Biatessarica
PART X, SECTION V
THE FOURFOLD GOSPEL
THE FOUNDING
OF THE NEW KINGDOM
OR
LIFE REACHED THROUGH DEATH
For a list of previous parts of Diatessarica, see pp. 797-8 of
this volume.
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
C. F. CLAY, MANAGER
LONDON
FETTER LANE, E.G. 4
EDINBURGH
100 PRINCES STREET
NEW YORK: G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS
BOMBAY, CALCUTTA, MADRAS: MACMILLAN AND CO., LTD.
TORONTO: J. M. DENT AND SONS, LTD.
TOKYO: THE MARUZEN-KABUSHIKI-KAISHA
All rights reserved
A"
THE FOURFOLD GOSPEL
SECTION V
THE FOUNDING
OF THE NEW KINGDOM
OR
LIFE REACHED THROUGH DEATH
BY
EDWIN A. ABBOTT
Honorary Fellow of St John's College, Cambridge
Fellow of the British Academy
Since God made man so good here stands my creed-
God's good 'indeed." W. M. LETTS
Cambridge :
at the University Press
1917
PREFACE
(i) Diatessarica and The Fourfold Gospel as a whole
THIS is the last of many works, published in a series
entitled Diatessarica, all of which deal directly or in-
directly with the Fourfold Gospel. It will be convenient
to prefix to the special remarks introducing the present
volume a general statement of the method of investigation,
and the principal assumptions, underlying the whole series
of which this volume, The Founding of the New Kingdom,
constitutes the conclusion.
1. It is assumed that there is a continuity between the
thoughts of Jesus and the thoughts of the Hebrew Scrip-
tures, especially such Scriptures as He habitually quoted-
sometimes appealing to them as "the Law and the Pro-
phets."
2. Whenever the Gospels introduce a doctrine of
Jesus on any subject, the first question to be asked by
those who wish to study it closely will be "What do the
Hebrew Scriptures say about it generally, and, more
especially, in the particular passage where they mention
it for the first time?"
For example, if we wish to study Christ's thoughts
about the Temple, which is nowhere mentioned in the Law,
we must go back to what is written in the Law concerning
the "Tabernacle," or "Tent of Meeting," which was the
origin of the Temple subsequently mentioned by the
Prophets.
PREFACE
3. The second question to be asked is, "How was the
Hebrew rendered by the LXX, and by the other early
translators, in Greek ; and how was it likely to be rendered
in Aramaic, so' far as we can judge from the Aramaic
Targums in the second and later centuries?"
Take for example "Tent of Meeting" the above-quoted
name given to the Tabernacle. Instead of "Meeting," the
LXX habitually has "Testimony," and our Authorised
Version has "Congregation." But the second-century
Targumist Onkelos has the Aramaic equivalent of the
Hebrew "Meeting." It is important to add that this
does not mean a chance meeting. It is a "meeting by
appointment" or "assignation." The second-century
translator Aquila, as will be shewn hereafter, renders it
"appointment."
4. The third question to be asked is, " Has the Hebrew
word any associations which, if not comprehended, would
prevent our comprehension of its full meaning? "
For example, the first two instances of the above-
mentioned "appointment" apart from the "appointed-
times," or "seasons," marked out by the heavenly bodies
in the first chapter of Genesis refer to God's promises to
Abraham concerning the birth of Isaac "at this appointed-
time," and again, "At the appointed-time I will return to
thee." The word is also regularly used to mean an
"appointed-feast" in which Israel went up to meet the
Lord in Jerusalem. Habakkuk connects it with "waiting,"
thus, "The vision is yet for the appointed-time. . .wait for
it." In New Hebrew it is applied to the "appointing" or
"designating" of a bride. This single word, then, might
suggest to Jews (i) a wedding "feast," (2) " waiting "-
possibly for the home-coming of a bride or of a bridegroom
or master of the house, (3) a "meeting" between bride-
groom and bride. And it connects all these thoughts with
PREFACE
the Tabernacle or Temple to which Israel, the Wife, was
wont to go up to meet Jehovah her Husband, according
to the words of Isaiah "Thy Maker is thine husband, the
Lord of hosts is his name."
This connection is missed by the LXX, and must have
been difficult for early Gentile Christians to realise. But
it illustrates many parables in the Gospels, and some
precepts, which, apart from this metaphor, are hardly
capable of being fully understood.
5. Having answered the three above-mentioned ques-
tions to the best of our ability, we proceed to apply the
answers to the Gospels. We begin with the Three Synoptists.
The first place is given to Mark, because Mark (so far as
concerns the threefold Synoptic tradition) contains the
earliest extant original from which Matthew and Luke
borrowed.
After noting what Matthew and Luke borrow from the
parallel Mark, we examine with special attention ist, what
they altogether fail to borrow, that is to say, what they
reject ; and 2nd, what they partially borrow, that is to
say, borrow but alter. Then we endeavour, in each case,
to find a reason for the rejection or alteration.
For example, Mark says that false witnesses accused
Jesus of saying "I will destroy this temple that is made
with hands, and, after an interval of three days, will build
another not made- with hands." The parallel Matthew
has " I am able to destroy the temple of God, and, after
an interval of three days, to build it." This, Matthew
says, is the charge brought by "two" presumably false
witnesses after "many false witnesses" have accused
Jesus ineffectively. Luke omits the whole. We have to
ask "Why did Matthew alter Mark's words and Luke omit
them altogether? "
6. In order to answer this and similar questions we
PREFACE
may begin by arguing from internal evidence as, for
example, that Matthew regarded the Marcan report of
the accusation as erroneous, while Luke regarded the
accusation as negligible because false, besides being
obscure and perhaps erroneously reported. But we must
not neglect external evidence, if there is any. And such
evidence may be reasonably expected from the Fourth
Evangelist, who is universally recognised as later than the
Three Synoptists, and who would feel bound (we may
suppose) to take cognisance of any authoritative Gospels
that preceded his own, and to do his best to remedy any
evil likely to accrue to the Churches from their discrepancies,
as well as from their deficiencies. "How does John act,"
we must ask, "where the Synoptists differ? Does he
remain silent, or does he intervene? And, if he intervenes,
does he intervene for or against Mark, the earliest of the
Evangelists? "
For example, bearing on the charge of "destroying
the temple" we find the following Johannine tradition:
"Jesus said unto them [i.e. to the Jews] 'Destroy this temple
and in three days I will raise it up ' . . . but he spake of the
temple of his body." That is to say, John in the first place
regards Jesus as having really connected the word "destroy"
with the word "temple" but in such a context as to shew
that He Himself made no threat of destroying it. In the
second place he regards Jesus as having used the word
"temple" to mean not (as is written in Mark) "a temple
made with hands," but a temple not made with hands, a
Person, apparently meaning the "body" of the Son of
Man, regarded as the Tabernacle of Meeting between God
and Man. Such a thought might be unintelligible to
Christ's accusers, but Isaiah had prepared the way for it
in the words "Thus saith the high and lofty One that
inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy : I dwell in the
viii
PREFACE
high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and
humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to
revive the heart of the contrite ones."
Jerome, commenting on this connection in Isaiah
between "the high and lofty One" and "the contrite and
humble spirit," appropriately quotes from the Fourth
Gospel "No man hath ascended into heaven but he that
descended out of heaven, even the Son of man, who is in
heaven." And John has prepared the way for such a
conception of an ascending and descending Person, w r ho is
a Mediator, or Tent of Meeting, or Tabernacle, between
God and Man, by saying in his Prologue that the Word
"became flesh" and "tabernacled among us."
These facts appear to explain Matthew's alteration of
Mark and Luke's omission. Mark had given no indication
of the fact that Jesus had actually spoken about destroying
the "temple," but in a sense, and in a context, quite
different from that which was supplied by the Marcan
accusers. Matthew had made the accusation a little less
harsh but not more consistent with fact. Luke omitted
the whole as hopelessly obscure. John intervenes, partly
to correct Mark, and partly to explain him, but still more
to set forth a fundamental doctrine of Jesus, namely, that
the Son of Man was God's Tabernacle, Tent of Meeting,
or Temple. This, then, we feel justified in calling an
instance of "Johannine Intervention."
7. Passing to other divergences of Luke from Mark,
we try to examine them impartially, prepared to find two
classes of them John intervening sometimes for Luke
against Mark as well as for Mark against Luke. But we
find very few indeed of the former class. The latter on
the other hand are found, on a first examination, to be
numerous, and, on further examination, to be very
numerous indeed.
ix
PREFACE
Take, for example, the apparently insignificant detail,
peculiar to Mark, in the casting of lots for Christ's garments
at the Crucifixion, where Mark alone inserts "what each
should take" (literally "who should take what"}. Here John
tells us that Mark is not strictly correct. About the
"garments/' he says, "they made four parts, to every
soldier a part." But about the "coat" which was "with-
out seam," they said " ' Let us not rend it, but cast lots for
it, whose it shall be,' that the scripture might be fulfilled
which saith, 'They parted my garments among them, and
upon my vesture did they cast lots." In this case,
Johannine Intervention appears to be based on the poetry
of the Psalms regarded as prophecy.
8. Intervention may be based not upon prophecy but
upon mere allusion.
For example, Mark, Matthew, and John, in a narrative
about the anointing of Jesus by a woman, represent Him
as uttering an extremely obscure saying about His "em-
balming" mistranslated "burial" or "burying." Luke
omits the whole narrative but has another in which the
woman is described as "a sinner" and no "embalming" is
mentioned. "Embalming" is nowhere mentioned by the
Prophets, and it was not a Jewish custom. But it is
mentioned in Genesis as practised for Jacob and Joseph,
who, though they died in Egypt, were -"embalmed" and
buried Jacob at once, but Joseph not till the lapse of
many years in the Land of Promise.
Any allusion on the part of Jesus to such a detail-
archaic and in modern eyes insignificant must seem at
first sight far-fetched and wildly improbable. But the
hypothesis is at all events not contrary to fact and truth
as is the rendering "burying" for " embalming." And it is
mentioned here as being one of many instances where John
does certainly intervene for Mark against Luke, but where
PREFACE
the reason and the exact meaning of his intervention are
uncertain. It will be found discussed in its place.
To omit this and other such instances would have very
greatly shortened this laborious work and would have
avoided some natural accusations of fancifulness and
"ingenuity." But it would not have been fair to the
reader. The author is conscious of many faults especially
defects in arrangement, and condensation ; but he has
desired to keep his conscience clear from at least one
defect that he regards as unpardonable the purchase of
a clear, brief, and forcible persuasiveness at the cost of
fairness to the reader and allegiance to truth.
9. It remains to add that the primary object of
Diatessarica and The Fourfold Gospel has been, not to
elicit, in each instance, an immediate answer to the question
"What is the historical fact? " but to prepare the way for
others who may hereafter elicit it, by shewing them how
much help they may derive from the Fourth Gospel
and from Jewish poetic literature, and how inadequate
must be their appreciation of the spiritual depth and
height of Christ's conceptions until they learn to familiarise
themselves with His realisation of a Personal Tabernacle
or Tent of Meeting mediating between man and God,
between the children and the Father between "him that
is of a contrite spirit" and "the high and lofty One that
inhabiteth eternitv."
(ii) The present volume
Three preceding volumes of The Fourfold Gospel have
treated of the Beginning, the Proclamation, and the Law, of
what Christians may briefly call "the New Kingdom." The
present volume treats of what may be called its "founding "
not its establishment, for it is as yet far from being
PREFACE
established, but the means and manner by which it was
founded. We shall have to study in what sense the
Kingdom was a kingdom of life, and by what means
Christ, the Founder, taught us to recognise that the life
was to be reached through death, and victory through
defeat.
The four volumes deal very largely with words, critically
considered as words, Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and some-
times Latin and Syriac not to speak of the variations in
our own Authorised and Revised Versions. And at the
conclusion of this laborious task the author may naturally
ask himself with sonic scarchings of heart: "Is it thus
that I can hope to draw nearer to the Most High God?
Can Lexicons, Concordances, Indices, and ancient com-
mentaries on still more ancient writings, technically
called 'scriptures/ be the appointed and foreordained
avenues to the highest spiritual truth, and to such appre-
hension as is possible for mortals of the immortal and
incomprehensible Creator? "
I should be disposed to substitute, instead of any
defence of my own, an imaginary defence, such as the
Fourth Evangelist might be supposed to make and indeed
does make, by implication in his Gospel. It will save
space, and avoid a tedious repetition of "he may have
thought," if I may be allowed, instead of such a clause, to
substitute inverted commas and to represent him, thinking
aloud, as follows.
"The religion of Israel is based indeed on the writings
that they call scriptures, and the Lord Jesus Christ con-
tinually quoted them. Writings consist of words. It may
therefore be said by some that He 'founded His religion on
words.' But it would not be true. He founded it on
Himself as being the eternal Word, the Logos, the founda-
tion, and fulfilment of those 'words/ The Pharisees forgot
xii
PREFACE
the creative Word that lay beneath the words of the Law.
The brethren in the Christian Churches are also in danger
of forgetting the creative Word that lay beneath the
words of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as set forth in the
books of Mark, Matthew, and Luke. In this book, there-
fore, I will endeavour to draw forth the Word from
beneath those words, and to help the reader to perceive
something of the glory of the grace and the truth which
shone forth from Him so as to make His teaching something
above and beyond a Law (like the Law of Moses) but rather
like a living and helpful Friend.
"For example, Mark's introduction speaks of 'the
beginning of the Gospel,' and of 'preaching' or 'pro-
claiming,' and of 'baptism,' and of 'repentance' and
of 'remission of sins.' Now the brethren have, bctn.m
to use these words in their schools and churches in a formal
way, as physicians, lawyers, and others, use the terms
peculiar to their several occupations*, and as the Scriln >
use their scribal words in their schools and synagogues
speaking for example of 'the Gospel' as the Pharisees
speak of 'the Law,' as though it had a being of its own
apart from the Spirit of Jesus. 1 will therefore not
these expressions. Instead of mentioning the word ' Gospel,'
I will shew, as in a drama, what the Gospel was. Instead
of using the word ' proclaim ' as though Jesus were a herald
crying aloud the precise proclamation and the exact words
that the king has appointed for him to cry I will relate
what Jesus taught, in its spiritual effect, as the Son speak-
ing freely in the name of the Father. Lastly, instead of
mentioning the Greek 'repentance/ which means merely
'a change of mind,' I will bring Jesus before the reader,
as it were on the stage of the theatre of this world, calling
on mankind to turn from darkness to the Light.
"As lor 'the beginning of the Gospel,' which Mark
PREFACE
seems to declare to have been 'John' that is to say,
the preaching of John the Baptist I will go back to
the 'beginning' indeed, namely, to the one eternal Word
that was the origin of all these temporary words, so that
the first sentence of my book shall be, ' In the beginning
was the [one] Word.' And the next shall shew that this
was no ordinary word, for ' the Word was toward the [one]
God.' And the next after that shall shew that the Word
was indeed Himself a Person, and divine: 'And the Word
was God."
If this imaginary soliloquy represents at all adequately
the attitude of the Fourth Evangelist to the Three, then,
in reply to the question "What have you gained from all
this study of words? " I should feel emboldened to reply that
I have made two gains, one negative, the other positive.
The negative gain has been that I have been freed (partially
at all events, no man is fully free) from the domination
of words. The positive gain has been some increase of
reverent recognition of the blended beauty and awfulness
of the mysterious ways of the Eternal Word through whom
is revealed the Eternal Thought "whose service is perfect
freedom."
To the possibility of negative gain almost every page
in this work will testify, shewing that, whatever Jesus
said or did, He said or did in special circumstances or with
special metaphor, paradox, or hyperbole, that have been
often variously regarded by His biographers. These
special circumstances often indicate that He did not
lay down, and did not wish to lay down, precedents that
we might exactly follow independently of our own cir-
cumstances at the present day. The Three Gospels
imply, and the Fourth asserts, that Christ's Spirit, not the
words uttered by Him before His Spirit was given, is, in
the ultimate resort, to dictate and control our action.
xiv
PREFACE
The positive gain has been described above as "reverent
recognition." This phrase has been chosen to indicate
something different from a merely intellectual insight into
causes and effects. Yet it does imply insight a spiritual
insight into the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross as being no
isolated event, nor arbitrarily foreordained mystery, but
the natural centre round which there revolves the universal
sphere of visible and invisible existence, so far as we
mortals can rightly conceive of it.
The Synoptists do not indicate this fundamental truth
with any clearness. When they represent Jesus as pre-
dicting His sufferings, death, and resurrection, they re-
produce, and make more definite, a few of His definite
words (especially those about " rising again " in " three
days " or on " the third day ") probably borrowed from
one or two of the prophets. But they do not clearly reveal
Christ's underlying sense that He, in thus fulfilling the
Father's will, was to win a victory. He was to endure
a humiliation that would end in exaltation, and to ex-
perience a suffering of pain, or even of death, that would
become the way to the joy of eternal life. The Fourth
Gospel, we must not say ignores all the Synoptic definite
phrases, but should rather say, assumes them all. It tells
us what they all meant, and what was Christ's feeling at
the bottom of them. Consequently it represents Him as
speaking about His future death as a "lifting up" or
"glorifying," never as a "killing" or as a "crucifying."
