
of the sabbath. [This
follows "not lawful
to eat save for the
priests alone."]
352 (Mark ii. 23 iii. 6)
JESUS AND THE SABBATH
greater than the temple is here." But further, he seems to
feel that the character of this Person "one greater than the
temple/' who can override even the sabbath ought to be
suggested by something more than the official "priest." So
he adds a warning about the God who presides over the
Temple and who says "I desire kindness and not sacrifice 1 ."
In reality, however, the tradition peculiar to Mark needs
no alteration. It is in accordance with the nobler type of
Jewish tradition which said to Israel, "The sabbath is de-
livered to you and not you to the sabbath," where the context
indicates that the sabbath may be broken for the saving of life 2 .
And if we find a want of sequence in Mark's argument from
"man" to "the Son of man," that is perhaps our fault,
because we have read into the latter appellation a technical
and official signification that it did not have in Christ's lips.
Later on, His disciples took Son of Man to mean a Person
raised far above humanity. But Jesus used it to mean a
Person representing humanity. We may call it "the character
of the Son of Adam," if we remember that the appellation,
1 Hos. vi. 6 e'Xeos, "kindness," see Son 3495 c, 3566 a, comp.
Notes 2840* a foil. These words of Hosea are said to have been
quoted by R. Jochanan ben Zakkai to console a disciple of his who
mourned over the fall of Jerusalem as if the Temple were the only
means of making propitiation for sins (Aboth R.N. iv, referred to by
Taylor on Aboth i. 2). Jochanan said "We still have the bestowal of
kindnesses (Hos. vi. 6)." Aboth R.N. iv also quotes Ps. Ixxxix. 2,
which the Targum renders "The world will be built up with kindness "
(Walton "aedificatus est," by error).
2 See Mechilt. on Exod. xxxi. 13 quoted in Son 3171. It is also
found in Joma 856. The word for "deliver" is mdsar, IT a pad i'Sa>/u,
used (Levy iii. 177 8) to mean (inter alia) " delivering-up " fugitives
to their enemies, or to the government, and hence applied to "in-
formers" or "betrayers." Hence "ye are not delivered up to the
sabbath" might very well be a maxim in the mouth of Mattathias
(i Mace. ii. 39 42) urging his countrymen, when contending against
their oppressors, not to sacrifice their lives to a literal observance of
the rule against bearing any burden (e.g. weapons) on the sabbath
(see I. Abrahams, M.A., Cambridge Biblical Essays, p. 186).
A. P. 353 (Mark ii. 23 iii. 6) 23
JESUS AND THE SABBATH
besides including every human being, may also be typically
and mystically used of that particular Son of Adam (that
second or last Adam, as Paul says) whom subsequently
Christians recognised as remedying, in the Redemption, the
evil inflicted in the Fall.
The ninety-second Psalm, entitled in the Bible "A Psalm,
a Song for the Sabbath Day," is entitled in the Targum "The
psalm and song that was spoken by Adam of old (i.e. the first
Adam, or the first Man) concerning the sabbath day." This
leads us to see how Jews of spiritual minds might regard the
sabbath as not made for Israel alone, nor as introduced to
mankind for the first time through the Law of Moses. It was
God's gift to Adam, for him and for the Sons of Adam after
him. Adam fell. But it would be reserved for a Son of Adam
in later days to reverse the Fall and to re-institute a sabbath,
or sabbatical aeon, of spiritual rest. Such a doctrine as this is
certainly found in Paul. It is also certainly not found in any
passages hitherto alleged from the Talmuds. We may there-
fore infer that Paul derived it from mystical Christian tradition,
such as Christ Himself might teach, but such as would not be
taught, in His days, by any prosaic Rabbi, and would be
discouraged, after His days, by all Rabbis, as belonging to
" the doctrine of the Nazarenes 1 ."
4. Does John intervene ?
If the rule of Johannine Intervention required that John
should represent Jesus as somewhere saying, "the sabbath was
made for man," then we should have to confess that the rule
is broken. Jesus does not say this either in the first Johannine
sabbath-healing, the one at Bethesda, or in the second, that of
the man born blind. In the former we are told that, when
the Jews "persecuted Jesus" because He did these things on
the sabbath, Jesus answered them, "My Father is working
1 See Son 3021, 3478.
354 (Mark ii. 23 iii. 6)
JESUS AND THE SABBATH
[every moment] until this-moment. And [so] I, too, work 1 ."
In the latter Jesus says, "We must work the works of him
that sent me while it is day; the night cometh when no
man can work. When I am in the world I am the light of the
world 2 ."
In neither case does Jesus mention the sabbath 3 . In the
former, He speaks as if He were the Son, or the Word, through
whom all things were made by the Father, and through whom
also all things are being continually sustained and vitalised,
so that He, too, the Son, must be continually working. In
the latter, if the text is correct 4 , He associates Himself with
fellow-workers ("we (emph.) must work") and speaks as one
"sent" into the world for a limited time soon to be broken off
by "night," when "no man can work." The great difference
between the two passages makes it all the more remarkable
that in both there is the same ignoring of sabbath-obstacles
to an act of healing. But as regards Johannine intervention
in favour of Mark, we cannot say more than this, that the two
passages together represent Jesus as indirectly teaching that
about the sabbath, as about any other six days of the week,
a disciple of His was bound to act on the rule "We must work
the works of him that sent me while it is day 5 ."
1 Jn v. 17. 2 Jn ix. 4 5.
3 He mentions it, however, between the two narratives, in
vii. 22 3.
4 See Joh. Gr. 2428 b e.
5 Comp. Jn xi. 9 10 "Are there not twelve hours in the day?
If a man walk in the day he stumbleth not. . .but if a man walk
in the night he stumbleth." The context (ib. 7 n) raises the
question whether Jesus shall go to Lazarus in Judaea where the
Jews were lately "seeking to stone" Him that He may "awake
him out of sleep," i.e. restore him to life. Jesus seems to imply that
a man cannot "stumble" when he acts in the daylight of the con-
sciousness that he is doing the Father's beneficent will towards a
brother man. The word here meaning "stumble," lit. "dash [the
foot] against," Trpoo-KOTrrco (apart from Mt. vii. 27 of the "dashing" of
rain and floods and wind) occurs in the Gospels only here and in
355 (Mark ii. 23 iii. 6) 23 2
JESUS AND THE SABBATH
5. Jesus proceeding to heal on the sabbath
The texts given below describe Christ's first Synoptic
sabbath-healing 1 . All agree that it is in the synagogue. Mark
Mt. iv. 6, Lk. iv. n quoted by Satan from Ps. xci. 12 "lest thou
dash thy foot against a stone," where Origen ad loc. says "The
'foot' is the soul, the 'stone' is sin." Comp. Pesikt. sect. 16 (Wii.
p. 173) on brotherhood. There Joseph says to his brothers
trembling because they had persecuted him " The day has twelve
hours, the night has twelve hours, the year has twelve months. ..."
as though " twelve " were a part of God's beneficent order, illustrating
the Law of Brotherhood. Brotherhood, the context says, is ex-
pressed, not in Cain, Ishmael, and Esau, but in Joseph. Wiinsche
adds, from Debarim r. sect. 4, " How can I become the enemy of my
father ? Did he give you life and shall I give you death ? "
John differs from Pesikta in making "night" not parallel, but
antithetical, to "day." He suggests a thought similar to that in
Ps. civ. 23 "Man goeth forth unto his work. . .until the evening."
There "man," the Worker, is contrasted with (ib. 20) "the beasts
of the forest" "creeping forth" to seek their prey. Comp. Lk. xxii.
53 " this is your hour " and Jn xiii. 30 " it was night." Chrysostom's
two explanations of Jn xi. 9 10 will be discussed when the doctrine
about "offence," <Tnava\ov, and "stumbling," Trpoo-Ko/^a, comes
before us in its order. Having regard to the rare use of TTPOO-KOTTTU
in the LXX, we may reasonably suppose that John is alluding to
Ps. xci. 12 as if Jesus said "There is no need of Gabriel or Michael
to prevent you from 'stumbling.' 'Go forth' to your 'work until
the evening,' like Man, the child of God, working for God's other
children. Employ the daylight of God's 'twelve hours.' Walk in
the light of the Light of the World. Then you will not 'stumble.' '
Concerning the man that "walks" thus the Johannine Epistle says
(i Jn ii. 10) "He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and in
him offence has no existence (o-KavSaXov tv aurw OVK
1 Mk iii. i6 (R.V.)
(1) And he en-
tered again into
the synagogue ; and
there was a man
there which had his
hand withered.
(2) And they
watched him, whe-
ther he would heal
Mt. xii. 914 (R.V.)
(9) And he de-
parted thence, and
went into their syn-
agogue :
(10) And be-
hold, a man having
a withered hand.
And they asked him,
saying, Is it lawful
356 (Mark ii. 23
Lk. vi. 6 IT (R.V.)
(6) And it
came to pass on
another sabbath,
that he entered into
the synagogue and
taught : and there
was a man there, and
his right hand was
withered.
JESUS AND THE SABBATH
(followed by Matthew) says that "they'' watched Jesus, or
questioned Him, to see whether He would heal on the sabbath
without telling us exactly who "they" are. Matthew, having
previously mentioned "their synagogue" (Mk ["the"] 1 , Lk.
"the") may claim to have indicated that "they" means "the
rulers of the synagogue." But in Mark, we cannot tell at
once whether "they" means "people" a sense in which Mark
Mk iii. i6 (R.V.)
(contd.)
him on the sabbath
day ; that they
might accuse him.
(3) And he
saith unto the man
that had his hand
withered, Stand forth
(lit. Arise into the
midst) .
(4) And he
saith unto them, Is
it lawful on the sab-
bath day to do good,
or to do harm? to
save a life, or to
kill ? But they held
their peace.
(5) And when
he had looked round
about on them with
anger, being grieved
at the hardening of
their heart, he saith
unto the man,
Stretch forth thy
hand. And he
stretched it forth :
and his hand was
restored.
(6) And the
Pharisees went out,
and straightway with
the Herodians took
counsel against him,
how they might de-
strov him.
Mt. xii. 914 (R.V.)
(contd.)
to heal on the sab-
bath day ? that they
might accuse him.
(IT) And he
said unto them,
What man shall
there be of you, that
shall have one sheep,
and if this fall into
a pit on the sabbath
day, will he not lay
hold on it and lift
it out ?
(12) How much
then is a man of
more value than a
sheep ! Wherefore it
is lawful to do good
on the sabbath day.
(13) Then saith
he to the man,
Stretch forth thy
hand. And he
stretched it forth ;
and it was restored
whole, as the other.
(14) But the
Pharisees went out,
and took counsel
against him, how
they might destroy
him.
1 In Mk iii. i, W.H. om. "the" before
Lk. vi. 6 ii (R.V.)
(contd.)
(7) And the
scribes and the
Pharisees watched
him, whether he
would heal on the
sabbath; that they
might find how to
accuse him.
(8) But he
knew their thoughts ;
and he said to the
man that had his
hand withered, Rise
up, and stand forth
in the midst. And
he arose and stood
forth.
(9) And Jesus
said unto them, I
ask you, Is it lawful
on the sabbath to do
good, or to do harm ?
to save a life, or to
destroy it?
(10) And he
looked round about
on them all, and said
unto him, Stretch
forth thy hand. And
he did [so] : and his
hand was restored.
(n) But they
were filled with mad-
ness (or, foolishness) ;
and communed one
with another what
they might do to
Jesus,
synagogue," see below,
P- 373-
357 (Mark ii. 23 iii. 6)
JESUS AND THE SABBATH
frequently uses "they" or whether it means the small group
of officials of the synagogue. Luke says it was "the scribes
and the Pharisees," that is to say, the official group (which
would include any visitors of official position).
We are helped to understand why these men " watched''
Jesus by a preceding passage in Luke, just before the healing
of the paralytic: "He was teaching, and there were Pharisees
and doctors of the law sitting by... and the power of the
Lord was that he should heal 1 ." That day happened not to be
a sabbath, so that no charge of sabbath-breaking could be on
that occasion brought against Jesus. But Luke gives us the
impression that at certain times, more than at others, "the
power of the Lord" might be felt by Jesus impelling Him to
acts of healing. Thus Luke prepares us for inferring that
whenever Jesus saw a sick man before Him, and felt this special
"power of the Lord" upon Him, He would in that same hour
heal the man, sabbath or no sabbath. "The scribes and
Pharisees" might also perceive this, from the signs of com-
passion in His countenance, and from other indications that
He was preparing to act. If so, we can understand that they
"watched" Jesus, and even that they prearranged the presence,
and perhaps the prominent presence, of the suffering man. for
the purpose of convicting Him of sabbath-breaking.
Jesus, when He saw the sick man thus placed before Him,
and when, at the same instant, He recognised the presence of
"the power of the Lord that he should heal," perceived that
He was in what the world would call "a trap." Heal the man
He must; and, in healing him, He would probably have on
His side not only all His disciples but also a large number of
the congregation. But that would not avail Him against the
enmity of the whole body of the scribes and Pharisees. Though
He knew that He could do in an instant for this sufferer what
1 Lk. v. 17 (lit.) "and the power of the Lord was [tending] to
his healing."
358 (Mark ii. 23 iii. 6)
JESUS AND THE SABBATH
He had previously done for the paralytic, He determines first
to make a direct appeal to the common sense of humanity in
these officials, asking them (as it were) to let Him do this good
deed with their good will, and to open their hearts to it as a
revelation of God's kindness.
The situation appears to have been somewhat like another,
described by Luke alone, where "the ruler of the synagogue"
and the "adversaries" of Jesus are on one side and "the multi-
tude" on another. There, Jesus heals "a daughter of Abra-
ham" on the sabbath. The ruler "had indignation and said
to the multitude, There are six days on which men ought to
work." Jesus felt that the attack proceeded from the " adver-
saries " as a whole and replied not to the "ruler" alone but
to them, "Ye hypocrites," alleging the common-sense inference
of humanity from the kind treatment of beasts to the kind
treatment of men. The result was, Luke says, "All his adver-
saries were put to shame; and all the multitude rejoiced for all
the glorious things that were done by him 1 ."
In the present instance, the first instance of sabbath-
healing, there is this important difference that Jesus, standing
as it were at the parting of the ways, asks the Pharisees whether
they will not go with Him, on the way of kindness. And He
waits for their answer. To have in His hands, as He has, the
power of giving life, and yet to give no life, might seem to Him
like giving death like "killing." It is hyperbole, but Mark
ventures on it "Is it lawful... to save a life or to kill' 2 '!"
Matthew shrinks from it. Luke follows Mark. Luke does not,
however, add Mark's next words "But they held their peace."
Perhaps Luke thought that they were unnecessary since
Christ's question was rhetorical and not intended to have an
answer. But if it was not rhetorical and was intended to have
an answer, then we can realise that Mark's addition has a
bearing on what follows. For if Jesus gave the scribes and
1 Lk. xiii. 14 17. 2 Mk iii. 4.
359 (Mark ii. 23 iii. 6)
JESUS AND THE SABBATH
Pharisees time to answer, and if they remained silent, we may
infer that they did so because they wished to render Him open
to future accusations on some convenient occasion, and yet to
avoid committing themselves to immediate unpopularity with
the multitude expectant of a miracle by saying definitely
"It is not lawful to heal on the sabbath." Yet even to the
multitude, and assuredly to the right-minded among them, as
well as to Christ's avowed disciples, such a silence must have
caused indignation mingled with regret that a rupture seemed
imminent between the new Teacher and the recognised teachers
of the Law. This will have to be borne in mind when we
attempt to explain Mark's next words, rendered by R.V. but
not quite satisfactorily "And when he had looked round about
on them with anger, being grieved at the hardness of their
heart 1 ."
6. Jesus "being grieved" (R.V.), in Mark
The Greek word translated by R.V. "being grieved" occurs
nowhere in N.T. except here. In Greek literature, so far as
hitherto alleged, it means "share in grief," "grieve out of
sympathy " as when Plutarch says that we ought to seek the
society of manly natures, "not such as grieve out of sympathy
and stir up lamentations for flattery's sake, but such as take
away griefs by noble and solemn consolation 2 ." If it has that
meaning here, it would seem to mean that Jesus felt mingled
grief and indignation grief in sympathy with His followers,
but indignation because of His failure to touch the hearts of
1 Mk iii. 5.
2 Plut. Mor. ii. Iiy F dvdpda-i ^ rots (rv\\v7rovp.evois KOL diyfipov<ri
ra TT(vdr) 8ia Ko\aKfiav. It occurs twice in LXX, Ps. Ixix. 20 "I
awaited a sympathizer (crvX^wn-ovpevov)," Is. li. 19 "who will sym-
pathize with thee (TIS a-oi o-vXXvTrT^orrai;) ?" Aristotle says (Eth.
Nic. ix. ii med.) "manly natures avoid making their friends grieve
with them (evXaftovvrai o-vXXwrrflv rovs c^iAovs 1 avrols)." So Steph.
Thcs., but ed. Weise o-uAXuTrdo-tfai...^'!?).
360 (Mark ii. 23 iii. 6)
JESUS AND THE SABBATH
the Pharisees. The congregation, and some of His own dis-
ciples, were likely to be grieved by the refusal of the Pharisees
to respond to His appeal, and He was "grieved along with
them." Both He and they were also grieved at the hardness
of heart of the official class; but it cannot be said that they
shared in the feelings of the officials (much less, in any "grief"
of theirs).
The distinction however is not clear in Mark between the
officials and the congregation. Luke suggests the distinction
by two insertions. First, he says that it was only "the scribes
and Pharisees" that "watched" Jesus; secondly, he says that
Jesus "looked round about on them all" before He pronounced
the words of healing. These insertions hardty suffice for
perfect clearness. But, taken along with the healing of the
"daughter of Abraham" above described, they indicate that
we must make a distinction, not made by Mark, between two
classes in the synagogue, namely, the rulers and the multitude.
The hearts of the former were hardened; the latter were
indignant and distressed. Jesus sympathized with the distress
and was indignant at the hardening.
In accordance with this view we shall be able to interpret
"them" in Mark's looked round about on "them" as not
referring to the officials but to the sympathetic congregation
called by Luke "all." And this will accord with the Marcan
use in other instances where Jesus "looks round on those
about him," or "looks round" in the presence of His disciples,
after something has happened of a nature to disturb and shake
their faith, before He proceeds to reassure them 1 .
There is nothing in the Fourth Gospel that directly and
verbally illustrates Mark's use of this special word expressing
"sympathetic grief." But in thought John dramaticalty
expresses the Marcan "sympathy" when he describes Jesus
1 Mk ill. 34 Trepi^Xf^ap-fvos rovs Trepi avrov KVK\& Kadij/jLevovs, X. 23
/iei/os 1 6 'Irjo-ovs Xe'yei roiy fj-adijTals avrov. nepi/SXeVopcu does not
occur in N.T. except in Mark (and in Lk. vi. 10 following Mark).
361 (Mark ii. 23 iii. 6)
JESUS AND THE SABBATH
in the presence of Mary the sister of Lazarus, and tells us that
when He saw her weeping and the Jews weeping, He Himself
" wept 1 ."
7. " At the hardening of their heart," in Mark
Mark and John are the only Evangelists that use this
peculiar word for "hardening," applied (either as a noun or as
a verb) to the " heart." It has nothing to do with " hardening "
in the sense of obstinacy or stubbornness (as in the "hardening"
of the " heart " of Pharaoh). Literally, and medically, it means
"callousness," or "stony nature" in Greek, porosis such as
attacks the human frame. The Thesaurus quotes Aristotle
as saying that "blood, when corrupted, becomes matter, and,
from matter, poros, i.e. callous or chalky substance." The
Thesaurus also quotes Isaiah as saying "He hath blinded their
eyes and made-callous their heart 2 ." But these words are not
in Isaiah (whether Greek or Hebrew). They are only in John's
paraphrase of Isaiah, where the Evangelist sums up the reasons
why " they [i.e. Israel as a whole] were not able to believe."
The words in Isaiah are "Make fat the heart of this people."
What led John to paraphrase them thus?
The LXX does not elsewhere use porosis, "hardening,"
either as a noun or as a verb, except as a doubtful rendering
of "dim-sighted" (lit. "faint" or "dim" applied to the eye) 3 .
1 Jn xi. 33 5 K\aiovcrav...K\movTas...f8dKpvo-v. Jesus (Rom. xii.
15) " weeps with them that weep." In Luke (xix. 41) Jesus "weeps,"
not "with," but "over," Jerusalem. Jerusalem does not weep.
2 See Steph. Thes., on -n-wpos, 2302, quoting Aristot. H.A. iii. 19,
and 2303, quoting "Esai. 6, [lo] Terv^AtoKei/ alrwv rovs ofpdaXfjiOvs Kal
TTfTTwpaxfv (sic) avT&v TTJV Kapdiav...." But the words occur only
in Jn xii. 40. Isaiah has "make fat," LXX eiraxvvffrj "was made
fat." Comp. above, pp. 227 8.
3 Job xvii. 7 "mine eye is dim," TreTrwpwj/rat, but AN 2 TrtTr^pcoi/rat
and Aq., Theod., Sym. rjfj.avpa)6rjaav. fit occurs as an error in Prov.
x. 20, TreTToipcofjifvos for 7T67rv/>a>fieVos.] In the Apostolic Fathers and
early Apologists the only instances of 7ro>po&> etc. are Herm. Mand.
362 (Mark ii. 23 iii. 6)
JESUS AND THE SABBATH
But a saying is preserved by Athenaeus that, in certain cir-
cumstances, an incision does not cause sensation, "by reason
of the flesh, which was made-callous owing to its fat 1 ." Now
the Targum on Isaiah ("make-fat the heart") paraphrases
"make-fat" by "make-gross" using a word that in Hebrew
occurs only once, as follows: "The proud have forged a lie
against me. . .their heart is as gross as grease, but I delight in
thy law. It is good for me that I have been afflicted, that I
might learn thy statutes 2 ."
This helps us to understand not only Isaiah's meaning but
also its radical connection with the doctrine of Christ, and
also, at the same time, the verbal obstacles in the way of
teachers from the East endeavouring to expound the doctrine
to learners in the West. To a Greek, Isaiah's "fattening the
heart" was an unintelligible metaphor. All the Synoptists
omit it in connection with the Parable of the Sower when
they represent Jesus as using language based on Isaiah's
utterance; and John paraphrases it 3 . But the thought of
Israel as Dives, faring sumptuously at the Table of the Law
and "fattening" his heart, while the Gentile Lazarus waits
for the crumbs outside the door, pervades the close of the
argumentative portion of the Epistle to the Romans 4 . Later
IV. 2 f) Kap8ia p.ov TTf Troop car a i, Lat. " excaecatum, " xii. 4 TTJV Kapdiav avTcov
TTC TT (opcode vTj i/, Lat. "obtusum." The Lat. transl. perhaps took the Gk
as implying "a cataract," so to speak, of "the heart." There was
also a natural tendency to substitute mjpoa), a word implying general
disablement, for the difficult 7rcopoo> implying particular disablement.
1 See Steph. Thes. vi. 2303 quoting Athenaeus xii. 549 B, quoted
more fully by Wetstein (on Mk vi. 52) VTTO rfjs ireTrcopw/jifvrjs e TOV
(TTearo s aapK 6s.
2 Ps. cxix. 69 71.
3 Mk iv. 12, Mt. xiii. 14, Lk. viii. 10; Jn xii. 40 uses eVeop&xrei/.
Mt. xiii. 15 appends a correct quotation of Isaiah (LXX) with
fTraxvvdr). Comp. above, pp. 227 8.
4 Rom. xi. 7 25 "The rest [of Israel] were made-callous [in
heart] . . . a spirit of stupor .... Let their table be made a snare . . . the
fatness (nioTrjros) of the olive tree. . .a callousness [of heart] in part
363 (Mark ii. 23 iii. 6)
JESUS AND THE SABBATH
on Mark uses it twice, once in his own person, but once ii
words of Jesus Himself, implying that even Christ's o>
disciples were not free from this fault, and, in both instance
connecting the word with the Feeding of the Five Thousand 1 .
We may conclude from these facts that in this deliberal
antagonism of the scribes and the Pharisees to sabbath-
healing Jesus recognised that same antagonism of Israel to
the Spirit of Jehovah which had been predicted to Isaiah
during his vision of the Lord in the Temple. The word
"callousness" is to be taken as a key-word. By it Mark says,
as it were, to his readers, "Note this word. For at this
moment Jesus began to recognise that ' a callousness in part '
had befallen Israel, and that, as Paul said afterwards, ' That
which Israel seeketh for... the election obtained it and the
rest were made callous 2 .' "
hath befallen Israel." Such "callousness" may be the insolent
callousness of the oppressor whose eyes (Ps. Ixxiii. 7) "stand out
with fatness," or of sensual Gentiles (Eph. iv. 18 19) "alienated
from the life of God. . .because of the callousness of their heart" so
that they "work all uncleanness with greediness." But it may be
also the callousness of Israel, selfishly exulting as God's favourites,
and hence regarding Him as a God that favours unjustly, a Respecter
of Persons, whence (2 Cor. iii. 14 15) "their minds were made
callous. . .a veil lieth upon their heart."
1 (i) Mk vi. 52 "for they had not understood (avvrJKav) in the
matter of (eVi) the loaves ; but their heart was in-a-state-of-callousness
(aXX' jji/ avT&v 17 KapSi'a TTfTrcopw/ieV^) " om. in parall. Mt. xiv. 33. Luke
omits the whole narrative. (2) Mk viii. 17 Tren-copco/xeVjyi/ ex ere "7"
Kapftiav vfj.wv ; (om. in parall. Mt. xvi. 9).
2 May we infer from this narrative, and from Mark's subsequent
non-mention of "synagogue" except in vi. 2 (of Nazareth) and in
words of Christ that Jesus henceforth gave up teaching "in syna-
gogue"? Probably not. When Mark says (vi. 6) irepirjyfv ras KCO/ZO?
StSao-Kcoi/, Matthew (ix. 35) adds TroXfis and eV rms- a-vvaywyms
and Luke (xiii. 22) adds TrdXfiy. It seems probable that
the "teaching," mentioned by them all, was often in synagogues.
Comp. also Jn vi. 59, xviii. 20.
364 (Mark ii. 23 iii. 6)
JESUS AND THE SABBATH
8. " The Herodians" in Mark
Mark mentions "the Herodians" or "leaven of Herod'
thrice : (i) here (where Matthew and Luke omit the term) ;
(2) "the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod,"
Matthew "the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees," Luke
"the leaven, which is hypocrisy, of the Pharisees 1 " ; (3) "they
send some of the Pharisees and of the Herodians," Matthew
"they [i.e. the Pharisees] send to him their disciples with the
Herodians," Luke "they sent spies, hypocritically-pretending
that they were righteous" 21 " These facts point to an original
name for " Herodians ," such as "men of the Hypocrite" or
men of some type that might include both Sadducees and
Herodians, e.g. "men of the Lawless." If that was the origin,
Mark has consistently rendered it "Herodians." Matthew
has first omitted it (perhaps in perplexity), then rendered it
"Sadducees," and then "Herodians." Luke has first omitted
it, then rendered it "hypocrisy," then rendered it "spies hypo-
critically pretending." (i) What Hebrew word, if any, could
have two such different meanings as "hypocrite" and "law-
less"! (2) Could such a word be naturally applied to Herod
Antipas? (3) Is there any evidence that it was so applied?
These three questions we shall now attempt to answer.
The word "hypocrite" is used twice by LXX, and four
times elsewhere by Aquila and Theodotion 3 . In all these
passages the Hebrew is one word, chdneph. It is rendered by
R.V. "godless." But in LXX it is rendered (inter alia) "law-
less " "impious" "law-breaking," "hypocrite" and "pollute-by-
murder*." Levy says that the radical meaning of chdneph is
1 Mk viii. 15, Mt. xvi. 6, Lk. xii. i.
2 Mk xii. 13, Mt. xxii. 16; Lk. XX. 2O aTreVretXav cViea&Yovff viro-
Kptvo/j-evovs favrovs dinaiovs elvai.
3 Job xxxiv. 30, xxxvi. 13, in LXX ; Job xv. 34, xx. 5, Prov. xi. 9,
Is. xxxiii. 14 in Aquila and Theodotion.
4 TrommhlS gives fivop.os (3), do-tftrjs (5), irapavo^os (2), VTTOKpiTrjs (2),
(povoKTovflv (3).
365 (Mark ii. 23 iii. 6)
JESUS AND THE SABBATH
to "change" or "shift," and hence (i) "change one's attitude
by flattering," (2) "change one's religion 1 ." But the only
instance of chdneph in the Pentateuch is connected with
bloodshed: "Ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are;
for blood, it polluteth the land 2 ." It is for the most pj
national pollution pollution of the "land," or "priests," or
" prophets " to which this word refers. A passage in Josephus
declares that the defeat of the army of Herod Antipas by
king Aretas was regarded by many Jews as a judgment for
the murder of John the Baptist 3 . Hence Antipas might
receive a nickname from chdneph as being both ''polluter"
and "polluted*." Such a nickname, even though not given
till after the execution of the Baptist, would naturally colour
the vocabulary of the earliest Evangelists, and even the
language of Christ Himself. There was also another way in
which Herod Antipas might be known as "the chdneph"
Daniel, in a prediction interpreted by Jerome as referring to
the times of the Maccabees under Antiochus Epiphanes, says
"Such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he pollute
(chdneph) by flatteries," meaning "He shall cause them to adopt
the worship and customs of the Greeks 5 ." Antiochus Epiphanes
"polluted" rather more by persecution than by "flatteries";
1 Levy ii. 83 4. Gesen. 337 b connects it with "inclining."
2 Numb. XXXV. 33 (LXX) fyovonrovdv TTJV yr)v (bis). 3>ovoKTOVflv IS
not alleged by Steph. Thes. as occurring earlier.
3 Joseph. Ant. xviii. 5. i 2. The genuineness of the passage has
been assailed. But the omission of Herod's oath indicates that it
is not written by a Christian (as also does the tone of the whole).
4 It may be said that Antipas laid the blame for the execution of
John the Baptist on his "oath." Josephus does not mention the
"oath." Those who called Antipas a "fox" (Lk. xiii. 32) would
not attach much weight to the excuse of the "oath." In 2 K. vi. 32
("this son of a murderer") Elisha assumes that Ahab was Naboth's
"murderer" though it was his wife who, leaving him in nominal
ignorance, actually brought about the murder (i K. xxi. 7 13).
5 Dan. xi. 32 R.V. "pervert," marg. Heb. "make profane,"
comp. i Mace. i. 43 61.
366 (Mark ii. 23 iii. 6)
JESUS AND THE SABBATH
but Daniel's prophetic chdneph would apply well to Herod
Antipas so far as he induced his countrymen to adopt Greek
habits.
The Talmuds apparently make no mention either of
Antipas or of John the Baptist. But in the recently dis-
covered Fragments of a Zadokite Work there is a contrast be-
tween "a teacher of righteousness" and a "man of mocking,"
called also "the commanding one," who is vaguely connected
with the charge of "taking two wives," and who "dropped
to Israel waters of lying." In that work, the Pharisees are
called "they that builded the wall and daubed it with
untempered mortar," and it is said that these (Hos. v. n)
"followed after the commanding one."
I have endeavoured to shew 1 that this "commanding one"
is an appellation of Herod Antipas. But how could " dropping "
(a word applicable rather to prophets) be applied to Antipas?
It seemed to me explicable from a passage in Proverbs saying
"The lips of the strange woman drop honey," which Rashi
regards as the seducing doctrine of " Epicureismus 2 ." Herod
Antipas, as favouring Hellenism, might be said to "drop"
Epicureismus. But now a better, or perhaps a supplementary
explanation suggests itself from the Jerusalem Targum, which
appears to use this word, "drop," concerning the contami-
nating influence of blood-pollution connected with the unique
mention of chdneph in the Law: "Nor contaminate (tdnaph)
ye the land in which ye are, because innocent blood that
hath not been avenged will drop-on (ndtaph) the land 3 ." The
passage at all events illustrates the probabilities of a play
on the words chdneph, "pollute," and ndtaph, "drop."
It should be noted that the Syriac Versions frequently
1 See Light 3996 a e. On "drop," see Gesen. 643 a.
2 See Rashi on Prov. v. 3.
3 Jer. Targ. on Numb. xxxv. 33. I follow Walton's Text (" inun-
dat terram," and so Etheridge). Others repeat tdnaph in the place
of ndtaph.
367 (Mark ii. 23 iii. 6)
JESUS AND THE SABBATH
render "hypocrites," when applied to the Pharisees, "accepters
of persons" (/*/. "accepters with persons, or faces") 1 . This
may be explained as follows. In Greek literature, outside
the LXX, during the first century, hupocntai (our hypocrites)
meant "stage-players" and nothing else. The Syriac trans-
lators therefore interpreted "hupocritai" as "maskers" or
"those that take masks" (since all stage-players wore masks).
But "mask," in Greek as in Latin, was sometimes rendered
by a word (prosopon) that more usually meant "person 2 ."
Now to "take, or accept, persons" was Biblical Hebrew, and
Biblical Greek, for "favour persons," meaning (for the most
part) "judge unjustly 3 ." Hence they inferred, as a correct
rendering of "hypocrites" the phrase "takers, or accepters, of
persons"
But in truth Jesus appears to have applied the term
chdneph to the Pharisees, by no means in the sense of "accepters
of persons," but in that much stronger sense in which Isaiah
and Jeremiah spoke of the nation and the guides and teachers
of the nation, the priests and prophets, as being "polluted"
and "polluters" being practically apostates to what Ezekiel
called the "idols" in their own hearts 4 . It is strong language.
But it is not stronger than that of Francis Bacon: "The great
1 Palest., e.g, Mt. vi. 2, 5, renders it " false-dealers " (Gesen. 1055 b),
Delitzsch has chdneph. SS has "accepters of (lit. with) persons" in
Mt. vi. 2, Gk vrroKptrai; but chdneph in vi. 7 (see Thes. Syr. 1322 on
chdneph), where Curet. has "accepters of persons," Gk eOviicoi. On
"accept with person," see Thes. Syr. 2393 " accepit aliquem secundum
faciem vel personam eius," Trpoa-coTroX^Trreii/.
2 See Steph. Thes. on (i) irpowrrelov "mask" and on (2) Trpoo-^-rrov
"person" used in Attic sometimes for irpo<ra>TTflov. In Latin,
"persona" means primarily "mask," and derivatively "personage,"
" character," " person."
3 Comp. Lev. xix. 15 "Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judg-
ment . . . thou shalt not respect the person (lit. take the person,
TrpocrooTTov) of the poor. ..." Hence Rom. ii. n
"favouritism" and Acts x. 34 Trpoo-caTroA^/zTrr^s-.
4 Ezek. xiv. 3.
368 (Mark ii. 23 iii. 6)
JESUS AND THE SABBATH
atheists indeed are hypocrites, which are ever handling holy
things, but without feeling, so as they must needs be cauterized
in the end 1 /'
9. The absence of technical terms in John
The mention of Herodians or leaven of Herod by Mark, but
not by the parallel Luke who seems to identify it with hypo-
crisy, must be considered, along with the non-mention of
Herodians anywhere by John, as affording a specimen of the
instances where we must not expect Johannine intervention.
John does not favour Mark against Luke. But it should be
added that he does not favour Luke against Mark by a mention
of hypocrisy or hypocrites. Those terms are nowhere used by
John. These Johannine omissions raise a question as to what,
in the Fourth Gospel, corresponds to "hypocrisy" in the Three.
The writer gives us no one term for it but warns us against it
as a Protean evil. It is heart-callousness 2 . It is also the
self-sufficient blindness of the blind who say "We see 3 ."
Again, it may be called the repletion of those who are filled to
satiety with the waters of self-satisfaction so that they have
"no room" for the Water of Life 4 . These are cosmopolitan
thoughts callousness, blindness, and satiety. But "hypo-
crisy" in its Greek verbal form and "leaven" and "Sad-
ducee" and "Herodian," and other terms denoting local and
transient expressions of cosmopolitan evil, are not cosmo-
politan and therefore not Johannine. When the Fourth
Gospel was at last published, the Herods were probably
extinct or near extinction. "Herod the fox 5 " had long ago
lost his tetrarchy in the attempt to become a king 6 , "Herod
1 Essays xvi. 60.
2 Jn xii. 40 (R.V.) "hardened their heart."
3 Jn ix. 41.
4 Jnviii. 37 8. 5 Lk. xiii. 32.
6 Joseph. Ant. xviii. 7. 2.
A. P. 369 (Mark ii. 23 iii. 6) 24
JESUS AND THE SABBATH
the king" i.e. Herod Agrippa I after killing James the
brother of John, had been smitten by an angel of God and
eaten by worms 1 . Herod Agrippa II called by Paul "king
Agrippa" the last of the Herods, who sided with the Romans
in the war that destroyed Jerusalem, died about the end of
the first century 2 .
Perhaps there was some confusion in late first-century
traditions among Christians about the various Herods who rose
up against Christ and Christ's Church, fulfilling the Psalmist's
prophecy about "the kings of the earth 3 ." Justin Martyr
speaks of a Herod as "king of the Jews" at the time when
the LXX was written 4 . He also calls Herod Antipas "king of
the Jews," and refers to Hosea as making a prediction about
him in the words "a present to the king 6 ." Mark himself
was responsible for some such confusion, having begun his
narrative about Herod's oath with the words " Herod the king"
where Matthew and Luke have "Herod the tetrarch*." And
who could say whether the "Herodians" derived their name
from Herod the Great or from Herod Antipas? It is not
surprising that John decided to drop the Herods altogether
especially as Luke had introduced Herod Antipas, just before
the Crucifixion, as playing an important part about which
Mark and Matthew say nothing. In any case John's silence
about them is consistent and complete. For an evangelist
who deals so amply with the acts and words of John the
1 Acts xii. i 23.
2 Schiirer i. i. 92, quoting Photius, Biblioth. cod. 33.
3 Ps. ii. 2, Acts iv. 25 6. Herod the Great, according to Matthew
alone, rose up against the child Jesus. Herod Antipas, according
to Luke alone in the Gospels, "set at naught" the man Jesus; or,
according to Luke in the Acts, Pilate and Herod were "gathered
together" against Christ. See Son 3183 c d.
4 Apol. 31. 6 Tryph. 103, comp. Hos. x. 6.
Mk vi. 14, Mt. xiv. i, Lk. ix. 7. Later on Mt. xiv. 9 (Xvn^els 6
fta(ri\vs) resembles Mk vi. 26 (rreplXvTros yevopevos 6 (3a<ri\fvs), in the
storv of the oath (which is wholly omitted by Luke).
370 (Mark ii. 23 iii. 6)
JESUS AND THE SABBATH
Baptist we might have thought it impossible to suppress the
name of the prince that put him to death. But he does
suppress it. "John," he says, "was not yet cast into prison."
But who imprisoned him, and when, and why, and with what
result about all this he tells us nothing 1 .
1 Jn iii. 24.
371 CMarkii. 23 iii. 6) 24 2
CHAPTER X*
THE CONCOURSE TO JESUS
[Mark iii. 7 12]
i. Jesus "withdrew"
IN Mark, after "took counsel how they might destroy
him," it is said "And Jesus with his disciples withdrew to
(or, toward) the sea 1 ." And then comes a description of the
concourse of the multitudes to Him from many regions.
In attempting to ascertain the exact meaning of a with-
drawal "to, or toward, the sea," the question arises "From what
place did Jesus withdraw? " The last place mentioned in Mark
is a "synagogue," but the text varies between "a synagogue"
* For titles of previous Parts of Diatessarica referred to by
abbreviations in this Volume, see pp. 545 6. For other ab-
breviations see pp. xxiii xxvi.
1 'Ai/e^top^crer Trpos TTJV 6d\ao~o-av. 'Ai/a^copeo), "withdraw," from
which "anchorite" is derived, would generally (not always, as may
be seen from its use in Hermas) signify a retirement of more dura-
tion than is implied by vTro^copeo), "step back" (which sometimes
means "give ground"). In N.T. the preposition with which it is
used is nowhere else Trpos, but only els (Mt. ii. 12 etc. and Jn vi. 15)
of withdrawing into a district or into the privacy of (Jn vi. 15) "the
mountain." Some MSS read els here (Mk iii. 7). Prof. Swete says
(on Mk iii. 7) " Trpos gives the direction or locality of the retreat."
In the following remarks, R.V. "to" will be mostly retained, though
"toward," or "to the neighbourhood of," would be a more exacc
rendering.
372 (Mark iii. 7 12)
THE CONCOURSE TO JESUS
and "the synagogue" given (without alternative) by R.V. and
W.H. severally:
Mk iii. i Mt. xii. 9 Lk. vi. 6
And he entered And he departed And it came to
again into the syna- thence and went into pass on another sab-
gogue (W.H. om. the), their synagogue. bath that he entered
into the synagogue.
Codex B and tf omit the article, but the rest of the Greek
MSS insert it, and so does the Syro-Sinaitic Version discovered
since the publication of W.H.'s text. Professor Swete urges
that "we speak of going 'to church' or being 'in church' when
no particular building is intended." But we do not speak of
going "into church." In N.T. elsewhere, we find "went into
the synagogue" or "into their synagogue" or "into their syna-
gogues 1 " etc., but nowhere "went into synagogue." Moreover,
even if Mark did here (uniquely) use "into synagogue" as we
use "to church," it would still be probable that he meant "went
into synagogue in Capernaum," as John writes "These things
said he in synagogue as he taught in Capernaum 2 ." For
Mark's last mention of synagogue in the singular referred to the
synagogue at Capernaum 3 . Now, therefore, if he says that
Jesus "entered again into synagogue," a reasonable interpre-
tation is "he entered again into synagogue in Capernaum."
In the interval, Jesus had repeatedly entered into "synagogues"
of Galilee 4 , but Mark may now be intending to relate a second
act of Jesus in the synagogue of Capernaum.
This has a bearing on the meaning of "withdrew to the sea."
1 Mt. xii. 9, Mk i. 21, 39, Lk. iv. 16, 44, vi. 6, Acts xiii. 14, xiv. i,
xvii. 10, xviii. 19, xix. 8. When Luke means "in a synagogue"
he says (xiii. 10) "in one of the synagogues," though eV <rwaya>yr)
might have been used to mean "in synagogue" as in Jn vi. 59,
xviii. 20.
2 Jn vi. 59 cv wvaynyfi, R.V. txt "in the synagogue," marg. "in
a synagogue." 3 Mk i. 21 29.
4 Mk i. 39 "went into their synagogues throughout all Galilee."
373 (Mark iii. 7 12)
THE CONCOURSE TO JESUS
For the words could hardly mean "withdrew from the syi
gogue in Capernaum to the seaside in Capernaum," a distance
of a few furlongs at most. The expression, in itself, would
not be appropriate; and it is clear that these multitudes
from many regions could not resort to Him immediately on
the beach. The parallel Matthew has "And Jesus, perceiving
[it], withdrew from thence," omitting "to the sea." But
Luke has here what Mark places a little later on as the
preface to the appointment of the Twelve "And it came to
pass in these days that he went out into the mountain to
pray 1 ." That is to say, Luke, differing from Mark's order,
places the appointment of the Twelve before, not after, the
concourse of the people 2 .
These disagreements indicate that Mark has placed here
one of many traditions about the "withdrawing" of Jesus,
which he alone has connected with (i) "the sea," and with
(2) "a little boat" that is to "wait on" Jesus; and that the
later Synoptists, besides omitting these two points of con-
nection, differ as to the time and circumstances of the "with-
drawing," or, as Luke calls it, the "going out into the moun-
tain." All agree that at (or, near) this time, a great " number"
or "multitude" or "multitudes," either "followed" Jesus, or
1 Mk iii. 7
And Jesus with
his disciples with-
drew to the sea.
Mt. xii. 15
And Jesus, per-
ceiving [it], with-
drew from thence.
Lk. vi. 12
And it came to
pass in these days
that he went out
into the mountain
to pray.
Lk. vi. 17
And he came
down with them and
stood on a level
place.
2 In Matthew, the concourse of the people is placed very early
(Mt. iv. 24 5) ; the appointment of the Twelve, later (x. i 5) ;
the healing on the sabbath, and Christ's consequent "withdrawing,"
later still (Mt. xii. 9 15). Matthew adds that when Christ "with-
drew," (xii. 15) "many followed him," but he does not enumerate
the regions whence they came.
374 (Mark iii. 7 12)
THE CONCOURSE TO JESUS
"came to hear him and be healed," or "hearing what great
things he did, came to him." In the texts, as given below 1 ,
it will be seen that Mark does not mention "multitude" except
in his parenthesis about the "little boat," whereas he mentions
1 Mk iii. 7 12
(7) And Jesus
with his disciples
withdrew to (or, to-
ward) the sea : and a
great number (77X77-
0os] from Galilee fol-
lowed :
(8) And from
Judaea, and from
Jerusalem, and from
Idumaea, and be-
yond Jordan, and
about Tyre and
Sidon, a great num-
ber (rr\f)0os), hearing
what great things he
did, came unto him.
(9) And he spake
to his disciples,
that a little boat
should wait on him
because of the mul-
titude (6'^Xor), lest
they should throng
him:
(10) For he had
healed many ; inso-
much that as many
as had plagues (lit.
scourges) pressed
(lit. fell) upon him
that they might
touch him.
(u) And the un-
clean spirits, when-
soever they beheld
him, fell down before
him, and cried, say-
ing, Thou art the
Son of God.
(12) And he
charged them much
that they should not
make him known.
Mt. xii. i$a, iv. 24 5,
xii. 15 b 17
(xii. 15 a) And
Jesus, perceiving [it],
withdrew from
thence ; and many
followed him ....
(iv. 24 5) And
the report of him
went forth into all
Syria ; and they
brought unto him all
that were sick,
holden with divers
diseases and tor-
ments, possessed
with devils (or, de-
moniacs) and epi-
leptic, and palsied ;
and he healed them.
(25) And there
followed him great
multitudes (o^Xot)
from Galilee and De-
capolis and Jeru-
salem and Judaea
and [from] beyond
Jordan.
(xii. 1 56 foil.) And
he healed them all,
(16) And charg-
ed them that they
should not make
him known:
(17) That it
might be fulfilled
which was spoken by
(or, through) Isaiah
the prophet, say-
ing
Lk.vi. I2a, vi. 17 19
(vi. 120) And it
came to pass in these
days that he went
out into the moun-
tain to pray ....
[Here follows vi. 13
1 6 the choosing of
the Twelve.]
(vi. 17 19) And
he came down with
them, and stood on
a level place, and
a great multitude
(o'xXos) of his dis-
ciples, and a great
number (7rXr/0oy) of
the people from all
Judaea and Jeru-
salem, and the sea
coast of Tyre and
Sidon, which came
to hear him, and to
be healed of their
diseases ;
(18) And they
that were troubled
with unclean spirits
were healed.
(19) And all
the multitude (0^X0$-)
sought to touch him :
for power came forth
from him, and healed
[them] all.
375 (Mark iii. 7 12)
THE CONCOURSE TO JESUS
"great number" and then "number great 1 " as first "follow-
ing," and then "coming to," Jesus; while Luke distinguishes
the "great multitude of his disciples" from the " great number
of the people."
All this shews that Luke was dissatisfied, and not un-
reasonably, with Mark's tradition. What the sense demands
is, that Jesus, in order to escape from the combined attack
of the Pharisees and the Herodians, passed out of the tetrarchy
of Herod Antipas across the sea. One journey of this kind is
described by John. It follows the persecution of Jesus by
the Jews after He had performed an act of healing on the
sabbath. It is also the only occasion where John describes
the "multitude" as "following" Jesus. It also mentions acts
of healing, called "signs," as the reason for the "following."
Like Luke, John here describes Jesus as ascending a "moun-
tain," but not quite in the same terms. John writes as
follows: "After these things Jesus departed beyond the sea
of Galilee [that is, the sea] of Tiberias. And there followed
him a great multitude because they were [continually] be-
holding the signs that he was doing on the sick. And Jesus
went up into the mountain and there sat with his disciples 2 ."
1 Mk iii. 7 8 TTO\V 7r\f)6os...Tr\^Oos TTO\V is noteworthy, (i) Mark
never uses irXrjdos again. (2). It conveys a notion of fulness, ap-
plicable (as Luke mostly applies it) to a whole nation, city, army,
congregation, or even a number of sick folk crowded into one building
(Jn v. 3), or fish crowded into a net (ib. xxi. 6, comp. Lk. v. 6).
That is not appropriate here in Mark. But it may be allusive to
promises in Genesis concerning the seed of Abraham. In LXX, the
earliest uses of TrXJ^oy are connected with such promises, Gen. xvi. 10
(to Hagar) OVK dpt^/zT/o-erai OTTO TOV ir\f)6ovs, xvii. 4 (to Abraham) eery
irarrjp nXrjdovs f6va>v, comp. ib. xxxii. 12, xlviii. 16, 19. HXijSos
occurs only eight times in Genesis, so that the word would readily
convey this Abrahamic allusion to readers of Mark who were also
readers of LXX. Taken in this way, TrXfjdos coming at the beginning
and the end of the Marcan list of seven districts that contributed to
the Concourse to the Messiah, would mean "the great multitude of
the seed of Abraham according to the Promise."
2 Jn vi. i 3 "went up (dvrjXGev} into the mountain" differs
376 (Mark iii. 7 12)
THE CONCOURSE TO JESUS
Almost all Mark's traditions about "boats" and "crossing"
the lake, when compared with their Synoptic parallels, shew
early differences and confusions 1 . John's parallel seems to
shew how Mark may have gone wrong by mistaking "with-
drew across the sea" for "withdrew to the sea 2 ." Moreover
this Johannine passage uses the Marcan word placed at the
head of this section, "withdrew," not indeed at the beginning
but at the end of the narrative thus: "The men, therefore,
seeing the signs (or, sign) that he had done, began to say,
This is of a truth the prophet that is to come into the world.
Jesus, therefore, perceiving that they purposed to come and
snatch him away that they might make him a king, withdrew
back-again into the mountain, [by] himself, alone 3 ."
from Lk. vi. 12 "went out (IgcXQc'iv) into the mountain." There is
also a difference as to the moment at which Jesus began to be with
His disciples. The parall. Mk iii. 13 says "And he goeth up into the
mountain and calleth unto him whom he himself would." This
suggests, but does not mention, an interval. But Lk. vi. 13 "and,
when it was day, he called his disciples" indicates that Jesus was
alone for a time. It is not so in John, Jesus is not "alone" till He
ascends the mountain for the second time (Jn vi. 15).
1 E.g. Mk iii. 9 *"<* TrAotaptov irpoa-KapTepf) aurai IS, in SS " that they
should bring near to him a boat," and in Lat. MSS "ut navicula
(or, in navicula) sibi deserviret (or, deservirent) ." Now in Aramaic
(Levy Ch. i. 34 a) and in Syriac (Thes. Syr. 213, 216) there is a
similarity, amounting almost to identity, between the words meaning
"boat" and "teaching." npoaKaprcpelv SiSaxfj occurs in Acts ii. 42.
Among the Galilaean Apostles an ancient precept may have been
in vogue, coming from Christ Himself, in which there was a play on
the two words, " See that ye serve me in the boat," " See that ye serve
me in the teaching" (or "Serve the boat" "Serve the teaching").
The Boat, in early Christian poetry, would mean the Church.
2 In Mk iii. 7 dvexwprja-fv rrpos, some MSS have els. But aj/a^<upeii/
els (see p. 372, n. i) would naturally imply withdrawal into a region.
The LXX exhibits a multitude of various corruptions of phrases with
TTfpav, and perhaps irpos, here, is one of them. Aquila in Exod. xxviii.
26 has Trpos irepav.
3 Jn vi. 14 15. 'AvexapTjo-fv 7rd\iv might mean "withdrew [back]
again," i.e. "withdrew a second time." And possibly it is intended to
suggest this. The first ascent of the mountain (vi. 3) might be of
377 (Mark iii. 7 12)
THE CONCOURSE TO JESUS
There is some evidence tending to shew that Greek writei
in the first and second centuries made careful distinctioi
between "withdrew" and synonymous or homonymous terms
Philo expressly says "Moses does not flee from Pharoah, h<
withdraws 1 ." Yet, curiously enough, in the passage last quote
from John, the Curetonian Syriac and Codex a read "flee"
for "withdraw 2 ." Matthew repeatedly describes Jesus as
"withdrawing" whereas Luke never does, and Mark does so
only here 3 . Luke however twice uses another word, which
he perhaps deemed less strong than "withdrew" and better
adapted to mean temporary retiring, as it were, for a
breathing-space 4 .
Probably John did not trouble himself so much about these
verbal distinctions as about the moral effect likely to be pro-
duced on readers by Matthew's frequent statements that Jesus
"withdrew," when jibed at by critics like Celsus 5 . Celsus said
that Jesus "used to run away" and "most ignominiously hide
himself." John says elsewhere, in effect, "He did not hide
Himself. He was hidden by the Providence of God 6 ." And
here he says, in effect, "It is true that on one occasion Jesus
did, in a remarkable way, withdraw. But why? Not to avoid
the nature of a, first " withdrawal " from enemies of one kind (per-
secutors), and this might be a second withdrawal from enemies of
another kind (misguided admirers). But the primary meaning
appears to be "back-again," i.e. "He withdrew from His admirers to
the place where He had been before."
1 Philo i. QO Ou (pcvyei Mcov<rf}s dirb rot) <J>apaa>...dAAa di/a^wpft.
2 In Jn vi. 15, X 1 also has (pevyei, and Blass has it in his text.
3 In Mt. iv. 12, xiv. 13, xv. 21, the parall. Mark has not di/a^topfco.
Marcus Antoninus iv. 3 condemns people that seek for themselves
"retirements (drax^p^o-cts}," and "rustic-retreats (dypoiKias)" and
"seaside-places (alyia\ovs) " and "mountains."
4 Lk. v. 16, ix. 10. 'YTro^copea) in Justin Martyr Tryph 9 means
" stepping-aside [from noisy companions for a quiet talk]."
5 See Origen Celsus ii. IO " eVoi/ftSto-rorara Kpvirropfvos 8if8i8pa(TKev
6 See Joh. Gr. 2538 43, 2724 on Jn viii. 59, xii. 36 (
378 (Mark iii. 7 12)
THE CONCOURSE TO JESUS
persecution, but to escape from those who wished to make
Him a king."
2. "Toward] 1 the sea," "Galilee," "beyond Jordan"
We have above recognised, and tried to explain as a cor-
ruption, the use of "toward the sea" by Mark alone. But there
is also, if not a difficulty, at all events something like a super-
fluity, in "Galilee," which is used by Mark and Matthew.
For apparently the intention is to emphasize a concourse of
people to Jesus from distant parts: and He was in "Galilee"
already. Luke therefore seems justified in omitting it. Luke
also omits "beyond Jordan." This phrase he never uses,
so that we cannot be surprised. But looking closely into his
text we see that under the guise of "by-the-brine 2 " in con-
nection with "Tyre and Sidon" he does insinuate something
about the "sea," only not Mark's "sea" which Luke calls
"the lake" but the genuine salt sea, the Mediterranean.
"By-the-brine," meaning "sea-coast," occurs nowhere else in
N.T. But it occurs in Isaiah's well-known prophecy quoted
above by Matthew concerning Christ's Advent: "The way of
the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the nations," where the LXX
has "and the rest that [inhabit] the [land] by-the-brine and
beyond Jordan, Galilee of the nations 3 ." Noting that
Matthew retains the Hebrew "way of the sea," we ask whether
it could be expressed in Greek by "toward the sea," so as to
agree with the Marcan phrase that caused us so much difficulty.
And we find that in Ezekiel the Hebrew "way of" is represented
by the Greek "toward" (the preposition used by Mark) nine
times 4 .
1 On rrpos, "to," or "toward," see above, p. 372, n. i, p. 377, n. 2
2 Lk. vi. 17 rJJs irapa\iov Tvpov *at 2iSa>i>o$y parall. to Mk ill. 8
U 2i8a>>a, which drops the thought of "sea."
3 Mt. iv. 15 quoting Is. ix. T.
4 Ezek. xl. 20 xlii. 15 (Trommius).
379 (Mark iii. 7 12)
THE CONCOURSE TO JESUS
This clears up much that was obscure. For now we see
that, in choosing these particular districts, and even in using
these particular expressions, the Evangelists may have been
influenced by prophecy. Matthew, who has quoted Isaiah,
interprets the whole consistently as referring to the sea of Galilee.
Luke refers the whole consistently to the Mediterranean. Mark
"conflates" the two 1 . The first part of his list (including "to-
ward the sea ") refers to the sea of Galilee ; the second part
("Tyre and Sidon") refers to the sea of the West, though not
called "sea." Mark's first words therefore do not mean (or,
at least, did not originally mean) that Jesus retired from His
conflict with the Pharisees in the Capernaum synagogue and
literally walked down " to the sea." They meant that when He
thus retired from His enemies, His manifestation still pro-
ceeded, for His retiring was, as it was written by Isaiah, "by
the way of the sea, Galilee of the Gentiles," so that "the people
sitting in darkness saw a great light."
3. "From Idumaea (i.e. Edom)"
This is the only mention of " Edom " in N.T. Why mention
Edom, rather than Trachonitis, Ituraea, Abilene, mentioned
by Luke 2 ? The answer suggested by the last section is "From
prophecy." But what prophecy? There are poetic mentions
of Edom or Idumaea in the LXX of Isaiah and the Psalms,
where the name may represent "the kingdom of blood," the
enemy of Israel 3 ; but there are none that would apply to a
gathering such as is here described, a concourse of nations to
the conquering Messiah.
There is, however, in the Hebrew text of Amos but mis-
translated in the LXX one mention of Edom that would
1 For "conflation," see Clue 20 155.
2 Lk. iii. i.
8 See Jerome on Ps. Ix. 9 and Is. Ixiii. i. "Edom," in Jewish
tradition, regularly represents "Rome " (see Levy i. 29], e.g. " Hadrian,
king of Edom."
380 (Mark iii. 7 12)
THE CONCOURSE TO JESUS
exactly apply: "In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of
David . . . and I will raise up his ruins . . . that they may possess
the remnant of Edom and all the nations that are called by my
name 1 ." This prophecy is actually quoted in the Acts, as being
uttered by James, the President of the Council of Jerusalem,
in favour of "Symeon," who (he says) " hath rehearsed how God
did first visit the Gentiles." But James is made to quote it
from the LXX, which substitutes "Adam" for "Edom 2 :'
Hence, in the Acts, James is made to say "that the residue of
men may seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles upon whom my
name is called 3 ." But it may be taken as certain that James
did not quote the LXX. "The Hebrew words of Amos," as
Home Hebraicae says 4 , " quoted by James do suit very well with
his design and purpose." Parts of Mark's Gospel appear to have
come, in substance, from Peter; and, if Peter heard James at
the Council of Jerusalem using this prophecy about "Edom" in
favour of the inclusion of the Gentiles, it seems probable that
Peter would also use it (even if he had not used it before) in
enumerating the various quarters from which came the con-
course of people to Jesus at the time when He was forced to
flee from the Pharisees and Herodians 5 .
Besides explaining the Marcan "Idumaea," this hypothesis
of an original Hebrew "Edom" enables us to explain why
Matthew makes a mention of "Syria" here. "Syria" is Aram,
and Aram is repeatedly confused with Edom, the two words
1 Amos ix. ii 12.
2 Acts xv. 17. Comp. Levy i. 29 a, which says that in Lev. r.
(s. 22, 165 c) we must read DHK, "Edom," for D1K, "Adam" or
"man."
3 "Seek after," in LXX, indicates that they took ^T, "possess,"
for Km, "seek."
4 Hoy. Heb. on Acts xv. 17.
5 Jerome on Amos ix. 12 paraphrases "the remnant of Edom" as
"quicquid reliquum fuerit de Regno sanguinario atque terreno"
where "the kingdom of blood and earth" alludes to "Edom," red,
and "Adam," earth. He adds another interpretation based on the
LXX "hominum."
381 (Mark iii. 7 12)
THE CONCOURSE TO JESUS
being almost identical 1 . Matthew appears to have read
"Edom" as "Aram," and to have placed it first as indicating
that the "hearing," or "report," of the Gospel went forth first
to "the whole of Syria." After this, from the different parts
of Syria came, as Mark and Luke say, "hearers 2 ." Matthew's
addition of "Decapolis," after "Galilee," strengthens the
allusion since Decapolis was a group of cities mainly Gentile
to Isaiah's "Galilee of the Gentiles."
4. The Johannine view of the concourse to Jesus
The only passage in which the Fourth Gospel speaks of a
"great multitude" as "following" Jesus is the one mentioned
above, introducing the Feeding of the Five Thousand 3 . The
description of the multitude there, as following Jesus because
of His "signs," and the whole sequel of the miracle, indicate
that this "following" of Jesus was only rudimentary and pre-
paratory. Those who admire Him as the promised "prophet"
seek to make Him a king, and He "withdraws" from them.
His "sign" is not understood. Before this time Jesus must
have chosen the Twelve. He refers to the choice as, in some
sense, a failure, "Was it not I that chose you, the Twelve
(SS you all), and one of you is a devil 4 ? " It is also said that
"many of his disciples went back and walked no more with
him 5 ." The whole narrative suggests disappointment.
1 See Clue 6 shewing how "Syria," or "Aram" D~lK, in 2. S. viii.
12. (also 13) is parall. to i Chron. xviii. n "Edom," DHK (spelt
DIN in Ezek. xxv. 14, Gesen. 10 a) where LXX has Idumaea in both
books. See also i K. xi. 25, 2 K. xvi. 6.
2 Mk iii. 8 Mt. iv. 24 Lk. vi. 17
and there came . . . who came to
(lit.) his hearing (duor)) hear him.
into the whole of
Sria.
. . . and from Idu-
maea ... hearing how
many [great deeds] he
was' doing, came
unto him.