These considerations, though they have by no means led
us to prefer the Fourth Gospel in all cases to the Three, have
led us to regard it as a supplement to them, and in many
cases as a necessary supplement. This we have found to
hold good more especially about Mark's Gospel. Mark
sometimes barely and inadequately reports deep sayings
of Jesus with such brevity and obscurity that they are
PREFACE
omitted by Luke and occasionally by Matthew also. In
such cases we have often found that John steps in, not to
repeat in amended Marcan language what Jesus actually
said, but to teach us in Johannine language what Jesus
actually meant.
In such cases, the meaning has been often found to go
back to poetry ancient poetry in the Hebrew Scriptures
interpreted by later poetry in Jewish traditions. And
here it should be added that the Fourth Gospel, though
largely indebted to Philo, is also much more than is
generally supposed akin to Jewish poetic or Haggadic
thought, such as is found in the Midrash or ancient
Jewish commentaries on Scripture.
These, though compiled after the Talmuds, often point
back to a period earlier than that of many traditions in
the Talmuds. We lose a great deal of light on the Gospels
if we assume that Jewish literature in the first century was
mainly Talmudic or legal. Much of it, especially before
the fall of Jerusalem, would be Haggadic, that is, poetic.
Now the poets and prophets of Scripture, and the poets
of the Haggada, even the saddest of them, while pouring
forth sorrow for the past and the present, are almost
always in some sense optimists as to the future. To this
rule John who in one of his aspects is certainly a Jewish
poet affords no exception. This may seem to discredit
his Gospel. Optimists in these days (1917) are silent or
speak in subdued tones. Men's minds are busy thinking
rather about diabolical evil and how to crush it, than
about the goodness of God and how to exalt it. Yet
those Christians who believe that the Spirit of Christ has
seldom had fair play in Christian Churches will not allow
themselves to be laughed out of a reasonable optimism
based on experience. This wonderful mixture of good
and evil called "the world" does seem to be 1 on the
xvi
PREFACE
whole, or in many respects, "going onward" sceptics
may say "halting onward" or even "muddling onward"
toward some far-off goal of goodness.
Take for example the Christian belief that all human
beings may approach God, \vith a reasonable hopefulness,
calling Him "our Father." It came to us from the Jews.
But when, and whence, did it come to the Jews? Appa-
rently not till very late. Not till long after the period
when God was regarded by them as the Father of Israel.
Indeed the Lexicon tells us that the word is not thus used
in the Hebrew Scriptures except in a phrase of one of the
later Psalms where God is called " Father of the fatherless."
May we not take comfort from the thought that so beautiful
a title sprang from so sad a source? And is not this often
God's way or, if agnostics shake their heads, at all events
the way ? Does not the want usefully, or sometimes neces-
sarily, precede the gift ? " If I go not away," said Jesus
to His disciples, "the Spirit will not come unto you."
So in these present days God may be constraining us
to feel the want of His Fatherhood by allowing us nations
and churches and classes and individuals to feed ourselves
first with the unsatisfying substitutes afforded by pleasure
and wealth and power, and physical or mental excitements.
There is at present, and rightly, a growing feeling at least
in this country against the accumulation of excessive
wealth by individuals. And popular contempt and aversion
may sometimes be useful in discouraging it. But they can
never be a substitute for a truly Christian conscience, for
the voice that should speak in a man's heart, saying,
"Shall I live in luxury and give my workpeople a starving
wage?" The time will come, we may reasonably hope,
when a Christian will say " I had sooner be a scavenger
before the gates of Sion than a multimillionaire in the City
of Mammon." And this, the selfish accumulation of wealth,
A. F. xvii b
PREFACE
is but one form of that "greediness" which is the source of
all sin. A similar feeling of abhorrence if we are to be
Christians indeed must extend to other provinces of
selfishness, including the sins of the flesh : "Shall I destroy
the Man within me and serve the Beast? "
Is this an optimistic dream? It is at all events more
reasonable than the supposition that by any appeal to mere
self-interest, and by any merely mechanical organizations
of conferences and councils, war should be abolished and
the reign of perpetual peace insured. The machinery is
not to be despised or ignored but it cannot be worked by
itself without the Spirit. We need the Peace-Giver Him-
self in the universe, in every nation, in every social com-
munity, in every family, in every human heart. It is
a very hard task for man to make himself, and to keep
himself, one with the Son of God, and consequently one
with the City of the Universe. Yet Marcus Aurelius
aimed at nothing less, declaring that every good man
ought to say, "That which does not hurt the City does not
hurt me/'
How much more ought Christians to aspire to such a
triumph over their own selfishness, over the lower self that
rebels against the higher ! And how desirable it is that
in attempting to achieve such a victory we should put
aside everything that comes in between us and the Lord
Jesus Christ, in whom and through whom w r e are to
"overcome the world" that "world" of God's gifts which
we are apt to convert into a world of the devil's temptations.
It is quite right to study the words of the Gospels with
all possible care, honesty, and diligence, but the student's
object should always be to reach the Word through the
words. Small indeed would then seem many of the
differences that divide Churches and theologians. They
would be swallowed up in our apprehension of "the love
xviii
PREFACE
of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord," and "the peace
of God which passeth all understanding." Not for nothing
does Jesus in the Fourth Gospel emphasize this peace :
"Peace I bequeath unto you, the peace that is my own
I give you," and again "These things I have spoken unto
you that in me ye may have peace. In the world ye must
have tribulation : but be of good cheer, I have overcome
the world."
There are many forms in which men may patch up
a peace individual with individual, class with class,
nation with nation a peace of self-interest and con-
venience. But there is only one kind of peace that is
permanent, that which is based whether in individuals,
or in classes, or in nations on the acceptance of the Spirit
of the Son of Man, that is to say, of that ideal Humanity
to which all human beings owe allegiance, and which we
Christians identify with Jesus Christ. The Spirit of the
Son of Man we have found to be the Spirit of self-sacrifice,
a sacrifice of self for the sake of others. In accordance
with the Law of self-sacrifice the Son of Man passed through
apparent defeat on the Cross to the real victory of the
Resurrection, through the death of "the grain of wheat"
to the life that "beareth much fruit." \Ye are to do the
same.
This is the lesson of the Gospels. But in too many
cases "self-sacrifice" has been confused with "sacrifice for
oneself, sacrifice for one's own salvation." That is a very
different thing. As though a soldier should suppose that
in fighting for his country he is fighting to save his own life !
Too often, corrupted thus, the Gospel has failed. But
there is all the more hope that, if we take its lesson to heart
in the future, it will no longer so greatly fail.
b2
PREFACE
My thanks are due to my old friend and schoolfellow
Mr W. S. Aldis, M.A., formerly Principal of the Durham
College of Science, for most valuable corrections and
suggestions, made in revising the proofs of this volume
as also those of preceding volumes of this series, from the
beginning (1900). I have also to thank the Rev. J. Hunter
vSmith, M.A., formerly my colleague as Assistant Master at
King Edward's School, Birmingham, for copious illustra-
tions, from modern sources, bearing on many points of
difficulty.
From a third friend (of more than sixty years' standing)
Mr H. Candler, formerly 'Mathematical Master at Upping-
ham, I had confidently hoped to receive a frank and
trenchant criticism like that which I have gratefully
acknowledged in many previous volumes ; and though he
has been removed by death I desire to testify here to the
inspiring memory of his uncompromising honesty.
To my daughter I owe not only the Indices at the end
of the volumes, but also a close and searching recension of
the whole work, which has detected innumerable faults, and
has gone far to remedy the author's increasing infirmities
of memory and defects in exact and accurate expression.
Lastly, to the Cambridge University Press, my thanks,
paid on many previous occasions, must be reiterated and
emphasized, not only for the accuracy of their printing,
but also for their skill in dealing with the complicated
arrangement of the footnotes never so complicated as in
this, the concluding volume of the series.
EDWIN A. ABBOTT.
Wellside, Well Walk,
Hampstead, N.W. 3
3 Apr.
xx
CONTENTS
PAGE
REFERENCES AND ABBREVIATIONS ..... xxix
CHAPTER I
THE TRANSFIGURATION AND ITS SEQUEL
[Mark ix. 2 13]
i "Glory," in the Three Gospels and in the Fourth . i
2 "Went up into the mountain to pray," in Luke . 6
3 "After six days" or "about eight days"
4 The Johannine equivalent of "praying on the moun-
tain" 10
5 " His garments. . .so as no fuller on earth can whiten,"
in Mark ..... 13
6 "Beloved" in Mark and Matthew, "Chosen" in Luke 20
7 "While they were coming down from the mountain he-
charged them," in Mark . . 24
8 " How is it written ?" in Mark .... 32
CHAPTER II
"THE KINGDOM OF GOD" AND "LITTLE CHILDREN"
[Mark ix. 14 50]
i " Little children " 38
2 "Little children," in the Fourth Gospel ... 44
3 The "little child" with the "dumb and deaf spirit,"
in Mark .... . . 48
4 "All things are possible to him that believeth," in Mark 53
5 "This kind can come out by nothing save by prayer,"
in Mark 55
6 The first Synoptic passage mentioning the "delivering
up " of " the Son of man " ..... 62
7 "He would not that any man should know [it]," in
Mark 64
8 The question who is " the greatest " ... 70
xxi
CONTENTS
PAGK
9 "Taking a little child in his arms," in Mark . . 75
10 "In my name," and "because ye are Christ's," in
Mark ......... 79
1 1 "If thine eye offend thee," in Mark and Matthew . 86
12 "The unquenchable fire," in Mark .... 90
13 The undying "worm," in Mark ..... 96
14 " For every one shall be salted with fire," in Mark . 98
15 "Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace one with
another," in Mark . . ... . . . 101
1 6 Johannine doctrine on fire ...... 103
17 How John expresses "salting with fire" . . . 105
8 18 "Tribulation" 108
CHAPTER III
MARRIAGE AND CHILDREN
[Mark x. I 16]
i Divorce, the discussion of, how originated . . . 112
2 "And he blessed them," in Mark .... 116
CHAPTER IV
HOW TO ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM
[Mark x. 17 52]
i "And Jesus looking upon him loved him," in Mark . 123
2 "Children, how hard it is," in Mark .... 127
3 " He shall receive a hundredfold . . .with persecutions,"
in Mark . 133
4 "But many that are first shall be last," in Mark and
Matthew ... 141
5 "First Simon" in Matthew, and "first" in John . 147
6 "And Jesus was going before them, and they were.
amazed," in Mark ....... 151
" With the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye
be baptized," in Mark . . 155
"Not mine to give but for those for whom it hath
been prepared," in Mark and Matthew . 160
9 "They that are accounted to rule," in Mark . 161
10 "To give his life a ransom for many," in Mark and
Matthew . . . . . 164
ii "The son of Timaeus, Bartimaeus," in Mark . 165
12 "In the way," in Mark .... 169
xxii
CONTENTS
CHAPTER V
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
[Mark xi. 125 (26)]
PAGE
" A colt tied at the door without in the open street,"
TIT 1 ' I 7 I
in Mark .
s -> The origin of Mark's tradition .
I I The ass and the foal of the Messiah in Genesis .
John on the "finding" of the ass
(R V ) "Branches (marg. layers 01 leaves, , m ^ .
6 " Hosanna," in Mark, Mattnew, and John
s 4 onn on LUC iAnvim5
5 (R.V.) " Branches (marg. layers of leaves)," in Mark
" Hosanna " in Mark, Mattnew, and John .
"The coming kingdom of our father David," in Mark
8 " He looked round about upon all things," in Mark .
s 9 John on Christ's visits to the Temple
10 The symbolism of the fig-tree, misunderstood by Luke 205
ii Does John intervene?
Carrying a vessel th
13 "For all the nations , " in Mark .
S 14 "A scourge of cords," in John .
15 "Doves," "tables," and "money-changers,"
S 16
12 " Carrying a vessel through the temple," in Mark
" Doves " " tables," and " money-changers,
Ik' .'.. 2l8
Wha^t followed after the purification of the Temple
s 17 "Have faith in God," in Mark .
1 8 "Believe that what he saith is coming to pass, an
"Believe that ye [have] received," in Mark .
19
20
234
Johannine Intervention
"Whensoever ye stand praying," in Mark .
CHAPTER VI
JESUS "WALKING" IN THE TEMPLE
[Mark xi. 27 xii. 44]
John on the "walking" of Jesus
The parable of the murderous husbandmen
The payment of tribute
The resurrection of the dead
2
3
A J. 11C A tO L4J. A *-'*-' VAV^AA v -. ~" ~
5 " What commandment is the first ? " in Mark .
6 " Scribes " and " the Son of David " .
7 " Scribes" and a poor widow, in Mark and Luke
xxiii
CONTENTS
CHAPTER VII
THE LAST DAYS
[Mark xiii. i 37]
PAGE
i The casting down of the Temple . . . . 284
2 " When shall these things be ?" 286
3 "Wars... the beginning of travail," in Mark and
Matthew ........ 289
4 Persecutions ........ 294
5 "The Abomination of Desolation" and its sequel, in
Mark and Matthew . . . . . . 305
6 The "shortening" of "the days," in Mark and Matthew 313
7 The " gathering " of " the elect," in Mark and Matthew 320
8 "The fig-tree" , 324
9 "About that day . . . knoweth no one... not even the
Son, save only the Father," in Mark and Matthew . 326
10 "The porter," in Mark and John . . . . 331
11 The "faithful servant (or, steward)," in Matthew and
Luke . . ' 334
12 The disciple that "follows," and the disciple that
"waits," in John ....... 336
CHAPTER VIII
THE ANOINTING AT BETHANY
[Mark xiv. i n]
i "After two days," in Mark and Matthew . . . . 339
2 Clement of Alexandria on the Anointing . . 347
3 Origen and others on the Anointing .... 352
4 Words and phrases common to Mark and John . . 355
5 Words and phrases common to Luke and John . 360
6 The single phrase common to all the Synoptists . 363
7 "Bethany," in Mark, Matthew, and John . ' . 365
8 (R.V.) "Burying," or "burial," in Mark, Matthew,
and John ........ 374
9 " Verily . . . for a memorial of her, ' ' in Mark and Matthew 382
10 Mark's narrative as a whole ..... 384
11 A review of the evidence ...... 386
CONTENTS
CHAPTER IX
THE LAST SUPPER
[Mark xiv. 12 25]
PAGE
i Judas Iscariot's agreement with the chief priests 390
2 The "man bearing a pitcher," in Mark and Luke 392
3 The designation of Judas as the betrayer . . 397
4 Christ's last words about, or to, Judas 407
5 The Institution of the Eucharist . . . 4 J 3
CHAPTER 'X
THE INTERVAL BEFORE THE ARREST
[Mark xiv. 26 42]
i The going forth to the Mount of Olives . . . 431
2. "Stumbling," and "being scattered," in Mark and
Matthew 435
3 "I will go-before you to Galilee," in Mark and Matthew 438
4 "Before the cock crow twice," in Mark . 440
5 The beginning of the Passion .... 444
6 "He began... to be sore troubled," in Mark and
Matthew 45
7 "My soul is exceeding-sorrowful even unto death," in
Mark and Matthew . . . . . . 454
8 "All things are possible unto thee," in Mark . . 458
9 "The hour" in Mark and John, and "the cup" in all
the Gospels ...... 459
10 "The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak," in
Mark and Matthew .... 467
11 The last words of Jesus to the disciples . . . 469
CHAPTER XI
THE ARREST OF JESUS
[Mark xiv. 43 52]
1 The Synoptic "multitude" or Johannine "cohort" . 477
2 The words and acts of Jesus during the arrest . 488
3 "They all left him," in Mark . . . 496
4 "A certain young man," in Mark .... 500
CONTENTS
CHAPTER XII
THE TRIAL BEFORE THE HIGH PRIEST
[Mark xiv. 53 72]
"
PAGE
I
"To the high priest," in Mark .....
504
2
"Peter warming himself," in Mark and John
510
3
"False witnesses" about "the temple," in Mark and
Matthew
513
4
The questioning of Jesus by the High Priest, in Mark
and Matthew ........
519
5
The smiting of Jesus .......
525
6
" Thou also wast with Jesus," in Mark and Matthew .
528
7
"He began to anathematize," in Mark and Matthew .