3 Jn vi. 2. See Addendum, p. 386. 4 Jn vi. 70.
5 Jn vi. 66. That the "disciples" were numerous is not implied
in the Fourth Gospel before Jn iv. i "more disciples than John."
382 (Mark iii. 7 12)
THE CONCOURSE TO JESUS
If we might accept, as true, what the Pharisees (according
to John's account) were forced to confess about Jesus, "Lo,
the world is gone after him," we might infer that John re-
garded Christ's riding into Jerusalem, amid the acclamations
of multitudes preceding and following Him, as a real instance
of "following." But on the contrary the Evangelist seems to
Jn ii. 2 "Jesus also was bidden, and his disciples," ib. ii. n "and his
disciples believed on him," seem to refer merely to six previously
mentioned or implied (including Nathanael). Jn ii. 12 "after this
he went down to Capernaum, he. . .and his disciples " tells us nothing
as to their number. Nor does Jn ii. 22 "his disciples remembered,"
for that refers to a period after the Resurrection. But we learn
something from Jn iii. 22 "Jesus came, and his disciples, into the
land of Judaea... and there he tarried with them and baptized,"
when taken with iv. i 2 "Jesus was making and baptizing more
disciples than John, although Jesus himself baptized not, but his
disciples." For these passages imply that some disciples of Jesus
had by this time begun to baptize with His sanction or appointment,
and that the whole number of Christ's disciples was now large.
In Mark, the first mention of "disciples" may imply that they
were many, ii. 15 "He was sitting at meat in his [Levi's] house, and
many publicans and sinners sat down with Jesus and [with] his
disciples, [making altogether a great multitude] for they [i.e. the
disciples] were [by this time] many, and they habitually-followed
him (r)Ko\ov0ow ait}." But the text is doubtful. D and the
Latin codd. have " there were many who (or, who also] followed him"
perhaps meaning this as an explanation of "disciples," namely,
habitual followers, out of whom the Twelve were selected.
Luke is the only Evangelist that expressly declares the Twelve
to have been selected out of the disciples (vi. 13 "He called (irpo-
<r(f)a>vr)(rev) his disciples and he chose from them twelve"} whereas
Mark says (iii. 13 14) " calleth unto him (jrpoo-KaXflrai) whom he
himself would... and he appointed twelve." Luke also mentions
(vi. 17) "a great multitude (o^Xos iro\vs) of his disciples" a very
rare use of o x \os, a word often used in a depreciatory sense. On
Matthew's omission of "choosing," see p. 388 foil.
The impression left on us by John is that he desires to exalt the
true and spiritual "disciple" as compared with "apostle" or "one
of the Twelve" and to suggest that the details of the choosing of
the Twelve were unimportant. At the same time he tells us what
no other Evangelist does, that many of the disciples abandoned
Jesus at an early period.
383 (Mark iii. 7 12)
THE CONCOURSE TO JESUS
suggest and almost to take pleasure in suggesting that these
multitudes and these acclamations signified very little. It was
Christ's "sign" (we are told), not Himself, that roused the
multitude to enthusiasm: "For this cause also the multitude
went and met him, for that they had heard that he had done
this sign 1 ." When a Johannine statement of this kind is
made it may be taken as a warning that the faith of the
"multitude" is rudimentary 2 .
Is it an accident that immediately after this false alarm of
the Pharisees (false, at least, in the letter) that "the world''
had "gone after" Jesus, "certain Greeks" are introduced as
petitioning to "see Jesus"? The language implies but a small
number, "certain Greeks among those that went up to
worship at the feast 3 " but the narrative of their introduction
to Jesus through the two Greek-named Apostles Philip and
Andrew, and the immediate exclamation of Jesus "the hour
is come that the Son of man should be glorified," imply that
the prediction of Isaiah is being fulfilled "Arise, shine, for thy
light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee . . .
nations shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of
thy rising 4 ." The context in Isaiah mentions "the isles" more
particularly among these arriving worshippers a term that
applies to the Mediterranean islands and coasts where Greek
civilisation prevailed.
The term "isles," as used in Hebrew, might include the
coasts of Italy, too, and so point to Rome. And this leads us
to ask whether the Fourth Gospel, the only one that mentions
"Greeks," has anywhere introduced a mention of "Romans,"
1 Jn xii. 1 8. Contrast Jn iv. 42 "Now we believe, not because
of thy speaking ; for we have heard for ourselves, and know, that this
is indeed the Saviour of the world."
2 Concerning this "multitude" it is said (Jnxii. 28 9) that, after
there came a voice out of heaven, "The multitude, therefore, that
stood by and heard it, said that it had thundered."
3 Jn xii. 20. 4 Is. Ix. i 3.
384 (Mark iii. 7 12)
THE CONCOURSE TO JESUS
whom also no Synoptist mentions. John mentions them once,
" The Romans will come and take away our [holy] place and
our nation," so say " the chief priests and the Pharisees 1 ." That
is perhaps significant of the attitude of the Fourth Evangelist
toward the Romans (compared with the Greeks) as regards the
part they were to play in the Dispensation of the Gospel.
Rome was the cosmopolitan sword of the Retribution of the
Lord, striking down and levelling, so as to produce material
peace and order. Greece was the cosmopolitan and reasonable
language of the Lord not His Logos, or Word, but His in-
strument for expressing the Word to the civilised seekers after
truth and wisdom throughout the Roman Empire.
It is reasonable to suppose that the Evangelist was familiar
with the prophecy of Amos, as interpreted by Luke in the
Acts, that the Church was to "possess the remnant of Edom,"
where "Edom" was taken by Luke (as by the LXX) to mean
"man." We have also abundant reason for supposing that
John was familiar with the remarkably divergent Synoptic
interpretations of "Edom," (i) in Mark, Idumaea, (2) in
Matthew, Aram, i.e. Syria, (3) in Luke, perhaps (as in Acts)
simply "men," not needing to be mentioned since the context
implied it. How was John to deal with these variations, and
with the spiritual underlying fact? He would keep himself
clear from all these difficult and for his readers unedifying
details. Yet the fact, the great fact of the Concourse of the
Nations to the Messiah, needed to be expressed. But why
should it be expressed so early? To many it must seem
premature in the Synoptists. Moreover it was connected by
Mark with acts of exorcism in the most materialistic form a
phenomenon that the Fourth Gospel never mentions.
As therefore John places his account of the Draught of
Fishes at the close of the Gospel instead of the beginning, so
he places his account of the manifestation of the Coming of the
1 Jn xi. 48.
A. P. 385 (Mark iii. 7 12) 25
THE CONCOURSE TO JESUS
Nations. He does not deny the truth of the Synoptic accounts,
nor does he arbitrate between them. But he regards them all
as expressions of rudimentary truth. The real glory of the
Lord could not be revealed till the hour had come for the Son
of man to be glorified. And then the representative of the
influx of the nations was not Idumaea nor Syria, but "certain
Greeks 1 ."
1 The other Johannine mention of "Greeks" is in Jn vii. 35
"Will he go to the dispersion among (lit. of) the Greeks and teach
the Greeks?" on which see Joh. Gr. 2046, Son 3606 a.
ADDENDUM
The Johannine Concourse to Jesus is placed by John where Mark
places his account of a second Concourse, just before the Feeding of
the Five Thousand. There Mark and Matthew insert, while Luke
omits, the statement that Jesus (Mk vi. 34, Mt. xiv. 14) " came
forth and saw a great multitude." John describes Jesus as (Jn vi. 5)
" lifting up his eyes and seeing that a great multitude cometh unto
him." This is a mystical restatement of Mark (Joh. Gr. 2616).
Luke has a previous mention, parallel to Mk-Mt., of "multitudes
following"; but he does not repeat it, as they do, in connection
with "seeing."
When we discuss the Feeding of the Five Thousand, it will be
shewn that Mark has several traditions about the "many" whom
the Messiah will redeem, omitted by Luke and restated by John;
and that Mark's view of the multitudes that flocked to the Messiah
was influenced not only by Isaiah but also by Daniel and Amos.
386 (Mark iii. 7 12)
CHAPTER XI*
THE APPOINTMENT OF THE TWELVE
[Mark iii. 13 19]
i. "Going up into the mountain"
MATTHEW probably assumes what Mark and Luke state
that Jesus went up into the mountain about the time of the
appointment of the Twelve, described below 1 . The explanation
* For titles of previous Parts of Diatessarica referred to by
abbreviations in this Volume, see pp. 545 6. For other abbrevi-
ations see pp. xxin xxvi.
iMkiii.is i9(R.V.)
(13) And he
goeth up into the
mountain, and call-
eth unto him whom
he himself would :
and they went unto
him.
(14) And he
appointed twelve,
(some anc. auth. add
whom also he named
apostles) that they
might be with him,
and that he might
send them forth to
preach,
(15) And to
have authority to
cast out devils (lit.
demons) :
(16) And Simon
he surnamed Peter;
(17) And James
the [son] of Zebedee,
Mt. x. i4 (R.V.)
(1) And he
called unto him his
twelve disciples, and
gave them authority
over unclean spirits,
to cast them out,
and to heal all man-
ner of disease and all
manner of sickness.
(2) Now the
names of the twelve
apostles are these :
The first, Simon, who
is called Peter, and
Andrew his brother ;
James the [son] of
Zebedee, and John
his brother ;
(3) Philip, and
Bartholomew ; Tho-
mas, and Matthew the
publican ; James the
[son] of Alphaeus,
and Thaddaeus ;
Lk. vi. 1216 (R.V.)
(12) And it
came to pass in these
days, that he went
out into the moun-
tain to pray ; and he
continued all night in
prayer to God.
(13) And when
it was day, he called
his disciples : and he
chose from them
twelve, whom also he
named apostles ;
(14) Simon, whom
he also named
Peter, and Andrew
his brother, and
James and John, and
Philip and Bartho-
lomew,
(15) And Mat-
thew and Thomas,
and James [the son]
of Alphaeus, and
387 (Mark iii. 13 19) 25 2
THE APPOINTMENT OF THE TWELVE
of Matthew's omission is probably this, that Matthew does not
follow Mark (as Luke does) in placing the appointment of the
Twelve, and their names, a good deal before the sending forth
of the Twelve. Matthew combines the appointment with the
sending. Or rather, he does not describe the appointment at
all; but later on, when he comes to describe Christ's sending
of "his twelve disciples," he inserts the names (without in-
serting the appointment) previously given by Mark and Luke.
Both the appointment of the Twelve, and the naming of some
of them, were probably assumed by Matthew to have taken
place just before the Sermon on the Mount 1 .
Similarly, as we have seen above, the appointment of the
Twelve is nowhere described by John, but is referred to by
Jesus as past, soon after the single occasion on which He "went
up into the mountain and there sat with his disciples 2 ." By
his silence John avoids raising difficult questions: "Why did
Jesus appoint persons whom He called 'apostles,' i.e. 'sent,'
and yet apparently not 'send' them at the time? When did
Mt. x. i4 (R.V.)
(contd.)
(4) Simon the
Cananaean, (or, Zea-
lot) and Judas Is-
cariot, who also be-
trayed him.
Lk. vi. 1216 (R.V.)
(contd.)
Simon which was
called the Zealot,
(i 6) And Judas
[the son, or brother]
of James, and Judas
Tscariot, which was
the traitor.
Mk iii. 1319 (R-V.)
(contd.)
and John the brother
of James; and them
he surnamed Boa-
nerges, which is, Sons
of thunder :
(18) And Andrew,
and Philip, and Bar-
tholomew, and Mat-
thew, and Thomas,
and James the [son]
of Alphaeus, and
Thaddaeus, and Si-
mon the Cananaean
(or, Zealot).
(19) And Judas
Iscariot, which also
betrayed him.
1 Mt. v. i 2 "And seeing the multitudes he went up into the
mountain, and when he had sat down, his disciples came unto him.
[Here would come the appointment of the Twelve.] And he opened
his mouth and taught them, saying. ..."
2 Jn vi. 70, vi. 3.
388 (Mark iii. 13 19)
THE APPOINTMENT OF THE TWELVE
Jesus send them, and to whom? And what was their task or
their message? And how could they adequately discharge
their task or give their message if they had not yet received
the Holy Spirit ? " These questions will come before us much
later on in detail. But we shall have to touch on some of them
in this Chapter when discussing phrases peculiar to Mark in
the Appointment of the Twelve.
2. "Whom he himself would he calleth to himself*"
The phrase "whom he himself would" seems chosen by
Mark in order to express absolute and uncontrolled action.
A parallel may be found in Theodotion's rendering of Daniel:
" Whom he himself would he slew ; and whom he himself would he
smote ; and whom he himself would he raiseth up ; and whom
he himself would he put down 2 ." But this is said concerning the
despotic Nebuchadnezzar. It is not surprising that the later
Synoptists object to it. When Matthew describes the sending
(not the choosing) of the Apostles, he retains "called to himself"
in the sense of "called up" "called into his presence" thus:
"having called to himself his twelve disciples he gave them
authority. . . . 3 " Luke expressly uses the word "choose-out,"
thus: "He called his disciples [orally] to him, and, having
chosen-out twelve from them.... 4 " Thus he says, in effect,
"Do not mistake Mark's 'calleth-to-himself ' as meaning
'calleth to be apostles/ and as implying a technical klesis or
'calling.' The Lord first called orally into his presence a number
of disciples. From these He chose out twelve. That is what
Mark means when he goes on to say 'And they went to Him
and He made [from their number] Twelve whom also He named
apostles. . . . ' "
The result is that neither Mark nor Matthew ever describes
1 Mk iii. 13 Trpoo-KdXfircu, Mt. x. I irpo(TKa\<rdfji(vos. Lk. vi. 13
J7o-i> more definitely suggests "called aloud to."
2 Dan. v. 19 Theod. rep. ovs Tj/SouAero avros.
3 Mt. x. i. 4 Lk. vi. 13, comp. Mk iii. 13 14.
389 (Mark iii. 13 19)
THE APPOINTMENT OF THE TWELVE
the Twelve as "chosen" by Jesus. Both Mark and Matthew
elsewhere use the adjective "chosen," or "elect," but not of
the Twelve. Thereby a difficulty is avoided namely the
difficulty of supposing that one of the "elect" or "chosen,"
whom Jesus Himself "chose," could be a traitor. Both Mark
and Matthew imply elsewhere in their versions of Christ's
Discourse on the Last Days that "the elect" cannot go
wrong 1 . And Matthew expressly distinguishes them from
those who are merely "called": "Many are called, but few
are chosen 2 .'' Luke, however, faces the difficulty, though he
softens it a little by dropping the words of Mark "whom he
himself would."
John faces the difficulty, or rather he magnifies it and
overrides it. He does not seek shelter under the Marcan
phrase of "making Twelve" as if it applied to the mere appoint-
ment of a class, official rather than personal. On the contrary,
he adopts Luke's "chose-out." But he goes further. He
brings Jesus before us, in the midst of the Twelve, saying to
them personally: " [Was it not] I [that] chose-out you, the
twelve, and one of you is a devil 3 ? "
3. "Apostles"
The word "apostle," apostolos which in literary Greek
means almost always a naval expedition 4 comes before us
1 Mk xiii. 20, 22, 27, Mt. xxiv. 22, 24, 31. They say "if it were
possible," in language implying that it is not possible. There is no
parallel fKAe/KTos- in Luke. But there is Lk. xviii. 7 (pec.) "will not
God surely avenge his elect?"
2 Mt. xxii. 14.
3 Jn vi. 70. On this paradox, and on the Johannine treatment
of it, see Beginning p. 201. John's use of eVAe'-yoficu in three pas-
sages always in Christ's words will be dealt with in detail in The
Fourfold Gospel, Section iv.
4 See Steph. Thes., quoting no exceptions in literary Greek
except Herodot. i. 21, v. 38, where it is used of a herald bringing
proposals for a truce, or of someone coming on a political errand
(not of a mere messenger).
390 (Mark iii. 13 19)
THE APPOINTMENT OF THE TWELVE
here in all the Synoptists, raising several questions, (i) What
did apostolos mean to the Synoptists, and to what Aramaic
word and meaning did it correspond ? (2) Was the name given
to a chosen few of His disciples by Jesus Himself, or by the
Church afterwards? (3) Assuming that they were "twelve,"
have we evidence to shew that Jesus chose them with a view
to some relation between them and "the twelve tribes of
Israel"? If so, to what relation? (4) What does apostolos
mean in N.T. outside the Synoptists?
(i) "Apostle," in LXX, occurs only once. There it repre-
sents the Hebrew "sent," but not in a literal or local sense. The
prophet Ahijah, sitting at home, says to the wife of Jeroboam,
who has come to consult him, "I am sent unto thee with heavy
tidings" meaning that he is God's spiritual messenger or
spokesman 1 . In modern Jewish congregations, the term
"sent," Sheliach, is applied to one of the congregation who
"reads the service" for them on a week-day 2 . The title is
frequent in the Talmud, where it is applied to the official who
repeats prayers for the congregation, as being its "spokesman"
or "representative." If he makes a mistake, says the Mishna,
it is a bad sign for those whom he represents, for "The apostle
(lit. one sent) of anyone is as he himself [by whom he is sent] 3 ."
Horae Hebraicae says that Sheliach is connected by Maimon-
ides with a word meaning "associates" or close cooperators 4 .
A Targum on Jeremiah ("the love of thine espousals, how thou
1 i K. xiv. 6 (A) " I am a hard apostle unto thee (diroo-roXos irpbs
(re (TK\r)p6s)."
2 See The Religion and Worship of the Synagogue (Oesterley and
Box) p. 314 on " Sheliach Tsibbdr, i.e. messenger of the congregation."
3 See /. Berach. v. 6 (5) (Schwab, transl.) "If he be represen-
tative of a congregation, it is a bad sign for his constituents, for a
man's representative is like himself," (B. Berach. 34 b, Goldschmidt)
" denn der Bevollmdchtigte des Menschen ist diesem gleichbedeutend."
4 HOY. Heb. (on Mt. x. i) on "apostles," rv^8?, and "companions"
or "associates," panit?, a term applied (Levy iv. 619 a, quoting
Nid. 31 a) to God, and father, and mother, as being "associated in
the birth of every human being."
391 (Mark iii. 13 19)
THE APPOINTMENT OF THE TWELVE
wentest after me in the wilderness") describes Moses and
Aaron as the "two sent-ones, apostles, or representatives" of the
Bridegroom, the Lord, in bringing about the "espousals 1 ."
In the Fourth Gospel, John the Baptist, who is introduced as
"a man, sent from God," says later on, " I am sent before him,"
i.e. before Jesus, and declares that "the friend [John] of the
bridegroom [Jesus] rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's
voice 2 ." These passages seem to identify "sheliach," in some
contexts, with "friend." They also illustrate the variety of
the meanings that might attach themselves to the term. " Apos-
tolos," or "representative," would naturally mean one thing
when applied to a person representing a congregation, repeating
a fixed form of prayer, and quite a different thing when applied
to a person representing a prospective bridegroom. In any
case, apostolos would be something quite different from "mes-
senger 3 ."
From Gentile sources we learn that the term apostolos
was also applied by Jews, after the destruction of Jerusalem,
to elders of the Jews or rulers of synagogues, appointed by the
Patriarch to collect a tribute from those abroad 4 . Epiphanius
1 Jerem. ii. 2 (Targ.) "I remember. . .the love of your fathers,
who believed in my Word, and went after my two Apostles, Moses
and Aaron in the wilderness." So the "Apostle " Paul says to the
Corinthians (2. Cor. xi. 2) "I espoused you to one husband."
2 Jn i. 6, iii. 28 29. These passages favour the view (Joh. Gr.
2371, 2722 b c) that Jn i. 30 means " after me cometh [the] husband
(dvrjp)" as distinguished from (ib. i. 6) "man (avOpwrros)."
3 Both in Hebrew and in Greek, "messenger" (or "angel"),
ayyeXoy, would be a separate word, having no connection with
"send." The Heb. "send" is rendered by Gesen. 1018 "commission,"
when applied to God "commissioning" a leader or prophet, e.g.
Moses in Exod. iii. 12. "Commissioning" is also perhaps implied
in Gen. xlv. 5 "God did send me before you" (see context).
4 See Lightf. Galat. p. 93 quoting Cod. Theodos. xvi. Tit. viii. 14
" archisynagogi sive presbyteri Judaeorum vel quos ipsi apostolos
vocant, qui ad exigendum aurum atque argentum a patriarcha
certo tempore diriguntur," and Julian Epist. 25 TTJV \eyonevrjv nap 1
392 (Mark iii. 13 19)
THE APPOINTMENT OF THE TWELVE
speaks of a class of notables who were called "apostles" and
constituted a Council under the Patriarch 1 . This is very late
evidence, and is not alleged to be corroborated from the Talmud.
But it accords with what we might expect, and with a phrase
from the Acts concerning "letters from Judaea 2 ." If such a
cabinet council of Jewish "notables," ready to act as "com-
missioners" for general purposes in foreign parts, became
prominent after the destruction of Jerusalem, when tribute was
no longer required for the temple service, and if the members
were called apostoloi in Greek, it might influence the meaning
conveyed by the term to Christians toward the end of the first
century. The notion of "sending abroad" might hence become
more prominent, overshadowing, especially for Greeks, the
original and Hebrew notion of "appointing as representative 3 ."
(2) In proof of the statement that Jesus called some of
His disciples "apostles" we may certainly quote from Luke
1 Epiph. Haeres. XXX. p. 128, T>V -nap* avrols aia>/iariK&>v avbpwv
fvapl6jj.ios fjv ' 6t<ri e OVTOI pera rot/ Ilarpiap^i/ 'ATrocrroAoi
irpoo-fdpevovori Se ra> Harpidpxr}....
2 Acts XXVlii. 21 ou're ypdpp.ara 7rep\ vov eea/u,f#a cnrb rrjs 'l
Comp. Acts ix. 2 eVioroXas' fls Aay^acTKOj/ trpos ras (rvvayatyds.
3 In Justin Tryph. 75, Justin proves to the Jew Trypho, from
Is. vi. 8 "send me," that prophets sent to bear a message from
God are called "both messengers and apostles of God." But Jews
would know this already. It would be Greeks that would need such
a proof.
Mt. xxiii. 34 " I send unto you prophets and wise-men and scribes,"
and the parall. Lk. xi. 49 " The Wisdom of God said ' I will send to them
prophets and apostles,'" are probably both paraphrases of Prov. ix. 3
"She [i.e. Wisdom] hath sent forth her maidens," LXX BovXovs,
Aq. Traidia-Kas, Theod. vcdvidas, Sym. Kopdo-ia. To this Origen is
probably alluding in Horn. Jerem. xiv. 5 "Who is it that beareth
(ycwq) prophets'? The Wisdom of God.... And 'the children of
Wisdom' is a phrase (avayeypairTat) also in the Gospel, (Lk. vii. 35,
comp. Mt. xi. 19) and [in Proverbs ix. 3] ' Wisdom sendeth her children '
(aTToareXXei rj ao(pia TCI reKva CIVTTJS)." In Prov. ix. 3, "Maidens"
is interpreted as (i) Adam and Eve, (2) Moses and Aaron, (3) Ezekiel,
(4) the Israelites (see Breithaupt's Rashi, and Lev. r. Wii. pp. 70 71,
Numb. r. Wii. p. 279).
393 (Mark iii. 13 19)
THE APPOINTMENT OF THE TWELVE
- ' .... -., . . , , ., , , , , , , . . .. . _
"whom also he named apostles." Possibly we may quote the
same clause from Mark 1 . But even if it is genuine in Mark it
may mean "whom, [later on], he named apostles." And the
omission of the clause by Matthew, as well as by many MSS or
versions of Mark, makes inferences from this part of the Three-
fold Gospel unsafe. In the Synoptists, Jesus is nowhere repre-
sented as using the word "apostle 2 ." But in the Fourth
Gospel Jesus uses the term once, along with "servant," thus:
"A servant is not greater than his lord, neither an apostle
greater than he that sent him 3 ." Something like this some-
thing of the nature of a warning to Christ's followers against
arrogance occurs in Matthew's version of a passage in the
Double Tradition: "A disciple is not above his master (or,
teacher)," where Matthew (though not Luke) adds "nor a
servant above his lord 4 ." But John, in his version of this
warning, inserts "apostle" where the earlier Gospels do not.
What may we infer from this?
In the first place we may infer that John desires us to
connect the word, as Greeks would naturally connect it, with
the notion of "sending," or "sending [on an errand] 5 ," and, at
the same time, to prevent the unintelligent and (so to speak)
technical use of the term by some Christians who used it in such
a way as to include what Paul calls " false apostles 6 ." He seems
to imply here, "There is nothing so very great in being sent on an
1 Mk iii. 14, Lk. vi. 13. W. H. insert the clause in Mk; but,
since the publication of their text, SS has been discovered, which
omits it.
2 "Using," i.e. in Christ's own person. The above-quoted
Lk. xi. 49 " The Wisdom of God said 'I will send. . .apostles.
is not uttered in Christ's own person.
3 Jn xiii. 1 6 ovde dnocrToXos fififav TOV nefj-^avros avrov.
4 Mt. x. 24 (and sim. Lk. vi. 40). Origen, on Jn xiii. 16, says "By
the side of this are similar words," and proceeds to quote Matthew
and Luke separately and fully.
6 "Send [on an errand] " rfc^ira>, on which see Joh. Voc. 1723 f,g,
and Son 3623 n.
6 2 Cor. xi. 13.
394 (Mark iii. 13 19)
THE APPOINTMENT OF THE TWELVE
errand, the question is how one discharges the errand." And,
later on, some such thought is expressed when Jesus says, "No
longer do I call you servants, for the servant knoweth not what
his lord doeth; but I have called you friends 1 ." This means,
in effect, "No longer do I call you, as I called you above, mere
servants and mere apostles or messengers. For the mere servant,
or the mere messenger bearing perhaps a closed letter knows
not the will and purpose beneath his Master's words and actions.
But you are now my companions and associates in will and
purpose." This brings us back to the Hebrew thought of the
Sheliach, as being a man's "representative," or "as he himself
[by whom he is sent]." If we ask for a definition of "what his
lord doeth," it is given in the preceding sentences "This is my
commandment, that ye love one another, even as I have loved
you. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down
his life for his friends. Ye are my friends, if ye do the things
that I command you."
It is an interesting suggestion, this that Jesus called the
disciples at one time by one title ("servants" or "apostles"),
and at another by another ("friends"). Probably we are not
to take it as true in a definite and literal sense. But we may
infer from it that John desires to warn us against attaching
importance to a single title such as "apostle," even when
uttered by Jesus, apart from His general attitude toward the
inner circle of His disciples, and apart from the language that
He used to them on other occasions.
The facts reviewed above are against the supposition that
on one special occasion, early in Christ's career, He selected from
His disciples twelve whom He then named apostoloi, and that
Luke alone (or perhaps Mark and Luke, but not Matthew)
preserved the record of this fact. A passage in Mark points
rather to the conclusion that Jesus would have called His
representatives (among other appellations) His "little ones."
1 Jn xv. 1415-
395 (Mark iii. 13 19)
THE APPOINTMENT OF THE TWELVE
At all events, it is in connection with "receiving little ones"-
illustrated by a scene in which Christ actually takes a child in
His arms that Mark introduces the doctrine of "receiving"
the Son as the representative of the Father 1 . Such a doctrine,
when reproduced in Greek for Greeks and Gentiles, might well
seem obscure until it was explained that the "little ones" were
(or, at all events, included) Christ's "representatives," called
in Aramaic His " sent ones'" that is to say, in Greek, His apostoloi.
Then Matthew might (as he does) apply it to the Twelve, and
Luke might (as he does) apply it to the Seventy.
John seems to say to us, "An 'apostle of Christ' is not a
real ' apostle ' unless he is something more than a messenger
reporting facts that he witnessed in Jerusalem or Galilee about
Christ. He must be a 'friend' of Christ, and in Christ's secret,
so as to 'know what his lord doeth.' That secret is 'love,'
not our love, but Christ's love. The type of the true ' apostle '
is 'the disciple whom Jesus loved.' '
(3) Passing to the title of "The Twelve," as uttered by Christ,
we find it in the Synoptists only once, and there in Mark
alone :
Mk xiv. 20 Mt. xxvi. 23 Lk. xxii. 21
[It is] one of the He that dipped But behold, the
twelve*, he that dip- his hand with me in hand of him that be-
peth with me in the the dish, the same trayeth me is with
dish. shall betray me. me on the table.
It occurs also once in the Fourth Gospel, "Was it not I
1 Mark has this doctrine of "receiving" representatives nowhere
except in connection (ix. 37) with "little children," where it is
parallel to Mt. xviii. 5, Lk. ix. 48. But Matthew repeats a version
of it (x. 40) in connection with the Sending of the Twelve, and Luke
a version of it (x. 16) in connection with the Sending of the Seventy.
2 There was no need to insert "one of the twelve" for clearness,
since Mark has already said (xiv. 17) "He cometh with the twelve"
and has represented Jesus as saying (ib. 18) "One of you shall betray
me."
396 (Mark iii. 13 19)
THE APPOINTMENT OF THE TWELVE
that chose you, the Twelve, and one of you is a devil 1 ? " Before
considering this as an apparent instance of Johannine Inter-
vention, and as possibly having some relation to "the twelve
tribes of Israel," let us turn to a passage in Matthew and
Luke where Jesus is represented as promising to some of His
disciples that they shall "sit on thrones (or, twelve thrones)
judging the twelve tribes of Israel'' The contexts in Matthew
and Luke are very different, and there is good reason for
doubting whether either form of the utterance proceeded from
Jesus 2 . At the same time we must not ignore the proba-
bility we may almost say certainty that pious Jews in the
first century would think and speak of "the twelve tribes" as
representing the whole of the spiritual Israel, to be redeemed
1 Jn vi. 70. There was no need to insert "the twelve" here, in
view of the preceding words (ib. 67) "Jesus said unto the twelve."
Also, that "the twelve" gathered the fragments, after the Feeding of
the Five Thousand, is suggested (though not necessitated, see Mk
viii. 19 20) by ib. 12 13 "said unto his disciples, Gather. . .they
filled twelve baskets." Luke is the only Evangelist that mentions
(ix. 12) "the twelve" at the outset of the Feeding of the Five
Thousand, parallel to (Mk vi. 35, Mt. xiv. 15) "his (Mt. the] disciples."
z Mt. xix. 28, Lk. xxii. 30 (see Son 34196). In Lk, Diatessaron
omits the words "sit on thrones. . .Israel." Mt. xix. 28 is an
insertion in a passage parallel to Mk x. 29 30 (in answer to
Peter's question "What shall we have?") where Mark and Luke
have nothing about "thrones." Luke places the utterance at the
Lord's Supper, presumably after Judas has gone out, so that Judas
is not included in the promise. Matthew, whose narrative gives no
grounds for excluding Judas, adds (xix. 30) "many that are first
shall be last," which might be regarded as pointing to the falling
away of Judas. This clause is also in the parallel Mark, but not in
the parallel Luke (xviii. 30 foil.). Luke places " first. . .last " earlier
(xiii. 30) at the end of an answer to the question (ib. 23) "Are
they few that be saved?" Coming where it does, Mt. xix. 28
appears to supplement and explain the Marcan tradition about
the "hundredfold" reward that would be the lot of Christ's faithful
followers: "The Lord did not mean literally that His disciples
should receive the things of this world a hundredfold; He meant
that His disciples should be with Him, sharing His glory, 'judging
the twelve tribes of Israel.' "
397 (Mark iii. 13 19)
THE APPOINTMENT OF THE TWELVE
in accordance with God's promise. Paul was a fervent follower
of Christ, yet he speaks with fervour of "our twelve tribes 1 ."