532
CHAPTER XIII
THE TRIAL BEFORE PILATE
[Mark xv. i 15]
i The Praetorium ........ 540
2 The charge of claiming to be a king .... 545
3 Christ's silence before His judges .... 548
4 The Custom of Release . . . . . 552
5 Barabbas ........ 554
6 The scourging of Jesus ..... 559
CHAPTER XIV
THE MOCKING AND THE CRUCIFIXION
[Mark xv. 16 37]
i The "purple" or "scarlet," and the "crown" . 563
2 The carrying of the Cross . . . . . . 570
3 "Wine mingled -with-myrrh," in Mark . . 575
4 " Casting lots " for Christ's garments . . . 576
5 "It was the third hour," in Mark . . . 579
6 The Superscription on the Cross ..... 583
7 The mocking of Christ on the Cross .... 589
8 "Crucified-with," in Mark, Matthew, and John . 591
9 "My God," in Mark and Matthew .... 595
10 " Why hast thou forsaken me ? " in Mark and Matthew 598
11 "Elijah," in Mark and Matthew .... 602
xxvi
CONTENTS
PACE
12 "Reed," or "hyssop," in Mark, Matthew, and John . 603
13 Christ's last utterance 607
14 Christ's death . .... 611
CHAPTER XV
THE BURIAL
[Mark xv. 38 47]
i The " rending " of " the veil " ..... 616
2 "From afar" ........ 626
3 Joseph of Arimathaea 633
4 The entombing ........ 639
CHAPTER XVI
THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF CHRIST'S RESURRECTION
[Mark xv. 47 xvi. 8]
i What the women did before, and immediately aft' r,
the sabbath ........ 645
2 What the names of the women were .... 652
3 "When the sun was risen," in Mark .... 660
4 Mark's peculiar tradition about " the stone " . . 663
5 " Rolled up in a place by itself," in John . . . 670
6 "A young man," in Mark ...... 673
7 "The Nazarene," in Mark ...... 681
8 "He is not here" \ . 683
9 "See [thou], [here is] the place," in Mark . . 687
10 "And to Peter," in Mark 691
ii " Goeth before you into Galilee," in Mark and Matthew 693
12 "For they feared," in Mark ..... 699
CHAPTER XVII
THE RESURRECTION
[Mark-Appendix xvi. 9 20]
i The general character of the Mark- Appendix . . 704
2 The Mark- Appendix, Luke, and John . . . 707
3 The Mark- Appendix on Christ's last words . . 714
4 The Mark-Appendix and the Lucan Discourse to the
Seventy ........ 722
xxvii
CONTENTS
PAGE
5 The Ascension in the Mark- Appendix . . . . 727
6 " And sat down at the right hand of God," in the Mark-
Appendix ........ 733
7 "The accompanying signs," in the Mark- Appendix . 735
INDICES
I Scriptural Passages . .... 743
II ' English 766
III Greek ......... 793
xxvin
REFERENCES AND ABBREVIATIONS
REFERENCES
(i) a. References to the first nine Parts of Diatessarica (as to which
see pp. 797 8) are by paragraphs in black Arabic numbers :
1_ 272 = Clue.
273 552 = Corrections of Mark.
553 1149 = From Letter to Spirit.
11501435 = Paradosis.
1438 1885 = Johannine Vocabulary.
1886 2799 = Johannine Grammar.
28002999 = 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 five Sections
of the complete work are :
(Section i) Introduction.
(Section 2) The Beginning.
(Section 3) The Proclamation of the New Kingdom.
(Section 4) The Law of the New Kingdom.
(Section 5) The Founding 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 X, A, B, etc. ; the
Latin versions by a, b, etc., as usual. The Syriac version dis-
covered 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.
XXIX
REFERENCES AND ABBREVIATIONS
ABBREVIATIONS
Aq. = Aquila's version of O.T.
Brederek = Brederek's Konkordcwz zum Targum Onkclos, 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 Judisch-Paldstinischen Aramdisch, 1894.
En. = Enoch ed. Charles, Clarendon Press, 1893.
Ency. = Encyclopaedia Biblica, A. & C. Black, 1899.
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 ii, Berlin, 1899.
XXX
REFERENCES AND ABBREVIATIONS
Levy = Levy's Neuhebrdisches und' Chaldaisches Worterbuch,
4 vols., Leipzig, 1889; Levy Ch. = Chaldaisches Worterbuch, 2 vols.,
1881.
L.S. = Liddell and Scott's Greek Lexicon.
Mechilta, see Wii(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
adloc.', Lonim. iii. 24 = vol. hi. p. 24 of Lommatzsch's edition.
Oxf. Cone. = The Oxford Concordance to the Septuaginl.
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
Wiinsche's edition of the Midrash on the Pentateuch, e.g. Gen. r.
(on Gen. xii. 2, \Vii. p. 177).
Rashi, sometimes quoted from Breithaupt's translation, 1714.
S. = Samuel', s. = "see."
Schottg. - Schottgen'sHorae Hebraicae, 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 ('<>\vlry 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. Wunsche (2 vols.).
Test, xii 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.
REFERENCES AND ABBREVIATIONS
Walton = Biblia Sacra Polyglotta, 1657.
Wetst. = Wetstein's Comm. on the New Testament, Amsterdam,
W.H. = Westcott and Hort's New Testament.
Wii. = Wiinsche's translation of Rabboth etc., 1880 1909
(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. dydnr) Mk (o), Mt. (i), Lk. (i), Jn (7).
(6) 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 trans-
literated, it is often indicated (for the sake of experts) by a reference
to Gesen., Thes. Syr., Levy, or Levy Ch.
XXXll
CHAPTER I
THE TRANSFIGURATION AND ITS SEQUEL
[Mark ix. 2 13]
i. "Glory," in the Three Gospels and in the Fourth 1
THE Transfiguration is expressly described by Luke as a'
1 Mk ix. 28
(R.V.)
(2) And after six
days Jesus taketh
with him Peter, and
James, and John,
and bringeth them
up into a high moun-
tain apart by them-
selves : and he was
transfigured before
them :
(3) And his gar-
ments became glis-
tering, exceeding
white; so as no
fuller on earth can
whiten them.
(4) And there ap-
peared unto them
Elijah with Moses:
and they were talk-
ing with Jesus.
Mt. xvii. i8
(R.V.)
(T) And after six
days Jesus taketh
with him Peter, and
James, and John his
brother, and bringeth
them up into a high
mountain apart :
(2) And he was
transfigured before
them : and his face
did shine as the sun,
and his garments be-
came white as the
light.
(3) And behold,
there appeared unto
them Moses and Kli-
jah talking with him.
Lk. ix. 2836
(R.V.)
(28) And it came
to pass about eight
days after these say-
ings, he took with
him Peter and John
and James, and went
up into the mountain
to pray.
(29) And as he
was praying, the
fashion of his counte-
nance was altered,
and his raiment [be
came] white [and]
dazzling.
(30) And behold,
there talked with him
v two men, which were
Moses and Elijah;
(31) Who appear-
ed in glory, and
spake of his decease
(or, departure) which
he was about to
accomplish at Jerusa-
lem.
(32) Now Peter
and they that were
with him were heavy
with sleep : but when
they were fully a-
wake (or, having re-
mained awake), they
saw his glory, and
the two men that
stood with him.
A. F.
i (Mark ix. 28)
THE TRANSFIGURATION AND ITS SEQUEL
manifestation of "glory 1 ." Mark and Matthew do not use the
word in this narrative, but both of them have used the word
in the preceding context in such a way as to prepare the reader
to accept Luke's description 2 . Mark also, and Mark alone,
represents the sons of Zebedee as asking Jesus soon afterwards
Mk ix. 28
(R.V.) contd.
(5) And Peter
answereth and saith
to Jesus, Rabbi, it is
'good for us to be
here: and let us
make three taber-
nacles ; one for thee,
and one for Moses,
and one for Elijah.
(6) For he wist,
not what to answer ;
for they became sore
afraid.
(7) And there
came a cloud over-
shadowing them :
and there came a
voice out of the
cloud, This is my
beloved Son : hear
ye him.
(8) And suddenly
looking round about,
they saw no one any
more, save Jesus only
with themselves.
Mt. xvii. 18
(R.V.) contd.
(4) And Peter
answered, and said
unto Jesus, Lord, it is
good for us to be
here : if thou wilt, I
will make here three
tabernacles; one for
thee, and one for
Moses, and one for
Elijah.
(5) While he was
yet speaking, behold,
a bright cloud over-
shadowed them : and
behold, a voice out of
the cloud, saying,
This is my beloved
Son, in whom I am
well pleased ; hear
ye him.
(6) And when the
disciples heard it,
they fell on their
face, and were sore
afraid.
(7) And Jesus
came and touched
them and said, A-
rise, and be not
afraid.
(8) And lifting up
their eyes, they saw
no one, save Jesus
only.
Lk. ix. 2836
(R.V.) contd.
(33) And it came
to pass, as they were
parting from him,
Peter said unto
Jesus, Master, it is
good for us to be
here: and let us
make three taber-
nacles ; one for thee,
and one for Moses,
and one for Elijah :
not knowing what he
said.
(34) And while he
said these things,
there came a cloud,
and overshadowed
them : and they
feared as they enter-
ed into the cloud.
(3~5) And a voice
came out of the
cloud, saying, This
is my Son, my chosen
(many anc. auth. my
beloved Son) : hear
ye him.
(36) And when
the voice came (or,
was past), Jesus was
found alone. And
they held their peace,
and told no man in
those days any of
the things which they
had seen.
1 Lk. ix. 31 2 01 6(f)6cvTS ev 86gr)...fl8av TTJV 86av
2 Mk viii. 38, Mt. xvi. 27 "in the glory of his Father," Lk. ix. 26
" in his own glory and the Father's," on which see Son 3492 /.
2 (Mark ix. 28)
THE TRANSFIGURATION AND ITS SEQUEL
that they may sit on either side of Him in His "glory 1 ."
Clearly they did not understand what His "glory" meant.
Here, then, we may conveniently consider what it did mean.
In all the Marcan passages that refer to glory there appears
to be some reference to the "thrones" mentioned by Daniel
predicting the divine judgment: "I beheld till thrones were
placed, and one that was ancient of days did sit 2 ." But in
the Synoptic passages now before us, a reference to Daniel is
made peculiarly probable because they all mention garments of
an exceeding or dazzling whiteness, and Daniel says about the
Person who "sat" enthroned "His raiment was white as snow."
Such descriptions of the exceeding whiteness of "raiment" occur
nowhere else in the Bible except here and in two of the accounts
of the angelic manifestations at Christ's resurrection 3 .
In the Fourth Gospel the glory of Kingdom is subordinated
to that of Fatherhood, and the glory of judging to that 1 of saving.
John appears never to use the word "glorify" without some
thought of the Deliverance that is celebrated in the Song of
Moses and the Lamb, accomplished by a Redeemer whose
glory it was to die that others might live 4 .
The first Johannine mention of "glory" is in the Prologue,
"and we beheld his glory [i.e. the glory of the Word], glory as of
the only begotten from the Father 5 ." This can hardly refer
(or at least cannot primarily refer) to any manifestation of
visible glory, such as might be supposed to have been seen at
the Transfiguration. Yet it may allude to the tradition
peculiar to Luke's narrative, " Now Peter and they that were
with him were heavy with sleep: but when they were fully
awake (or, having remained awake), they saw his glory, and the
1 Mk x. 37 "in thy glory," Mt. xx. 21 "in thy kingdom." Lk.
omits the narrative. The only other Marcan mention of glory is
Mk xiii. 26 /-icra duvdpcvs TroXXfjs /cat 86{-T)s, but Mt. xxiv. 30,
Lk. xxi. 27 /xera 8vvdp.ea>s <al 86r]s TroXXfjs.
2 Dan. vii. 9.
3 Mk ix. 3, Mt. xvii. 2, Lk. ix. 29 ; comp. Mk xvi. 5 "white," but
Mt. xxviii. 3 "white as snow," Lk. xxiv. 4 "dazzling."
4 See Son 3463 foil., 3565 foil.
5 Jni. 14.
3 (Mark ix. 2 8)
THE TRANSFIGURATION AND ITS SEQUEL
two men that stood with him 1 ." Luke, who alone mentions
"glory" in the narrative of the Transfiguration, takes it here
as a visible, not a spiritual splendour, not one seen in a dream
or vision, since the disciples were fully "awake 2 ." John, at the
outset of his Gospel, connects with "glory" a mention of
"grace and truth." He also says "we beheld it" an expression
that would naturally' include all the disciples and not merely
"Peter and those that were with him 3 ." And whereas Luke
says that Moses and Elijah, along with Jesus, "appeared in
glory," John implies that a distinction must be drawn between
different kinds of glory. For glory in the highest sense, if it
included "grace and truth," did not belong to Moses: "The
Law was given through Moses ; the [gift of] grace and the [gift
1 Lk. ix. 32, which follows "There talked with him two men,
that were Moses and Elijah, who appeared in glory." Lk. ix. 32 is
taken by Cyril (see Cramer) as implying previous sleep
2 See Acts of John 3 6 for several manifestations followed by
7 " another glory (dogav) will I tell you, brethren." Comp. 2 Pet. i.
1 6 1 8 "For we did not follow cunningly devised fables, when we
made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus
Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received
f'om God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a
voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in
whom I am well pleased : and this voice we [ourselves] (fads) heard
come out of heaven, when we were with him in the holy mount."
The mention of " cunningly devised fables " explains Luke's anxiety
to emphasize the fact that the witnesses of the glory "were fully
awake." Contrast the emphatic "we," faels t in 2 Pet., with its
absence in Jn i. 14 eOeao-dp-eOa.
3 The contexts in Acts of John 5 "Peter and James were wroth
because I spake with the Lord," and 6 "I heard Him say 'John,
go thou to sleep/ and thereupon I feigned to be asleep," indicate
early heresies that claimed for special apostles special revelations of
material glory. But the following tradition includes all the Twelve :
Petr. Apoc. 2 3 "And further (irpoo-Oiis] the Lord t,aid, 'Let us
go (rt-yoo/xev) to the mountain (els TO opos) and pray (fva)p.(0a) . . . and
while we were praying there suddenly appear two men standing
before the Lord (et^o/iei/coy fa&v '[<i/eo 0aiV]oi>rai dvo avdpes eVrcores-
f'p.7rpoo-6fv TOII "K-vpiov)."
4 (Mark ix. 2 8)
THE TRANSFIGURATION AND ITS SEQUEL
of] truth [that were to be developed out of the Law] came [into
being] through Jesus Christ 1 ."
It is very seldom indeed that Luke introduces a tradition
about fact of any importance, peculiar to himself, in the midst
of a Synoptic narrative. But he introduces more than one
here. For besides mentioning the wakefulness, or awaking, of
Peter and his companions, he says that Jesus "went up into
the mountain to pray," and that the subject of the conversation
between Jesus and Moses and Elijah was the "departure" that
Jesus "was about to accomplish at Jerusalem." There is no
contextual tradition peculiar to Mark 2 , except a clause about
a "fuller" in connection with Christ's "garments" ("exceeding
white, such as no fuller on earth is able to whiten"). This will
be discussed after the "praying" mentioned by Luke alone at
this point.
1 Jni. 17-
- In Mk ix. 6 ov yap fjdei rl. dTroKpidr/, the text varies. SS has
"what he was saying." Origen first (Comm. Matth. xii. 40) quotes
it as (Lomm. iii. 194) airfKpi6rj, but afterwards (ib. 41, Lomm. iii. 200)
as cXdXft. D has XaX^orei but d " loquebatur."
Perhaps rl aTroKpiOfj may have arisen (i) from a recollection of
a tradition pec. to Mk xiv. 40 OVK ydcurav rl a-n-OKpiOcoo-iv avTtp,
or (2) from a reluctance to admit that Peter was, for the moment,
not in possession of his faculties; or (3) from both these causes.
The parall. Lk. ix. 33 ^ dbas b Xf'yft seems intended as a correction
of Mark. The sense is improved by it. For the words in Mark
are not an "answer" to any question expressed or implied, and this
is not an occasion where a superfluous " answer " might be used to
mean (Gesen. 773) "speak in view of circumstances." For these
reasons Mk ix. 6 is not discussed above as a tradition peculiar to
Mark.
Mechilt., on Exod. xv. 9 "The enemy said, / will follow," adds
"And he knew not what he said." That is, Pharaoh "followed," to
his own destruction, not to the destruction of Israel.
See From Letter 885 90 for Patristic comments on Mk ix. 6 etc.
There was perhaps some common Semitic original of Mk ix. 6, and
Mt. xvii. 5 en avrov \O\OVVTOS, capable of being interpreted "He
had not finished to speak" (comp. Levy iii. 570 a iDlS p'DDn $b,
of Akiba's martyrdom) or "He did not know while speaking." This
is more probable than the conjectures in Corrections 422 3.
5 (Mark ix. 28)
THE TRANSFIGURATION AND ITS SEQUEL
2. "Went up into the mountain to pray," in Luke 1
In commenting on the baptism of Jesus it was pointed out
that Luke alone describes Jesus as "praying" where the parallel
Mark and Matthew mention "ascending"; and the Odes of
Solomon and the Syriac Version of the Psalms were quoted to
shew how the phrase "Jesus lifted up his soul," i.e. in prayer,
might be taken to mean "lifted himself up," or vice versa 2 .
In the Psalms, the Targumist thrice supplies "in prayer,"
where the Psalmist mentions simply the "lifting up" of "the
soul 3 " to God. Luke may have done the same thing here.
What Luke adds about the subject of Christ's conversation
with Moses and Elijah is consistent with the view that, in this
"praying," Jesus was raised into a region of revelation and
vision (Mke "the third heaven" to which Paul was "caught up")
into which His three disciples also received an insight with
a power of hearing celestial utterances, not audible to those
who were not to some extent similarly lifted up. The con-
dition of the disciples, "weighed down with sleep," oscillating
between dream and vision, might be regarded by some as
similar to that of the same three disciples at Gethsemane; but
Luke dissents from that view by saying that on that occasion
Jesus "found them slumbering for sorrow*."
According to this view, "the mountain" in Luke is not the
1 Lk. ix. 28.
2 Beginning pp. no i.
3 Ps. xxv. i, Ixxxvi. 4, cxliii. 8.
4 Lk. ix. 32 j3(papr)[j.fvoi virva resembles Mk xiv. 40 of 6<pda\p.o\
Kara!Bapvv6iJ.cvoi. (Mt. /Se/rfop^/zeVoi) , where parall. Lk. xxii. 45 has
Koip.(ap.vovs ano Tr)$ \vnr]s. In canon. LXX, /3apeto-0ai occurs only
in Exod. vii. 14 (of Pharaoh), and Papers (apart from Gen. xxxi. 35
p.rj flapeas <p e 'p e ) only in Is. vi. IO rots axrlv avrwv ^Sapecoy fJKov(rav.