And this may have a bearing on the Johannine phrase "you
the Twelve."
To "judge the twelve tribes of Israel" would not necessarily
convey, to a Jew conversant with the Scriptures, the notion
of condemning Israel 2 . Jacob, in obscure language, had
prophesied, "Dan [i.e. judgment] shall judge his people 3 ."
This was supposed to refer to Dan's descendant, Samson,
defending Israel against the Philistines. But the Jerusalem
Targums represent Jacob as looking further on and sub-
ordinating the judgments of Gideon and Samson to a higher
judgment of redemption 4 . That such a judgment was to be
brought about by the Messiah, and that His disciples were to
be His chosen assistants in bringing it about, in connection
with "the twelve tribes," could hardly fail to find a place in
Christ's thought, though not perhaps often in His doctrine 5 .
1 Comp. Acts xxvi. 6 "And now I stand [here] to be judged for
the hope of the promise made by God unto our fathers ; unto which
[promise] our twelve tribes, earnestly serving [God] night and day,
hope to attain."
2 See Gesen. 192 a on pi, which does not always mean "con-
demn." It often means "vindicate." Comp. Test. XII Pair.
Judah xxiv. 6 " A rod of righteousness shall spring up therefrom for
the nations to judge and save all them that call on the Lord."
3 Gen. xlix. 16 (literally) "Dan shall judge his people like one
(sic) the tribes of Israel." This is taken by Gen. r. and Sota 10 a
as a prediction that Dan shall judge his people "like ONE," namely
God, or "like one," namely the unique tribe, Judah (but not "like one
of the tribes").
4 Targ. Jer. II (and sim. Jer. I) "Our father Jacob hath said,
My soul hath not waited for the redemption of Gideon Bar-Joash,
which is for an hour, nor for the redemption of Samson, which is a
creature-redemption, but for the Redemption as to which thou hast
said in thy Word that it shall come for thy people, the sons of
Israel; for this, thy Redemption, my soul hath waited."
6 Jerome explains Mt. xix. 28 thus, " Ye too shall sit in the thrones
of those judging, condemning the twelve tribes of Israel, because,
398 (Mark hi. 13 19)
THE APPOINTMENT OF THE TWELVE
"The twelve tribes" are mentioned by Ezekiel, the Prophet
of the New Temple, immediately after the mystical description
of the healing waters that were to issue from the Temple, and
of the trees that were to bring forth fruit "every month" which
appear in Revelation as "the tree of life bearing twelve [manner
of} fruits, yielding its fruit every month 1 ." If a Messiah appointed
certain of the disciples to be more especially "with" Himself 2 , and
to bear fruit for the Redemption of Israel, it would be natural
that He should have Ezekiel's Temple and Ezekiel's trees in
view. All the more bitter would be His disappointment when
He found that one of His twelve "trees" was destined to bring
forth no fruit. "Are there not twelve tribes in Israel? " would
be almost as patent an axiom for a genuine Jewish prophet as
"Are there not twelve hours in the day? " We have to weigh
this thought in our Gentile minds before we can realise what
might be meant in "Was it not I that chose you, the Twelve, and
one of you is a devil! "
Returning to the words of Jesus, "[It is] one of the Twelve,"
recorded by Mark alone as uttered in answer to the questioning
of the disciples as to which of them was to " betray " Him, we
whereas ye believed, they would not believe." But such an ex-
planation is, at best, one-sided. The parallel Luke xxii. 30 has,
along with "judging," the words "that ye may eat and drink at my
table in my kingdom." It seems a poor promise to the Twelve to say
that they shall feast, while they "condemn" their countrymen. No
doubt a righteous "judgment" of Israel included a condemnation
of that which was worst, as well as a purification of that which was
best; but a Jewish prophet would not fix his thoughts, or those of
his disciples, solely on the former. When Rachel says, at the birth
of Dan ("judgment") (Gen. xxx. 6) "God hath judged me," she
means "God hath pronounced sentence in my favour," and the LXX
has "God hath judged for me."
1 Ezek. xlvii. i 12 ending with "new fruit every month. . .and
the leaf thereof for healing," and followed by ib. 13 "This shall be
the border. . .according to the twelve tribes of Israel." Rev. xxii. 2
describes "the tree of life" as being "on this side of the river and
on that."
2 Mk iii. 14, see below, p. 404.
399 (Mark iii. 13 19)
THE APPOINTMENT OF THE TWELVE
find that they confirm the view taken above of the similar
Johannine tradition "you, the Twelve." Both in Mark and in
John, "the Twelve" conveys an allusion to the fulness of God's
Promise. That "one of the Twelve " should prove a "traitor,"
indicated a mysterious falling short of the fulfilment of God's
will. It was recognised as a paradox by Him who came to do
God's will, and He leaves it a paradox: "I chose you" and
"One of you is a devil." By Matthew and Luke the Marcan
clause is omitted perhaps as being superfluous. John appears
to emphasize its meaning.
(4) Passing to the Epistles and the Acts, we perceive two
aspects of the term Apostle, not always kept distinct: first,
the representative, secondly, the attesting missionary. When
Paul says "Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our
Lord 1 ?" he perhaps implies that to have "seen Jesus," after
His resurrection, was a necessary condition for apostleship. But
when he goes on to say, " Are not ye my work in the Lord? If
to others I am not an apostle, yet at least I am to you, for the
seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord," he certainly
implies that something more is needed. A genuine apostle
must not only have "seen the Lord" but must also, as His
representative, transmit His Spirit to converts.
According to Paul, there were, beside other attesters to
Christ's resurrection, "above five hundred brethren," of whom
"the greater part" were still living when he wrote to the
Corinthians 2 . It is not likely that all these lived up to the
high standard of apostleship reached by Paul himself. It
is conceivable that some of them relied too much on their
personal remembrances of the Lord, and too little on His
Spirit 3 . In one and the same context, we read that Jesus
1 i Cor. ix. i. A.V. places "am I not free?" after, instead of
before, "am I not an apostlel" injuring the sense.
2 i Cor. xv. 6.
3 Comp. Lk. xiii. 26 "We ate and drank in thy presence and
thou didst teach in our streets," parall. to Mt. vii. 22 "Did we not
400 (Mark iii. 13 19)
THE APPOINTMENT OF THE TWELVE
"appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve, then... to above
five hundred brethren at once. . .then to James, then to all
the apostles 1 ." This is supposed to mean that James the Lord's
brother was by this time included in "the apostles 2 ," but it
does not appear probable that "all the apostles" included the
"five hundred brethren." The passage, as a whole, leaves a
confusing impression.
Lightfoot argues, from the Epistles, that Andronicus,
Junias, and Silvanus were probably called apostles 3 , and adds
that "If some uncertainty hangs over all the instances hitherto
given, the apostleship of Barnabas is beyond question," because
Luke records the consecration of Barnabas and Paul together
(by the Church at Antioch), and then names them as "apostles"
together 4 . If this argument is sound, it seems to follow that
when Luke called Paul an apostle, for the first time, long after
his conversion, he gave him this title not because Paul had
"seen the Lord" nor because Paul had been "sent" by the
Lord's voice speaking near Damascus, to preach the Gospel to
the Gentiles, but because he had been sent forth as a missionary,
by the Church of Antioch influenced by the Holy Spirit 5 .
prophesy in thy name and in thy name cast out devils, and in thy
name do many mighty works? " Both of these classes are rejected
(as, in effect, "false-apostles") because what they "work" is wrong.
"Eating and drinking" is mentioned by Peter in the Acts thus
(x. 40 41) "Him God raised up on the third day, and gave him to
be made manifest, not to all the people but unto witnesses elected
beforehand (TroKe^ft/joroi/^/xeVois) by God, unto us, who did eat and
drink with him after he rose from the dead."
1 i Cor. xv. 5 7.
2 See Lightfoot Galat. p. 96.
3 See Lightfoot Galat. p. 96, on Rom. xvi. 7 and i Thess. ii. 6.
4 Lightf. Galat. p. 96 quoting Acts xiii. 2. 3, xiv. 4, 14.
5 Acts xiii. 4 "sent forth by the Holy Spirit." Paul is not
described precisely as "sent" to the Gentiles in the earliest narrative
of his conversion, but only in the later ones, Acts xxii. 21, xxvi. 17.
Barnabas seems to be at first distinguished from "the apostles" in
Acts iv. 36 7, where it is said that he "was surnamed Barnabas
by the apostles."
A. P. 401 (Mark iii. 13 19) 26
THE APPOINTMENT OF THE TWELVE
There do not appear any grounds for thinking that this
Lucan view was commonly held, namely, that any Church
the Church at Ephesus, for example, or Corinth, or Rome-
could create an "apostle" in this way. Perhaps Luke was led
to adopt this view by a desire to base Paul's claim to be an
apostle on something more definite than a vision. It is cer-
tainly remarkable that he should in this unobtrusive way so
unobtrusive that a hostile critic might call it surreptitious
slip into the Acts his first mention of Paul as " apostle." And
it is all the more remarkable because in that passage he places
Barnabas first. Thus Luke is able to say, in effect, about
both "They were apostles, because they were sent from the
Church at Antioch at the instance of the Holy Spirit."
In the Acts, it is assumed, and especially in Petrine speeches,
that the primary duty of an apostle is to be a witness of Christ's
acts and especially of His resurrection 1 . The coopting of a
twelfth Apostle, immediately after Christ's resurrection, is
spoken of as "necessary 2 ." But later on, when the Gospel
had been widely proclaimed, no attempt is made to coopt a
twelfth again in the place of the first apostolic martyr, James
the brother of John 3 . "The Apostles" is used to mean the
twelve Apostles in Jerusalem without any mention of "the
Twelve" except in one passage, where the Grecian Jews
murmur against the Hebrews and " The Twelve called the
multitude of the disciples unto them 4 ." After Paul and
1 Acts i. 22, and see "witness" and "witnesses" in i. 8, ii. 32,
iii. 15, iv. 33, v. 32 etc.
2 Acts i. 21 Set.
3 Acts xii. 2. What are the "names" implied in Rev. xxi. 14
"upon them the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb"?
No answer is given in the context. That the writer would preserve
the number " twelve " at any cost is indicated in the Sealing of
Israel (Rev. vii. 4 foil.) where "twelve thousand" are sealed out of
"every tribe of the sons of Israel," making twelve times twelve
thousand in all, Manasseh being inserted and Dan omitted.
4 Acts vi. 2.
402 (Mark iii. 13 19)
THE APPOINTMENT OF THE TWELVE
Barnabas have been called "apostles^," the term is never
used again without the addition of "the elders," the two
together constituting the central authority in Jerusalem 2 .
Reviewing the evidence as a whole, we have not only to
contrast the frequent and suspicious mention of "apostles" in
Luke's Gospel with the rarity of the term in the other three
Gospels, but also to note the dexterity with which Luke uses
the term in the Acts so as to avoid resting Paul's claim to be
an apostle on Paul's claim to have "seen Jesus 3 ." Yet it is
scarcely credible that Paul did not say to others, beside the
Corinthians, "Have I not seen the Lord?" but contented
himself with throwing the burden of proof on the "witnesses
to the people" who "came up with him from Galilee to Jeru-
salem." We are led to the conclusion, that although Luke did
his best to attain, in his Gospel, a correct use of the title
"apostle," he was probably misled (i) by the complexity of
the meanings of the Aramaic term, (2) by his desire (natural
but misleading) to adhere to one consistent view of the title as
always implying a "witness," and perhaps (3) by some initial
obscurity in the Hebrew or Aramaic from which Mark's
tradition was initially derived 4 . The result was that Luke read
1 Acts xiv. 4, 14. 2 Acts xv. 2, 4, 6 etc., xvi. 4.
3 Paul's first apostolic speech says concerning the risen Saviour
Acts xiii. 30 31) " God raised him from the dead, and he was seen for
many days by them that came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem
who are now his witnesses to the people." It makes no mention of
the fact that he himself has "seen Jesus."
4 In Mk iii. 14 "appointed. . .that they might be with him," the
Clementine Hebrew (1688) renders "with him" by 1DJJ. But this
might mean "his people." In i K. viii. 62 "all Israel with him,"
LXX omits "with him," apparently taking it as "people" and super-
fluous, while the parall. 2 Chr. vii. 4 Heb. (followed by LXX) has
"and all the people " apparently taking DJ? as "people," and "Israel"
as superfluous. Heb. "people" is rendered by "with" in Dan. ix. 26,
Ps. xlvii. 9, ex. 3; Heb. "with" is rendered "people" in i Chr. xii. 18.
See Clue 246. "People" in Heb. (Gesen. 766) sometimes means
"followers" in the sense of "retainers," and it is rendered by LXX
403 (Mark iii. 13 19) 26 2
THE APPOINTMENT OF THE TWELVE
into the word "apostle," as a term used before Christ's res
rection, a meaning that it did not acquire till after Christ'
resurrection, and used it in this anticipatory sense 1 .
4. "That they might be with him, and that he might
[from time to time] send them to preach 2 "
(i) "That they might be with him" is omitted both by
Matthew and Luke. (2) "Preach" is mentioned by Matthew
("Go ye and preach") in the Sending of the Apostles 3 , and by
"servant" in Ps. Ixxviii. 71, Ixxx. 4. It could not have been used
in Mark's original here. But if Luke found a tradition interpreting
Mk iii. 14 as " his people," he might think it worth while to explain
that the term meant "followers of an intimate kind, called apostles."
Comp. 2 K. iv. 42 "Give unto the people," Rashi, "the disciples
whom he [i.e. Elisha] was wont to support (sustentabat)."
1 Similarly Luke appears to have read into the word "deacon,"
or, "minister," did<ovos, the sense that it acquired after Christ's
resurrection but with an opposite result. When Mark and Matthew
use it, the parallel Luke alters it into the verb dtaxoi/e'to. Comp.
Mk ix. 35, x. 43, Mt. xx. 26, xxiii. n, with Lk. xxii. 26. Luke
shrinks from representing Jesus as saying, as in Mark, "He shall be
last of all and minister, or deacon, of all." Even when Luke records
(Acts vi. 2 6) the appointment of seven disciples to "minister to
tables" presumably called SUIKOVOI he himself does not call
them by that name; and, in Acts viii. 5, "Philip" is mentioned so
abruptly meaning, but not saying, "Philip the second in the list
of the seven appointed above" that Isidorus (see Cramer ad loc.)
is at great pains to explain that Philip the Apostle is not meant.
On the other hand, John represents Jesus as saying (xii. 26) " If
any man is [of a mind] to become-minister (or, deacon) (diaKovy) to
me, let him follow me, and, where I am, there also shall be my
minister (or, deacon)." Comp. Clem. Alex. 793 on the true Gnostic,
" Such a one is, in reality, a presbyter of the Church, and a true
deacon [i.e. minister] of the will-and-purpose OouX^o-etos) of God...
and he will sit in the four and twenty thrones judging the people
(Rev. iv. 4)." It is interesting to note that, in the only passage
where Clement of Rome mentions "deacon," he says ( 42) that it
goes back to ancient times, and he misquotes, in support of his
assertion, Is. Ix. 17 Heb. " overseers. . .exactors," LXX apxovras. . .
'TTtaKOTTOVS, aS firKTKOTTOVS . . . 8l(l<OVOVS.
2 Mk iii. 14. 3 Mt. x. 7.
404 (Mark iii. 13 19)
THE APPOINTMENT OF THE TWELVE
Luke ("he sent them forth to preach") in the Sending 1 ,
but not here. "That they might be with him" seems from
the Fourth Gospel to have been really the primary object
of the appointment of the Twelve by Jesus. The simplicity
of the phrase perhaps prevented Matthew and Luke from
realising its latent force. It is an understatement, implying
"That they might become imbued with Christ's Spirit and
hence fitted to testify to Him, that is, to become His witnesses
or martyrs." Isaiah represents God the Saviour as saying to
Israel whom He created and formed and redeemed "thou
art mine," "I will be with thee," "I am with thee," and then
"Ye are my witnesses, and my servant whom I have chosen 2 ."
But whereas the Old Testament promises that God will be with
men, the New adds the promise that, as a consequence, men
will be with God. Jesus says, in the Fourth Gospel, "When
the Comforter is come. . .he shall bear witness of me, and ye
also bear witness, because ye have been with me from the be-
ginning*." Both in the Prophecy and in the Gospel there is
perhaps an assumption that "from the beginning" is not confined
to mere literal time. It may imply sometimes an initial and
spiritual predisposition to become "witnesses" for God, from
birth onwards, or even according to Pauline doctrine before
birth, as in the case of Jacob, a "beginning" that goes back
to God's purpose as its origin.
The close of Christ's Prayer to the Father in the Fourth
Gospel repeats a form of the Marcan phrase in a new aspect,
as though Jesus said, first, "In the beginning I appointed the
Apostles that, where I was, they also might be with me [on
earth]," and, secondly, "And now I pray, O Father. . .that, where
I am, they also may be with me [in heaven], that they may behold
1 Lk. ix. 2..
2 Is. xliii. i 10, rep. ib. 12 and xliv. 8 "Fear ye not, neither
be afraid : have I not declared unto thee of old and shewn it ? and
ye are my witnesses."
3 Jn xv. 26 7.
405 (Mark iii. 13 19)
THE APPOINTMENT OF THE TWELVE
my glory which thou hast given me, for thou lovedst me before
the foundation of the world 1 ." The disciples of Jesus could
not preach Jesus till they "knew" Him. The Fourth Gospel
implies that, until the Spirit of Jesus came to them, they all,
to some extent, fell short in that "knowing" like Philip.
Jesus included all the disciples ("you") not Philip alone
("thee") when He said, "Have I been so long with you and
dost thou not know me, Philip 2 ?" Jesus had been "with"
them, preparing them to be "with" Him] but the preparation
was not yet complete 3 .
On this first point, then, John may be said to intervene,
giving to Mark's phrase a force, not contrary to probable fact
and history, though perhaps not contemplated by Mark himself.
But on the second point, the "preaching" of the Twelve, he
neither does nor can intervene, since he never uses the word
"preach" or "proclaim," and since the thought is alien from his
Gospel 4 . He prefers to speak of "bearing witness." But even
as to "bearing witness," it is almost certain that John would
not have said that Jesus appointed the Apostles that they
might at once "bear witness" concerning Himself. It is not till
the night before the Crucifixion that He says : "It was not ye
that chose me, but it was I that chose you, and appointed
you, that ye may go and bear fruit, and that your fruit may
remain 5 ."
1 Jn xvii. 24. There is a connection, more easily felt than defined,
between the foreordained unity of the disciples with the Saviour and
"before the foundation of the world."
2 Jn xiv. 9.
3 See Ps. cxxxix. 18 "I am still with thee," and Rashi's comment
"Behold I have come to the end of the generations which thou
hast marked out, beginning from the first ages up to this day. Still
is this generation of Israel with thee and abideth in thy fear, nor have
I departed from thee."
4 See Beginning pp. 45 6. John prefers to contemplate God
as the Father represented by the Son, rather than as the King
"proclaimed" by the Herald.
6 Jn xv. 1 6.
406 (Mark iii. 13 19)
THE APPOINTMENT OF THE TWELVE
Here, however, we must do Mark the justice to note that
his language ("that he might [from time to time] send" or
"that he might be [hereafter] sending") does not denote a
single and immediate sending 1 . It seems probable that the
phrase was inserted here, out of place, to explain the preceding
clause "whom also he named apostles (i.e. persons-to-be-sent),"
and that Mark meant, in effect, "not that He might send them at
once but that He might have them ready to be sent hereafter."
John, in the Fourth Gospel, nowhere describes the Apostles
as being absent from Jesus, except for very short intervals,
first, during His dialogue with the woman of Samaria; and
secondly, during the storm at night, after the Feeding of the
Five Thousand. After the first absence, Jesus says to them,
"Lift up your eyes"; after the second, "Fear not 2 ." There
is nothing amounting to reproach in either case ; but there is a
suggestion that the disciples were not in a condition to be left
to themselves by their Master. They might be able to "cast
out devils." On that point the Fourth Evangelist is absolutely
silent. But he gives us the impression that they were not as
yet able to "preach the Gospel."
This last sentence covers all that we need say about the
verse in Mark that follows the one we have been discussing,
namely, "and to have authority to cast out devils 3 ." It
appears to be out of place here, and Luke accordingly omits
it. But even if it were in place, the Fourth Gospel could not
be expected to insert it. *
1 In Mark, tva, when followed by the present subjunctive, denotes
(or may denote) continual or habitual action or state, e.g. iii. 9, iv. 12
(quotation), vi. 8 (perhaps), vi. 12 (^ravomaiv, see Swete), vi. 41
(rep. viii. 6) TrapariBwaiv (perhaps), xi. 28 ("that thou shouldst con-
tinue doing these things"), xiii. 34. Contrast Mk x. 13 tva a^rai
with Lk. xviii. 15 tva aVr^rat.
2 Jn iv. 35, vi. 20.
3 Mk iii. 15 KO.I cx* lv fovoriav K@d\\fiv ra Saifj-ovta. The construction
is not ical tva. . ., as in the previous verse. And there is no mention
of "healing diseases."
407 (Mark iii. 13 19)
THE APPOINTMENT OF THE TWELVE
5. "James the [son] of Zebedee and John the
brother of James 1 "
Luke does not think it necessary to define John as tl
brother of James, or to emphasize the fact that both are soi
of Zebedee. It is true that, in his first mention of the two
brothers, he describes them as "James and John, sons of
Zebedee"; but he adds "who were partners with Simon 2 ."
"Zebedee" he never mentions again either in the Gospel or
in the Acts. "Partners with Simon" accords with the way
in which he presents "John" to his readers in the Acts, where
" Peter and John " come first in the Apostolic list 3 ; and " Peter
and John" acting and speaking as one person go up to the
Temple together, heal a lame man together, and afterwards,
as one, defend themselves from the charges brought against them
before the Sanhedrin 4 . James the son of Zebedee is not men-
tioned in the Acts (apart from the Apostolic list above mentioned)
except to record his death, and then he is described, not as the
son of Zebedee but as "the brother of John 5 ." When Paul
speaks about the "partnership" extended to him by "James
and Cephas and John" the famous "pillars" of the Church
in Jerusalem, he refers not to James the son of Zebedee but
to "James the Lord's brother" who was not one of the
Twelve; so that the passage implies, within a Triumvirate,
1 Mk iii. 17 Mt. x. 2 Lk. vi. 14
And James the James the facto] And James and
[son] of Zebedee and of Zebedee and John John.
John the brother of his brother.
James.
2 Lk. v. 10.
3 Acts i. 13 "both Peter and John and James and Andrew (5 re
rierpof Koi 'laxivrjs <al 'l. KCU 'A.), Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and
Matthew, James [the son] of Alphaeus, and Simon the Zealot, and
Judas [the son, marg. brother] of James."
4 Acts iii. i n, and note especially iv. 13 TTJV TOV iL-Ypov
Trapprjaiav <al 'iwdvov (not TOV *!.), IQ o 5e Herpos nal 'laidvTjs (not 6 *I.)
408 (Mark iii. 13 19)
5 Acts xii. 2.
THE APPOINTMENT OF THE TWELVE
an inner Duumvirate of two members of the Twelve, Peter and
John, working together as we find them working in the Acts 1 .
In his Gospel, Luke adheres at first to the old Galilaean
order, which placed the elder son of Zebedee before the younger,
and he does this also here, in the List of the Apostles, and in
another tradition peculiar to himself, in which he describes
"the disciples James and John" as desiring to call down fire
on a Samaritan village and receiving a rebuke 2 . But at the
raising of Jairus' daughter, and at the Transfiguration, where
Jesus selects three to accompany Him, Luke gives John the
priority, describing them as "Peter and John and James 3 ."
There was only one John among the Apostles, so that "Peter
and John" at the beginning of an Apostolic list could not be
ambiguous, and "Peter and John and James" would naturally
suggest the James that was John's brother ; whereas, in some
contexts, "Peter and James" referring to Apostles might
mean "Peter and James the son of Alphaeus."
The Fourth Gospel does not contain the name "James."
Nor does the Evangelist mention "John" except when he
means the Baptist (or Simon Peter's father). In the first
chapter of his Gospel, John the son of Zebedee, unnamed, is
implied as one of the first pair of disciples, and his brother is
probably implied almost immediately afterwards along with
Simon Peter ; but we do not know this for certain till we look
back to that first chapter from the close of the Gospel where
he mentions, for the first and last time, "the sons of Zebedee 4 ."
It is one of many curious points of contrast between Luke and
John that "the sons of Zebedee" occurs, in the former, only at
the beginning, and, in the latter, only at the close.
1 Gal. i. 19, ii. 9. 2 Lk. ix. 54.
3 Lk. viii. 51, but Mk v. 37 "Peter and James and John the
brother of James " (Mt. om.) ; Lk. ix. 28, but Mk ix. 2 "Peter and
James and John," Mt. xvii. i "Peter and James and John his
brother."
Jn xxi. 2.
409 (Mark iii. 13 19)
THE APPOINTMENT OF THE TWELVE
6. "Sons of thunder" in Mark, "thunder" in John
It has been supposed by many that "sons of thunder"
meant "preaching the gospel with thunder of eloquence."
In that case, it might be illustrated by what Aristophanes says
about Pericles, that he "lightened and thundered and threw
Greece into chaos 1 ." But this interpretation, though natural
for Greeks ignorant of Hebrew, does not accord with (i) the fre-
quent Biblical use of one and the same word, kdl, for " thunder"
and for "voice," (2) the Biblical use of kdl to mean the voice
of Jehovah, (3) the Jewish use of the term Bath kdl to mean
"a voice from heaven."
It is probable that Matthew and Luke omitted the appel-
lation because of its obscure and apparently unedifying nature.
We might therefore reasonably expect John to intervene about
it, but for the fact that he never mentions, by name, either
James or John to whom Mark gives this appellation. Once
only does he mention them as a pair, "the sons of Zebedee,"
but never by their names. We cannot therefore demand that
the Fourth Evangelist should say, directly, "John the son
of Zebedee and James his brother were called 'sons of thunder/
but in a sense not commonly understood." All that we can
expect is that in some indirect way he should convey to us some
spiritual notion of what "thunder" might represent, leading
us inferentially to some spiritual notion of what "sons of
thunder" might mean when applied by Jesus to the sons of
Zebedee. If he does not do this, the rule of Johannine Inter-
vention is broken. But the rule has been shewn to hold in
so many cases where at first sight it appeared to be broken,
that we are bound to be cautious before saying " It is absolutely
certain that 'thunder' in John has no connection at all with
'sons of thunder' in Mark."
In the ancient commentary on Mark attributed to Jerome,
1 Aristoph. Acharn. 531.
410 (Mark iii. 13 19)
THE APPOINTMENT OF THE TWELVE
it is said about Peter, James, and John, "Jesus named them
Boanerges, that is, Sons of Thunder, since the exalted desert of
these three deserves to hear, on the Mountain, the thunder of
the Father, thundering through the cloud, ' This is my beloved
Son'' referring to the Transfiguration 1 . Very similar is
the explanation of Origen who says that the " Boanerges "
were to send forth to men the utterances of the divine thunder,
being, indeed, not thunders, but "Sons of Thunder," because
they are "begotten from the mighty-voicedness of God, who
thunders and shouts mightily from heaven to those who have
ears and are wise 2 ." The Voice of the Father from heaven,
in the Synoptists, did not expressly reveal anything except
the divine Sonship of Jesus ("This is my beloved (or, chosen)
Son 3 "). But it also implied that His Word was preeminent
("hear ye him") even above the teaching of Moses and Elijah,
who were present conversing with Him on the mountain. And
Luke goes further still, and tells us that Moses and Elijah
spoke with Jesus "concerning his departure which he was to
1 See Son 34686 quoting "Et imposuit Simoni nomen Petrus.
De obedientia ascendit ad agnitionem. . .et Jacobum. . .et Joannem
. . . et imposuit eis nomina Boanerges, quod est filii tonitrui, quorum
trium sublime meritum in monte meretur audire tonitruum Patris. ..."
The writer seems to be playing on the meaning of "Simon,"
"hearing," when he says that he ascended from "hearing and
obeying (obedientia}" to "hearing and understanding (agnitio}."
2 Introduction p. 171, quoting Origen Comm. Matth. xii. 32. See
also Son 3468 a b quoting Pseudo-Jerome and Origen. The former
distinctly says that Peter, James, and John were all called Boanerges.
One of the quotations given from Origen (in Comm. Matth. xii. 32)
appears inconsistent with this. But add Origen's Pref. to Rom. about
changes of names: "In Evangeliis quoque ex Simone Petrus et
filii Zebedaei filii tonitrui nuncupati sunt," which seems to point to
an original : " [He that became] Peter from Simon (6 (< Sipavos lleYpoy)
and the sons of Zebedee, were [all] called Sons of thunder." The
context makes the meaning doubtful. But if Peter (as Pseudo-
Jerome says) . heard with "understanding (agnitio)" the divine
message, was not he entitled (as well as his two companions) to be
called "a son of thunder"?
3 Mk ix. 7, Mt. xvii. 5, Lk. ix. 35.
411 (Mark iii. 13 19)
THE APPOINTMENT OF THE TWELVE
accomplish in Jerusalem 1 ." "Departure" points to tl
Sacrifice on the Cross. And its "accomplishment" points
to the fulfilment of the Law and the Prophets. "The Law
instituted sacrifice as a type, Prophecy predicted its accom-
plishment, the Son was the accomplishment" that appears to
be the thought at the bottom of Luke's addition.
All through the Synoptic narrative of the Transfiguration,
though "thunder" is not mentioned it is implied. The text
speak of a "cloud" as well as a "voice from heaven," and
it is easily conceivable that unbelievers present on that occasion
would have said that "it thundered." This turns our minds
to the only passage in N.T. (apart from Revelation) where
"thunder" is mentioned: "There came therefore a voice out
of heaven [saying] I have both glorified it and will glorify it
again. The multitude, therefore, that stood by and heard
it, said that it had thundered. Others said, An angel hath
spoken to him 2 ." The utterance of the Voice is quite different
verbally from that in the Synoptists, but it is similar spiritually.
For the Father is responding to the prayer of the Son, "Glorify
thy name." And that again points back to a prediction "The
hour is come that the Son of man should be glorified," and to
a declaration that this "glorifying" will be a "dying" in
order to "live," as "a grain of wheat" dies and, by dying,
"beareth much fruit." In word, this is very different from
Luke's mention of the Lord's "departure which he should
accomplish in Jerusalem " ; but in spirit it is very similar.