In N.T. ^apf'cas occurs only in Mt. xiii. 15, Acts xxviii. 27 (both
quoting Isaiah). Steph. Thes. quotes no instance of diayprjyope'iv
earlier than Herodian. There is no reason for explaining it (Corrections
424) by Hebr. confusion ; for Luke's motive in inserting this detail
might well be to shew that what the disciples saw was no dream or
vision. What they saw was seen "when they were fully awake"
(perhaps a better rendering than "having remained awake").
6 (Mark ix. 2 8)
THE TRANSFIGURATION AND ITS SEQUEL
same thing as "a high mountain" in Mark and Matthew, and
may be closer to the original tradition, which contemplated
a spiritual mountain 1 . The Marcan "high mountain" has
been supposed in ancient times to mean Tabor, or the Mount
of Olives, which are not "high 2 "; but in modern times,
Hermon, which is high, but open to objection, as being out of
the way, and hardly likely to be called "the holy mountain"
in the second Petrine Epistle 3 . "The holy mountain," in the
Psalms and Prophets, meant Mount Zion 4 . But when this,
under the title of "the mountain of the Lord's house," is spoken
of as being "established in the top of the mountains" and as
the resort of "all nations 5 ," it is obviously a metaphorical
region, a spiritual "House of Prayer." It is quite conceivable
that this thought, and even this phrase, was in use among
pious Essenes, who did not go up to the Temple in Jerusalem.
Perhaps it was in use among the disciples of John the Baptist
who is not described as going up with Jesus to the Temple,
when Jesus went up to purify it at the Passover, or as going
up on any occasion.
Thus we could explain "the mountain" in Luke here, and
"the holy mountain" in the Petrine Epistle, and also such
expressions as that in the Acts of John "He taketh me and
James and Peter into the mountain where His custom was to
pray 6 ." Thus, too, we can explain the sudden mention of
"the mountain" (not "a mountain") at the conclusion of
Matthew's Gospel as being "the mountain where Jesus [had]
appointed to them [to meet Him] 7 ." This does not oblige us
to deny that in a literal sense them may have been places,
such as that for example on the Mount of Olives, and others
on mountains of Galilee, to which Jesus "oft-times resorted
with his disciples 8 ." But it helps us to recognise that, in a
spiritual sense, Jesus laid stress on the need of our "ascending
1 Mk-Mt. opos v\lsr)hov, Lk. TO opoy.
2 See From Letter 867 a. 3 2 Pet. i. 18.
4 See Son 3468 c g on "The Holy Mountain."
5 Is. ii. 2, comp. Mic. iv. i.
8 Acts of John 3. 7 Mt. xxviii. 16.
8 Jn xviii. 2.
7 (Mark ix. 2 8)
THE TRANSFIGURATION AND ITS SEQUEL
in heart and mind" into the Mountain of the Lord's House of
Prayer in heaven, when we offer up prayer in any place, high
or low, upon earth.
3. "After six days" or "about eight days 1 "
Jerome's only comment on this clause in Matthew is that
Matthew mentions the "intermediate" days, Luke "adds the
first and the last " ; but he does not explain why Luke does this 2 .
Nothing occurs during this interval. Then why is any interval
mentioned by all the Synoptists ? Having been mentioned by
Mark and Matthew as "six days," why is it altered perhaps
inaccurately and certainly unnecessarily to "eight days"?
. Origen mentions, but does not comment on, Luke's diver-
gence 3 . He regards the "six days" as those of "creation,"
followed by "the new sabbath 4 ." But how "new" ? Is not
the day that follows the "six" rather to be called "the old
sabbath"? Might it not be said that "the new sabbath" is
a title to be given rather to "the eighth day," being the first
day of the New Creation, the day of Christ's Resurrection?
Some thought of this kind may explain Luke's alteration. For
the superiority of the eighth day to the seventh is a prominent
subject in the earliest Christian writers, among whom Justin
Martyr regards the eighth day as the emblem of the true
Circumcision as well as of the Resurrection 5 .
1 Mk ix. 2, Mt. xvii. I KOI /uera (Mt. pfd'} f)p.epas e, Lk. ix. 28
Se /xera TOVS \6yovs TOVTOVS oxret rjfifpai OK.TW.
2 Jerome adds " Non epim dicitur ' Post dies octo . . . ' sed ' die
octavo'" apparently reading Lk. as rjpepq. oydurj.
3 Origen on Mt. xvi. 28, Lomm. iii. 179.
4 Origen, Lomm. iii. 189 91.
5 Barn. xv. 8 9, Justin M. Tryph. 24, 41 "a type of the true
circumcision, by which we are circumcised from deceit and iniquity
through Him who rose from the dead rrj p.ia TO>V o-aftftdrvv ^epa,
[namely through] our Lord Jesus Christ." Comp. ib. 138 "a symbol
of the eighth day, wherein Christ appeared when He rose from the
dead, [the day] for ever the first in power." So Clem. Alex. freq.
636 7, 712 3, 811. Among those who rest in "God's holy hill"
(Ps. xv. i) some (ib. 794) are promoted from the seventh to the
eighth grade. See also Philo Quaest. Gen. on Gen. xvii. 12.
8 (Mark ix. 28)
THE TRANSFIGURATION AND ITS SEQUEL
Some may explain Mark's "after six days" by saying that,
although such interval-clauses are rare in the Gospels, they are
occasionally used where the interval is emphasized, and that
this is the case here: "Precisely six days after the Lord's
prophecy ' There are some here of those standing [by] . . . ' the
prophecy was fulfilled." But would Mark have inserted it if
it had happened to be "four days," or "five days"? It is
very unlikely. Luke might have done so in the Acts, but
probably not in his Gospel. The Bible does not often mention
intervals of days except for special reasons or in allusions 1 .
Not improbably, therefore, the Marcan tradition "after six
days" is to be explained allusively. If so, it would seem to
allude to the ancient description of the ascent of Moses to
Mount Sinai, where it is said "The cloud covered it six days, and
on the seventh day he called unto Moses out of the midst of the
cloud... and Moses was in the mount forty days and forty
nights 2 ." The Transfiguration was regarded as the occasion of
the giving of the New Law, attested by Moses and Elijah the
representatives of the Old Law and the Prophets, and given on
a New Mountain of God. According to the precedents of Moses
and Elijah there were intervals of "six days," or "forty days 3 ,"
before ascending. In Mark, an interval of " forty days " has been
already assigned to the Temptation. Here the interval men-
tioned is "six days" ; and it was probably mentioned originally,
not as an exact measure of the time, but as the type of the
interval between the proclamation of the Gospel and the Coming
of the Kingdom of God.
The period of "six days" is frequently mentioned in the Old
Testament antithetically to " the seventh day," or in con-
nection with the labour that is to precede the sabbath, but
1 Strong's Concordance gives (a), "four days" only once in O.T.
(Judg. xi. 40, about the dead), and in N.T. only in Jn xi. 17, 39
(about the dead) and Acts x. 30; (b) "five days" only once in O.T.
(Numb. xi. 19, see context), and in N.T. only in Acts xx. 6, xxiv. i.
2 Exod. xxiv. 1 6 18. See Synoptic Gospels i. 213 (by C. G.
Montefiore) to which I am indebted for this suggestion.
3 i K. xix. 8.
9 (Mark ix. 2 8)
THE TRANSFIGURATION AND ITS SEQUEL
is otherwise very rare 1 . It is therefore worth noting that it
occurs only once elsewhere (apart from Sabbatarian antithesis)
in the New Testament. There, it is connected with the coming
of Jesus to Bethany "six days before the Passover 2 ." A
common Jewish view of the "six days" during which Moses
was waiting to ascend the mountain was that they were spent
in purifying him for the presence of God 3 ; and John immediately
proceeds to describe the anointing of Jesus in connection with
"embalming," as a preparation for the Crucifixion, which, in
the Fourth Gospel, is regarded as a "lifting up" to the throne
of God. The Johannine Gospel begins with one implied
hexaemeron 4 . The Johannine "six days" may be the expres-
sion of another. But this would not preclude the Evangelist
from including an allusion to the gift of the New Law through
Jesus Christ, the Son, as distinguished from the gift of the Old
Law through Moses, the Servant.
4. The Johannine equivalent of "praying on the mountain"
The above-mentioned coincidence of a single phrase ("six
days") apparently ah insignificant one between the earlier
Synoptists and John, leads us to reflect on the much more
striking difference as to the term "mountain" so common in
all the Synoptists and so rare in the Fourth Gospel. The only
instance of it there in Christ's words is where He says "Neither
1 Josh. vi. 3 14 is hardly an exception.
2 Jn xii. i. There is Sabbatarian antithesis in Lk. xiii. 14.
3 Comp. Jer. Joma i. i (Schwab p. 157), Aboth R. Nathan (init.)
" Moses was sanctified in the cloud and received the Torah from Sinai
as it is written (Exod. xxiv. 16) 'And the Glory of the Lord abode
upon Mount Sinai,' which means on Moses, ... to purify him ... So says
R. Jose the Galilaean." R. Akiba differed. But others supported
R. Jose, see Numb. r. on Numb. vii. i (Wii. p. 296). Jer. Joma and
Numb. r. mention "seven days" as the period of sanctification,
whereas Scripture and Aboth R. Nathan mention "six days."
Comp. Jn xi. 55 xii. i "to purify (ayvLcrwo-Lv) themselves ... six
days before the Passover" an instance (Joh. Gr. 2646) of Johannine
irony to which Origen ad loc. calls attention.
4 See Proclam. p. 15, Joh. Gr. 2624, Son 3583 (ix) b, (xii) c foil.
10 (Mark ix. 2 8)
THE TRANSFIGURATION AND ITS SEQUEL
in Jerusalem nor in this mountain shall ye worship the Father 1 ."
The essence of worship, Jesus adds, is to pray not on a mountain
but "in spirit and in truth."
Not only is "praying on a mountain" excluded from the
Fourth Gospel but even all direct mention of Christ's "praying"
on any occasion. Yet John does represent Jesus in fact as
praying to the Father twice during the week before the last
Passover. The second prayer is the very long one uttered just
before His arrest. The first is a brief and passionate one, when
Jesus exclaims, "Now is my soul troubled. And what shall
I say ? ' Father, save me from this hour ' ? But for this cause
came I, unto this hour. Father, glorify thy name 2 ."
The preceding Johannine context describes Jesus as pro-
claiming "The hour is come that the Son of man should be
glorified*." The reason for the proclamation seems slight,
being merely a petition to Philip, "Sir, we would see Jesus,"
uttered by "certain Greeks among those that went up to
worship at the feast." But Jesus sees in this petition a verifi-
cation of the Law of the Harvest, and a revelation of the
Father's will that the Son, who is the Seed, shall "die" that it
may "bear much fruit." This seems to correspond to the more
definite and less poetic Lucan tradition that Jesus was to
"accomplish his departure (or, decease) in Jerusalem." The
scene of this petition of the Greeks is what Jews called the
Mountain of the Lord's House in Jerusalem to which they had
"come up" to worship 4 . Jesus welcomed them as worshippers
in no mere material mountain but in spirit and in truth.
1 Jn iv. 21. In Jn, opos occurs only in iv. 20, 21, vi. 3, 15 (and
the interpolated viii. i).
2 Jn xii. 278. On the punctuation see Joh. Gr. 2057, 2389 a,
2512 b c. No prayer is uttered before, even at the raising of
Lazarus. There it is implied that Jesus 'has quietly prayed (Jn
xi. 41 "Father, T thank thee that thou heardest me"). But no
prayer is recorded.
3 Jn xii. 23.
4 On " the Mountain of. the House," see From Letter 981 b. "Going
up" to the feast is mentioned in Jn xii. 20 about the Greeks, but
not about Jesus. See, however, Joh. Gr. 2264 5 on Jesus as "going
up" to a feast in a mystical sense.
ii (Mark ix. 2 8)
THE TRANSFIGURATION AND ITS SEQUEL
Then the Son offers Himself to the Father, a willing sacrifice,
in the prayer " Father, glorify thy name." The answer, " I have
both glorified it and will glorify it again," does not include the
word "Son," but it is felt to be implied, or rather, taken for
granted, so that "Thou art my Son" would, in this context,
rather weaken than strengthen the meaning. An inexpressible
mystery of "glorifying" the divine Name is suggested, as if the
Father is sacrificing His own Son, while the Son is sacrificing
Himself to His own Father, and divine Love identifies the
Sacrificer with the Sacrificed. This answer is uttered by a
"voice from heaven" not "from a cloud" as in the Synoptic
account of the Transfiguration and the multitude took it for
mere "thunder," while others said "an angel hath spoken to
him."
These variations in popular apprehension seem to illustrate
the Evangelist's doctrine that mere external signs and wonders
are of no avail in themselves, apart from the preparation of
the mind that is to receive them. The "multitude" was not
prepared. "Others" were only partially prepared. But there
was at least some one present who, if not fully at the moment,
at all events afterwards, was able to discern that the revelation
beneath this voice was a revelation of victory through defeat
and life through death. The Evangelist hears the words "Now
shall the prince of this world be cast out," and reflects " Yes, but
the prince was destined at first to prevail." He hears "I, if
I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto myself "-
and adds "Yes, but He was first to die." And hence, long
afterwards, he wrote down his reflection. "This he said,
signifying by what manner of death he should die 1 ."
1 Jn xii. 31 3. On "voices" in O.T., meaning "thunders,"
see From Letter 728. Origen, on the Transfiguration (Comm. Matth.
xii. 32, Lomm. iii. 182) seems to assume that the "voice" is a voice
of thunder, when he speaks of (Mt. xvi. 28) "'some of those standing
by ' Jesus (ea-rrjKOTcov irapa ro> 'if/o-oi)) , when they are enabled to follow
Him as He draws them onward and as He goes up into the
'high mountain' (ib. xvii. i) of His manifestation. Of which 'some
of those standing by Jesus (rives rwv eo-rcortov irapa (?) 'irjo-ovv) are
deemed worthy, if they be either a Peter whom ' the gates of Hades
12 (Mark ix. 28)
THE TRANSFIGURATION AND ITS SEQUEL
5. "His garments. . .so as no fuller on earth can whiten,"
in Mark 1
This curious Marcan tradition about "no fuller" may have
a bearing on the most important Lucan addition to the older
account of the Transfiguration. Mark and Matthew tell us
merely that Moses and Elijah conversed with Jesus. But
have no power against,' or 'the sons of thunder' and [those who are
to be] begotten (ot rfjs PpovTrjs viol <al yewmfievoi) from the mighty-
voicedness (OTTO TTJS peyaXo^v tar) of God [when He is] thundering
and calling aloud with a great voice from heaven (/Spoi/rcoi/ros- xal
fj-eydXa ovpavodfv /3ocoi/roy) to them that have ears and are wise.
Such as these 'do not taste of death.'"
The ancient commentary on Mark attributed to Jerome extends
this explanation of "sons of thunder" (Boanerges) so as to include
Peter: "Jesus named them Boanerges, that is, Sons of Thunder,
since the exalted merit of these three deserves to hear, on the Moun-
tain, the thunder of the Father, thundering through the cloud,
' This is my beloved Son.' " See Proclamation p. 41 T and Son 3468 b.
1 Mk ix. 3 <a\ TU ip-aria OVTOV tytvfro crriA/3oi>ra XCVKO, Xiav ola
yvafavs e-rrl TT}S yijs ov dvvaTai OVTMS XfVKavai. Many authorities
omit the clause about a "fuller" perhaps as being a homely illus-
tration and insert "snow" or "light": SS "He was transfigured
before them and he became gleaming and his clothing became
whitened as the snow," D ...o-TiXftovTa Xev<a Xta cos- ^icoi/ coy ov
dwarai TIS Xevicavai trri TTJS yrjs, d " splendida Candida nimis qualia
non potest quis Candida facere super terra." Diatess, has "And
while they were praying, Jesus changed, and became after the
fashion of another person ; and his face shone like the sun, and his
raiment was very white like the snow, and as the light of lightning,
so that nothing on earth can whiten like it" a very interesting
illustration of the way in which an early distasteful tradition (" fuller")
can be smothered under a heap of later picturesque paraphrases.
Codex a has " fulgentia, Candida valde, tanquam nix," b "splendida,
velut nix, qualia quis non potest facere super terrain."
Origen (Comm. Matth. xii. 39, Lomm. iii. 194) says rore 8e KOTO.
TOV MdpKov yivovrai ra t/itiria avrov \fv<ci KOI or/A/Staira coy TO (frws, oia
yva<p(vs errl TTJS yrjs ov dvvaTai OVTO>S XevKavai. KOI ra^a ot fiev eVt
TTJS yrjs yvuffyels ol Trifj.\ovp.voi etcrt o~o<pol TOV alayvos TOVTOV Xe^ecos
etc., indicating that "the fullers on earth" are contrasted with "the
Fuller in heaven." The same Heb. that means "fuller" means also
"wash," as in Ps. li. 7 "wash me and I shall be whiter than snow."
13 (Mark ix. 2 8)
THE TRANSFIGURATION AND ITS SEQUEL
Luke adds what they conversed about. It was the "exodus"
or "departure" that Jesus was "destined" to "fulfil" in
Jerusalem. Did Luke supply these words because he felt that
this must have been the subject of their conversation, or because
he found them in some early record outside Mark ? Or is there
in Mark any expression out of which Luke (or others whom
Luke followed) may have inferred that the Vision predicted
some "departure" corresponding to the mysterious "burial"
of Moses 1 , or to the miraculous "ascent" of Elijah?
It will be observed that. Matthew and Luke add severally
that the "face" or "countenance" of Christ "shone," or "was
altered." And this is natural. For it seems strange, at first,
that so much stress should be laid by Mark on "garments"
alone, and this in a change so complete that it is called in effect
"metamorphosis 2 ." But it seems less strange when we reflect
that " white raiment " is mentioned in Daniel perhaps uniquely
in Hebrew Scripture, and at all events with singularly solemn
emphasis as follows: "I beheld till thrones were placed, and
one that was ancient of days did sit ; his raiment was white as
snow 3 ." Rashi explains " white " as meaning " that He may whiten
the sins of His .people," and this is the view of Jewish tradition
generally 4 ; it signifies the fulfilment of the promise in Isaiah
"Though your sins be as scarlet they shall be as white as snow 5 ."
How could the followers of Christ gain the fulfilment of this
1 Deut. xxxiv. 6 R. V. txt " he buried him,"marg. "he was buried,"
see Law p. 382.
2 Mk ix. 2, Mt. xvii. 2 /iere^op^o)^, a word avoided by Lk. ix. 29.
3 Dan. vii. 9. Jerome ad loc. calls attention to the "white gar-
ments" in the Transfiguration.
4 See From Letter 864 b (quoting passages from Schottgen) and
Chag. 14 a, Pesikt. Wii. p. 213 "when He forgives the sins of the
Israelites, He is clothed in white, as it is said (Dan. vii. 9) 'and his
clothing is white as snow.'" See also Deut. r. Wii. p. 41, Pesikt.
Wii. p. 209, and Tehill. Wii. ii. p. 84, on the various garments of the
Lord. In Eccles. ix. 8 "let thy garments be always white" is
explained in Sabb. 153 a (for edification rather than in accurate
interpretation) as meaning that we are to be always in a state of
penitence and good works.
5 Is. i. 18.
14 (Mark ix. 2 8)
THE TRANSFIGURATION AND ITS SEQUEL
promise? The answer is given in Revelation, where one of
the elders asks "These that are arrayed in the white robes,
who are they, and whence came they?" and the answer is
"These are they that come out of the great tribulation, and
they washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of
the Lamb 1 ."
The Hebrew "fuller" occurs only in Malachi and Isaiah, and
in a passage of Kings parallel to Isaiah 2 . Isaiah twice mentions
"the fuller's field," first as the auspicious meeting-place of Ahaz
with the prophet who brought him a message of redemption,
and then as the place where the enemies of Hezekiah boasted
on the eve of their own destruction. The other instance is in
the context of a prophecy of Malachi quoted by all the Synop-
tists, "Behold, I send my messenger and he shall prepare the
way before me." Malachi, after saying that the Lord "will
suddenly come to his temple," adds that "the messenger of
the covenant" is "like a refiner's fire and like the soap of the
fuller, and he shall sit as a refiner . . . and he shall purify the sons
of Levi 3 ." This, and its context, might be applied to the
coming of Christ to the Temple in a literal sense, and to His
attempt to purify it from the abuses that made it a house of
traffic. But there are reasons for thinking that in a more
general sense the term "fuller" might be applied by Jewish
Christians in the earliest decads of the Church to Jesus as being
at once the Purifier and the Lamb of God 4 . Such an application
must seem fanciful to us, of course, like multitudes of plays on
1 Rev. vii. 14.
- Is. vii. 3, xxxvi. 2 (also 2 K. xviii. 17). Rashi (on Is. vii. 3)
says that the Rabbis explained "fuller" as more than a mere name,
see b. Sanhedr. 104 a, j. Sanhedr. x. i, Lev. r. (on Lev. xxvi. 42)
Wii. p. 255. Jerome (on Is. vii. 3) calls attention to the identity of
the place with that mentioned in Is. xxxvi. 2, and says that Isaiah
was bidden to "go forth to the impious king... in the field of the fuller,
where defilements and stains [of sin] were purged away, ' ' not so much
for the king's sake as for the people's.
3 Mai. iii. i 3.
4 Gesen. 460 i gives D2D "(tread), wash," particip. "fuller,"
"lamb," Baa Heb. "subdue," Aram, "tread down."
15 (Mark ix. 2 8)
THE TRANSFIGURATION AND ITS SEQUEL
words in the Jewish Haggada. But would it be much more
fanciful than the play of words in "Siloam, which is, by inter-
pretation, Sent 1 "?
In one celebrated instance, where the Sanhedrin desire to
send a message to a newly-elected Patriarch asking him to
resign his office, it is said that the messenger was "a fuller"
and it is added "but many say that he was R. Akiba 2 ." The
word used in the Babylonian Talmud is very similar to the
word signifying "lamb," used in Scripture about the lamb
offered day by day, morning and evening, in the Temple 3 .
Now concerning the passage ordaining this sacrifice, Jewish
traditions tell us that Hillel and Shammai differed; Shammai
said that the " lamb " meant " the treading down." or " crushing "
1 Jn ix. 7.
2 Gratz (Engl. Transl. ii. 348) assumes that it was Akiba:
"Akiba, who was ever ready to be of service, undertook the delicate
commission": j. Berach. iv. j d says that it was "a fuller (lp),
and many call him R. Akiba," b. Berach. 28 a does not mention Akiba,
but when the Sanhedrin asked "Who will go? " it says that " (?) a
fuller (DH13 Kinn) " said "I will go." Goldschmidt says' in a note
that pDSID "fullers" are often mentioned in the Talmud, but
refers only to Baba Bathra 134 a "parables of fullers" mentioned
along with "astronomy" and "geometry" and other sciences with
which R. Jochanan was conversant. Goldschmidt suggests that it
means " wahrsch. eine Secte od. Klasse," but alleges no passages that
support such a conjecture.
Berliner on Berach. 28 a says : " Dieser Ausdruck kommt oft vor,
und im jerusalemischen Talmud steht dafur fast immer "ip"N"ip,
Abschneider, Verkiirzer. Nach genauer Erwagung aller hierher
gehorenden Stellen (vergl. Succhah 28, i, Kethuboth 103, 2, Baba
Bathra 134, i) glauben wir uns berechtigt, annehmen zu diirfen,
dass dies eine besondere sehr gering geachtete Sekte war, deren
Ursprung schon zur Zeit des Bestehens des Tempels, ja noch weiter
hinaus zu suchen sei."
It is worth noting that in Baba Bathra 134 a "parables of fullers "
are connected with what Goldschmidt interprets as "Fuchsfabeln,"
D^yit? rr6&?D, and that the latter term occurs again (apparently
meaning " subtle disputations ") in Sanhedr. 38 b, where " ( ?) a certain
fuller (DH1D Ninn) " comes forward and solves a problem put forth by
an unbeliever.
3 Numb, xxviii. 3 4, lamb KO3, see p. 15, n. 4.
1 6 (Mark ix. 28)
THE TRANSFIGURATION AND ITS SEQUEL
of sin, but Hillel said that it meant "the washing away" of sin 1 .
These two great Rabbis flourished just before the birth of Christ.
We may therefore suppose that, during the period of Christ's
preaching, the memory of such a controversy would make the
metaphorical meaning of "a j 'tiller" well known among a large
circle of Jews, and that many would connect it with the thought
of the "lamb" of the daily offering. To some of these, in the
recording of a vision of the Messiah in white garments, it would
be natural, not only to write that His garments were (as in
Daniel) "white as snow," but also to feel and say that they
were of such a whiteness as- no mere earthly "fuller" could
produce 2 .
Such a thought would go some way toward making easy
the very difficult Johannine tradition that the Baptist said
concerning Jesus, before the latter had a single disciple,
"Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the
world! 3 " If explained as poetic or prophetic hyperbole, it
is, though intelligible, very difficult. But if "lamb" and
"fuller" were interchangeable terms in certain prominent
discussions of the time, and if "fuller" was also a name that
could be given to a Rabbi whose teaching was of a pure and
illuminating nature, then much of the difficulty disappears.
It will still remain a startling saying, but not so startling, if
it sprang from an austere prophet suddenly recognising as his
successor one who had a nature to which he could lay no claim
the nature of the Lamb, the nature of the pure and heavenly
Fuller, who could wash sins away with a stream of purity not
derived from earthly baptism of the body, but flowing from
1 See Levy ii. 288 b quoting Jelamdenu, and add Pesikt. Wii.
pp. 21, and 75 6.
2 The quaint and (to us perhaps) almost irreverent conception
of God as "a fuller" may be illustrated from Siphra in Jalk. Sim. i.
fol. 1 66 b, ii. fol. 58 a quoted in Schottgen ii. 555 "God took all the
sins of Jacob and Esau and poured them on His own garments,
whence they became red as scarlet, as it is said ' Wherefore are thy
garments red?' (comp. Is. Ixiii. 2). Then He sat down and washed
them white, as it is said (Dan. vii. 9) 'His garment was white as
snow.' "
3 Jn i. 29, on which see Son 3519 20.
A. F. 17 (Mark ix. 2 8) 2
THE TRANSFIGURATION AND ITS SEQUEL
heaven into the inmost soul. According to this view, the Marcan
mention of "a fuller" would be very far from being an otiose
detail and a sign of homely diffuseness. It would be part of the
original vision. It had been mentioned by Peter, perhaps
not very long before fragments of a Petrine Gospel were com-
mitted to writing by Mark in some account of a vision of
martyrdom, embodied in a manifestation of Moses, Elijah,
and the Lord Jesus Christ, in which Peter had been prepared
to "taste of death," and follow his Master in glory. The
Lord had appeared in "white garments," white with no earthly
cleansing but with such a sacrificial stream of purification as
could issue from none but the Cleanser in heaven. By such
a vision Peter had been taught that he, too, must "whiten his
garments in the blood of the Lamb 1 ."
At the time when Matthew wrote, the metaphor of "the
fuller" might well have become obsolete. The followers of
Hillel and Shammai would understand it, but it would be
hardly suitable for a Gospel that contemplated the fulfilment
of the command "Make disciples of all the nations 2 ." Hence
the now obscure Marcan allusion was paraphrased 'by Matthew
into a mere description of splendour suffusing the Messiah's
countenance and garments. Luke followed Matthew in dis-
pensing with the word "fuller." But, having some sense of
a doctrine latent under the word, Luke added in the context
a clause (about a "departure in Jerusalem") that might refer
to a martyrdom such as Luke mentions elsewhere in the
tradition that "it cannot be that a prophet should perish out
of Jerusalem 3 ."
Passing to the Fourth Gospel we of course recognise that
the author has not intervened in favour of Mark in any conscious
and definite allusion to the word under consideration. But if
we say to ourselves "'Fuller' means 'Washer.' Does John
describe Jesus as ' washing ' ? " we shall have to reply that he
certainly does this. Setting aside the doctrine of regeneration
through water and the Spirit, and the flow of blood and water
1 Rev. vii. 14. 2 Mt. xxviii. 19. 3 Lk. xiii. 33.
1 8 (Mark ix. 2 8)
THE TRANSFIGURATION AND ITS SEQUEL
from Christ on the Cross, we have a whole scene devoted to the
washing of the feet of the disciples by their Master.
But this scene, though prominent and picturesque, repre-
sents only a minor kind of purification. A deeper revelation
of the purifying glory of God reveals Him as the Father con-
tinually sacrificing, or receiving as a sacrifice, His own Son
the fulfilment of the rudimentary dispensation wherein Jehovah,
in the Temple, besides the annual Passover, received day by
day the sacrifice of the Lamb. With this tradition in his mind,
John would know that the Voice on the Mount of Transfigura-
tion, where Jesus stood between Moses and Elijah, meant, in
effect: "Look on Him who stands between these two as His
two Witnesses. The Law was given through Moses. Wonder-
working Prophecy, in its most wonderful form, was given through
Elijah 1 . But the grace and the truth that were to come through
the Law and the Prophets, redeeming men from sin as well as
judging them for sin these were given through Him, my Son,
my Witness or Martyr, my Lamb of Sacrifice, whose blood will
take away the sins of the world, giving unto the sons of men
white garments wherein they may stand arrayed before my
throne."
Here we should note that in the scene of the Johannine
Voice from heaven John says nothing that directly suggests
the thought of the Fuller. What he says there, in the person
of Jesus, commenting on the redeeming efficacy of the Messiah's
death, is "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw
all men unto myself 2 ." There is no metaphor there, of the
1 Why should Elijah, who made no recorded prophecies about
the Day of the Lord, be accepted as the type of "the prophets"?
Perhaps partly because it was the Prophet's business to bear witness
to Jehovah, when Israel went astray from Him; and Elijah did this
preeminently when he stood up for 'the Lord against the king of
Israel and his four hundred and fifty "prophets of Baal" in the
presence of the oscillating people. It was not the main duty of
a Hebrew prophet to predict the future with accuracy. See below,
p. 36, n. i.
2 Jn xii. 32. But, indirectly, "draw all men unto myself"
implies "draw unto the light," and hence "enlighten," "clothe in
light," "make (ib. 36) sons of light." Comp. Targ. on Zech. ix.
19 (Mark ix. 2 8) 2 2
THE TRANSFIGURATION AND ITS SEQUEL
purifying stream that is to "whiten" the garments of the
faithful.
This truth comes later on, related as a fact and no metaphor,
"One of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and straight-
way there came out blood and water 1 ." The spiritual signifi-
cance of the fact, however, as being one that needs to be
"seen" and "believed" by those who are spiritually prepared
to "see" and "believe/ 5 is at once suggested: "And he that
hath seen hath borne witness, and his witness is true; and he
[i.e. the Lord Jesus] knoweth that he saith true, that ye also
may believe 2 /' The importance of this spiritual fact is not
seen till near the conclusion of the Johannine Epistle: "This
is he that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with
the water only, but with the water and with the blood 3 ."
6. "Beloved" in Mark and Matthew, "Chosen" in
In discussing the Synoptic accounts of the Voice from heaven
at Christ's baptism, it has appeared that there was a connection
between Jewish thoughts about the Messiah as being (i) the
ii 15 "ye with whom a covenant has been made with blood. . .they
shall be shining (TIT) like blood that shines (int) on the side of
the altar."
J Jn xix. 34.
2 Jn xix. 35. See Joh. Gr. 2383 4 on "he (fniivos) knoweth."
3 i Jn v. 6. The Lpistle proceeds, ib. 7- 8 "And it is the
Spirit that beareth witness because the Spirit is the truth. For
there are three that bear witness, the Spirit- and the water, and the
blood." In the Gospel there is a mention of "spirit" a little before
the "water" and the "blood," thus, Jn xix. 30 "He rested his head
(Joh. Voc. 14518, Joh. Gr. 2644 (i), 2713} [on the Father's bosom]
and delivered over his spirit [to the Father]."
The whole scene is so imbued with allusive mystery that it does
not seem to me fanciful to suppose that John regards the Law and
the Prophets as, so to speak, standing by the Cross, and attesting
the Sacrifice, when he quotes (ib. 36 7) from the Law "A bone of
him shall not be broken," and from the Prophets, "They shall look
on him whom they pierced."
4 Mk ix. 7, Mt. XVli. 5 6 vlos fiov 6 dyairrjTos, Lk. ix. 35 o vlos fiiov 6
f,
20 (Mark ix. 2 8)
THE TRANSFIGURATION AND ITS SEQUEL
Son of God, (2) the Elect or Pure One of God, (3) the Purifier 1 .
Now, in the Transfiguration, there is again brought before us
the thought of the Purifier in the term "fuller." This leads us
to ask anew whether Jewish tradition recognises any connection
between "son" and the notion of purifying.
There is no such connection in respect of the Hebrew ben,
"son," but there is in respect of the Aramaic bar, "son."
Bar, "son," occurs in two passages of the Hebrew Scriptures.
Concerning the expression in Proverbs "What, my son?" the
Midrash says "It is not said 'What, my son [in Hebrew] (ben) ? '
but 'What, my son [in Aramaic] (bar)?' That means 'the
precepts and warnings of the Law,' which is called bar [i.e. pure
or bright] as in the Psalm ' Kiss the Pure [bar] lest he be angry '
because all its words are pure 2 ." Rashi's comment on
Proverbs says that the mother desires her son to be "whitened
(dealbatus)," and this word occurs (in Hebrew) in a Talmudic
comment on the passage in Proverbs 3 .
These traditions confirm the view that in the original the
Voice from heaven mentioned neither "beloved" nor "chosen,"
but resembled the opening of the Epistle to the Hebrews, which
contrasts God's speaking in old days through the "Prophets"
with His present speaking through "a Son," or "his Son 4 ."
Peter desires to make' three tabernacles for Jesus and the two
witnesses, as if the three were on a level. There comes a
corrective Voice saying, in effect, "This is [no prophet, but]
my Son. Hearken unto Him [above all prophets]." It was.
desirable to shew that "my Son" here did not mean "one of
my sons" in any sense, either angelic or human 5 . This could
1 See Beginning pp. 124 7.
2 Numb. r. Wii. p. 214 on Prov. xxxi. 2, quoting Ps. ii. 12 as
"Kiisset den Lauteren," rep. in Lev. r. Wii. p. 83, with " Kiisset den
Auserwdhlten." This shews that bar might be rendered "chosen"
or "pure," as in Cant. vi. 9, 10 (see R.V. txt and marg.).
3 Sanhedr. job pte, Goldschm. "hiibschen," Levy ii 4676
" wohlgestalteten (eig. weissen)."