What does the Fourth Evangelist accomplish for his readers
by this detail about "thunder"? Would it not have sufficed,
after stating what the Voice said, to add "But the multitude
understood it not"? Perhaps he wishes to shew that in such
cases God might sometimes speak through what the common
people would call (and rightly from their point of view)
1 Lk. ix. 31.
2 Jn xii. 28 9 fipovTrjv yeyovevai.
412 (Mark iii. 13 19)
THE APPOINTMENT OF THE TWELVE
"thunder." Others, a higher class, might call it "an angel."
Others such as the disciple, John the son of Zebedee, in whose
name the Gospel was written being "begotten of the thunder
of God," might recognise the voice of God in the "thunder"
to which they were akin, and they might receive in part (without
fully comprehending) the revelation conveyed by it, namely,
that the Father would be glorified by the Son in some kind of
victory over death achieved by obedience to the Law of the
Spiritual Harvest
The Johannine narrative at this point is of such a dignity
and depth, that it would seem in bad taste, as well as contrary
to probability, to suppose that the writer would convey, under
this unique mention of "thunder.." any direct reference to a
mere phrase like "the sons of thunder" as an appellation of
the sons of Zebedee. If that had been the case, he would
(one might suppose) have indicated that the Evangelist, pre-
sumably John the son of Zebedee, received some special insight.
This he has done elsewhere, but not here. All that we can say
then is this, that (i) throughout his Gospel he represents the
author as being anything but " a son of thunder" in the western
sense, but, on the contrary, as singularly retiring; (2) he
represents the author as being, on at least three occasions,
possessed of special insight 1 . Also (3) he leads his Gentile
readers to regard "thunder" in an aspect new to them. It
is perhaps Jewish rather than Hebraic, belonging to Jewish
developments of Hebraistic thought which represent "thunder"
as the type of God's deep secrets of Redemption.
7. "Thaddaeus" in Mark, "Judas of James" in Luke 2
"Thaddaeus," a form of the name Judas, is found in both
the Talmuds 3 . It is also assigned in one treatise to one of
1 See Jn xix. 35, xx. 8, xxi. 7.
2 Mk iii. 1 8, Lk. vi. 16.
3 See Levy iv. 627 b, and HOY, Heb. on Mt. x. 3.
413 (Mark iii. 13 19)
THE APPOINTMENT OF THE TWELVE
five disciples of Jesus, all of whom are put to death by the
Sanhedrin with grim jests playing on their several nanies and
quoting Scripture. The name means an offering of thanks or
of praise. Thaddaeus, playing on this, says "Shall Thaddaeus
be slain? It is written 'Psalm for thank-offering.'" They
reply, with a counter-play, "Surely Thaddaeus shall be con-
demned, for it is written 'Whosoever offereth the sacrifice of
thank-offering glorifieth me 1 .'" This resembles the Johannine
tradition: "The hour cometh that he that slayeth you shall
think that he offereth [religious] service to God 2 ."
The verb "praise" is assumed in Scripture to be the origin
of the name "Judah" in accordance with the words of Leah
("I will praise the Lord") and Jacob's prediction ("thy brethren
shall praise thee 3 "). When, therefore, in the Lucan parallel
to "Thaddaeus," we find "Judas of James," we see no great
difficulty in the inference that "Thaddaeus" may be a ver-
nacular form of "Judas," and that one reason for its acceptance
was a desire to distinguish this Judas from Judas Iscariot 4 .
This being the case, when we find John introducing a
disciple as "Judas not Iscariot**," we are justified in taking it
as one of the very many instances where John intervenes to
clear up an obscurity in Mark. That Mark was obscure may
be inferred not only from Luke's deviation, but also from
the fact that in Matthew many authorities read "Lebbaeus"
for "Thaddaeus," and Origen expressly accepts the reading
"Lebbaeus" in Matthew's Apostolic list 6 . That John should
1 See Levy iv. 630 a, quoting Sanhedr. 43 a (Ps. c. (title), and
1. 23), and Hor. Heb. on Mt. ix. 9.
2 Jn xvi. 2 Xarpciav trpoarfpfpfiv r<p $eo>.
3 See Gesen. 397 a, quoting Gen. xxix. 35, xlix. 8, and other
passages.
4 See Hor. Heb. on Mt. x. 3: "It is a warping of the name
Judas, that this apostle might be the better distinguished from
Iscariot."
5 Jn xiv. 22.
6 See Origen's Pref. Epist. Rom.
414 (Mark iii. 13 19)
THE APPOINTMENT OF THE TWELVE
have been dissatisfied with Luke's correction "Judas of James,"
is not surprising. There were already, in the Apostolic lists,
James the son of Zebedee, and James the son of Alphaeus;
and, before the Gospels were committed to writing, there
came into prominence in the Church a third James, James
the Lord's brother, presiding over the Council of Jerusalem.
To add a fourth (as the father of an apostle) might well seem
inexpedient. We may accept this, then, as a case of Johannine
Intervention.
But, instead of "Judas not Iscariot," the Syro-Sinaitic
version has "Thomas," and the Curetonian Syriac "Judas
Thomas." In the only quotation by Origen of this passage,
the Latin mentions simply "quidam discipulus 1 ." Also John
informs us and he is the only Evangelist that does this that
"Thomas" was "called Didymus." "Thomas" meant "twin"
in Hebrew, and "Didymus" meant "twin" in Greek. Hence
"Judas Thomas" would mean "Judas the twin." But the
Syro-Sinaitic version assumes that he is identical with the
Apostle commonly known as "Thomas." In that case Thad-
daeus and Thomas in Mark would have to be regarded as two
names for one person. This view would at all events enable
us to understand the extraordinary assertion of Celsus that
the apostles were "ten," or "some ten or eleven," in number 2 .
We may naturally regret that John does not tell us something
fuller and more positive about this Thaddaeus, or Lebbaeus,
or Judas of James, as, for example, whether he was identical
1 Origen Cant. lib. iii (Lomm. xv. 41), quoting Jn xiv. 22.
2 See Origen Cels. i. 62, ii. 46. The context shews that Celsus
does not mean ten "tax-gatherers and sailors " as though two others
might have some other pursuit but that, as Origen says (ib. i. 62)
Celsus "did not know even the number of the Apostles." Perhaps he
identified (Mt. ix. 9) Matthew the tax-gatherer (s. above, p. 284)
with (Mk ii. 14) "Levi the [son] of Alphaeus" (called by Luke
simply (v. 27) "a tax-gatherer named Levi") and hence with "James
the son of Alphaeus," reading Mt. x. 3 as "Matthew the tax-
gatherer [also called] James the [son] of Alphaeus."
415 (Mark iii. 13 19)
THE APPOINTMENT OF THE TWELVE
with Levi the Publican, or, at all events, what other surname h<
had, if any, since Iscariot was not his surname. But he perhaps
knew that the Apostle had more surnames than one and that
there were various traditions about them. And he did not
desire to follow Luke in adding to the names of the complex
Apostolic list. John's intervention may well seem to us in-
adequate, but at all events he intervenes.
8. "The Cananaean" in Mark, "he that was called
Zealot" in Luke
It is commonly stated that "the Zealots" originated under
the auspices of Judas of Galilee; and Josephus is quoted as
authority for this statement 1 . But when Josephus describes
the rise of what he calls "a fourth sect" of the Jews under
Judas of Galilee, he makes no mention of "Zealots 2 ." I have
found no earlier authority for this assertion about "Zealots"
than a passage in the Wars of Josephus describing the excesses
of the freebooting followers of John of Gischala shortly before
the siege of Jerusalem 3 . There, his language implies that
these freebooters and murderers were taking and perverting a
name that had been in use before as it is used in the Epistles
1 On Gal. i. 14 TrepKrcroTtpcas r)\<oTr]s VTrdp^cov TMV TrarpLKwv p,ov Trapa-
', Lightfoot says " St Paul seems to have belonged to the extreme
party of the Pharisees (Acts xxii. 3, xxiii. 7, xxvi. 5, Phil. iii. 5, 6)
whose pride it was to call themselves ' zealots of the law, zealots of
God.' To this party also had belonged Simon, one of the Twelve,
thence surnamed the zealot, ^Ator^s- or Kavavalos, i.e. |NJp. A portion
of these extreme partizans, forming into a separate sect under Judas
of Galilee, took the name of ' zealots ' par excellence, and distinguished
themselves by their furious opposition to the Romans." This gives
the impression, without exactly stating, that "zealots" began to be
used as a sectarian term under Judas of Galilee. Other writers have
committed themselves to this statement.
2 Joseph. Ant. xviii. i. 6.
3 Josephus says that Jesus and Ananus (Bell. iv. 3. 9) "tried to
stir up the people against ' the zealots ' for this was what they called
themselves, as though [they were zealots'] for good pursuits, and not
zealots for the worst possible crimes, and passing bounds [in evil-doing]."
416 (Mark iii. 13 19)
THE APPOINTMENT OF THE TWELVE
and the Acts to denote those zealous for the observance of
the Law, but not as yet of any particular class 1 . We have
therefore to put aside the notion that "Simon the Cananaean"
meant "Simon who had once been one of the Zealots such as those
who followed Judas of Galilee 2 ." If Luke, being greatly im-
pressed by the events attending the fall of Jerusalem, believed
Mark's tradition to mean that Simon had been, in old days,
a political "Zealot" such as Josephus describes, it would seem
that Luke was mistaken.
Then the question arises whether "Cananaean" meant
simply "zealous" in a good sense, a laudatory epithet such as
we find in "Justus." Such a laudation, applied to an apostle
before he became an apostle, would be unique among the
Twelve 3 . Again, did it refer to birthplace and mean "a man
of Canana" or of some place similarly named? Against this,
too, there is the same objection. No other Apostle in the
list is supposed to be called by a birthplace name 4 except
Judas Iscariot, and that supposition is very doubtful; pro-
bably there is a play on " Iscariot 5 ." This brings us to a
1 Paul's expression (Gal. i. 14) "above measure zealous," together
with the context ("I persecuted the church of God") indicates the
direction in which the " zeal " would often be manifested (see Levy iv.
332 b on the term applied to Phinehas (Numb. xxv. n) as "a zealot
and the son of a zealot"}. It is used in the Mishna concerning those
who execute a sentence of death, Sanhedr. 81 b.
2 In Mk iii. 18 and Mt. x. 4, several inferior authorities have (as
A.V.) "Canaanite." Jerome on Mt. x. 2 4 says (i) "appellatur
Chananaeus de vico Ghana Galilaeae," and (2) "in alio Evangelista
scribitur Zelotes. Ghana quippe Zelus interpretatur."
3 It is found, in Acts i. 23, about one (of two) put forth for possible
election, but not elected, to be one of the Twelve, and also in Col. iv. 1 1 .
4 Horae Hebr. on Mt. x. 3 suggests that Lebbaeus may be a place-
name, but I believe that view is not generally accepted.
5 "Iscariot" is popularly supposed to be "a man of Cariot" a
place alleged to be mentioned in Josh. xv. 25 "Kerioth." But the
full name there given is "Kerioth-Hezron." This is rendered by
LXX and Syr. "cities of Hezron," meaning the group of cities that
make up Hezron or Hazor. Origen (on Mt. xxvi. 14 16) regards
A. P. 417 (Mark iii. 13 19) 27
THE APPOINTMENT OF THE TWELVE
similar question about "Cananaean": "Are there any fac
indicating that it might be connected both with a place a
with some moral meaning ? " In favour of this hypothesis
may allege such instances as there are in the A both whe
Rabbis are occasionally introduced with a birthplace name ;
most of them there appears to be a play on the name 1 .
If the Marcan "Cananaean" was originally a birthplace
name, with a play on it, "Cana" is the name that suggests
itself (as it did to Jerome). In that case the birthplace of this
Simon would be also the birthplace of Nathanael. But here
we are met by the fact that the Syriac versions regularly call
Nathanael's birthplace Catne. In Josephus there are several
places called " Cana/' but the forms greatly vary. He mentions
"the village called Cana," and "a village of Galilee called-
by-name Cana," in such a way as to suggest that the word
"Cana" might have some recognised meaning 2 . Various
"Judas Iscariot" as being distinguished from "Judas not Iscariot"
by the addition of the "native-place," and says "I have heard it
explained that the name of the native-place (patria) is, in Hebrew,
suffocated." See Gesen. 6986 on *OD=(i) "stop up," (2) "hire."
From (i) conies (Hor. Heb. on Mt. x. 4) Iscara, strangling, "the
roughest death." From (2) would come suggestions of Judas as
the ''hireling." Jerome (on Mt. x. 4) connects the name either with
place of birth or with " Issachar," "hire." Note also the Greek word
regularly used for the "betrayal" of Jesus, 7rapaSi'8o>/ii, uniquely
represented in Is. xix. 4 by Heb. "CD, i.e. sdchar. The supposed
play on "suffocate " accords with Jewish traditions about the painful
nature of this death, and with the emphasis laid on it in the Gospels
and the Acts. Comp. Hen. VI (B) I. i. 124 "For Suffolk's duke, may
he be suffocate \ "
1 See Beginning p. 311, n. i, quoting e.g. Sabb. 55 b "We always
need Modai (knowledge), for Eleazar the [man] of Modai[m] (know-
ledge) said. ..."
2 Bell. i. 17. 5 TTJV KoXovfievrjv Kava (sic) KCO/W/I/ (Lat. Canacome), Vit.
1 6 ev Ka>p.r) TTJS FaXiXaia? r) rrpcxrayopcvfTai Kai/a. For irpoo'ayopeveo'dai
applied to a place-name that has a meaning, comp. Bell. ii. 19. 4 TTJV
re BfBe^av TT pocrayopvop.irr}v KOI rrjv [? rrjv KCU] KatvoiroXiv With ib. V. 4. 2
(K\rj6r) Se eTTi^coptcos 1 Bee$a TO veoKTicrrov pepos o fj,edepp.r}Vfv6iJ.vov...<aivf)
Xeyotr' av rroXis.
418 (Mark iii. 13 19)
THE APPOINTMENT OF THE TWELVE
readings of Cana 1 are A.vav, \aavas, and /cavara or
In Hebrew, ktn means "little," and it might be used of a
person, as in Ezra, "the Little-one (katari)," or of anything
little, as "the finger 2 ." Genesis says that the city of "Zoar"
was so called because it was "a little one," and "Cana" might
be another instance of a place called "Little-town 3 ." In
Aramaic, the name of "Cattin," "Little-one," was common,
and Levy compares it with "Paul," i.e. Paulus, "the little
one 4 ." One of the most famous of all the Rabbis, placed
in the same category with Hillel, was called Samuel the Little
(Hakkatan), and it was questioned whether he was so called
because he "held himself to be little" or because he was only
a little less than Samuel the Great 5 .
If Simon the Cananaean was regarded as born at Catna
or Cana, the birthplace of Nathan ael, and if Judas was re-
garded as called Iscariot from the name of his birthplace, it
would seem to be more than a mere coincidence that the two
place-names come together at the end of the Apostolic list.
A contrast would seem to be intended. What may be the
precise meaning of "Iscariot" is very doubtful. But the con-
nection between Nathanael and Cana in the Fourth Gospel
suggests that there may have been a play on the place-name
Nathanael, the only one of the disciples praised by Jesus as
"an Israelite indeed," being called "from Catna (or Cana)"
because he counted himself "a little one," and remained one
of Christ's little ones till the end. The name " Catanaean," when
applied to Simon, might naturally be corrupted into the familiar
"Canaanite," which some authorities have in Matthew and
1 Josephus mentions more than one place of that name.
2 Gesen. 882 a quoting Ezr. viii. 12 (R.V. Hakkatan), i K. xii. 10,
2 Chr. x. 10.
3 Gen. xix. 20, 22. 4 Levy iv. 284 b.
5 Levy iv. 283 b. In Eph. iii. 8 "I am less than the least. . .,"
Delitzsch uses the Heb. zoar above quoted from Genesis. But the
thought is the same as that about Samuel the Katan or Kaltin. See
Taylor on Aboth iv. 26.
419 (Mark iii. 13 19) 27 2
THE APPOINTMENT OF THE TWELVE
Mark, or else, when this was seen to be absurd, into "Cana-
naean."
It is disappointing to be unable to arrive at any more
definite conclusion about the precise nature of John's purpose
in giving so early and prominent a place to "Cana," as the scene
of two of Christ's "signs," and then in dropping it till near the
conclusion of his Gospel, where he mentions it, without any
apparent reason, for the third and last time. There seems an
intention to suggest to the readers that there is a mystery about
it, and that, as Origen says, "It is not for nothing that there
are two visitations of Jesus in Cana 1 ." Take the context of
the first mention of the name "Jesus answered and said unto
him [i.e. Nathanael}. . . .And he saith unto him [i.e. Nathanael]
'Verily. . .the Son of man.' And on the third day there was a
marriage in Cana of Galilee. . . 2 " followed by the miracle of
the Water made Wine in the bridegroom's house. The second
mention is connected with the healing of the " nobleman's "
son 3 . And now take the third and last: "Thomas called
Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee*." Why does the
Evangelist, in the first of these passages, keep back from his
readers what he suddenly springs upon them in the last, that
the scene of the wedding there described was also the home
of the disciple addressed in the preceding verse? No one can
confidently say. But many will feel that the Evangelist in
his final mention of Cana seems to desire to magnify both Cana
and Nathanael, as though he said, "Note how this little village
of Cana comes in again at the last. It was the scene of the
first of the 'signs.' It was the scene of the first separately
recorded act of healing. And now it is to be thought of as the
1 Origen on Jn iv. 46 (Lomm. ii. 116). He regards the two
visitations as typical of the Saviour's "two visitations to the world,
the former that He may gladden those that feast with Him, the latter
that He may raise up him that was near death."
2 Jn i. 50 ii. i. 3 Jn iv. 46.
4 Jn xxi. 2.
420 (Mark iii. 13 19)
THE APPOINTMENT OF THE TWELVE
home of Nathanael, to whom the first promise was made, and
who, though not reckoned in the earliest Gospels as one of the
Twelve, was one of the Seven to whom the Lord gave the
Bread and the Fish after the Resurrection."
Jerome connects Christ's praise of Nathanael with His
praise of the "tax-gatherer" who, Luke's Gospel says, was
"justified"; and certainly the story of Nathanael under the
fig-tree might be so told as to resemble that other Lucan story
of the tax-gatherer, Zacchaeus, who is described as being
"little" in stature and as climbing up into a tree where he was
seen by Jesus 1 . Also Clement of Alexandria says that "Zac-
chaeus, or, according to some, Matthias (sic), the chief of the
tax-gatherers," uttered the promise of restitution which made
the Saviour say that He had "found that which was lost 2 ."
"Matthias," though here perhaps identified with Matthew the
tax-gatherer, is mentioned in the Acts as the name of the
thirteenth Apostle, co-opted into the place of Judas Iscariot 3 .
It is not unreasonable to suppose that the writer of the
Fourth Gospel was deeply impressed by what may be called
the comparative failure of the rank and file of the official
"Twelve" as compared with Paul and many nameless mission-
aries not belonging to the Twelve, yet true Apostles who
founded Churches, or prepared the way for founding them, in
the West 4 . Nathanael may have seemed to him the type of
1 See Son of Man 3375 i quoting Jerome (on Ps. xxxii. i and
Lk. xviii. 13).
2 Clem. Alex. 579, quoting the words addressed to Zacchaeus
(Lk. xix. 10). "Matthias," "Matthew," and "Nathanael," all come
from the Heb. nathan, "give."
3 Acts i. 26.
4 Such as Priscilla and Aquila, but left unnamed. See Beginning
P- 339- Note Acts xxviii. 13 14 "We came to Puteoli, where we
found brethren, and were intreated to tarry with them seven days."
Does not this make it probable that Paul's hosts were resident at
Puteoli where they would constitute a little Christian community,
entitled to be called the Congregation or Church of Puteoli?
421 (Mark iii. 13 19)
THE APPOINTMENT OF THE TWELVE
them, and perhaps, at the close of his Gospel, in adding to his
name "from Cana," John desired to suggest that this apostle
began from, and ended in, the true home of the children of
God, the House of God's little ones.
For the rest, John not only fails to satisfy our curiosity
about some of the obscurer members of the Synoptic Twelve,
such as Bartholomew, Thaddaeus (called by some Lebbaeus),
Simon the Cananaean (called by Luke the Zealot), and James
the son of Alphaeus (said to be James the Little), but he even
adds to our difficulties by adding another Simon. For he tells
us that Judas Iscariot was son of Simon. And if any Chris-
tians at the end of the first century had built up explanations
of the name Iscariot as being predictive of treachery, he seems
to dash to the ground such superstructures by telling them that
this Simon, the father of the traitor, was himself called Iscariot, so
that Judas was "[son] of Simon Iscariot." That is when the
traitor's name is for the first time mentioned 1 . Later on, he
calls the traitor "Judas the Iscariot," and then "Judas, the
son of Simon, [namely, Judas] Iscariot 2 ." But finally he
returns to his first appellation, "Judas, the son of Simon Is-
cariot 3 ." Perhaps the Evangelist's object was really to destroy
these superstructures above mentioned. Or perhaps he found
some saying that "Judas, the last in the Apostolic list, was
son of Simon, the last but one," and maintaining that Canan-
aean or Zelotes meant Iscariot 4 . In opposition to these he
says, in effect, "True, the traitor was the son of a Simon, but
not of that Simon. Nor was there anything in the traitor's
appellation that marked him out for treachery, for the appel-
lation belonged to the traitor's father also." In any case we
1 Jn vi. 71. 2 Jti xii. 4, xiii. 2.
3 Jn xiii. 26.
4 If it could be shewn that the Latin sicarius, "assassin," existed
as a Hebraized word, there would be something to be said for this
view. But Krauss gives no instance of it.
422 (Mark iii. 13 19)
THE APPOINTMENT OF THE TWELVE
may be sure that the Fourth Evangelist had some purpose in
these strange variations which, at all events, have the result
of making us reflect that other small statistical and historical
discrepancies in the Synoptists might be explained without
discredit to the writers if we knew all the facts.
423 (Mark iii. 13 19)
CHAPTER XII*
THE KINGDOM OF GOD, A FAMILY
[Mark iii. 20 35]
i. Jesus, in Mark, said by His "friends" to be
"beside himself*"
IN Mark, "he cometh into a house" might, as R.V. margin
says, mean "he cometh home." In that case the house might
be the one first mentioned in this Gospel, namely Peter's,
in Capernaum 2 . But the omission of the clause by Matthew
* For titles of previous Parts of Diatessarica referred to by
abbreviations in this Volume, see pp. 545 6. For other abbrevi-
ations see pp. xxiii xxvi.
1 Mk iii. 20 21
(20) And he
cometh into a house
(or, home) . And the
multitude cometh to-
gether again, so that
they could not so
much as eat bread.
(21) And when
his friends (or, family)
heard it, they went
out to lay hold on
him: for they said,
He is beside himself.
Mt. xii. 22 3
(22) Then was
brought unto him one
possessed with a
devil, blind and
dumb: and he healed
Lk. xi. 14
And he was
casting out a devil
[which was] dumb.
And it came to pass,
when the devil was
him, insomuch that gone out, the dumb
the dumb man man spake; and
spake and saw.
(23) And all
the multitudes mar-
velled.
the multitudes were
amazed, and said, Is
this the son of
David?
2 OIKOS in Mk iii. 20 must be distinguished from ol<ia. Mark's
first mention of ol<ia is in i. 29 rjXQav fls rrjv olx-iav 2i'fU0i>o? KOI 'AvSpeov.
His first mention of OIKOS is in ii. i iJKovo-0r) on eV OIKW (W.H. marg.
fls OLKOV) fo-Ttv, where the meaning is "at home," in "the house of
424 (Mark iii. 20 35)
THE KINGDOM OF GOD, A FAMILY
and Luke suggests that it seemed to them ambiguous or out
of place.
This, however, is a trifling matter as compared with Mark's
use of the word rendered by R.V. "is beside himself" in Mark,
but "were amazed" in Matthew 1 . Matthew never uses it
again, and his use of it here implies that he transferred it from
"Jesus" to "all the multitudes" because he considered the
latter application more seemly. Luke seems to have approved
of the transference, but prefers the usual word to express
"marvel" or "wonder 2 ." The Mark-Matthew verb literally
means "stood outside [of himself, or, of themselves]," and a
very slight change would turn it into the literal phrase "stood
outside" the door of a house 3 etc. A little later on, all the
Synoptists, including Luke, say that the mother and the
brethren of Jesus "stood outside" seeking Him 4 . This confirms
the view that we are here in the region of Greek (not Hebrew
or Aramaic) tradition, and that there was very early difference
of opinion about a Greek phrase, literally meaning "stand out-
side," in a narrative that served as an introduction to some
saying of Christ about His "mother" and His "brethren 5 ."
Simon and Andrew" above mentioned. OLKOS in Mk ii. n, 26 TOV
OIKOI/ o-ov, and TOV O!KOV TOV 0eo{), is defined. In Mk iii. 20, OLKOS being
undefined, ep^erat els olxov may mean "He cometh home [again],"
i.e. to Peter's house above mentioned. However, even if this is
Mark's meaning, we cannot feel sure that he is right.
1 Mk iii. 21 \yov yap OTL e^e'o-n/, Mt. xii. 23 KOL f^io-ravro Trdvres oi
6'xXot (where the pi. -rravres ol 6'^Xoi is to be noted as being a very-
rare expression).
2 Lk. xi. 14 0aviiao~av ol 0^X01.
3 That is to say, it would turn e^eo-rrjo-av into et-aeo-Trjo-av.
4 Mk iii. 31 2 eo> o-TT]KovTs...^( fajTOwrlv ere, Mt. xii. 46 lo-rrjKfto-av
eo> r)Tovvres. . ., [Mt. xii. 47 eo> earrjKao-iv frrovvres . . .], Lk. Vlii. 2O
o-Tr)Kao-Lv eco Ide'iv QtXovTfs o~e. The contexts vary, but all have
"stand outside."
6 Codex D (in Mk iii. 21) has "and when they heard about him,
the scribes and the rest (so also e as well as d) went out to seize him,
for they said that he is making them mad," KCU ore rjKovo-av -n-fpi
425 (Mark iii. 20 35)
THE KINGDOM OF GOD, A FAMILY
It would be interesting, verbally, to shew how, beside this
particular Greek word, other causes and particularly the use
of "go forth" may have contributed to the confusion of the
Synoptic tradition 1 . But historically the chief interest of the
parallel narratives lies in the fact that Mark's tradition gave
the impression that Christ's own "friends," or "family 2 ," said
"He is beside himself." The deviations of Matthew and Luke
from Mark, and the alterations of Mark itself in Codex D,
confirm this view.
Yet the extraordinary freedom of Mark's text elsewhere
in using the third person plural of a verb without a pronominal
subject, to mean that people "said," or "did" this or that,
leaves us free to believe that the meaning may be "And when
his friends heard it they went out to lay hold on him; for
01 ypap,p.ciTiv (sic) <al 01 XOITTOI f^rjKBov Kpar^tratcrcu (sic) avrov e\*yov yap
on. fgea-Tarai (sic) avrovs. SS "and when his brothers heard." "The
rest" might easily be confused with "brothers" owing to Hebrew
corruption (s. Corrections 348 a).
1 The same Syr. verb occurs in Mk iii. 21 "they had gone out to
take hold of him," and ib. "he hath gone out of his mind," and Lk. xi.
14 " when the devil had gone out." Some play on the double meaning
of "go-out" may explain why Matthew and Luke here insert a tradi-
tion about a deaf-mute devil (Matthew adds "blind") that is caused
(Luke says) to "go out." One of the earliest LXX uses of f^iarrrj^i is
Gen. xlii. 28 egto-rr} f) <ap8ia CIVT&V, Heb. "their heart went out,"
Targums "the knowledge of their hearts went out." That Matthew
(xii. 22) should add "blindness" to "deafness" may perhaps be
explained by the fact that he has just (ib. 21) been quoting Isaiah;
and in Isaiah's prophecy about the healing of the ransomed of
Israel, (Is. xxxv. 5) "the eyes of the blind" precedes "the ears of the
deaf" followed by "the lame" and "the dumb."
2 See Field, Otium Norvicense p. 18, on Mk iii. 21 oi Trap' avrov.
And to his numerous instances add Berlin Urkunde 385 (2nd cent.)
" I salute my mother, and my brothers, and Sempronius, and his
family (rovs Trap' avTov)." In ib. 998 (101 B.C.) as in Oxy. Pap. 246
11. 27, 31 (A.D. 66) 6 irapa may denote an agent. And here, if the
context permitted, it might mean Christ's messengers or agents.
But the context does not permit.
426 (Mark iii. 20 35)
THE KINGDOM OF GOD, A FAMILY
people were saying, He is beside himself 1 ." Somewhat similarly
Mark adds, at the end of the controversy of which we are
here discussing the introduction: "[This he said] because
[people] were saying (or, beginning to say), He hath an unclean
spirit 2 ." If that is the meaning, then the friends of Jesus
may have gone forth to put a friendly restraint on Him, not
because they themselves believed Him to be insane, but because
the charge was beginning to be widely repeated in various
forms by enemies whose object it was to represent Jesus as a
dangerous or law-breaking lunatic, who ought to be put to
death.
Before passing from this tradition about Jesus as being
"beside himself," we must point out that Matthew, in an
earlier chapter, has another form of the narrative of the healing
of a dumb man possessed with a devil ; and there he agrees with
Luke in substituting "marvelled" for "beside themselves [with
amazement]," and also in making no mention of blindness 3 .
1 See Joh. Gr. 2425 b, Son 3180 b, 3281 a. Note especially :
Mk vi. 14 Mt. xiv. I 2 Lk. ix. .7
KCU 77KOV(rei>...'Hp<0- rjicovo-fv 'Hpq>dr]s... rjicovo-fv &e 'Hptodrjs
8r)$,<pavepbvyapyVfTO KOL eiTrev... ...KCU dirjTropfi 8ia TO
TO ovofjia avTov, /ecu e'Xe- \fyeo~6at VTTO rwa>i>...
yov (marg. eXeyev)...
Here Codex D and several Latin codd. agree with B in reading
(in Mark) e'Xeyoi/ (or e'Xeyoo-ai/) in spite of the greater facility of the
singular, which Matthew adopts.
2 Mk iii. 30 ort eXeyov, HVCV/JLO. aKadapTov e^ft.
3 Mt. ix. 32 3 (R.V.) "And as they [i.e. two blind men previously
mentioned] went forth, behold there was brought to him a dumb man
possessed with a devil. And when the devil was cast out, the dumb
man spake ; and the multitudes marvelled, saying, It was never so
seen in Israel." This miracle takes place in a "house" (ix. 28 "when
he had come into the house the blind men came to him") where
Jesus had healed two blind men who had appealed to Him as "son
of David." Having just healed blindness, Jesus now heals dumbness.
In Rushbrooke's Synopticon p. 150 (containing the Double Tradition
of Matthew and Luke) Mt. ix. 32 4 is immediately followed by
Mt. xii. 22 4, both being paralleled to the single narrative of Lk. xi.
14 15. This Double Tradition is almost entirely confined to words
of Jesus. Here it contains an act.