4 Heb. i. i2.
5 Gesen. i2oa, p, referring to "sons" in Gen. vi. 2, 4, Jobi. 6, ii. i,
xxxviii. 7 etc. On Dan. iii. 25 (-Q) A.V.. "the form of the fourth
21 (Mark ix. 2 8)
THE TRANSFIGURATION AND ITS SEQUEL
be suggested by adding the Greek "beloved," which, in LXX,
repeatedly represents the Hebrew "only," with or without
"son," so as to mean " only son 1 ." Mark, followed by Matthew,
has done this. Luke has perhaps been influenced by the two-
fold meanings of bar in Hebrew and Aramaic severally. In
Hebrew it is twice rendered "elect" by LXX, when applied
to the "pure" or "chosen" Bride in the Song of Songs 2 . Luke
has combined this with "son" ("this is my Son, my Chosen").
John nowhere describes a Voice from heaven as calling
Jesus either "beloved Son," or "Son," or "Chosen." He would
have been compelled to do this, or else to contradict the
Synoptists, if he had related the baptism of Jesus by the
Baptist. But he has not related it. He refers to it by implica-
tion, however, in these words uttered by the Baptist, " He that
sent me to baptize with water, he said unto me, Upon whom-
soever thou shalt see the Spirit descending and abiding upon
him, the same is he that baptizeth in the Holy Spirit." Then
follows a disputable passage given by R.V. thus, "And I have
seen, and have borne witness that this is the Son of God," where
recent evidence indicates that the true reading is "this is the
Elect ofGod 3 ." With either reading, however, the passage seems
inconsistent with what precedes 4 . _ Whereas we should have
expected the Baptist to exclaim "I have Seen him that 'baptizeth
in the Holy Spirit,' " he exclaims, in effect, "I have seen the Son
(or, the Elect) of God."
A reasonable explanation is that John had in view a tradition
based on the Aramaic word for "son," with its suggestion of
is like the Son of God (|TIK 12)," the Midrash says that God sent
Satan to smite Nebuchadnezzar for saying this and made him correct
"his son (rvn) " into "his angel" (Exod. r. Wii. p. 159; sim. on
Cant. vii. 8, Wii. p. 175). R.V. has "like a son of the gods."
l In Gen. xxii. 2., 12, 16 etc. T>rP = dya-rrrjTos. In Judg. xi. 34
n*"PrV = p.ovoyfvr)$, (A) p.ovoyfvr]$ dycnrrjTT].
2 Cant. vi. 9, 10 "O R.V. " The choice one. . .clear as the sun," but
marg. "pure " in both cases.
3 Jni. 33 4. See Oxyr. Pap. ii. 7, No. 208, 3rd cent., where space
and facts suggest the reading e/cAricros, which is also in SS. Blass
gives the evidence fully and places 6 K\KTOS roO deov in his text.
4 See Beginning p. 124.
22 (Mark ix. 2 8)
THE TRANSFIGURATION AND ITS SEQUEL
the meanings "chosen," "pure," and "purifying," and that the
"purifying" included the thought of "baptism."
The Fourth Evangelist does not deny that a Voice announc-
ing the advent of a "Son" actually and objectively came from
heaven, but he suggests to us that the Baptist, subjectively,
did not hear it in that form. To the Baptist it came as an
announcement of the "Elect of God." And the sense in which
the Baptist understood this the Baptist himself expresses by
"the Lamb of God," that is, the purifying daily sacrifice.
This was only one aspect of the Word, but it was a baptismal
aspect and characteristically emphasized by John the Baptizer.
By confining himself to this subjective announcement, the
Fourth Evangelist avoids arbitrating between the different
versions of the objective Voice from heaven given by the
Synoptists.
When a Johannine Voice from heaven, the only one in the
Fourth Gospel, at last comes before us, it contains no mention
of the word " Son." The word " Son " is indeed once mentioned
just before it, but only in the title "Son of man"- -"the hour
is come that the Son of man should be glorified 1 ." The whole
of the context takes it for granted that Jesus is the Son of God,
and that it is needless for a Voice from heaven, at this stage, to
proclaim that truth. The truth that needed to be proclaimed
was that the Father in heaven had glorified, and would glorify,
His name of Father in one who was wont to call Himself Son
of Man while making His disciples feel that He was Son of God.
As for the uniqueness of this Sonship it is expressed at the
outset of the Gospel in the Johannine term Monogenes 2 , which
suggests, without mentioning, the Synoptic "beloved 3 ." The
preceding context also mentions "glory" for the first time, and
suggests that the "glory" of the Father consists in giving
Himself to those who are willing to "-receive" Him, and that
the "glory" of the Son consists in making us desirous to receive
1 Jn xii. 23.
2 Jn i. 18, comp. ib, 14. On Monogenes, in Jn and Plato, see
Beginning pp. 28 31.
3 See p. 22, n. i, above, quoting Judg. xi. 34 (LXX) fj.ovoyevrj$,
(A) p.ovoyev7)s dyaTrrjTTj, where ""AXAo? " has
23 (Mark ix. 2 8)
THE TRANSFIGURATION AND ITS SEQUEL
this Gift, with which the Son identifies Himself; it also connects
this glory of the Son and Heir with a "grace" and a "truth"
that cannot be conveyed through any "law 1 ."
7. " While they were coming down from the mountain he
charged them," in Mark 2
Luke omits everything that may have happened "while they
were coming down," and passes on at once to the time "when they
had come down*." The precept to "tell no one" is omitted by
Luke. It should be noted that Luke alone adds "on the next
\ Jn i. 14 17.
2 Mk ix. 9 10
(R.V.)
(9) And as they
were coming down
from the mountain,
he charped them that
they should tell no
man what things
they had seen, save
when the Son of man
should have risen
again from the dead.
(TO) And they
kept the saying,
questioning among
themselves what the
Mt. xvii. 9
(R.V.)
(9) And as they
were coming down
from the mountain,
Jesus commanded
them, saying, Tell
the vision to no man,
until the Son of man.
be risen from the
dead.
Lk. ix. 36 b 37
(R.V.)
(36) . . . And they
held their peace, and
told no man in those
days any of the things
which they had seen.
(37) And it came
to pass, on the next
day, when they were
come down from the
mountain . .
rising again from the
dead should mean.
3 The interval between the Transfiguration and Christ's rejoining
the nine disciples would seem to have been regarded by Mark as
a short one. But if, as modern commentators suggest, the mountain
was Hermon and the nine disciples remained in or near Caesarea,
the rejoining would take some time. Prof. Swete (on Mk) says that
Hermon "overlooked Caesarea," and "offered a perfect solitude,"
and that "one of its southern spurs became the opos ayiov of the
Gospel (2 Pet. i. 18) " ; but Dr McNeile says (on Mt. xvii. 3) "If the
high mountain (opos ayiov 2 Pet.) was near Caesarea, it was probably
Mt. Hermon, some 14 miles to the north." "Fourteen miles" was
a long way to go, if the sole object of going was to obtain "a perfect
solitude," and the downward return, though quicker, would take
several hours. The hypothesis of "one of its southern spurs"
diminishes the difficulty raised by "fourteen miles," but at the
cost of introducing a touch of tameness into our interpretation of
Mk-Mt. "bringeth them up into a high mountain."
24 (Mark ix. 9 10)
THE TRANSFIGURATION AND ITS SEQUEL
day" in connection with "from the mountain." In Clue it was
pointed out that Luke might be explained from the Vision
of Elijah where the Hebrew has "Go forth and stand on the
mountain," but the LXX has "Go forth on the morrow and
stand. . . on the mountain" apparently confusing *1PI "mountain"
with in part of the word for "to-morrow" and combining the
two renderings 1 . This can now be confirmed by a similar
combination in a variation from LXX where the Hebrew has
to-morrow" but a Translator has confused this with
hasten" and has combined the correct and the incorrect
rendering ('Hasten, Saul, to-morrow. . . ") 2 . If this is a correct
explanation, Luke may have been in some measure led to differ
from Mark and Matthew by inferences arising from the clause
interpreted by him as meaning "on the next day 3 ."
But other questions also arise, apart from the supposition that
Luke is here drawing from Hebrew sources. Luke deviates from
Mark's order by placing his mention of the silence about the
Vision before his mention 'of the descent from the mountain 4 .
Such deviations would occur when an Evangelist, industriously
collecting detached traditions, differed from the Evangelists that
preceded him as to the order in which they were to be placed.
One has occurred already in the Healing of Jairus' Daughter
where Luke places a precept about silence after, and Mark
before, a command to give the girl food. There, as here,
Mark used the word "charge." This leads us to inquire into
other uses of the word "charge" in Mark and their parallels,
and into its use in LXX and its equivalent in Hebrew.
The Marcan instances of "charge," given below with their
1 Clue 144 a, quoting I K. xix. n.
- i S. xxviii. 19 iriD, "eras," where Field gives, as the reading of
""AXAoy," rdxvvov Se, 2aouX- avpiov, and adds "ni fallor, duplex versio
est vocis inO-1, pictae "inp-1." Origen ad loc. quotes Tdxwov...avpLov.
3 That Luke here followed a Hebrew original is indicated also
by his use of eV reo with infin. on which see Son 3333 e g, Proclam,
p. 153 etc.
4 Not that Luke is inconsistent with Mark, but Luke passes over
what happened "while they were going down (KaTapatvovTw)," and
relates what happened "when they had come down (/careX#oi>ro>i/)."
25 (Mark ix. 9 10)
THE TRANSFIGURATION AND ITS SEQUEL
parallels 1 , reveal the following facts. With the exception of
one doubtful passage in Matthew, where the disciples are said to
have been "rebuked" by Jesus that they should not tell people
Lk. viii. 55 6
i, in W. H. txt of the Gospels, occurs only in
Mark, as follows :
(i) Mk v. 43 Mt. om.
(Jairus' daughter)
K at 8te<rretAaro
avTols TroAAa Iva /J.rjdels
KOL tTafv avr
dodfjvat (payelv.,.6 8e
TraprjyyeiXev avTols fj,r)-
8evl flireiv TO yeyovos.
yvoi TOVTO, /cat enrev
8odrjvat avTrj (payelv.
Here avTols means the parents. The order of Mark is reversed
in Luke.
(2) Mk vii. 36 Mt. om. Lk. om.
(The Stammerer)
KO\ 8lfO~TL\aTO
avTols Iva fjujdcvl Ae-
yeocriv oo~ov 8e avTols
8lO~T\\TO,
\ov
Here avTols refers to no denned persons, but probably to ''they,"
meaning friends of the Stammerer, implied in vii. 32 "they-bring
(<pepovo-iv)."
(3) Mk viii. 15 Mt. xvi. 6 Lk. xii. i
/cat SiecrreAAero C O 8e 'irftrovs eiTrev 'Ev ols fmo-vva^-
avTols \eycov c Opare, avTols^ 'Opare /cat Trpoare- 0io-<av rcov [jivpiddav . . .
aTroTTJs vp.r)s... X fT ano T *) s V M S tfparo \eyfiv irpbs TOVS
In Mark, avTols refers to a vague "they" implied in viii. 14
" they- forgot (eVeAa$oi/ro)," where parall. Mt. xvi. 5 supplies
(4) Mk ix. 9 10 Mt. xvii. o
(9) KOI KaTaftaivov- /cat K.aTaj3aivovT(ov
T(OV avTtov < (marg. atrcov e/c TOV opovs
OTTO) TOV opovs Sierrrfi'- eWrftAaro avTols 6
Aaro avTols Iva. /j.Tj8evl a 'lr)o~ovs \tywv M/;Sevt
f'tTrrjTf TO opap.a eu>s ov
6 vibs TOV CtvdpWTTOV K
vcKpav eyepdrj
ava<TTrj).
Lk. ix. 36 b 7
(36) .../cat avroi
eaiyrjcrav KOI ov8fvl
a.7TTjyyfL\av ev eKfiv
TCUS f)p.epats ov8ev
<apa.Kav.
(37) tytvtTo de
ffjs rjp.epa /c
OTTO rou opovs.
orai/ 6 vibs TOV avQpu>-
TTOV K VfKptoV .ClVCtO-Ty.
(lo) /cat TOV \6yov
(KpuTrjcrav TTpos eavTovs
O~wr)TOVVT$ Tl O~TLV TO
CK veKpaiv avcumfycu.
The order of Mark is again, as in (i), reversed by Luke.
26 (Mark ix. 9 10)
THE TRANSFIGURATION AND ITS SEQUEL
that He was the Christ (but some authorities in Matthew have
"charged"), the word is confined, in the Gospels, to Mark.
Mark uses "charge" four times (out of five) to mean an injunc-
tion of secrecy. In the first instance, "he charged them much
that no man should know this" i.e. the restoration to life of
Jairus' daughter it seems impossible to take the words literally
since the crowd outside "knew" that the girl was dead 1 .
Matthew omits the "charge" and the context. Luke has
"gave command to them not to tell anyone that which had
been done" which might be strained to mean "not to talk
about the details of the healing."
In the second passage (containing two instances), the
Healing of the Stammerer a miracle peculiar to Mark the
precept "that they should speak to no one [about it]" does not
present the same difficulty.
In the third passage, the "charge" does not refer to keeping
anything secret. It is to " beware of the leaven of the Pharisees."
And the word "charged" for which "warned" might be sub-
stituted is superfluous except for emphasis, and is omitted by
Matthew and by Luke 2 . In Mark and Matthew, the command
to "beware of leaven" is followed by a dialogue shewing that
"leaven" is metaphorically used for "doctrine." This is
wholly omitted by Luke.
occurs in W. H. marg. once, in Matthew, as follows,
after the Confession of Peter :
Mk viii. 30 Mt. xvi. 20 Lk. ix. 21
KaifnfTip.T](revavTois Tore 7TTifj.r)(Tv (W. 6 8e 7riTtp.r)(ras
Iva fj.r)8fvl Xeydxriv irepl H. marg. and Tisch. avrols TrapfjyyeiXev pr)-
O.VTOV. SieoTfi'Xaro) rols padr)- 8evl \eyeiv TOVTO.
nils Iva p,r)8fvl eiTTcocrii'
on AUTOS <TTIV 6 Xpioroy.
1 Lk. viii. 53 "knowing that she was dead."
2 Mk viii. 15 "charged them saying 'See, beware...'" is merely
an emphatic form of "said 'Beware....'" Comp. "told and warned,"
and Aquila's use of the Marcan Stao-Te'AAopu to render the Hiph. of
int. in 2 K. vi. 10 "And the king of Israel sent to the place which
the man of God told him of and warned him (mTITm)," where LXX
has merely elnev aura), but Aq. adds KCU 8ieo-reiAaro aura). 2 K. vi. 9
contains the warning " Beware that thou pass not such a place."
27 (Mark ix. 9 10)
THE TRANSFIGURATION AND ITS SEQUEL
In the fourth passage, the one that follows the Transfigura-
tion, Matthew substitutes for "charged" the word "com-
manded," but both describe a command of Jesus to the three
disciples to tell no one what they had seen. Luke omits the
command to be silent, saying merely "And they were silent,
and told no man in those days 1 ." Luke also omits the following
verses of Mark-Matthew describing a conversation between
Jesus and the disciples (during the descent from the mountain)
about "rising from the dead" and about Elijah, as well as one
verse peculiar to Matthew "Then the disciples understood tha.t
he spake unto them concerning John the Baptist."
Turning to Greek outside the New Testament, we find that
in literary Greek, Mark's word mostly signifies separation, in
the way of "distinctive" expression, "specific instructions"
etc. 2 In LXX it represents several Hebrew words; but,
when used in the middle as Mark uses it, it corresponds mostly
to a Hebrew word that means in Daniel "shine" or "shining,"
but in Ezekiel and elsewhere "warn," "instruct 3 ." In Exodus
Jethro says to Moses "Thou shalt expressly-teach them 4 the
statutes and the laws, and shalt shew them the way wherein
they must walk, and the work that they must do." There is
no suggestion of "warning" here. Nor is there in the Tar-
gums, which repeat the Hebrew word (perhaps in the sense
of "enlighten"); the Jerusalem Targum also amplifies the
1 "In those days" appears to mean "When I say, 'they weve
silent,' I do not mean 'always silent.' Else, of course, the Trans-
figuration would not have been recorded." " It would be sometimes
easy to confuse the Heb. vaw meaning "in order that" with vaw
meaning "and," in such a sentence as "And he spake unto them
and [accordingly] they were silent." See Gesen. 254 a.
2 See Steph. Thes. ii. 1324 5 .diaore'XXco.
3 See Gesen. pp. 263 4 on (I) int "shine," quoting Dan. xii. 3
"and they that make [others] wise shall shine as the shining of the
firmament"; (II) "int "warn," of which the only instance in the
Pentateuch is Exod. xviii. 20. But it occurs freq. in Ezekiel iii. 17, 18
etc., meaning "warn." Aquila renders it by Siao-reXXo/uat both in
Exod. xviii. 20 and elsewhere.
4 Exod. xviii. 20 int, LXX "testify (Sia/xaprvp^) to them," Aq.
28 (Mark ix. 9 10)
THE TRANSFIGURATION AND ITS SEQUEL
passage so as to shew what is taught: " Expressly -teach (or,
enlighten) them about the statutes and laws, make them to
understand the prayer that they are to offer in the house of
congregation, the manner of visiting the sick, of burying the
dead, of being fruitful in doing good, and in the work and
process of justice, and how to conduct themselves among the
wicked 1 ."