427 (Mark iii. 20 35)
THE KINGDOM OF GOD, A FAMILY
2. "He hath Beelzebub;' in Mark
It will be observed below that Matthew and Luke call
Beelzebub "the prince of the devils/' whereas Mark does not 1 .
1 Mk iii. 226 (R.V.)
(22) And the
scribes which came
down from Jeru-
salem said, He hath
Beelzebub, and, By
(or, in) the prince of
the devils casteth he
out the devils.
(23) And he
called them unto
him, and said unto
them in parables,
How can Satan cast
out Satan ?
(24) And if a
kingdom be divided
against itself, that
kingdom cannot
stand.
(25) And if a
house be divided
against itself, that
house will not be
able to stand.
(26) And if
Satan hath risen up
against himself, and
is divided, he can-
not stand, but hath
an end.
Mt. xii. 248 (R.V.)
(24) But when
the Pharisees heard
it, they said, This
man doth not cast
out devils but by
(or, in) Beelzebub the
prince of the devils.
(25) And know-
ing their thoughts
he said unto them,
Every kingdom di-
vided against itself
is brought to deso-
lation ; and every
city or house di-
vided against itself
shall not stand :
(26) And if
Satan casteth out
Satan, he is divided
against himself ; how
then shall his king-
dom stand?
((27) And if I
by (or, in) Beelzebub
cast put devils, by
(or, in) whom do
your sons cast them
out? therefore shall
they be your
judges.
(28) But if I by
(or, in) the Spirit of
God cast out devils,
then is the kingdom
of God come upon
you. (Not in Mk,
see p. 446.)]
Lk. xi. 1520 (R.V.)
(15) But some
of them said, By (or,
in) Beelzebub the
prince of the devils
casteth he out devils.
(16) And others,
tempting [him] ,
sought of him a sign
from heaven.
(17) But he,
knowing their
thoughts, said unto
them, Every king-
dom divided against
itself is brought
to desolation ; and
a house [divided]
against a house
falleth (or, and house
f alleth upon house) .
(18) And if
Satan also is divided
against himself, how
shall his kingdom
stand ? because ye
say that I cast out
devils by (or, in)
Beelzebub.
[(19) And if I
by (or, in) Beelzebub
cast out devils, by
(or, in) whom do
your sons cast them
out ? Therefore shall
they be your judges.
(20) But if I by
the finger of God
cast out devils,
then is the kingdom
of God come upon
you. (Not in Mk,
see p. 446.)]
Note that Matthew's earlier narrative omits the name Beel-
zebub, thus (ix. 34) "But the Pharisees said, By the prince of the
428 (Mark iii. 20 35)
THE KINGDOM OF GOD, A FAMILY
Mark's language is consistent with the view that Beelzebub
means one of many inferior devils, under Satan the prince of
the devils. According to Mark, the scribes may have said
that Jesus was possessed by this inferior devil, the agent of
Satan, and that Satan gave to Jesus, through the possession
of this inferior devil, power to cast out other devils.
Beelzebub appears to be nowhere mentioned in the Talmud,
either as Beelzebub or as Beelzebul 1 . The names Asmodeus
and Sammael are frequent, as well as Satan; but Beelzebub
occurs only in the Bible. There, it is the name of a foreign
god, to whose oracle the king of Samaria sends messengers to
know whether he will recover from sickness. Elijah meets
them and says that the king shall die as the penalty of his
inquiry 2 . The name means "lord (baal) of flies." But "lord
(baal) " is easily confused, or might be contemptuously inter-
changed, with bala, "swallow," as in Isaiah where "lords of
the nations " is rendered " swallowing the nations " by the LXX 3 .
Now Jesus accused the Pharisees of "straining at a gnat"
while "swallowing a camel," meaning perhaps, inter alia, that
they swallowed the adultery of Herod Antipas while they
condemned, in poor folk, the slightest infraction of the Levitical
laws of eating, drinking 4 , etc. They, on the other hand,
would certainly accuse Christ of blasphemy in forgiving sins,
and especially sins of "women that were sinners." The
Onomastica Sacra explains "Baalzebub," and even "Beelzebul,"
devils casteth he out devils." On the spelling of the name, "Beel-
zebub " or " Beelzebul," see below. W.H. follow B in reading Beee/3ouX.
1 See Levy's copious list of Hebrew words compounded of
"Beel-," i.e. Baal, i. 248 9.
2 See 2 K. i. 2, 3, 6, l6. LXX eV ro> (bis eV r?/) BaaX fivlav, Aq. V
BaaXe|8ov/3, Sym. irapa TOV BeeXe/3ovX ("6 'Eppalos," /3a/3aX e/3ou/3).
3 Is. xvi. 8 KaTcnrivovTfs, comp. Numb. xxi. 28 "the lords of,"
4 Mt. xxiii. 24, on which see Wetstein and Schottgen quoting
Gittin 90 a on the different courses open to anyone into whose cup
a fly falls when he is on the point of drinking. It alludes to the
relations between a husband and a wife.
429 (Mark iii. 20 35)
THE KINGDOM OF GOD, A FAMILY
as "swallowing flies," and this may easily be explained as a
reproach likening Jesus to one who drank wine full of flies, being
possessed with an evil spirit, a " Baalzebub," or "lord of flies,"
who was also a " Balazebub," or " swallower of flies 1 ." This
may help us to answer the question "How is it that elsewhere
the enemies of Christ are described as saying about John the
Baptist 'He hath a devil,' but about Jesus 'Behold, a glut-
tonous man and a winebibber, a friend of tax-gatherers and
sinners' as though Jesus had not 'a devil' 2 ?" The answer
appears to be, partly, that these words represent the earlier
(not the later) language of Christ's enemies, and partly that,
even from the beginning, the spirit that provoked them in
Jesus was one of so genial, bright, and festive a nature that
they could not call it a "devil" in the sense in which they
imputed "a devil" to the Baptist. Christ's spirit was in-
tensely humane. It sympathized with flesh and blood, even
with sinners. It did not rave, it did not brood. It seemed
very different from the spirit of John the Baptist. The
Pharisees had to take time to classify and label it 3 .
Perhaps their habit of contrasting John the Baptist with
Jesus led them to the name they selected. Men likened John
to Elijah, and Christ's own followers would admit the likeness.
1 See Onomast. p. 45 " Baalzebub (2 K. i), devorans muscam,"
p. 66 "Beelzebub (Lk. xi. 15), habens muscas, aut vir muscarum. In
fine ergo nominis B litera legenda est, non L, musca enim zebub
VOCatur," ib. 176 BefXe/3ovX (Mk iii. 22), Karairivuv /zutar, 182 BeeX^ovX,
8m'/ia>J> /3aK?7Xa>(rfa>s, 1 88 BeeXe/3ovX, 8aip.(ov Ka7rr)\vs rj KaTcnrivw fv
avairavvci o-ro/iaror (it adds that it is the name of an obscene Priapus) .
2 Mt. xi. 1 8 19, Lk. vii. 33 4.
3 Matthew mentions Beelzebub in Mt. x. 25 " If they have called
the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more [shall they call]
them of his household ! " This is in the precepts to the Apostles
which Mark places long after the Synoptic tradition about Beelzebub.
The Synoptists represent Jesus as being present at entertainments.
But John goes further and says that He was present at (ii. i 2) a
ya/tto? where He made wine. In LXX (Gen. xxix. 22, Esth. ii. 18,
ix. 22) yd/ios=Heb. (Gesen. 10596) nn?D "[occasion for] drinking."
430 (Mark iii. 20 35)
THE KINGDOM OF GOD, A FAMILY
Now Elijah spent his life in striving against the false god
Baal, and almost the last act of it was to pronounce the penalty
of death on the king of Samaria (as above described) for con-
sulting the oracle of Baalzebub, "the god of flies." By a play
on Baal, the word would mean "swallowing flies," that is,
condoning impurities, in sinful men and women. By a play
on zebub, "fly" would become "dung," zebul. This would
express the Pharisaic loathing for the food that Jesus deigned
to eat, along with tax-gatherers and sinners, and with un-
washed hands.
There may have been, and probably there were, in the
controversies about Baalzebub and exorcism, other allusions
that cannot now be recovered. The same Hebrew that in
Isaiah means "Go-forth!" addressed to an idol, is used by
Delitzsch to render "Go-forth!" in Mark, addressed by Jesus
to an evil spirit; but in Isaiah, the LXX has "dung," and the
three Translators have similar renderings 1 . In Aramaic there
is the same possibility of a play on the meanings "go-forth"
and "excrement 2 ." It is conceivable that some of the Pharisees,
tired of hearing the "Go-forth!" successfully pronounced by
Jesus the Exorcist, may have varied their abusive appellations
by calling Him, at one time "the Lord of flies," Baalzebub, at
another "the Lord of dung," Baalzebul.
3. The "brethren" of Jesus, in John
John represents the brethren of Jesus as urging Him to go
up to Jerusalem at the very time when the Jews were plotting
1 For the frequency and (we may almost say) the systematic
character of word-distortion in connection with objects of idolatrous
worship, see HOY. Heb. (on Mt. xii. 24) which begins by quoting
R. Akiba on Is. xxx. 22 "Thou shalt cast away [the idol]. . .thou
shalt say to it Go-forth (K)." This should have been rendered by
LXX 'eA0e (as in Mk v. 8 ?eA0f, Del. v), but LXX has "dung,"
KOTrpov, and simil. Aq. See also Levy iv. 176 b where Pesikta (Wii.
p. 144) similarly interprets "go-forth" as "dung."
2 See Levy iii. 424 b. The noun is also used of the unchaste and
lewd, comp. Levy Ch. ii. 122 a.
431 (Mark iii. 20 35)
THE KINGDOM OF GOD, A FAMILY
to kill Him 1 . By this paradox he achieves two results. First,
he indirectly denies that Christ's brethren though they 7 ' did
not believe on him 2 " said that He was "beside himself."
Secondly, he distinguishes the ignorant people in Galilee, who
knew nothing about the plots of the rulers in Jerusalem, from
an inner circle of the people of Jerusalem, who knew all about
them. When Jesus said in Jerusalem, "Why seek ye to kill
me?" the "multitude" (that is, of the pilgrims) answered,
"Thou hast a devil; who seeketh to kill thee 3 ?" But, soon
afterwards, "some therefore of them of Jerusalem said, Is not
this he whom they seek to kill ? . . . . Can it be that the rulers
indeed know that this is the Christ 4 ?"
Thus the Fourth Gospel helps us to perceive the force of
the Marcan tradition, in the passage under discussion, "the
scribes that came down from Jerusalem." It is omitted by
Matthew and Luke 5 . But it explains the nature of the contro-
versy and the shape given to it by Christ's enemies. The
name "Baalzebub" was Biblical, and the plays on it were such
as would come from scribes, not from "the people of the land."
4. "A devil," in John
The word "demon" or "devil 6 ," in John, is never used
except in three passages. In these, it is applied to Jesus
Himself. One has been quoted above "Thou hast a devil,"
uttered by "the multitude," who are ignorant of the plots
against Jesus, and who resent the words "Why seek ye to kill
me?" In the second, "the Jews" are the speakers, "Say we
1 Jn vii. i 3 "The Jews sought to kill him. ...His brethren,
therefore, said unto him, Depart hence and go into Judaea."
2 Jn vii. 5. 3 Jn vii. 19 20. 4 Jn vii. 25 6.
5 Mk iii. 22; Mt. xii. 24 "the Pharisees," Lk. xi. 15 "some of
them," i.e. of the multitudes. So in Mk vii. i, Mt. xv. i (Lk.
om. the whole) "scribes" coming "from Jerusalem" originate a con-
troversy about "unwashen hands."
6 "Demon" or "devil," i.e. daipoviov (not SidfioXos, which occurs
in Jn vi. 70 (without the article) and viii. 44, xiii. 2 (rou dia/3dXou)).
432 (Mark iii. 20 35)
THE KINGDOM OF GOD, A FAMILY
not well that thou art a Samaritan and hast a devil ? " and they
repeat the charge in answer to His denial 1 . This, too, follows
a saying of Jesus "Ye seek to kill me 2 ." In the third, "there
arose a division again among the Jews because of these words,"
i.e. because of His parable about the Good Shepherd ("I lay
down my life for the sheep ; and other sheep I have, which are
not of this fold . . . and they shall become one flock, one shep-
herd") ; "and many of them said, He hath a devil and is mad ;
why hear ye him ? Others said, These are not the sayings of
one possessed with a devil. Can a devil open the eyes of the
blind 3 ?"
In all three instances the charge of "having a devil" is
preceded by some words of Jesus implying predictions either
of His death, or of His laying down life. In these, the sacrifice
of the Cross appears to be indicated in two aspects, first, as a
murder ("seek to kill me," twice repeated), then, as an act of
devotion in "the good shepherd" contending against "the
wolf" ("I lay down my life"). The Gospel appears to reserve
this charge of "having a devil" mostly for occasions where
Jesus is regarded by the Jews as a lunatic or fanatic, with
exaggerated apprehensions of danger or imaginations of self-
conceit.
But something more seems to be intended in the second
instance, "Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan and hast
a devil 4 ?" For here there is a suggestion of something very
different from fanaticism of anti-patriotic feeling of a special
kind, not of being a Herodian, or a Greek, but of being "a
Samaritan." Possibly the Jews are regarded as inferring that,
because Jesus made war against the method of conducting the
1 Jn viii. 48 52. 2 Jn viii. 37, 40.
3 Jn x. 15, 16, 19 21.
4 Jn viii. 48 aTTfKpidrjcrav ol 'lov8aioi...Ov Ka\a>s \eyoptv 7;/iei$-, i.e. " Do
we not well say among ourselves, we (emph.) [Jews in Jerusalem] . . . ? "
Origen rightly observes, "It is likely. . .that they often used to say
this to one another."
A. P. 433 (Mark iii. 20 35) 28
THE KINGDOM OF GOD, A FAMILY
sacrifices in the Temple on mount Moriah, He therefore favoured
the worship in the Temple on mount Gerizim.
If that was the case, the Fourth Gospel meets it in the
Dialogue with the woman of Samaria, where Jesus teaches that
the time is at hand when neither on mount Moriah nor on
mount Gerizim will God be worshipped as of old, but in every
place where people worship "in spirit and in truth 1 ." Neither
here nor anywhere could this Gospel find room for an obscene
name like Beelzebub or Beelzebul; but there is perhaps
a distant allusion in the same Dialogue to the charges of
(i) "gluttony" and (2) "wine-bibbing" and (3) friendship
with "tax-gatherers and sinners." For, first, Jesus is offered
food yet does not eat; secondly, He says "Give me to drink"
but is recorded, not as drinking, but as proclaiming and
proving His power to give "living water"; and thirdly,
though the disciples "marvel" that He "speaks with a
woman" apparently because it was a little beneath their con-
ceptions of the dignity of their Teacher yet the implied result
is that she feels convicted of sin ("he told me all that ever
I did") and the expressed result is that "many of the Sama-
ritans believed on him because of the word of the woman 2 ."
The ancient commentary on Mark attributed to Jerome
allegorizes the peculiar Marcan tradition that Jesus "came to
a house" and says that His disciples "thought that He was
being changed to madness (in furorem verteretur) because the
scribes that had come from Jerusalem said, He hath Beel-
zebub." "The house," it says, "is the primitive Church.
As the heavens are exalted above the earth, so are God's ways
above our ways .... Hence our Lord is changed to madness [in
the eyes of His disciples] when He says, Unless ye shall eat the
flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood ye shall not have
1 Jn iv. 20 foil.
2 Jn iv. 7 39. In iv. 40 foil, it is implied that this belief was
rudimentary and that the Samaritans soon passed beyond it. But
still it was a beginning.
434 (Mark iii. 20 35)
THE KINGDOM OF GOD, A FAMILY
life in yourselves 1 ." The Fourth Gospel nowhere connects
Christ's doctrine of the necessity of this "eating" and
"drinking" with the charge of madness; but this commentary,
connecting the two, may induce us to ask ourselves "Is it not
probable that when the Fourth Evangelist wrote down these
words about the mystical eating and drinking of Christ's body
and blood, he had in view the accusation brought against Him
of being a 'glutton' and a 'winebibber'? " If so, there is a vein
of irony underlying the whole of the Johannine account of the
Jewish reception of Christ's mystery, as though the Evangelist
said to himself, "Just at the moment when the Lord Jesus
rose to the highest point of the revelation of the Father through
the pure sacrifice of the Son, who was to give His flesh for others
to eat, and His blood for others to drink, the Jews saw nothing
in the Son except a human being possessed with a demon of
gluttony, intoxication, and impurity."
5. Mark's first mention of "parables"
Mark's first mention of parables demands attention, apart
from any importance here attached to the word, for the simple
reason that Matthew and Luke agree in omitting it 2 , so that it
raises the question of Johannine intervention. We cannot
of course expect that John would intervene as to the appli-
cation of the word to exorcisms, for John never mentions
exorcisms; but does he, directly or indirectly, intervene as to
the general meaning of the word "parable" and as to the
subject of Christ's teaching "in parables," a phrase common in
Mark and Matthew later on and here used by Mark for the
first time?
1 Pseudo-Jerome on Mk iii. 23 foil., quoting Jn vi. 53.
2 Mk iii. 23 Mt. xii. 25 Lk. xi. 17
KOI Trpoo-KaAeo-a/ze- eiScby Se ras fvBv- avTos Se (Idas
vos avToiis ev 7rapa/3o- p.r)(reis avrooi/ eiTrei/ ra diavorjfiaTa
Aai9 \eyev avrols avrols avrols
435 (Mark iii. 20 35) 28 2
THE KINGDOM OF GOD, A FAMILY
It should be noted that Luke mentions "parable" at a
very early stage in his Gospel, and in Christ's own words
His first words uttered publicly "Doubtless, ye will say
unto me this parable, 'Physician, heal thyself 1 .'" There it
means simply "proverb." Again, we have seen above that
Luke separates the homely warning against "patching" from
what precedes by inserting "He spake a parable also unto
them 2 ," where Mark and Matthew omit the insertion, and make
the discourse continuous. Matthew's course is quite different.
He introduces what.may be called " a parable-epoch" in Christ's
life, using the word no less than twelve times in one chapter,
introducing it with the words "He spake many things to them
in parables," and including a quotation from the Psalms "I
will open my mouth in parables, I will utter things hidden from
the foundation of the world 3 ." In the Hebrew, "parable" is
parallel to "dark-sayings," thus: "I will open my mouth in a
parable ; I will utter dark-sayings of old 4 ."
Obviously "parable," when thus used, is different from
"parable" meaning a mere proverb like "Physician, heal
thyself." And the questions now before us are, "In what
precise sense did Mark use the phrase 'in parables,' thus brought
suddenly before us concerning the 'casting out' of Satan by
Satan? And why do the parallel Matthew and Luke, instead
of the Marcan clause, have 'knowing their thoughts (or,
purposes) ? ' '
An answer to both questions is suggested by the parallelism
in Scripture between "parables" and "dark-sayings." It is
antecedently probable that Mark, who does not quote prophecy
as Matthew quotes it 5 , might nevertheless, in his first mention
of Christ's parables or "dark-sayings," allude to the Psalmist's
utterance (which Matthew quotes). In that case Mark might
1 Lk. iv. 23.
2 See Mk ii. 21, and parallels, above, p. 336, comp. p. 307.
3 Mt. xiii. 3, 35. 4 Ps. Ixxviii. 2 (R.V.).
6 See Beginning p. 207.
436 (Mark iii. 20 35)
THE KINGDOM OF GOD, A FAMILY
have before him a tradition in which "dark-sayings" was
substituted for "parable." Now the Hebrew for "dark-
saying" (frequent in Aramaic also) is said perhaps to mean, in
Daniel, "double-dealing 1 ," and we have seen that Matthew
paraphrases it, in the Psalms, as "things hidden (or secret)."
It might therefore be wrongly taken by Matthew and Luke
here as referring to the "secret-thoughts" of the scribes*. If
that is so, Mark's text is verbally correct in recording that
here for the first time the doctrine of Jesus was described by the
old tradition as being "in dark-sayings" a term erroneously
taken by Matthew and Luke as referring to the thoughts of
Christ's enemies.
From the verbal question we pass to the historical or
theological one, "In what sense were these and other 'parables'
of Jesus ' dark-sayings ' ? " No answer appears to be satisfactory
if it implies that all the parables of Christ were "dark-sayings"
to their hearers merely because their hearers took them literally.
Some of them could not have been taken literally. The
question is complicated by the fact that the Hebrew word
meaning "parable" also means "proverb." And the existence
of some complication is indicated by the fact that the Fourth
Gospel never uses "parable" but does use "proverb." This
Johannine use of "proverb" must receive our attention before
we come to a conclusion about the Marcan use of "parable."
1 See Gesen. 2956 quoting Dan. viii. 23 "understanding dark-
sentences" ("skilled in double-dealing (Bev.)").
2 As to the additional parallelism between Mk Trpoo-KoXea-afjievos
and Mt.-Lk. ei&os, the explanation suggested in Corrections 365 is
not satisfactory. It is perhaps more probable that the simple
preposition "in" ("in dark-sayings he said to them") was para-
phrased as "seeing" because "dark-sayings" was taken as meaning
''[their] dark-thoughts."
437 (Mark iii. 2035)
THE KINGDOM OF GOD, A FAMILY
^____ ^__ ____^___^^^_^^^___^___^__
6. John's mention of "proverbs"
John mentions "proverb," the Greek paroimid, in two
passages of his Gospel, given below 1 . In the second, the con-
text seems to require us to suppose that "proverb" denotes
obscurity. But if that, and nothing else, had been his meaning,
he could have used "enigma," the word used by Paul when he
says "For now we see by means of a mirror, in enigma, but then
[we shall see] face to face 2 ." Etymologically paroimid is alleged
to mean a "roadside-saying 3 ." The brevity natural in the talk
of those who meet one another on the road, would be increased
when a specimen of the talk was caught up and passed from
mouth to mouth. Frequent usage would rub down a proverb
as it rubs down a coin. Aristotle, who calls proverbs "trans-
ferences from one form to another," shews how transference
and brevity might combine to produce obscurity 4 . Yet for
the most part they are not obscure but clear to everybody, being
the condensed wisdom (or reputed wisdom) 5 of antiquity
handed down in a form commending itself to the Greek "man by
the way," whom we now call "the man in the street." There
1 Jn x. 6 "This proverb (irapoipiav) spake Jesus unto them,"
preceded by (ib. 5) "they [i.e. the sheep] know not the voice of
strangers " ; xvi. 25 "These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs
(trapoipicuf) : the hour cometh when I shall no more speak unto you
in proverbs but shall tell you plainly of the Father." To His fol-
lowing words the disciples reply (ib. 29) "Now speakest thou plainly
and speakest no proverb."
2 i Cor. xiii. 12.
3 See Steph. Thes. and Hesychius. No other explanation is
so probable.
4 Aristot. Rhet. iii. IT quoting a proverb about "Hares to Car-
pathus," very much like "Rabbits [imported] to Australia." But
here it is the local colour rather than the brevity that obscures. Very
few of Aristotle's numerous proverbs are obscure. They are almost
all short, except where a verse is quoted whole.
6 See Aristot. Rhet. i. 15. Among the cynical proverbs are "Kill
the son if you kill the father." Contrast the proverb about fathers
and sons in Ezek. xviii. 2 "proverb," LXX Trapa/SoAr}, Aq.
438 (Mark iii. 20 35)
THE KINGDOM OF GOD, A FAMILY
is no alleged instance in Greek literature where "proverb," or
paroimia, is anything but a short saying apart from LXX,
which we must now consider.
The LXX does not use the word paroimia not even in such
expressions as "it became a proverb" and "the proverb of
the ancients 1 " until the title and the first verse of Solomon's
Proverbs. Even here the LXX is not consistent in its context.
For whereas the Hebrew says "The proverbs of Solomon...
understand & proverb," the LXX has "The proverbs of Solomon
. . .understand a parable 2 ." An Appendix to Proverbs is intro-
duced thus in Hebrew, "These also are proverbs of Solomon."
Here LXX has "instructions of Solomon," but some MSS
"proverbs" (and so apparently Symmachus) whereas Aquila
and Theodotion have "parables 3 ." These are the only instances
of "proverb" in LXX except in Ben Sira 4 . We may say there-
fore, with hardly any exaggeration, that paroimia in canonical
LXX is confined to titular or technical mentions of the Proverbs
of Solomon, which, being very short, might naturally be entitled,
in Greek, proverbs rather than parables. So far as they go,
these facts do not give any support to the view that the Fourth
Evangelist would be induced by LXX to use the word paroimia
otherwise than in its regular sense, that is, "proverb." Nor is
any such evidence forthcoming from the renderings of the
other translators 5 .
1 i S. x. 12, xxiv. 13.
2 Prov. i. I 6 Trapoifjiiai Sa\(i)/JLa)VTOs...vof]O'fi re 7rapa/3oA^i>. The
title, in LXX, is "Proverbs" (not " Parables").
3 Prov. xxv. i (on which see Field ad loc and Auct. p. 24).
4 Sir. vi. 35, viii. 8, xviii. 29, xxxix. 3, xlvii. 17. Oxf. Cone.
gives the Heb. of two of these as mdshdl, "parable," and the Heb.
of one as (see above, p. 436) "dark-saying."
5 In two or three instances irapoip.ia is used by Symmachus or
Aquila to indicate a proverb of the ancients or to distinguish one
class of sayings from another, e.g. Ezek. xviii. 2 LXX -rrapafio^,
Aq. Trapoipia ("the fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children's
teeth are set on edge"), napoi/zm does not occur in the Indices to
439 (Mark iii. 20 35)
THE KINGDOM OF GOD, A FAMILY
Jerome calls attention to the difference between "parables
and "proverbs." He suggests that " parable," as a rule, implies
obscurity, whereas "proverb" implies past use and present
retention. But he also adds, less safely, that "proverbs" are
"for the most part" so obscure that they might be called by
the same name as "parables 1 ." For this startling statement
he alleges no proof except one of the two passages we are
investigating, "These things have I spoken to you in proverbs."
But we need a great deal of proof. It is true that here and
there a proverb in the Old Testament may be found of a nature
to be obscure to those who do not know its circumstances, such
as "Is Saul also among the prophets? " But who can say that
Jesus, in the Fourth Gospel or in the Three, dealt in such
"proverbs" as these? They are non-existent in the Gospels.
Many of Christ's Johannine sayings are obscure, as for example,
about His being "lifted up" or "glorified," or about His
"flesh" and "blood" as being "given" for men: but can these
be called "proverbs"? It must be admitted, however, that
Origen though he does not go so far as to assert with Jerome
that proverbs are "mostly" obscure is led, by the combined
influence of the title of Solomon's Proverbs and the Johannine
saying about "speaking in proverbs," to infer that, in the latter,
"proverbs" means "enigmas 2 ."
Epictet. and Marc. Ant., nor in Goodspeed except Athenag. xxxiv. i
and Melito (Euseb. iv. 26. 14) quoting the title of Proverbs.
1 See Jerome on Prov. i. i "Notandum autem quod in vulgata
editione pro parabolis, quae Hebraice D^K'D vocantur, 7rapot/*uu, id
est proverbia dicuntur. Sed nee ipsum nomen abhorret a vero.
Quae enim parabolae recte nuncupantur, quia occulta sunt, possunt
non incongrue etiam proverbia vocari : quia talia sunt quae merito
saepissime ore colloquentium versari ac memoria debeant retineri.
Nam et proverbia plerumque tarn obscure dicuntur, ut merito eadem
possint etiam parabolarum nomine notari, Domino attestante, qui
ait Haec in proverbiis locutus sum vobis: Venit hora cum jam non
in proverbiis loquar vobis, sed palam de Patre annunciabo vobis."
2 See Cels. iv. 87 quoting Prov. xxx. 24 8 about the ants, the
conies etc., on which Origen remarks "But I do not make use of
440 (Mark iii. 20 35)
THE KINGDOM OF GOD, A FAMILY
At this stage of our investigation we may be tempted to
stop and say, "It is useless to search further; for it is certain
that in this last Johannine passage "proverb" implies doctrine
misunderstood ; and it is waste of time to hunt for reasons why
John used paroimia in this (admittedly) new sense, and rejected
the Synoptic 'parable' which he might have used in its (admit-
tedly) old sense to express exactly the same thing." This
temptation will be resisted by those who believe that the
Evangelist was incapable of pedantry, and who are convinced
that he was influenced, to a much greater extent than is
commonly supposed, by mystical considerations, such as would
connect themselves with all books attributed to Solomon and
especially to his Proverbs and his Song.
Looking at the matter thus, we shall perceive that there
would be a mystical fitness in regarding Christ's sayings on
earth as "proverbs." As the first son of David uttered "pro-
verbs," so did the second, the ideal Son of David. It is of the
essence of a proverb that it should be old. Accordingly the
first Johannine use of the word is in a passage where Jesus
describes, at some length, the relation between the Shepherd
and the Sheep, stating one of the oldest and most familiar
these sayings as if they were clear ($ o-a^eVt, but Philoc. om. <$),
but, in accordance with the title for the book [containing them] is
entitled Proverbs I investigate these sayings as enigmas (atViy/unra) .
For it is the custom for these men ( ?) (rots ai/Spaa-t TOUT-CIS-, ? for the
[men] learned [in these things] ifyncrt) to divide into many classes
those expressions that indicate one meaning at first sight but
convey another meaning on reflection of which [classes they
declare] one to be 'proverbs' (<wi/ li/ elvai ras 7rapoip.ias, Philoc. ins.
ev). Wherefore also in our Gospels the Saviour is recorded to
have said, (Jn xvi. 25) 'These things have I spoken to you
in proverbs ....'' Comp. Origen Prolog. Cant. Lomm. xiv. 309
where he again quotes Jn xvi. 25 prefixing the remark: " Proverbia
attitulavit libellum suum, quod utique nomen significat aliud
quidem palam dici, aliud vero intrinsecus indicari. Hoc enirn et
communis usus proverbiorum docet, et Joannes (xvi. 25). ..." This
does not say that proverbs are mostly "obscure." It says merely
that their common meaning is not literal.
441 (Mark iii. 20 35)
THE KINGDOM OF GOD, A FAMILY
truths. We may sum it up as saying "The sheep follow only
their shepherd." Yet after this it is added "This proverb
spake Jesus unto them ; but they understood not what things
they were which he spake unto them 1 ."
The meaning appears to be this. Jesus said to His country-
men, in effect, "The sheep of Israel, the true flock, will follow
none but the Shepherd of Israel." But the Jews did not know
even the meaning of the terms. They did not know the natui
of the true "shepherd," they did not know the nature of the
true "sheep." The words, to them, were nothing but a thread-
bare "proverb" that conveyed no appeal to their hearts.
Hence Jesus proceeds to explain and particularise the proverb
by saying "7 am the good shepherd" and "/ lay down my life
for the sheep." But with what result? They did not know
Him. The "/," therefore, conveyed no new knowledge to
their minds. The "proverb" remained where it was old, trite,
and unprofitable as yet to most, waiting for the living Spirit,
the Power from heaven that should personify the "proverb,"
or replace it by a Person speaking in their hearts 2 .
Similarly, in the second Johannine passage, Jesus had just
spoken a general truth or "proverb" about "a woman in travail
having sorrow" as the necessary condition for "the joy that a
human being is born into the world," and He refers to it and to
similar sayings as proverbs thus: "These things have I spoken
unto you in proverbs*." The disciples imply that, even if this
1 Jn X. 6 OVK. yva)orav riva r^v a e'AaAei avrols. Comp. I Tim. i. 7
/z7 voovvrfs pyre a Xeyova-ii/ fu?re Trepi TLV&V Sia/3e/3euo{Wcu. The subject
was altogether out of their range of vision.
2 Rashi's commentary on the iirst verse of Proverbs (lit. " like-
nesses" or "comparisons," mishle from mashal "liken" or "com-
pare") is "Omnia illius verba sunt similitudines et parabolae. Lex
Divina comparatur mulieri bonae (sive honestae) ; cultus autem
idolatricus feminae meretrici." That seems to suggest that all the
"proverbs" or "likenesses" are based on the likeness of the Law
to Wisdom, the Good Woman, the Spirit of God, the Mother of
man.
3 Jn xvi. 21 5.
442 (Mark iii. 20 35)
THE KINGDOM OF GOD, A FAMILY
had been once the case, it is not so now, "Lo, now speakest
thou plainly and speakest no proverb." That is to say, "We
understand it all. The ' travail ' means that we are to go through
a sore trial before we hail thee as Messiah on thy throne. We
are prepared for such 'travail.' We shall be faithful to thee."
They speak honestly; but in fact they know nothing about
what they speak about. "Messiah," "throne," "travail,"
"human being born into the world": all these things, in
their spiritual significance, are out of their sight, up above as
it were, in a region of a higher dimension. There they must
remain, out of the view of the disciples, till the Spirit of their
Lord, having gone up for them to the Father in heaven, shall
come down again to take up its abode in their hearts, and to
make them capable of seeing what Christ sees, because they can
think what Christ thinks, being able to say, with Paul, "We
have the mind of Christ 1 ."
7. "Parable" implies comparison
From what has been said in the last section we infer that
John preferred to describe as proverbs, rather than as parables,
Christ's teaching about the Kingdom of God, because the former
term more distinctly implied old, rudimentary, and general
truths, whereas the latter implied comparisons. Possibly John
may have thought that, at the period when he was writing,
enough and more than enough had been said about "compari-
sons." The comparisons implied in the old parables dealt with
things, or with persons regarded as mere agents, whereas John
preferred for the most part to write of persons regarded as
individuals*. Isaiah represents God as saying to the idolatrous
world "To whom will ye liken me. . .and compare me that we
1 i Cor. ii. 16.
2 The Johannine parable, or proverb, of the Good Shepherd, is
an exception.
443 (Mark iii. 20 35)
THE KINGDOM OF GOD, A FAMILY
- -
may be like 1 ? " John writes sometimes about human perso
through whom he dramatically expressed divine truths, but
sometimes about divine Persons, about the incomparable God,
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
In the Synoptic Gospels, the Kingdom of God is "compared"
to the sowing of a corn-field, to a net, to leaven, to a mustard-
seed, and to other things on earth corresponding to the things
of the Kingdom in heaven. Mark has not hitherto even
mentioned the Kingdom of God except in Christ's first public
utterance "The kingdom of God hath drawn near 2 ." Nor has
this kingdom been defined by Mark except indirectly, by signs
of healing and by forgiveness of sins. Here, therefore, when
illustrating the kingdom that is invisible by comparing its
conditions with those of visible kingdoms, the word "com-
parison," or "parable," comes appropriately. Perhaps Matthew
thought it better not to introduce the word for the first time
here, because Jesus seemed to him to be speaking mainly in a
negative or hypothetical way, of a kingdom "divided against
itself" or regarded as the kingdom of Satan. There was no
formal and positive comparison, such as we find in the Parable
of the Sower, and in the other Parables, which Matthew groups
together after his manner 3 .
But if we are to do justice to Mark's mention of "parables"
here, we must pay attention to his arrangement of Christ's
utterances. For Mark differing from Matthew and much more
from Luke places very soon after this discussion a definition
1 Is. xlvi. 5. The only instance of wo meaning "likeness" is
(Gesen. 605 b) Job xli. 33 (25) "upon earth there is not his likeness,"
i.e. anything that is like God and can be compared with Him, and
there Targ. and Rashi have "his dominion" (meaning "any one
that has dominion over him").
2 Mki. 15.
3 The first instance of "parable" in Matthew is xiii. 3 "He spake
to them many things in parables," and one parable follows another
up to ib. 53 "And it came to pass when Jesus had finished these
parables. . ."
444 (Mark iii. 20 35)
THE KINGDOM OF GOD, A FAMILY
of the Family of God 1 . If Mark intends the discussion to lead
up to the definition, then the phrase "in parables" is well
adapted to indicate that Jesus is beginning to bring before His
hearers the parallelism between the Kingdom of God in heaven
and a Family of God on earth, in order to shew them, by
"parables/' what the Gospel implies.
8. "The strong [one] 2 "
From "Satan" Mark passes to "the strong [one]/' whom
Irenaeus and Jerome regard as here representing Satan. In
view of that early interpretation, "mighty [one]" may be
regarded at least temporarily and hypothetically as likely
to have been the original meaning. The distinction is import-
ant. Aquila uses "strong one/' "El," to denote God, but
"mighty [one]/' "gibbor," in a neutral sense, capable of being
applied either to a hero or to a tyrant. In its first Biblical
instance, the Hebrew "mighty one" means what LXX and the
Syriac call "giants"; and, though the good sense is more
frequent, it is applied in the Psalms to a man mighty for evil :
"Why boastest thou thyself in mischief, mighty man*!"
1 Mk iii. 35 " Whosoever ... is my brother, and sister, and
mother" follows, at a short interval, this discussion about the
kingdom (iii. 24 30). In Matthew, xii. 50 "Whosoever..."
follows xii. 25 32 (the discussion about the kingdom) at a longer
interval. Matthew xii. 33 foil, interposes discourses on "the tree
and its fruits," " the sign of Jonah," and " the unclean spirit succeeded
by seven unclean spirits." Luke places the definition of the family
(viii. 21) before this discussion (xi. 17 22).
2 The Greek word, la-xypos, is twice rendered by A.V. "mighty"
(Rev. x. i, xviii. 21) when applied to an angel. "Strong" is a more
accurate rendering. "Mighty" corresponds better to dwaros. But
the A.V. rendering may usefully remind us that Mark's Hebrew or
Aramaic original, if one existed, may have meant "mighty," not
"strong."
3 See Gesen. 150 a, and Gen. vi. 4 " mighty [men] " LXX 01 yiyavrcs,
Aq. 01 dwaroi, Sym. 01 /Suuot. On Ps. Iii. i, the Midrash repre-
sents David as expostulating with Doeg, "the mighty man," and
telling him what the true "might" is: "What sort of might is this
445 (Mark iii. 20 35)
THE KINGDOM OF GOD, A FAMILY
Gibbor is rendered by the LXX mostly "strong," but
quently "mighty" or "giant," and occasionally "combatant 1
or " warrior 1 ."
It will be seen below that although the Synoptists agree ii
using the term "strong [one]," it is regarded in a more warlike
aspect by Luke than by Mark and Matthew 2 . Luke also makes
when a man sees his neighbour at the edge of a pit and pushes him
in ? Is it not a more real might to hold out your hand to your
neighbour and prevent him from falling in?" The Aramaic and
Syriac "giant" (Levy Ch. i. 148 a] is a form of the Heb. "mighty-
man," gibbor (strengthened by inserting n). In Ps. Iii. i, LXX has
6 dwaTos, and Targ. "potens," but Syr. "gigas."
1 Trommius gives gibbor as yiyas (15), 8war6s (80), iV^vpo? or
itr^vporepos 1 (20), p,a)(r}TrjS (16), Tro\fjLicrrr]s (2).
Comp. Is. xlix. 24 "Shall there be taken from the mighty-one
(gibbor) that-which-he-hath-taken, and shall the captivity [of the]
righteous-one" [i.e. according to Rashi, Jacob] "be delivered?"
Ibn Ezra apparently takes "the captivity [of the] righteous one" as
an appositional genitive, "the captivity [consisting] of the righteous
one," that is, "the righteous captive." The Targum (Walton,
"Targum aliud") says "Is it possible that he should be delivered
from the impious Esau?" making Esau the gibbor.
The LXX fir) \r]p,^rTai ns Trapa yiyavros (TKvXa. . .; renders
gibbor by yiyas, "Shall a man take from a giant spoils?" Sym.
renders gibbor by dwaros. See Field on Is. xlix. 24 5 for other
variations in the Greek translations. The Hebrew suggests the
thought of Israel, taken captive by one who is "mighty," and
delivered by one who is Mightier. But the Mightier is not mentioned
by that title. Luke (it will be seen) supplies the title. Compare, or
contrast, Solomon's Psalms v. 4 ov yap Xq^rcrcu vicvXa dvOpmros Trapa
dvdpos dwarov, i.e. "A man will not [be able to] take spoils from a
mighty warrior [such as God is], [but he must resort to prayer]."
2 Mk iii. 27 (R.V.) Mt. xii. 2730 (R.V.) Lk. xi. 1923 (R.V.)
(27) But no one (27) And if I by (19) And if I by
can enter into the (or, in) Beelzebub (or, in) Beelzebub
house of the strong cast out devils, by cast out devils, by
(or, in) whom do your
sons cast them out?
therefore shall they
be your judges.
(28) But if I by
(or, in) the Spirit of
God cast out devils,
[man] and spoil
(diapndo-ai) his goods,
except he first bind
the strong [man] ;
and then he will spoil
his house.
(or, in) whom do
your sons cast them
out? therefore shall
they be your judges.
(20) But if I by
the finger of God
cast out devils, then
446 (Mark iii. 20 35)
THE KINGDOM OF GOD, A FAMILY
two warriors instead of one. He appears to be trying to meet
a difficulty arising from Mark. For Mark leaves us in doubt
as to who it is that "spoils" the goods of the mighty man.
The verb here rendered "spoil " which must be distinguished
from the Lucan noun "spoil" is extremely rare in early
Christian literature ; but Ignatius uses it, and apparently with
allusion to this Mark-Matthew tradition, when he writes to the
Romans "The prince of this world desires to spoil me 1 ." On
the other hand, Irenaeus twice interprets the "spoiler" as being
the Lord, and "the strong [one]" as being Satan 2 . He recog-
nises a difficulty implied in calling Satan "the strong [one]"
because "the" implies pre-eminence in strength, and, property
speaking, one should call God alone "the strong [one] " and he
Mk iii. 27 (R.V.) Mt. xii. 27 30 (R.V.) Lk. xi. 1923 (R.V.)
(contd.) (contd.) (contd.)
then is the kingdom is the kingdom of
of God come upon God come upon you.
you. (21) When the
(29) Or how can strong [man] fully
one enter into the armed guardeth his
house of the strong own court, his goods
[man], and spoil are in peace;
(dpTrdarai) his goods, (22) But when
except he first bind a stronger than he
the strong [man] ? shall come upon him
And then he will and overcome him,
spoil (SiapTrdo-ei) his he taketh from him
house. his whole armour
(30) He that is wherein he trusteth,
not with me is and divideth his
against me; and he spoils (ovcuAa).
that gathereth not " (23) He that
with me scattereth. is not with me is
against me; and he
that gathereth not
with me scattereth.
1 Ign. Rom. 7 o ap^a>v TOV alwvos TOVTOV diapTrdirai jue
The word SiapTrdfa occurs but thrice in the early Christian writers,
(i) here, (2) Euseb. H. E. iv. 26. 5 (quoting Melito) of "plunderers"
(as distinct from extortioners), (3) Hernias, Sim. ix. 26. 2 of those
who "plunder" the livelihood of widows and orphans. The Lucan
noun "spoil," O-KV\OV, occurs only here in N.T.
2 Iren. iii. 8. 2, v. 21. 2 3.
447 (Mark iii. 20 35)
THE KINGDOM OF GOD, A FAMILY
probably felt that the difficulty would be a very great one for
Greeks, who knew that El, "God," meant "the strong one";
but he explains that Satan is here called "the strong one," not
as being absolutely strong, but as being strong in comparison
with men, whereas the Lord is the strong one "for all purposes
and truly" "the absolutely strong one." His explanation is
good and sound, and it helps us to see how Luke, feeling that
such an explanation was needed and feeling that Mark
implied " a stronger one " in the one who can bind " the strong
one" introduced "the absolutely strong [one]" as a second
"strong [one]," whom he called "stronger" than the first.
Moreover Irenaeus partially explains the Marcan character
of "Spoiler" or "Despoiler" applied to the Lord, saying "We
were the vessels (vasa) and the house of this [strong man] . . . for
he put us to whatsoever use he pleased, and the unclean spirit
dwelt within us." He adds that Satan was "strong against
those human beings who were his utensils (adversus eos qui in
usu ejus erant homines)." Thus he explains the Mark-Matthew
"instruments" or "utensils," or "vessels," which our Version
renders "goods," but which Luke paraphrases as "panoply."
Paul is said to be a chosen "utensil" or "vessel," and Paul
himself speaks of others as "utensils" or "vessels of wrath,"
or "vessels of mercy 1 ," so that the explanation of the term
given by Irenaeus is a justifiable one. If Mark had written
"utensils of war," a phrase twice occurring in O.T. where
"utensils" (R.V. "weapons") is rendered by LXX "armour 2 ,"
Luke's paraphrase would have been justified; but, as it is,
"utensils" is a safer rendering. And this is implied by
Irenaeus in the words "vasa" and "in usu 3 ."
Still there remains a difficulty in the peculiar Marcan
verb here rendered "spoil," but more strictly meaning
1 Acts ix. 15, Rom. ix. 22, 23.
2 Jerem. xxi. 4, Ezek. xxxii. 27, LXX o?rXa.
3 Similarly Jerome (on Mt. xii. 29) "vasa ejus nos quondam
fuimus."
448 (Mark iii. 20 35)
THE KINGDOM OF GOD, A FAMILY
"pillage/' in its usual modern (not its ancient) sense the act
of an army or a crowd, not of a single person.
The Greek word is a compound of "snatch" capable of
meaning "snatch-apart," "snatch and separate 1 /' The Thes-
aurus gives but few instances of it, the LXX Concordance a
great number; but in neither is there any instance where it
is used of the act of a single person 2 . Mark twice describes
the Assailant as "pillaging"; and as "pillaging," first the
"utensils" and then the "house." Matthew describes him first
as "snatching 3 " (without any notion of separation) applied to
"the utensils," and then as "pillaging" applied to the "house."
Luke drops the notion of "pillaging," but like Matthew (as
distinct from Mark) he describes the Assailant (whom he calls
"the stronger [one]") as doing two actions, namely, first,
"taking away the panoply" of "the strong man," secondly,
"distributing his spoils 4 ." In "distributing," Luke retains a
form of the tradition about "pillaging 5 ."
Matthew's substitution of "snatch" for "pillage" in the
first part of the sentence suggests an intention, not consistently
carried out, to interpret thus: "How can anyone go into the
1 Atap7ra<> occurs in LXX about 38 times.
2 Plato 807 B describes animals torn in pieces "by another
animal." This does not constitute an exception. Aristotle uses the
word twice, but the agents are plural (Bonitz).
3 'Ap7ruco, in N.T. is used of "snatching" for the purpose of
rescuing in Acts xxiii. 10 "from the midst of them," Jude 23
"from the fire."
* Mk iii. 27 Mt. xii. 29 Lk. xi. 21 2
aXX' 011 dvvarai ov- rj Trots bvvarai TIS orav 6 lo-^vpos *ca$a>-
8f\s fls Trjv ol<iav TOV flo~\6flv els TJJV olniuv TT\IO~HVOS (pvXdVoT/ rrjv
lO~%VpOV flO~\da>V TO. TOV l<T%VpOV KOI TO. O~KVT] CIVTOV dvXrjV, V (IpTjVrj
o~Kfvrj avTov diapTrdcrai avrov dpTrdVai, e'ar fj.r) earlv TO. VTrdp^ovra
eav p.rj Trpavrov TOV irpwrov $77077 TOV io")(v- CIVTOV. fTrdv fie Icr^vpo-
lo")(vpbv $r)O~r)) KOL rdre pov ; Kal Tore TTJV oliciav Tepos O.VTOV 7T\6o)v
TTJV olniav avTov Siap- avrov fiiapTrcuret. . viKrj(rr] avroi/, TTJV iravo-
TrdVei. 7T\iav avrov ai'pei e(p'
77 eVeTTO/^et, <at ra
o"KvAa avrov dtadtdoMTtv.
5 Comp. Is. liii. 12 (LXX) rcov lo~^ypS)v /neptei o*KvXa (Aq. Xa(pvpa) on
which see Son 3272 a.
A. P. 449 (Mark iii. 20 35) 29
THE KINGDOM OF GOD, A FAMILY
house of the mighty [one, the mighty robber and oppressor like
Nimrod, the mighty hunter of the souls of men] 1 and snatch
[out] his [own] property, except first he bind the mighty
[one] ? " This would accord with a Jewish tradition that the
spies sent by Joshua spoke impiously about Jehovah, saying
"We are not able to go up against the people of Canaan, for
'they are stronger than He' " as if they said, "Not even the
Lord of the House [i.e. God] is able to bring forth His goods
(lit. vessels) from thence 2 ." In opposition to this saying,
Matthew may regard the Assailant as shewing His power to
"bring out His goods from the house," and then as "pillaging"
or "breaking up" the house itself, so that it may no more be
used as a storehouse for stolen things, that is to say, as a
prison-house of human souls stolen for a time from the service
of their Creator to be the slaves of Satan.
The evidence, so far, points to the conclusion that Mark is
right and Luke wrong in interpreting an original Hebrew
"vessels." But "spoil" or "pillage" does not seem quite
appropriate. We could see its appropriateness better if we
could find some ancient Biblical tradition where "spoil" is
used in a good sense, and this, on some very epoch-making
occasion where the metaphor of rescue from a prison is implied ;
so that the Tyrant of the prison, who has been "despoiling"
others, is now himself "despoiled." Such an occasion would
be the liberation of Israel from their prison-house, Egypt,
under the bondage of "the strong [one]," Pharaoh. And here
we find the word "spoil" used in two passages, quaint
indeed but evidently intended to suggest the fulfilment of a
1 See above, pp. 58 9, and Son 3512 a.
2 See Sota 35 a and Menach. 53 b quoting Numb. xiii. 31 "They
are stronger than we," where the Hebrew "we" is read as if it were
" HE." See Wagenseil's Sota p. 732, saying that some take goods as
meaning armour; "Sed nobis placuit generaliori sensu exponere, et
uti vetus interpres Hebraeus Matthaei Tilianus, per r^D J"IN T12?
quod Capite xii. 29 apud Evangelistam est, ra a-Kvrj avrov diupird<rcu,
expressisse deprehenditur."
450 (Mark iii. 20 35)
THE KINGDOM OF GOD, A FAMILY
law of retribution "Ye shall spoil the Egyptians," says the
Lord to Moses, and, later on, the saying is fulfilled, "they
spoiled the Egyptians 1 ." To Abraham the promise had been
made that Israel should come forth from their prison-house
"with substance," and this promise is now fulfilled 2 .
Mark's brevity has left his text open to misunderstanding
if we may judge from the Ignatian saying "the prince of
this world desires to pillage me " as if he possibly meant : " Be
strong in the Lord. No evil spirit can pillage the house of your
soul unless it first bind the strong [and good] power within you."
Mark would have been clear if he had written, more fully, "No
one, unhelped by God, can enter into and pillage the house of
the strong [one] . . . but I have done so, acting with the power of
God and casting out the spirit of evil." Matthew and Luke
have both supplied additions to this effect 3 . Both of them
suggest an allusion to the contrast in Exodus, where the power
of God, acting through Moses, is contrasted with the power that
was not of God, acting through the enchanters of Pharaoh.
But Luke does this with special distinctness in his phrase "the
finger of God," a very rare expression, used by Pharaoh's en-
chanters to denote their recognition of a power beyond their own*.
1 Exod. iii. 22, xii. 36. The LXX "vessels," o-<cvr), occurs in
the context of both these passages to describe the "spoil." The
Heb. word is the one above mentioned meaning "utensils" of any
kind, but here "jewels," as also in Exod. xi. 2.
2 Comp. Wisd. x. 17 "She [i.e. Wisdom] ... rendered (diredoxev)
to the righteous the wage (/jLurdbv) of their labours," where the margin
rightly refers to Gen. xv. 14, Exod. xii. 35 6, and where the context
shews that the "jewels" received in this act of "spoil" are regarded
as the "wage" that their oppressors had kept back from them.
Philo, on Gen. xv. 14 "substance," says (i. 512) that it consists of
"all that belongs to discipline (Tratdfias)," and he implies that it
includes the "strong virtues of self-control and endurance."
3 Mt. xii. 28 foil., Lk. xi. 20 foil., see p. 446 foil.
4 Exod. viii. 19 "This is the finger of God." It occurs also in
Exod. xxxi. 18, Deut. ix. 10, "written with the finger of God," but
not elsewhere (in A.V.).
451 (Mark iii. 20 35) 29 2
THE KINGDOM OF GOD, A FAMILY
9. The "spoiling" of the Egyptians
The examination of the above-mentioned Synoptic variations
leads us to believe that the original tradition about "spoiling"
was based on some reference to the "spoiling of the Egyptians."
The Hebrew word there rendered "spoil" means, in the active,
"strip" or "plunder," but in the causative, "snatch away" or
"deliver," and, in the passive, "deliver oneself" or "be de-
livered 1 ." The form there used occurs in only one other Biblical
passage in the sense "spoil 2 ." But Ezekiel uses it of Noah,
Daniel, and Job "delivering their [own] souls 3 ." When the
word occurs for the first time, in a command of God, some
scribes of the LXX vary the reading 4 ; and the variations
should prepare us to find variations in metaphors in which the
redemption of man from sin, or the rescue of the souls of
men from Sheol, is likened to the rescue of Israel from its house
of bondage in Egypt.
The Synoptic language may be illustrated by Paul's language
about "putting off the body of the flesh" and "putting off the
old man 5 ." The "old man" is regarded partly as the man's
own fetters, and partly as the fetters belonging to Satan. But
further, in stripping them off, one may be regarded as stripping
off Satan, gaining a victory over him, and carrying off spoils
from him 6 . In the context, Paul describes Jesus Himself as
1 Gesen. 664 b ^w.
2 Gesen. 6646 gives the piel of ^>3 as occurring in Exod. iii. 22,
xii. 36 ("spoil the Egyptians"), and 2 Chr. xx. 25 "precious jewels
(a-Kfvr) 7ri6vp.r)Ta) which (Heb. and, not which) they stripped for them-
selves (/cat (TKV\vcrv (A -av) eV avrols (A eauroTy) ) , " COmp. Lk. xi. 22
(SS) "his plunder also he divideth/or himself" (D, avro for avrou).
3 Ezek. xiv. 14, 20.
4 Exod. iii. 22 LXX crKuAeucrarf, V.r. (Tvo'Kfvdo'fTai, auoxfuaa'are, Aq.
(TKv\fv(rT or (rvX^crare.
6 Col. ii. II a7TfKi'crei, iii. Q ciirfKdva'dfjifvoi.
6 Philo i. 512 describes the mind that descends from heaven as
being, like Israel in Egypt, "fettered in (cvfatiri) the straits of the
body," and as wrestling with the passions and "dashing them to
452 (Mark iii. 20 35)
THE KINGDOM OF GOD, A FAMILY
"having put off from himself the principalities and powers";
and there, having regard to the memorable "spoiling of the
Egyptians," we ought not perhaps to insist on limiting the
Apostle to the strict Greek use of the middle form of the
verb, but to admit that he may also include the notion of
"despoiling."
The uncertainty about the exact interpretation of the phrase
"spoiling the Egyptians," and the difficulty of giving it an
edifying or seemly meaning, may account for the fact that it is
seldom referred to in the Talmuds. But it is frequently referred
to in the Midrash. Rashi enters into a long discussion of the
phrase when first used in Exodus, remarking that the Targums
render it "empty out the Egyptians"; and a tradition in
Midrash, commenting on an instance of the word in Deuteronomy
("to deliver thee") asks whether it means (i) "overshadow
thee" or (2) "empty forth all the wealth of the Gentiles and
give it to thee 2 ." These and other passages, if fully quoted,
would confirm the conclusion that the Synoptic variations as
to "spoiling" go back to ancient Hebrew traditions about the
Exodus.
10. The "casting out" of "the ruler of this world"
John nowhere represents Jesus as saying that He has
conquered "the ruler of this world" which is the Johannine
the ground (rpax^i^v)," whence it obtains as its prize "strong
virtues." These are the "substance" promised (Gen. xv. 14) to
Abraham's descendants after their bondage in Egypt (and granted
in the "spoiling" of the Egyptians, to which, however, Philo does
not refer) .
1 See Light 3837 a on Col. ii. 15. The Pauline metaphors are
seldom mixed. But of course different metaphors are suggested
by (i) "Christ is in us," (2) "we are in Christ." We are to "put on
the new man." But " the new man" is also "the inner man."
2 See Rashi on Exod. iii. 22, and Lev. r. on Lev. xix. 2 (Wii. p. 164)
quoting Deut. xxiii. 14 and Exod. iii. 22 (on which the Midrash mostly
deals with the "asking" for "jewels," e.g. Mechilt. on Exod. xii. 6,
Wii. p. 14).
453 (Mark iii. 20 35)
THE KINGDOM OF GOD, A FAMILY
-
equivalent of "the ruler of the devils." But Jesus says
''I have conquered the world," and yet also "I came. . .to save
the world 1 ." Again, Jesus exclaims triumphantly "The ruler
of this world hath been judged" and yet "I came not to judge
the world 1 ." Thus, although it would be difficult to find
authority for the Greek "conquer," as meaning "win over" or
"bring over to one's side," the Evangelist does yet make us
feel that this namely, "winning over," or "gaining to one's
side" is the sense in which the Messiah "conquers." The
Messiah's conquest is for the good of all including the good
of the conquered. Using the word "conquer" thus, John is
not able to apply it, as Luke does, to a combat between Christ
and Satan in which Satan is "the strong" and Christ "the
stronger," so that Satan is conquered by Christ. If Satan
were "conquered" by Christ in the Johannine sense Satan
would cease to be Satan, and would become, in reality and
truth, an angel of light.
Why does John shrink from this, the Lucan notion of a
combat between "the strong" and "the stronger"? Partly,
perhaps, because it implies a similarity between Satan's strength
and Christ's, as though they were similar in nature and dis-
similar only in degree. But partly it is because John has a
conception of his own (or rather has grasped a conception of
Christ's) which suggests an entirely new notion of "strength,"
hardly to be discerned in O.T., except through glimpses here
and there in the Law and the Prophets. This "strength" is
just the opposite of "seizing," "plundering" and "snatching."
The wolf comes to "snatch" the sheep, but the Good Shepherd
"layeth down his life" for them 3 . That is the Shepherd's
strength laying down His life. Using one metaphor, we
might say (but John perhaps would not say) that by this
1 Jn xvi. 33, xii. 47.
2 Jn xvi. ii (Joh. Gr. 2477 b, a judgment "that has just been
ratified "), xii. 47.
3 Jn X. II 12 "snatch," apirdfriv.
454 (Mark iii. 20 35)
THE KINGDOM OF GOD, A FAMILY
strength He conquers the wolf. Using another metaphor, we
might say, with John, that by this strength He causes "the
ruler of this world" to be "cast out.'*
In the midst of this tradition about "spoiling" or "spoils,"
the Double Tradition here inserts, and attributes to Christ,
words that go to the bottom of the difference between the
Conqueror on the one hand and the Snatcher or Robber or
Pillager on the other: "He that is not with me is against me,
and he that gathereth not with me scattereth 1 ." The English
word "conquer" etymologically implies "gathering together"
or "collecting." And in Latin, too, a "conquisitor" meant a
"recruiting officer." But in Greek, "snatch," harpazein
which is latent with us in the familiar word "harpy'' is
applied to creatures that "gather" nothing and "recruit" no
one, but bring with them nothing but defilement and de-
solation. The righteous Conqueror "gathers," the Snatcher
"scatters."
These etymological distinctions might, in some circum-
stances, be put aside as pedantry, but not so here. For the
Greek "conquer" hardly occurs in LXX as the representative
of a Hebrew word; and John has a hard task before him in
attempting to illustrate, for East and for West, a new kind of
conquest, the conquest of the incarnate Son of God. Self-
conquest, the philosopher's conquest of his own passions,
philosophers could understand. Also the Book of Wisdom well
says that "Virtue in the age to come walks crowned in God's
procession, having conquered in the contest for the prize that
brings no defilement 2 ." But John desires to suggest to us a
higher conquest than this a conquest in which the Conqueror
dies for His enemies, and, by His death, causes His Spirit to
steal into their hearts and dominate their affections, so as to
make them henceforth His citizens and His soldiers. We have
1 Mt. xii. 30, Lk. xi. 23.
2 Wisd. IV. 2 ev ro> aicoiH (TT((pavri(f)opov<Ta jTftytirfvfC, TOV TO>I> d/xiavrtov
aywva viKrj(ra<ra.
455 (Mark iii. 2035)
THE KINGDOM OF GOD, A FAMILY
seen that this thought is brought before us in connection with
the Good Shepherd; but now we have to note how it is
brought before us again in connection with the Johannine
prediction that "the ruler of this world shall be cast out 1 ."
That prediction is preceded and we may also say (at least
partly) caused by the coming of " certain Greeks 2 ." And if we
go back step by step from the prediction to the cause, we shall
find that we are in a new Exodus from Egypt. "The ruler
of this world" corresponds to Pharaoh, and is the worldly con-
ception of God as a god of power, or rather as gods of powers,
differing in will, and destitute of the unity that belongs to the
God of Truth. As Israel after the flesh was delivered from the
material bondage of Egypt, so the "Greeks" (representing the
Gentile world that is to become Israel after the spirit) are to be
delivered from bondage to the spiritual Egypt. Jehovah, the
God of Israel, was "glorified" at the Red Sea, and is not said
to have been "glorified" before 3 . So here, the Son, in prospect
of the second Exodus, exclaims to the Father, "Father, glorify
thy name," and receives the reply "I have both glorified it and
will glorify it again 4 ." That means, or that includes the
meaning, "I have glorified it in Israel after the flesh, and I will
glorify it in Israel after the spirit."
But at this point we go back to something deep and mys-
terious, and quite beyond the range of the Song of Moses.
For the Son has been saying " Now is my soul troubled, and
what shall I say? 'Father, save me from this hour'? Nay
for this cause came I, unto this hour 5 ." And, before that, He
1 Jn xii. 31 (R.V.) "Now is the (marg. a) judgment of this world ;
now shall the prince of this world be cast out."