In all this, there is no suggestion of "warning" but only
of the distinctive precepts suggested by the Hebrew word, or
of the illumination suggested by its Aramaic associations.
But in Ezekiel the notion of "warning" is conveyed as soon
as the prophet receives the injunction to break off his dumbness
of "seven days," and to begin his prophecy: "Son of man,
I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel, there-
fore hear the word at my mouth, and warn them from me 2 ."
The word is then repeated several times; and the LXX, after
first rendering it "threaten," settles down to the Marcan word
under consideration (which is also Aquila's rendering). The
prominence thus given by LXX to this Greek word for "charge,"
in connection with the prophecies of Ezekiel whom God
habitually addressed as "son of man," might naturally induce
some early Evangelists to use it about certain utterances of
Jesus the Son of Man either in the Hebrew sense of "warn"
or in the later Hebrew and Aramaic sense of "illuminat-
1 Levy Ch. i. 212 b shews that int. in Aramaic, mostly implies
"light" or "enlightening." The middle, "Be thou enlightened!"
means "Take warning." Mechilt. on Exod. xviii. 27 represents
Jethro as saying to Moses, "Thou arr the sun, and Aaron, thy
brother, is the moon. What need of the lamp with you ? " This
favours the view that Jews would connect zohar in Exodus with
"enlightening" rather than with "warning." Could zohar be used
about Christ's occasional esoteric instruction to the disciples as to
healing etc. meaning "enlighten," but seeming to Mark to mean
"warn"?
2 Ezek. iii. 17 LXX SIOTT 61X^077, Aq. dtaa-reXf}, Sym. 7rpo(j)v\d^is,
but in ib. 18, 20, 21 etc. LXX has Siaore'XXo/zcu. In ib. 21, "he
took warning" 1HTJ is rendered by LXX "thou didst warn him."
This suggests that Mk "he warned them [to be silent} " might be taken
by Luke as "they were warned, or, took warnins [to be silent]," that is,
"they were silent."
29 (Mark ix. 9 10)
THE TRANSFIGURATION AND ITS SEQUEL
The word zohar is popularly connected with Jewish cabba-
listic doctrine that was once supposed by Christians to go back
to the first or second century. It is now believed to be a pro-
duction of the thirteenth century. Nevertheless the selection
of such a title, meaning "splendour" or "shining," when
combined with the Biblical application of the word to Moses
as the Instructor or Illuminator in connection with the old
Law, indicates that even the earliest of our Evangelists might
be influenced by the associations of the word in those cases
where he records some injunctions of secrecy or some illuminating
doctrine not generally known.
In the present instance, for example, it is inconsistent with
reasonable views of Luke's honesty and industry as a historian
to suppose that he would altogether omit the dialogue during
the descent from the mountain without good grounds for
suspecting that it was not historical in detail, but was an
expansion of some brief and obscure or ambiguous statement.
For example, it might have been "And when they had come
down from the mountain he instructed them, or he warned them,
or they took warning, concerning the things that they had
seen." What was this "instruction " or "warning " ? Luke has
previously given us a hint in the words "They spake concerning
his departure which he was to accomplish in Jerusalem 1 ."
Even Matthew, though he has not inserted these words, has
inserted, a little before, in the first prediction of resurrection
on the third day, the words "He must depart to Jerusalem 2 ."
Mark has had neither of these insertions 3 ; but if we suppose
him to be conflating 4 an obscure original so as to make it include
a reference to the latent "departure," he must be regarded
as taking "warned" in a double sense, and as combining
two interpretations. One is, "Be ye warned that this vision
signifies that I shall depart from you, and that I shall pass, as I
said before, through three days of death to resurrection." The
other interpretation assumes that Jesus "warned" the disciples
1 Lk. ix. 31. 2 Mt. xvi. 21. 3 Mk viii. 31.
1 On the Marcan habit of "conflation," see Son 3107 &, 3265,
3353 (i) a.
30 (Mark ix. 9 10)
THE TRANSFIGURATION AND ITS SEQUEL
to "keep silence" till the fulfilment of the prediction. And
here Mark inserts that the disciples "kept the saying [in mind]
questioning among themselves what was the [meaning of the
words] 'rise from the dead 1 .'" Matthew and Luke omit this,
perhaps because it might be taken to mean that the disciples
questioned what was the meaning of the phrase "rising from
the dead" in general. But the Marcan context shews that
Mark meant "They questioned among themselves what was the
meaning of the phrase 'rise from the dead' applied to Jesus,
since they could not at that time believe that His prediction
referred to His own literal death."
John intervenes twice to explain how the disciples might
be said to "keep in mind" predictions of this kind and also
to "question among themselves" as to their meaning. First,
he represents Jesus as saying near the beginning of the Gospel
"Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up,"
adding "But he spake of the temple of his body. When
therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered
that he spake this" that is to say/ they did not understand it
at first, but they "kept it in mind" and understood it finally 2 .
Secondly, near the close of the Gospel, he represents Jesus as
saying to the disciples, concerning His death and resurrection,
"A little while and ye behold me no more, and again a little
while and ye shall see me," whereupon "some of his disciples
said to one another, What is this that he saith unto us 3 ?"
The very words of the questioning are here given, and Christ's
subsequent explanation, namely, that He was on the point of
departure: "I came forth from the Father and have come into
the world. Again I leave the world and go to the Father 4 ."
This is also the Johannine version of that "departure"
which Luke mentions in his account of the Transfiguration as
destined to be accomplished by Jesus. John therefore may
1 Mk ix. 10.
2 Jn ii. 19 22. John here mentions "three days" a phrase
connected by Mark (viii. 31) and Matthew (xii. 40) with Christ's resur-
rection (comp. Mk xiv. 58, Mt. xxvi. 61 etc.), but by Luke only (ii. 46)
with the finding of the Child "Jesus in the Temple.
3 Jn xvi. 17. ' 4 Jn xvi. 28.
31 (Mark ix. 9 10)
THE TRANSFIGURATION AND ITS SEQUEL
be said to intervene in order to explain Luke as well as to
explain Mark. But Luke writes in his own person; Mark
records, very obscurely, words that he believed to have been
uttered by Christ Himself. Luke omits them. It is a fact of
history that Christ's language about His resurrection was not
understood by His disciples. It is an inevitable inference that
they must have questioned among themselves about it. Mark
says that they did this. John dramatically brings them before
us in the act of doing' it.
8. "How is it written?" in Mark 1
Two questions arise at this point. First, did Jesus use the
clause "how is it written?" attributed to Him by Mark but
not by the parallel Matthew? Secondly, why is the whole of
1 Mk ix. ii 13
(R.V.)
(11) And they
asked him, saying,
The scribes say that
Elijah must first
come. (Or, [How is
it] that the scribes
say. . .come?)
(12) And he said
unto them, Elijah
indeed cometh first,
and restoreth all
things : and how is
it written of the Son
of man, that he
should suffer many
things and be set at
nought ?
(13) But I say
unto you, that Elijah
is come, and they
have also done unto
him whatsoever they
listed, even as it is
written of him.
Mt. xvii. 10 13
(R.V.)
(10) And his dis-
ciples asked him, say-
ing, Why then say
the scribes that Eli-
jah must first come?
(ij) And he an-
swered and said, "Eli-
jah indeed cometh,
and shall restore all
things :
(i9.} But I say
unto you, that Elijah
is come already, and
they knew him not.
but did unto him
whatsoever they list-
ed. Even so shall
the Son of man also
suffer of them.
(13) Then under-
stood the disciples
that he spake unto
them of John the
Baptist.
Lk. om.
Compare Lk. i. 17
(R.V.). And he shall
go before his face in
the spirit and power
of Elijah. . . .
32 (Mark ix. ii 13)
THE TRANSFIGURATION AND ITS SEQUEL
the context, about John the Baptist, which is inserted by
Matthew, omitted by Luke and John?
There is an antecedent probability that Jesus, after the
martyrdom of John the Baptist, would prepare His disciples
to anticipate a similar martyrdom for Himself. Mark has
recently described Jesus as proclaiming to the disciples the
new Law, the Law of Life through Death, and Victory through
Defeat, as foreshadowed in the prophecies of Isaiah and
Hosea about "suffering many things" and being "raised up
after three days" which Jesus applied to the Son of Man 1 .
If Jesus regarded John the Baptist as a Messenger of God,
working in the spirit and power of Elijah, and as passing
through martyrdom to glory, then the recent vision of
Elijah on the mountain might lead Him to say, in reply to
the question 2 whether Elijah must not first come, "For us,
Elijah has 'come.' John the Baptist is our Elijah. You think
he has not ' come ' because he has died as a martyr. But is it not
written concerning the Son of Man that he, too, should 'suffer
many tarings' as a martyr? Elijah has 'come' and 'suffered
many things ' as a martyr in the same way, even as it is written
about him [the Son of Man] 3 ." This, if taken by readers to mean
"as it is written about him [namely, Elijah]," might naturally
present difficulty 4 . It has been at all events altered by Matthew.
But the difficulty itself, and the confused condition of the con-
text, make it probable that Mark is recording a very early
1 Mk viii. 31. See Son 3184 5.
2 "The question." It is a question put modestly in the form of
a statement: "The scribes say [do they not?] that Elijah must first
come. [What must we reply to .them?]."
3 See Son 3246 foil, and 3246 d i, on "The 'coming' of Elijah,"
where it is maintained that the phrase peculiar to Mark, "as it is
written of him," refers, not to John the Baptist, but to the Son of
Man, like the preceding clause (also peculiar to Mark) "written of
the Son of Man."
4 Some have suggested that "written about him" refers to
Elijah and to a quasi-martyrdom, which he endured at the hands
of Jezebel. But this does not seem probable in view of the fact
that he escaped from her hands and, in due course, was taken up
to heaven.
A. F. 33 (Mark ix. ii 13) 3
THE TRANSFIGURATION AND ITS SEQUEL
tradition about some actual utterance of Jesus in which He
testified to the Law of Martyrdom as applying to Himself as
well as to the Baptist.
The omission of this passage by Luke and John accords
with the general rule of these Evangelists to omit or alter
passages that give what in their days seemed a disproportionate
prominence to John the Baptist 1 . But Luke and John follow
this rule in different ways, as regards the early identification
of John the Baptist with Elijah. Luke explains, in his account
of the Baptist's birth (through the Song of Zachariah), that he
is to "go before" the Messiah "in the spirit and power of
Elijah," which amounts to saying "not that he will be Elijah,
but he will be in the character of Elijah 2 ." John introduces
a direct negative uttered by the Baptist himself in reply to
emissaries of the' Pharisees : "And they asked him, What then?
Art thou Elijah? And he saith, I am not 3 ."
This is a remarkable instance of Johannine freedom from
conventionality. John probably knew that there were current
in the first century a great number of beliefs about* Elij ah,
and also beliefs (such as Origen argues against when dealing
with the words "Elijah is come 4 ") in some doctrine of metem-
psychosis, so that the words of Jesus recorded here by Mark
might be taken as implying the latter doctrine. He certainly
knew if Mark's and Matthew's Gospels were important enough
to attract his attention that Jesus was reported by Mark to
have said "Elijah is come," and that Matthew emphasized
this ("is come already") and added "Then understood the
disciples that he spake unto them of John the Baptist." And
yet, in spite of these very ancient traditions, he does not hesi-
tate to represent the Baptist as being expressly asked by the
priests and Levites sent from Jerusalem "Art thou Elijah?"
and as replying "I am not 5 ." Perhaps we may suppose that
1 See Beginning p. 71, Law p. 219.
2 Lk. i. 17. 3 Jn i. 21.
4 Origen on Mt. xvii. 10 foil., see also Jerome on Mt. xi. 14 "if
ye will receive it. . .," which he interprets as indicating "mysticum
(sermonem)."
5 Jn i. 21.
34 (Mark ix. n 13)
THE TRANSFIGURATION AND ITS SEQUEL
the Fourth Evangelist argued to this effect: "I know that
Jesus called John 'Elijah.' And so he was, to the Jews. But
now, to the Gentile Churches he is not 'Elijah' who is to
Gentiles merely an ancient wonderworking prophet but a
' witness ' to the Light of the World. And the Baptist himself
spoke of himself in this subordinate character, calling himself
a voice 1 .' "
Some further comment is demanded by the Lucan tradition
about Christ's conversation with Moses and Elijah. They
converse about Christ's "exodus (departure) 2 ." The mention
of His "exodus" is followed, at no great interval, by a mention
of His " analempsis (receiving up) 3 ." "Exodus" is very rare,
and "analempsis" is unique, in the New Testament. The
former is appropriate to the Leader of the Exodus, Moses;
the latter to the only Israelite "received up" into heaven,
Elijah. These Lucan peculiarities perhaps represent Luke's
rebellion against the view (adopted by Origen and Jerome) 4
that Elijah represented "the prophets" Elijah, who could
hardly be said to have uttered a word of prophecy about the
Messiah or the Messianic Kingdom! It might seem to Luke
that Elijah was the type of Christ's Ascension, as Moses,
the deliverer of Israel from Egypt, was the type of Christ's
1 This Johannine scene testifies indirectly to the historical
character of the Marcan tradition about "the scribes" and the
"coming" of Elijah. See HOY. Heb. on Mt. xvii. 10 "It would be
an infinite task to produce all the passages out of the Jewish writings
concerning the expected coming of Elias."
2 Lk. ix. 31 T *] v *odov CIVTOV f/v fjfj.(X\fv TrX^poui/ eV 'lepoufraA^yu,. It
recurs only in Heb. xi. 22 T^S e'oSou T&V vlwv 'lo-paijX, 2 Pet. i. 15
3 Lk. IX. 51 eV ra> crvfjt,7r\r)pov(rdai ray fj/j-fpay rrjs ai/aX^/z^ea)? avrov.
does not occur in LXX. But Luke's language recalls
2 K. ii. i "when the Lord would take up Elijah," tv ro> dvdyeiv. Note
the Hebraic ev TU> in both passages (Proclamation p. 153).
4 Origen Fragm. on Lk., Lomm. v. 244 Mcovo^s 6 vopos <al 'HXtas-
6 npo(f)T)TiKos \6yos, Jerome Epist. (transl. Fremantle, p. 399) Contr.
Jovin. ii. 15 "Although Moses and Elias were properly types of the
Law and the Prophets, as is clearly witnessed by the Gospel" (Lk.
ix. 31).
35 (Mark ix. n 13) 3 2
THE TRANSFIGURATION AND ITS SEQUEL
deliverance of mankind out of darkness through His death and
resurrection.
Probably, however, Moses and Elijah were associated in
the vision of the Transfiguration, simply (or mainly) because
they were associated in the spiritual expectations of all pious
Jews, owing to the prophecy of Malachi who is the only
prophet that mentions Elijah, and who mentions him along
with Moses 1 . The prominence thus afforded (or at least
suggested) by Luke to Elijah, as the type of the ascending
Saviour, would not be likely to commend itself to John, who
frequently speaks of Jesus as "lifted up" on the Cross, and
seems to prefer to think of Him thus, rather than as received
up in the Chariot.
One more point remains to be mentioned. There can be
hardly any doubt that "Hear ye him" in the Transfiguration
is a repetition, and fulfilment, of- the Deuteronomic " Unto him
shall ye hearken," in the words of Moses: "The Lord thy God
will raise up unto thee a prophet from the midst of thee, of thy
brethren, like unto me ; unto him ye shall hearken 2 " Tertullian
points this out 3 . But he is not followed by Origen, Jerome, or
Chrysostom in their several commentaries on the Trans-
figuration 4 . Those, however, who miss this allusion miss the
1 Mai. iv. 4 5. Hor. Heb. on Lk. ix. 30 quotes Deut. r. (on
Deut. x. i, Wii. p. 55) where God says to Moses "You two [i.e.
you and Elijah] shall come together," and Pesikt. 93 a "Moses did
not die [for the just die not] : but went up into the highest, to
minister before God/' These are late traditions, but the text of
Deut. xxxiv. 6 "He [i.e. God] buried him"" favoured such traditions
at an early date. R. Ismael (Rashi) declared that Moses "buried
himself."
The first "prophet" mentioned in Scripture is (Gen. xx. 7)
Abraham. And the Hebrew word does not mean primarily "one
who predicts," but "one who interprets" (Gesen. 611 b "spokes-
man. . . ") that is to say, interprets the will of God to men.
2 Deut. xviii. 15.
3 Tertull. Adv. Marc, on Lk. ix. 35.
4 Chrys. actually explains "Hearken unto Him" as meaning
"Even if He desire to be crucified do not oppose (^17 dvTtrrea-rjs),"
where the sing, "oppose [thou] " is curiously incompatible with
"hearken [ye]."
36 (Mark ix. ii 13)
THE TRANSFIGURATION AND ITS SEQUEL
meaning of the presence of Moses, who in this vision abdicates
in favour of his successor, as if saying "Thou art He concerning
whom I said to Israel, Unto Him shall ye hearken, a prophet,
' like unto me ' in bringing a Law, but surpassing me in bringing
a greater Law, the Prophet above prophets, the Son pro-
claiming the Law of Sonship."
All this John and John alone of the Evangelists makes
abundantly clear. His pregnant references to Moses contrast
curiously with his barren references to Elijah. The latter is
not mentioned except interrogatively or negatively 1 . The
former is mentioned repeatedly as testifying to the Son either
by express testimony or by symbolical action 2 .