2 Jn xii. 20.
3 Aod<o does not occur in the Bible till the Song of Moses at
the Red Sea, and then it occurs as follows (Exod. xv. i 21) evdogws
yap SfSo^aorai... OVTOS uov 6eos KOI Souora> ai>Tov...t) $fid crou, xvpie,
ev tcr^i't...SeSo^ao'^iei/os' ev ayiois...ev86a>s yap
4 Jn xii. 27 8.
6 Jn xii. 27, on which see Joh. Gr. 2057, 2512 b c.
456 (Mark iii. 20 35)
THE KINGDOM OF GOD, A FAMILY
has said "He that loveth his life loseth it," and again, before
that, "Except a grain of wheat fall into the earth and die, it
abideth by itself alone, but, if it die, it beareth much fruit,"
and lastly to go back last to that which is first "The hour is
come that the Son of man should be glorified 1 ." And all this
is the sequel to nothing but the simple fact that Jesus has heard
from Andrew that "certain Greeks" have come to Philip
saying "Sir, we would see Jesus 2 ."
Why does the Evangelist lead us on so slowly (some may be
disposed even to say tediously) from the Greeks to Philip, and
from Philip to Andrew, and from Andrew at last to Jesus
and all this about nothing but a simple petition to " see Jesus "
and then leave us as it were in a blind alley, with no answer to
the petition, but with a new and startling exclamation about
"glory" and "the grain of wheat" that must "die"? Is it
not because the writer feels that he is leading us to the threshold
of a profound mystery to be approached as it were by altar
steps, one by one, and to be approached slowly lest we stumble ?
If he has the Exodus of Israel in view, must he not also have
the Passover of Israel in view ? In that case, he has before him
the thought of Jehovah as "a man of war," saying to Pharaoh,
through Moses, "Israel is my son, my firstborn. . . .Let my son
go, that he may serve me ; and thou hast refused to let him go,
behold, I will slay thy son, thy firstborn*." As contrasted with
all this, how marvellous is the mystery of the second Exodus,
wherein the Father sends His Firstborn, as Man, and as waging
"war," but war of a new kind not to "slay" men, but to die
for them, that in dying He may sink like a seed, deep into the
human heart, there to spring up and drive out all its noxious
weeds, leaving no room in it for anything except Himself.
It will be observed that John does not deny the truth of the
view that Jesus waged a war against evil, and that He used
the words "the ruler of this world shall be cast out.'' But he
1 Jn xii. 25, 24, 23. 2 Jn xii. 21.
3 Exod. iv. 22 3.
457 (Mark iii. 20 35)
THE KINGDOM OF GOD, A FAMILY
. - - -
supplements the Synoptic and negative doctrine of "casting
out " by a Johannine and positive doctrine of bringing in. He
cautions us against laying too much stress on Christian aggres-
siveness against evil, and too little on Christian receptiveness
of good, and especially of that kind of "good" which comes to
us through the presence of the sacrifice of Christ in our hearts,
the dying "grain of wheat," which, even while it dies, and
because it dies, quickens us with power to drive out evil by
causing good to grow up in its place.
ii. "All things shall be forgiven to the sons of men,"
in Mark
Matthew and Luke omit "to the sons of men" and insert a
statement about "the Son of man 1 ." In Hebrew, "say con-
cerning a person " is sometimes expressed by " say to " meaning
"say [with respect] to." But "forgive," meaning "remit,"
would also be followed by "to," both in Hebrew and in Greek
("remit to them"). Mark's original may have been "All things
shall be remitted whatsoever [men] 2 shall say to (i.e. against)
1 Mk iii. 28 29 a
(28) Verily I say
unto you, All their
sins shall be forgiven
unto the sons of men,
and their blasphemies
wherewith soever
they shall blas-
pheme :
(29) But whoso-
ever shall blaspheme
against (V) the Holy
Spirit hath never
forgiveness, . . .
Lk. xii. 10
And everyone
who shall speak a
word against (tis) the
Son of man, it shall
be forgiven him :
but unto him that
blasphemeth against
(els) the Holy Spirit
it shall not be for-
given.
Mt. xii. 31 32 a
(31) Therefore I
say unto you, Every
sin and blasphemy
shall be forgiven
unto men; but the
blasphemy against
(lit. of) the Spirit
shall not be for-
given.
(32) And who-
soever shall speak a
word against (KOTO)
the Son of man, it
shall be forgiven him ;
but whosoever shall
speak against (<ara)
the Holy Spirit, it
shall not be forgiven
him, . . .
2 For the non-pronominal subject "they," meaning "men," in
Mark, see Joh. Gr. 2424, 2425 b. On "say to," see Son 3371 e.
458 (Mark iii. 20 35)
THE KINGDOM OF GOD, A FAMILY
the Son of man." If "to" was connected with "remitted" and
taken as the "to" after "remitted," it would naturally be
supposed that "remitted to the Son of man" must be an error
for "remitted to the sons of men," and this would seem to agree
with what preceded ("[men] shall say"), the meaning being
"All things that they may say shall be forgiven to the sons of
men 1 ." The parallel texts contain some minor divergences
that might be explained on the hypothesis of obscure Greek;
but the hypothesis of the Hebrew "to" meaning "concerning"
seems also necessary 2 .
It was necessary to mention this deviation of Matthew
and Luke from Mark, in conformity with the plan of this work,
which aims at setting before the reader all such deviations in
order that he may see whether John does, or does not, inter-
vene ; but it is obvious that this is not a case where we could
expect Johannine intervention. For Matthew and Luke do
not here omit anything of importance. They insert something
of importance, but in omitting "to the sons of men" after
"forgiven" they omit nothing but a sonorous phrase that can
be omitted without the least detriment to the sense. For to
whom can forgiveness of sins be granted except "to the sons of
men"? We do not pledge ourselves to prove that John inter-
venes where Matthew and Luke insert something that is not in
Mark. Nevertheless in the next section it will be shewn that
John does intervene as to Mark's following words, and in such
a way as to indicate that he attempts to throw fresh light on
the distinction between sins that can, and sins that cannot, be
forgiven.
1 See Son 3177, where these Synoptic parallels are discussed.
It is there suggested that Mark's original contained (i) "forgiven to
the sons of Adam," as well as (2) "say to [i.e. against] the Son of
Adam," and that the similarity has caused "to the Son of Adam"
to be dropped as a repetition.
2 *O? cav, in Matthew, would be easily confused with oa-a (dv, in
Mark. lias, in Luke, is applied to the offender, nds os ep, but in
Mark (TTCLVTCL), and Matthew (naa-a ap-aprta), to the offence.
459 (Mark iii. 20 35)
THE KINGDOM OF GOD, A FAMILY
12. (R.V.) "Guilty of an eternal sin," in Mark
Luke stops short after "shall not be forgiven"; Mark and
Matthew add phrases expressing negatively the duration of
the non-forgiveness; Mark also adds a phrase expressing
positively, in a very unusual way, "liability" in respect of
"an eternal sin 1 ."
The Greek word rendered by R.V. "guilty" means ety-
mologically "held in," or "included in." Sometimes it means
merely "involved in" some discreditable practice 2 ; but it is
more often used technically in a legal sense to mean "held in
the grasp of a statute," "included in a legal charge," "liable to
a penalty." In that sense, "liable" is not quite so strong as
"condemned" or "found guilty"; for the prosecution may be
dropped so that the verdict may not be pronounced 3 . The
word is not a good one to use in religious or theological doctrine,
for it may imply legal guilt that is not moral guilt. Plutarch
describes how the Lacedaemonians bade the Athenians "banish
Mt. xii. 32 (R.V.)
... it shall not be
forgiven him, neither
in this world (or, age)
nor in that which is to
come, OVK dfpeOtjcrfTai
avro) OVT eV rovrcp TOO
alwvi ovre ev r<u /ze'X-
Xoi/ri.
Lk. xii. 10
... it shall not be
forgiven, OVK d
1 Mkiii.29 30 (R.V.)
. . . hath never
forgiveness, but is
guilty of an eternal
sin. Because they
said, He hath an
unclean spirit, OVK
X L <i(p(TLV eiv roi>
aiatvci) aXXn f'vn^os fcrriv
alatviov afj.apnjfj.aTos,
OTI \eyov Hvev/j-a dud-
OapTOv t^ei.
z Comp. Plutarch I. 1057 E F Galba 13 dpyvpiov p.ev
ical Trap' OVTIVOVV TJTTWV, evo%os de KO.\ rols ircp] yvvalKas dfj.apnj[j.ao-iv,
I. 607 A Agesilaus 2O fi&wj twv vo\ov ovra rols fpvTiKo'is TOV
TroXiV) and perhaps t. 864 c Cicero 7 dTTfXfvdepiKbs avffp^nrot
TO) lovSaifav. See also Ast's Index to Plato, and Bonitz's Index
to Aristotle.
3 Comp. Plutarch I. 767 B Cato 17 ot 8e TOVTO TratidvTCS evOvs rjvav
fVO^Ol 0O1/0), Kdt TpOTTOV TIVO. TTpOT/XtOKOTf S" dlTljyOVTO TTpOS TOVS 8lKao~Tds,
where "liable" is explained by "and, so to speak, convicted before-
hand."
460 (Mark iii. 20 35)
THE KINGDOM OF GOD, A FAMILY
the pollution in which the whole race of Pericles, on the mother's
side, was involved or liable*-." That is to say, Pericles was
entangled in the meshes of a Law that made him responsible
for what was done by his mother's ancestors, treating him as
though he had done what he had not done. Less unfairly, but
still with some degree of exaggeration, Hermas says that, if
you listen to slander, you will be "liable for the sin of the
slanderer 2 ."
Matthew uses it in the sense of "liability" to various tri-
bunals or punishments, varying according to the offence; and
the exact force of his words and the nature of his allusions are
still obscure 3 . Paul says that those who partake unworthily
of the Eucharist are "liable [to the charge} of the body and the
blood of the Lord"', and the Epistle to the Hebrews says that
Christ died to deliver "those who, through fear of death, were,
throughout all their life, liable [to the charge} of slavery*." In
the first of these passages our Versions have "guilty of"; in
the second, "subject to." But the meaning in the second is
explained by the precept of Epictetus to "call any man a slave"
if he fears anyone or anything 5 . Perhaps therefore the Epistle
to the Hebrews is better rendered by Tyndale and the Geneva
1 Plutarch I. iyo A Perid. 33 TO ayos...(j> TO p.r}Tp6dfv yf'vos TOV
IlpiK\ovs fvoxov TJV. With the dative, eVo^os- sometimes means "liable
to [a charge of]," e.g. ei/o^oy ^fuSo/zaprupiW, but this can be expressed
by a genitive, eVo^oy <p6vov for vo%os [ypa<pfi] (povov, " liable to a charge
of murder."
2 Hermas Mand. ii. 2, (bis) evo%os rf/s ap,aprias TOV KciTaXdXovvTos.
See also ib. iv. i. 5, where a husband, living with a wife whom he
knows to be unfaithful and unrepentant, is said to be fvo^os TTJS
apapTias avTrjs. "Evoxos occurs nowhere else in the Early Fathers or
Apologists, except Just. Mart. Apol. 16 evo^os eVrtr els TO TTV/>,
freely quoting Mt. v. 22, and Aristid. 13 evo%oi davaTov.
3 Mt. v. 21 2, on which see Hor. Heb. Mt. xxvi. 66 fvo^os Qavarov,
and Mk xiv. 64 simil. are the only other instances of eVo^o? in the
Gospels, apart from the Marcan passage under discussion.
4 i Cor. xi. 27, Heb. ii. 15.
5 SeeEpictet. iv. i. 54 7.
461 (Mark iii. 20 35'
THE KINGDOM OF GOD, A FAMILY
Version "they were in danger of bondage 1 /' meaning that those
spoken of might at any time be legally adjudged to be bond-
servants, because they had not in their hearts the Spirit of
sonship which alone could make them free, as Jesus said:
"If therefore the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free
indeed 2 ." And the same explanation applies to the first passage.
"Guilty" is somewhat too strong for the meaning, which
appears to be "They have not crucified the Lord, but they act
in such a way as to make themselves liable to the charge of having
done so."
Now, returning to Mark, in the light of this conclusion as to
the meaning of "liable," we see that he intends us to under-
stand the imminence, as it were, of some very great sin, or
judgment for sin, which will fall on those who were saying
about Jesus " He hath an unclean spirit." Instead of the usual
word for "sin," Mark has one that means "act-of-sin." It is
very seldom used except in the plural, but Aquila is recorded
to have used the singular in a passage where Isaiah says to
Israel that they shall cast away the "idols which your own
hands have made for you a sin 3 ." Ibn Ezra explains this as
meaning "a sin KCLT ej;o%tjv, a sin that surpasses all others."
Similarly the warning in Mark may mean that those who said
"Jesus has an unclean spirit" were setting up an idol of darkness
in their hearts, and bringing on themselves the judgment de-
scribed in Ezekiel, "Thus saith the Lord God: Every man of
the house of Israel that taketh his idols into his heart .... I the
1 Comp. Merchant of Venice iv. i. 362 "You stand within his
danger."
2 Comp. Jn viii. 36.
3 See Ibn Ezra on Is. xxxi. 7. 'AfidpT^a, in sing., and without
"every," does not occur elsewhere in N.T. (i Cor. vi. 18 being no
exception). In canonical LXX, d/za/m'a (sing, or plur.) is about
eighteen times as frequent as dpa/m^a, and the sing, of d/zdpr^/ia
is rarer than the plural, especially in the prophets. In the Apologists,
the sing, is very rare, and in the Early Fathers the sing, does not
occur at all.
462 (Mark iii. 20 35)
THE KINGDOM OF GOD, A FAMILY
Lord will answer him therein according to the multitude of his
idols," followed by the threat, " I will cut him off from the midst
of my people 1 ."
13. "Guilty," in LXX
The thought of "an eternal sin" in Mark appears to corre-
spond to the thought of "an abiding sin" in John, implied
where Jesus says "If ye were blind ye would have no sin, but
now ye say 'We see.' Your sin abideth*." But the Marcan
word "liable" appears to have nothing Johannine about it.
Being technical, and legal, and alien from Johannine thought,
it seems to stand as an obstacle in the way of supposing that
John, in the same passage in which he may be alluding to the
thought of " an eternal sin," may also be alluding to the Marcan
thought of legal "guilt" or "liability."
But let us look into the LXX use of the word. It is too
artificial to express any one Hebrew thought, so that it is very
rare and hardly ever occurs except as a paraphrase to express
some phrase mentioning "blood 3 ." Putting aside the first
instance, a paraphrase of "he shall surely die 4 ," we come to
an edict about house-breaking in Exodus (LXX) (lit.) "If in
the house-breaking the thief (kleptes) be found, and be smitten,
and die, there is no murder for him. But, if the sun be risen
upon him, [he i.e. the man that smites] is liable, he shall die-in-
return^" The corresponding Hebrew is "there is not for him
blood (pi.). // the sun be risen upon him, [there is] blood (pi.)
for him. Restoring he shall restore (i.e. he shall make full resti-
tution)"
1 Ezek. xiv. 4 8. 2 Jn ix. 41.
3 "EVOXOS corresponds to Heb. fifteen times, and mostly repre-
sents "blood" or some phrase mentioning "blood."
4 Gen. xxvi. n (Heb. lit.) "dying he shall die," Bavarov (v.r.
vo%os eorat.
5 Exod. xxii. 2 3. The Gk of the italicised words is OVK
(frovos ' eai> de dvaTetXrj 6 fjXios eV <ura>, vo%6s eVrii>, avr
463 (Mark iii. 20 35)
THE KINGDOM OF GOD, A FAMILY
The clause about sunrise appears to have caused difficult]
It is very obscurely paraphrased by the Targums. Onkeh
alters it thus: "There is not for him blood. // the eyes of
witnesses fall upon him, there is blood for him. Restoring he
shall restore." The Jerusalem Targum has, for the difficult
clause and for what follows, (Etheridge) "// the thing be as
clear as the sun that he was not entering to destroy life, and
one hath killed him, the guilt of the shedding of innocent
blood is upon him, and, if spared from his hand, restoring he
shall restore."
We cannot be surprised if this Law about the Kleptes or
Housebreaker so hard upon the innocent householder if inter-
preted exactly was allegorized even by those Jewish authorities
who are not prone to allegory. Rashi says that it "is a kind
of similitude," and that the sun represents "peace"; and
herein he is following the consensus of the Talmuds and of the
ancient Midrash 1 . For the purpose of illustrating the Fourth
Gospel Philo is more important than any of these, and he
allegorizes in the same way, though in a style of his own. He
applies the "sunrise" to the internal and "shining" self-conceit
of a mind within us (i.e. the householder) which fancies that it
can "see through all things and arbitrate on all things." Such
a mind, he says, kills the soul's vitalising truth. Hence "It is
guilty. It shall die in return 2 ."
1 The sun would "rise" at one moment for a householder on a
hill and perhaps many minutes afterwards for his neighbour in a
valley. In practice, therefore, the Law would turn, not on "sun-
rise " but on " daylight." See Breithaupt's note on Rashi (Exod. xxii.
2. 3) referring to Mechilt. ad loc. and to b. Sanhedr. 72 a b, and
j. Sanhedr. viii. 8.
2 Philo i. 94 on Exod. xxii. I foil. 'ai> Se avarfiXrj o TJ\IOS, TovT(<rriv 6
<f>aiv6fjifvos XafjiTrpbs vovs v fjp.lv, /cat 8ofl TTCIVTO. 8iopav KOI Trdvra ftpaftfvciv,
KCU firjdf K<pvyfiv eavTov, evo^os fcrriv, uvra7ro$ai>emu TOV p.\^v^ov 86yp.arof
o ai/eiXe.
Comp. Introduction p. 22, n. 2, "In the new-born proselyte, the
eld eye must be closed before the new one is opened, see Levy iv.
154 b quoting Lev. r. (on Lev. xii. 2)."
464 (Mark iii. 20 35)
THE KINGDOM OF GOD, A FAMILY
The Law about the Housebreaker, if interpreted according
to common sense, seems clear enough. But we are not con-
cerned with its common-sense interpretation. What we are
concerned with is (i) the use of the Greek word for "liable"
in the LXX version of the Law, (2) the subtle discussions and
allusions that might rise out of attempts to make the Law
workable and yet not to depart from the letter of Scripture,
(3) the influence of all these things on Christian thought in the
first century.
14. " Ye say, ' We see.' Your sin abideth 1 ," in John
Passing back to John from these Jewish traditions about
the Law of the Kleptes or Housebreaker, we have to remember
that several Christian traditions lent themselves to a metaphor
about the Day of the Lord as being in some sense "like a Kleptes,
Thief, or Housebreaker," coming in the night. It is added by
Matthew and Luke to a precept bidding the disciples "watch"
for their Lord, as though these Evangelists meant "Watch for
the coming of the Lord as men watch for the coming of a
thief 2 ." Outside the Fourth Gospel, the word "thief" in the
1 Jn ix. 41.
2 Mk xiii. 35 6
(35) Watch there-
fore: for ye know
not when the lord of
the house cometh,
whether at even, or
at midnight, or at
cock-crowing, or in
the morning;
(36) Lest coming
suddenly he find you
sleeping.
Mt. xxiv. 42 4
(42) Watch there-
fore, for ye know
not on what day
your Lord cometh.
(43) But know
this, that if the
master of the house
had known in what
watch the thief was
coming, he would
have watched, and
would not have
suffered his house to
be broken through
(lit. digged through).
(44) Therefore be
ye also ready: for
Lk. xii. 37, 39 40
(37) Blessed are
those servants whom
the lord when he
cometh shall find
watching : verily I
say unto you that he
shall gird himself and
make them sit down
to meat and shall
come and serve
them ....
(39) But know
this, that if the
master of the house
had known in what
hour the thief was
coming, he would
A. P.
465 (Mark iii. 20 35)
THE KINGDOM OF GOD, A FAMILY
singular is used, with hardly any exceptions, concerning the
Day of the Lord, or the Coming of the Lord, " as a thief (Kleptes)"
in the night 1 . Now even if "Kleptes" occurred repeatedly in
the LXX, as it very well might throughout the legal parts of
the Pentateuch, it would still be highly probable that many
of the Christian traditions about the Lord coming as a Kleptes in
the night would allude to the coming by night of the Kleptes in
Exodus. But the allusion is made almost a certainty when
we find that, apart from one Deuteronomic mention of a kid-
napper as "a thief of men," the word "Kleptes" does not occur
again in the Law. And there is not a single instance of it in
the historical books 2 .
Let us attempt to enter into the thought of a Christian Jew
of the first century, applying his mind to the Marcan saying,
attributed to Jesus, that those who said "He hath an unclean
spirit" were "liable to an eternal sin," and endeavouring to
penetrate to the truth at the bottom of this technical and legal
word, which had been rejected by Matthew and Luke.
"The Greeks use 'liable/ " he might say, "concerning one
who is involved or entangled in some fault or legal crime or in
Mk xiii. 35 6
(contd.)
Mt. xxiv. 42 4
(contd.)
in an hour that ye
think not the Son of
man cometh.
Lk. xii. 37, 39 40
(contd.)
have watched, and
not have left his
house to be broken
through (lit. digged
through) .
(40) Be ye also
ready : for in an hour
that ye think not the
Son of man cometh.
1 The only exceptions are Lk. xii. 33 "Where thief draweth not
near" (Mt. vi. 19 20 "thieves"), i Pet. iv. 15 "suffer as a mur-
derer or a thief." "Thief" refers to the Coming of the Lord in
Mt. xxiv. 43, Lk. xii. 39, i Thess. v. 2, 4 (W.H. marg. R.V. txt),
2 Pet. iii. 10. Note especially Rev. iii. 3 "If therefore thou watch
not / will come as a thief," ib. xvi. 15 "Behold, / come as a thief."
2 It occurs in Exod. xxii. 2 (i), Deut. xxiv. 7, and not again till
Job xxiv. 14.
466 (Mark iii. 20 35)
THE KINGDOM OF GOD, A FAMILY
the meshes of some statute law. But in the Law of Moses it
has a special meaning. It says, in effect, about those who
strike a deadly blow at one whom the Law calls a thief, ' // they
could not see, they shall not die, but if they could see, they must die,
they are liable.' The Messiah 'came as a thief to those whom
Matthew describes as ' the Pharisees,' and Mark as ' the scribes
that came down from Jerusalem.' He 'broke in' on the house
built up by their traditions 1 . He seemed likely to despoil
them of the glory they received from men. He was, in fact,
the Prince of Peace. His Coming was as the dawn, the rising
of the Sun of Righteousness. But they would not see, even
while they declared 'We do see.' What they saw, was
in the light of their own self-kindled conceits 2 the Thief.
What they did not see, was the Prince of Peace and Life,
whom they smote, saying, 'We see.' Later on, they said 'His
blood be on our heads.' So they became 'liable.' The 'blood'
was exacted."
The language of John is very different (as it always is) from
the corresponding language in Mark. But there appears to be
a correspondence of thought between them, and especially if
we give weight to the Marcan phrase, "the scribes that came
down from Jerusalem." The "scribes" stood for the guardians
of the Law, and in Jerusalem sat the Council that guarded the
Law, as being the Light of God. What class was in greater danger
of saying as the Pharisees say in the Johannine narrative
"We see," when really they did not see? And who more
needed the warning against "liability" to an "abiding" or
"eternal" sin?
1 For the Pharisees, regarded as "builders," or, in hostile
language, "daubers of the wall" see Light 3996 a, d (and comp. Mk
xii. 10, Mt. xxi. 42, Lk. xx. 17).
2 Comp. Is. 1. 10 ii contrasting, in effect, the "light" of "the
name of the Lord" with men's self-kindled flame ("walk ye in the
flame of your fire. . .ye shall lie down in sorrow").
467 (Mark iii. 20 35) 30 ^
THE KINGDOM OF GOD, A FAMILY
15. "Because they said. 'He hath an unclean spirit 1 ' '
It was pointed out above that the Marcan phrase "He hath
Beelzebub," non-occurrent in Matthew and Luke, was replaced
in John by phrases more intelligible to Greeks. Here Mark
repeats the phrase in a new form, and it is again omitted by
Matthew and Luke. They perhaps did not think that Mark
clearly brought out the connection between "Whosoever shall
blaspheme against the Holy Spirit" and "He hath an unclean
Spirit." A link was needed indicating that "the Holy Spirit"
was "the Spirit with which Jesus was casting out evil spirits" ;
so that to call this spirit "unclean" was to call the Holy Spirit
"unclean." Such a link Matthew and Luke have inserted
previously 2 . Having inserted it, they perhaps regard Mark's
inference as now superfluous, and they omit it.
John never mentions the word "unclean," and never uses
the word " spirit " in a bad sense ; so that he cannot be expected
to intervene verbally here. But he conveys to us a sense of
the moral degradation implied in those who brought such
charges against Jesus when he represents Him as saying, con-
cerning those who seek to kill Him, "Why do ye not under-
stand my speech? [Even] because ye cannot hear my word.
Ye are of [your] father the devil," and, later on when they
say "Thou art a Samaritan and hast a devil"- -"I have not a
devil, but I honour my Father, and ye dishonour me" which
implies that they indirectly "dishonour" the Father 3 . He
also indicates that this "dishonouring" of one who seeks not
his own glory, by those who seek nothing but their own glory,
will be "judged." This, which implies, in Marcan language, a
1 Mk iii. 30.
2 Mt. xii. 28 " But if I by the Spirit of God cast out devils, then is
the kingdom of God come upon you," Lk. xi. 20 "But if I by the
finger of God cast out devils, then is the kingdom of God come upon
you " Mark iii. 26 7 omits this.
3 Jn viii. 43 4, ib. 48 9.
468 (Mark iii. 20 35)
THE KINGDOM OF GOD, A FAMILY
sin for which they will be "liable," is implied by John in the
words, "I seek not mine own glory, there is one that seeketh
and judgeth 1 ."
Here and elsewhere the Fourth Evangelist desires to lead
his readers away from thoughts about exorcisms and the ways
of evil "spirits" thoughts that often encouraged the use of
charms, and incantations, and magic remedies to fundamental
things, to kindness and love, and humanity, David was
declared by Jewish tradition to have said to the murderer
Doeg "Why boastest thou thyself, O mighty man, in mischief?
The kindness of God [is] all the day 2 ." The same thing, in
effect, Jesus was continually saying to the Pharisees: "The
kindness of God is for all the day and for every day. It is never
out of season." Those who loathed His acts of kindness
wrought by Him, the Son, in the power of the Spirit of the
Father simply because they happened to be wrought on the
sabbath, appeared to Jesus to be loathing the kind Spirit of
the Father Himself, and to be storing up for themselves an
abiding sin.
It might seem that what follows should be reserved for a
new Chapter, since nothing has directly or obviously pointed
to the thought of Christ's family, which will now come before
us. But in fact this thought has been by implication pointed
to from the beginning of the present Chapter, where Christ's
own kinsfolk were described as saying that He was "beside
himself. ' ' Those who said this, though they were His "family ' '
after the flesh, were not His "family" after the spirit. And it
is to this subject that we shall now proceed Christ's family
"after the spirit," in other words, the Family of God, and
Christ's definition of it.
1 Jn viii. 50, comp. ib. xii. 43 "They loved the glory of men more
than the glory of God."
- Ps. lii. i, s. above, p. 445.
469 (Mark iii. 20 35)
THE KINGDOM OF GOD, A FAMILY
16. "See! My mother, and my brethren"
"See," in Mark, and "behold," in the parallel Matthew, as
given below 1 , are severally active and middle forms of the
same verb. The middle, in Biblical Greek, is frequently used
to introduce a new event, and is very rarely if ever used with
an object. But the active is occasionally thus used, and in
such instances it would mean "See thou 2 ." Here it is not
followed in Mark by an object. But we might perhaps supply
iMkiii. 31 5 (R.V.)
(31) And there
come his mother and
his brethren ; and,
standing without,
they sent unto him,
calling him.
(32) And a mul-
titude was sitting
about him; and they
say unto him, Be-
hold, thy mother
and thy brethren
without seek for
thee.
(33) And
answereth them,
saith, Who is
mother and
brethren ?
(34) And look-
ing round on them
which sat round
about him, he saith,
See (R.V. Behold)
(iSf), my mother and
my brethren (nom.) !
(35) For who-
soever shall do the
will of God, the same
is my brother, and
sister, and mother.
he
and
my
my
Mt. xii. 46 50 (R.V.)
(46) While he
was yet speaking to
the multitudes, be-
hold, his mother and
his brethren stood
without, seeking to
speak to him.
[(47) And one
said unto him, Be-
hold, thy mother and
thy brethren stand
without, seeking to
speak to thee.]
(48) But he
answered and said
unto him that told
him, Who is my
mother? and who
are my brethren ?
(49) And he
stretched forth his
hand towards his
disciples, and said,
Behold (I8ov), my
mother and my
brethren (nom.) !
(50) For who-
soever shall do the
will of my Father
which is in heaven, he
is my brother, and
sister, and mother.
Lk. viii. 19 21 (R.V.)
(19) And there
came to him his
mother and brethren,
and they could not
come at (o-wrvxclv)
him for the crowd.
(20) And it
was told him, Thy
mother and thy
brethren stand with-
out, desiring to see
thee.
(21) But he
answered and said
unto them, My
mother and my
brethren are these
which hear the word
of God, and do it.
Mt. xii. 47 is placed by W.H. in margin. And R.V. says that
some ancient authorities omit it.
2 Gen. xxxi. 12, Numb, xxvii. 12 (rep. Deut. xxxii. 49), Ps. ix. 13,
xxv. 18, 19 etc., Jn xx. 27, Rom. xi. 22.
470 (Mark iii. 20 35)
THE KINGDOM OF GOD, A FAMILY
one thus: "And looking round on those seated in a circle
round him he said [to the messenger] See thou [these] ! My
mother and my brethren [are these] ! " It is worth noting
that although Matthew uses the ordinary "behold," instead of
"see thou," he nevertheless inserts a clause ("said to him that
told him") to shew that Jesus made His reply in the first
instance to a single person, who had told Him that His friends
were seeking Him 1 .
There seems to be a kind of retorting repetition in the verb
of seeing, first used to Jesus, and then used by Jesus. But the
point of the retort is blunted in Mark by the change of the
form of the verb from "Behold (l&ov), thy mother and thy
brethren. . .seek thee," to "See thou (l'8e), my mother and my
brethren." The point is retained in Matthew, if we adopt the
fuller reading of his text, which repeats "behold" thus, "Behold
(ISov), thy mother and thy brethren stand without, seeking to
speak to thee," followed (at a very slight interval) by "Behold
[I reply unto thee] (ISov), my mother and my brethren [are
here]." Also the discrepancy between the Marcan plural
("they say") and the Marcan singular ("see thou") is removed
by Matthew, who inserts once (or perhaps twice 2 ) an intimation
that Jesus was talking to one person only. Luke leaves it an
open question whether the announcement was made by one
person or more. He also drops " behold " and "see " altogether.
But the impression left on us by Mark and Matthew is that
the earliest tradition laid some emphasis on the words.
Some of th 