1 Jn i. 21 "Art thou Elijah?" ib. 25 "if them art neither the
Christ, nor Elijah, nor yet the Prophet." This passage is introducing
to the reader the technical term "the Prophet," meaning, "the
Prophet of whom Moses spoke as a successor to himself."
2 Moses is mentioned, either by the Evangelist or by Christ, as
follows: Jn i. 17 "The Law was given through Moses... the [gift
of] grace and the [gift of] truth (or, the grace and the truth [that are
conveyed by the Law]) came into being through Jesus Christ";
iii. 14 "Even as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so. . .
the Son of Man" ; v. 45 6 "Think not that / shall accuse you. . .
he that accuseth you is Moses ... for if ye were believers in Moses,
ye would be believers in me, for he wrote concerning me" ; vii. 19
"Did not Moses give (ov M. edianfv) you the Law, and [yet] none of you
doeth the Law?" vii. 22 3 "For this cause hath Moses given you
circumcision not that it is [in truth] from Moses but from the
fathers and ye. . .that the Law of Moses may not be broken."
This is Christ's last mention of Moses.
But I have purposely deferred the difficult instance in vi. 32
ov M. eSoxei/ vfj.lv rm> aprov. It is usual to render this (differently
from vii. 19) negatively. But the Johannine view of Moses is
generally positive, that he does things typically, preparing the way
for their realisation in Christ. Perhaps, then, the meaning is "Was
it not Moses who gave you the ' bread from heaven ' [of which ye spake
(Jn vi. 31)] ? Yes, but my Father gives you true bread from heaven
[not the rudimentary bread given by Moses]." The Jews had been
just quoting complacently Ps. Ixxviii. 24 5 "He gave them bread
from heaven to eat"; Jesus says, in effect, "Was it -not Moses, the
rudimentary shepherd of Israel, who gave you that rudimentary
bread? But my Father gives you more than that."
37 (Mark ix. ii 13)
CHAPTER II
"THE KINGDOM OF GOD" AND "LITTLE CHILDREN"
[Mark ix. 14 50]
i. "Little children 1 "
WE are now approaching the time when Jesus will be found
proclaiming to His disciples a doctrine of "receiving" either
receiving Jesus Himself or receiving the Kingdom of God.
Both proclamations mention "little-children," thus: "Who-
soever receiveth one of such little-children in my name receiveth
me," and "Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God
as a little-child, he shall in no wise enter therein 2 ."
These utterances will come before us in their order. But
there intervenes the Healing of the Lunatic Child. And here the
question arises perhaps of small importance but worth noting
why Matthew and Luke substitute "child (or, boy)," pais, for
the term "little-child," paidion, used by Mark 3 . A reasonable
reply is that Mark himself tells us that the boy had been
subject to fits "from the-time-when-he-was-fl-fo'#fe-c/w7d 4 ."
He had been a paidion, now he was a pais. But this only
shifts the question from Matthew-Luke to Mark: "Why did
Mark use paidion when he ought to have used pais ? " Turning
over Mark's short Gospel we note that it uses paidion twice
as often as Luke does (apart from Luke's Introduction) 5 .
1 In this section " little-child " will be used invariably to represent
2 Mk ix. 37, x. 15.
3 Mk ix. 24, Mt. xvii. 18, Lk. ix. 42.
4 Mk ix. 21 K iraiStodfv.
5 Mk (12), Lk. i. 59 ii. 40, about the child John and the child
Jesus (7), later on (6).
38 (Mark ix. 14 29)
"THE KINGDOM OF GOD"
This- leads us to ask whether Luke had any special reason for
avoiding the word as far as possible and Mark for using it.
Luke's reason for avoiding it may have been that paidion
conveyed to him the same notion of simple ignorance that
Paul intended to convey to the Corinthians when he wrote,
"Brethren, be not little-children in your minds 1 ," which is
also the notion that it conveyed to Philo, who dilates on the
application of the term to Ishmael 2 . This, too, characterizes
the Epictetian use of the term 3 . It is perhaps significant that
Hermas never uses the word. Instead of paidion Luke uses,
on one occasion, the word "babe 4 ."
It is more difficult to say why Mark uses paidion so freely
in his descriptions of healing, before he comes to Christ's
doctrine of "little-children 5 ." But the following facts may
help us to a reasonable hypothesis. In LXX, paidion is for
the most part loosely used for Hebrew "son," "infant," and
"lad" nearly ninety times. But it is once used, in Isaiah's
prophecy of the Suffering Servant, to represent a Hebrew word
forms of which mean, with about equal frequency, " sucking -
child" or "sucker [of a tree]": "He grew up before him as
a tender plant," where Aquila and Theodotion have "suckling,"
a term often applied in later Hebrew to "pupils" at school
and applicable to Jesus at first as the "pupil" of John the
Baptist 6 .
1 i Cor. xiv. 20, followed by "On the other hand (aXXa) in malice
be infants (vrjn id(fre) . But in [your] minds (rals 8e $p((r\v, i.e. in
effect "brains") become full-grown [men] (rAftoi yivc<r0e)."
This is the only mention of -rraidinv in the Pauline Epistles.
2 Philo i. 393 4.
3 In Epictetus, children are to be kindly treated and occasionally
humoured (i. 29. 31), though not to be spoiled and pampered. But
I have not found an instance where a child is taken as the type of
simple truthfulness, or of some virtue to be imitated.
4 Lk. xviii. 15 /Spe'^ij, parall. Mk x. 13, Mt. xix. 13 -rraibia.
5 Mk v. 39, 40 (bis), 41, vii. 28 "from the crumbs of the little-
children (r&v TraidtW) " (Mt. xv. 27 "from the crumbs that fall
from the table of their masters (rwv Kvpicov O.VTWV}}," vii. 30 (Mt. xv. 28
r) dvydrrjp avrfjs), ix. 24 (Mt. xvii. 18, Lk. ix. 42 watp).
6 Is. liii. 2, on which see Son 3519 e and Notes 2998 (xlix a).
39 (Mark ix. 14 29)
"THE KINGDOM OF GOD"
In the Apostolic Fathers, almost the only instance of paidion
in the singular is in Clement of Rome, quoting from this prophecy
of Isaiah 1 . Barnabas uses the word once in the singular, but
thrice in the plural. First, he connects it with the land of " milk
and honey," and with a "reshaping " of man. Perhaps this " re-
shaping" implies regenerating as a babe at the breast, but he
does not mention the word "suckling' 2 '." Later on, he connects
paidia (pi.) with those who "sprinkle for remission of sins 3 ."
These are all the instances of paidion in the Apostolic Fathers.
In the early Apologists, paidion is practically confined to
Justin Martyr 4 . He uses it nearly thirty times, but almost
1 Clem. Rom. 16 quoting Is. liii. 2 dvijyyfiXapev evavriov avrov as
n-aidiov, a>s pifa ev yy do//>a>cr>7. This when unpunctuated would mean
" We made announcement before him as a little-child as a root in the
dry ground. ..." Justin Martyr (Try ph. 5 42) takes this as meaning
"We, i.e. the Church of Christ, like a [weak or simple] child made
announcement " And Origen (Comm. Rom. viii. 5, Lomm. vii. 219)
seems to take it similarly : " Annuntiavimus sicut puer ante ipsum,
sicut radix in terra sitienti," as though the Apostles complained of
the failure of their "announcement." Jerome says "LXX trans-
tulerunt qyye&.o/iei' ws iraidiov evavriov avrov i i.e. Annuntiavimus
sicut parvulum (not, parvulus) coram eo," without explanation.
z Barn, vi . 8 9 " The land of milk and honey " appears to represent
Jesus. To enter into that land is to be "reshaped (dvcur^da-o-eo-Qai),"
by faith in Jesus: ib. n "Since therefore, having renewed (ava-
Kaivio-as) ( ? dvfKaivurev) us by the remission of our sins, He made us
[to be] a new type, so as to have the soul of little-children (irai8ia>v)
inasmuch as He reshapes us (dvcnrXdcro-ovros avrov r]/j.ds)." Later
on, it is said (vi. 17) " Why, then, the milk and the honey ? Because
at first the little-child is kept alive (^cooTrotelrat) by honey [and]
then by milk." In Numb. xiv. 3 31 the men of Israel reject the
land of milk and honey, and God says "your little ones (fratdia),
which ye said would be a prey, them will I bring in." But there the
Heb. is 5p.
3 In Barn. viii. i, where Jesus is described as typified by the
Red Heifer, "the men in whom sins are full-grown* (rovs avdpas eV
ols flvlv afjLapriat re'Xeiai) " who slay the heifer, are contrasted with
"the little-children (TO. iraiMa (bis))" who collect the ashes for the
purpose of purifying the people.
4 The only exception is Tatian 33 4 (bis) about some mytho-
logical birth.
40 (Mark ix. 14 29)
AND "LITTLE CHILDREN"
always in quoting or alluding to quotation 1 . He regards it
as a name of the Messiah. But he does not deduce this from
Isaiah's prophecy about the Suffering Servant. There, being
misled by LXX, he regards the Church as being "as a little-
child" in its "announcement" of the Gospel 2 . The Messianic
name he deduces from the prophecy (LXX) "Unto us a little-
child is born," where the LXX and Aquila have paidion*.
Justin quotes this in his Apology 4 . In his Dialogue, he does
not quote this phrase, but alludes to it when he says that the
Messiah is "King, and Priest, and God, and Lord, and Angel,
and Man, and Captain, and Stone, and a Little-Child being
born 5 ."
These facts, while shewing the variety of forms in which
Christ's Doctrine of Little Children might pass from Jewish into-
Greek vocabulary, leave it still an open question what word or
words Jesus used when He spoke of them. But there is an
1 The instances in 42 and 84 allude to prophecy. Justin refers
mostly to Isaiah, or to the Introduction in Matthew. Perhaps the
only use of iraidiov in his own name is Tryph. 103 "the Herod that
killed the little-children (noiSta) in Bethlehem" (Mt. ii. 16 rovs nal&as
TOVS ev B.). With three exceptions it is singular.
2 His comment on "as a little-child" is of a Pauline character:
Tryph. 42 "It signifies that the wicked became subject to Him. . .
and that all have become as one little-child. Such a thing as you
may witness in the body: although the members are enumerated
as many, all are called one, and are a body. For, indeed, a common-
wealth and a church, though many individuals in number, are in fact
as one creation (&s fv Trpaypa). ..."
3 Is. ix. 6 "Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given." The
repetition of n^ 1 * as noun and verb could not be expressed except by
eyevvydr). LXX and Aq. have iraidiov cyfvvrjdrj, Sym. veavias
* Apol. 35 Taidiov fyevvrjBrj TJ^JUV Kal Vfavi(r<os (Heb. "son," LXX
vlos) i7/xti> aTrcSoQr]. He takes "the government shall be on his
shoulders (sic) " as referring to the Cross. Justin seems to combine
LXX Traidiov with another reading like that oi Sym., veavias, and to
omit vlos.
5 Tryph. 34 "a little-child being born (Traidiov yewwpevov},"
perhaps "one that is born as a little-child." He does not quote
Is. ix. 6 exc. in 76 " Isaiah calls Him the angel of mighty counsel.'
41 (Mark ix. 14 29)
THE KINGDOM OF GOD"
antecedent probability that He would sometimes use a word that
suggested the dependence of the child on the mother for its food.
This we might gather from the prayer : "I thank thee, O Father,
Lord of heaven and earl^r, that thou hast hidden these things
from the wise^and prudent and hast revealed them unto babes,"
when taken along with Christ's quotation from the eighth
Psalm "Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou
perfected praise 1 ." This Hebrew word for "babe" besides
that it closely resembles, and is derived by many from, a rare
Hebrew word meaning "suck 2 " is also often connected (as in
the eighth Psalm) with the comparatively frequent Hebrew
word that regularly means "suck [at the breast] 3 ."
This latter Hebrew word, ydnak, is more common in Aramaic
than in Hebrew 4 . And in Aramaic and late Hebrew it fre-
quently has a metaphorical meaning as in the Targum on
Solomon's Song "And in that day King Messiah shall be
revealed to the congregation of Israel, and the sons of Israel
shall say unto Him, 'Come, be thou our Brother, and let us
go up to Jerusalem and we will suck with thee the ordinances
of the Law even as a suckling sucks the breasts of its mother 5 .' "
The thought goes back to what is almost the only mention of
1 Mt. xi. 25, Lk. x. 21, Mt. xxi. 16, quoting Ps. viii. 2.
2 Strong's Concordance derives ^1V, or h^y, "babe," from Siy,
a rare word meaning "give suck/' and "sucking child," but Gesen.
7606 prefers a different derivation (comp. ib. 732 a). Rashi (on
Ps. viii. 2) takes it as meaning "educati in inquinamento." See
Taylor's Aboth p. 97 on "The Ages of Man," where a cynical view is
taken of the descent of man from "king" to "ape." But there is
a reservation : "A son of Torah, like David, is a king, though old."
See Wagenseil's Sota p. 76.
3 See Gesen. 413, pj\ comp. ib. 7606.
4 In Gen. xxxiii. 13, 14 Onk. twice renders T^i "infant" or
"newly born child" by pj*. In Is. Ixv. 20 ^iy "suckling," and
in Job xix. 18 D^iy "boys," Targ. has p3\ See also Levy Ch.
i. 338 quoting, inter alia, i K. iii. 7 "ego puev ("iyj) parvus (pp),"
Targ. "ego lactens (p^) parvus ("Vyt)," where Walton rightly
substitutes "puer" for "lactens" since the literal rendering would
not express the meaning.
5 See Targum on Cant. viii. i.
42 (Mark ix. 14 29)
AND "LITTLE CHILDREN"
the "sucking-child" in the Law 1 , where Moses disclaims the
power of acting as the mother or nurse of Israel: "Have
I brought them forth that thou shouldest say unto me, Carry
them in thy bosom as the nursing-father carrieth the sucking-
child 2 ? " a thought repeated in Isaiah, where God says to the
remnant of Israel "Hearken unto me, O house of Jacob, and
all the remnant of the house of Israel, which have been borne
[by me] from the belly, which have been carried from the
womb 3 ."
Xo other word for "child" conveys, so clearly as this, the
notion of constant dependence on the parents. There is
perhaps something slightly repellent in the fact that it seems
to give to the Father the part of the Mother. But the con-
ception of God as having attributes of a mother 4 is elsewhere
implied in Hebrew Scriptures. And this conception of the
child on the mother's breast or freshly weaned from it accords
with the saying of the Psalmist, which could hardly fail to be
in our Lord's mind when He connected His doctrine of Child-
hood with precepts of humility : " Lord, my heart is not haughty
... I have stilled and quieted rny soul like a weaned child with
his mother. My soul is with me like a weaned child. O Israel,
hope in the Lord 5 . ..." Such a spontaneous and clinging depend-
ence on the Mother or Father for spiritual food and spiritual
hope is at the opposite pole from a "voluntary humility 6 "
that makes a man abase himself before God, as before a Master,
in order to secure immunity from the punishment due for the
infraction of rules.
In view of this collective evidence as to the Jewish traditions
about "the sucking-child," it would be unwise to emphasize
1 The only other, in the Law, is Deut. xxxii. 25 " The suckling
with the man of gray hairs (Gesen. 413 a)."
2 Numb. xi. 12. 3 Is. xlvi. 3.
4 See Son 3426, 3502, comp. 3506.
6 Ps. cxxxi. i 3. One of the comments in Tehillim ad loc.
represents God as saying to David, "Thou hast made thyself like
the sucking child. By thy life ! As there is no sin in the sucking
child, so is there also no sin in thee."
6 Col. ii. 18.
43 (Mark ix. 14 29)
"THE KINGDOM OF GOD"
as being unique, and yet still more unwise to neglect, Isaiah's
use of the term in the prophecy of the Suffering Servant as
accepted by Aquila and Theodotion, "He shall go up before
him as a sucking-child." The word may here mean one that sucks
truth; but it may also mean the scion of a royal house that
has been cut down like a felled tree 1 . The only other instance
of the participial noun formed from ydnak in Isaiah closely
follows the prediction "There shall come forth a shoot out of
the stock of Jesse, and a branch out of his roots shall bear fruit " ;
it is in a passage predicting a universal peace when " The sucking-
child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child
shall put his hand on the basilisk's den 2 ."
2. "Little children," in the Fourth Gospel
This conception of "a little child" as a " suckling" must be
distinguished from that which is indicated in contrasts between
"the great [child]" and "the little [child]" in such phrases as
"the great [child] shall serve the little [child]," meaning "the
elder shall serve the younger" Such a contrast plays a part,
and' verbally rather a large part, in the doctrine of the Synoptic
Gospels, where Christ's doctrine deprecates ambition and pride
of place. But the Fourth Gospel cautions us against being
misled by these negative deprecations into supposing that the
way to become like God is to refuse to be "great." Though
it scarcely mentions the word "little-child," and nowhere
mentions "sucking-child," yet it represents the Father as
being "declared" to us by "the only begotten Son, who is
in the bosom of the Father" and it represents "the disciple that
beareth witness" to the Son by writing the Gospel as being
1 On Is. liii. 2, Ibn Ezra says (The Jewish Interpreters of Isaiah liii.
p. 43) "R. Sa'adyah interprets the whole Parashah of Jeremiah.. .
he 'came up before him like a sucker,' for when he began to prophesy
he was a youth," ib. p. 64 (Jacob ben Reuben) "came up like a sucker
before him to suck in his knowledge." The Servant may be regarded
(i) as a sucker springing from the root of a felled tree, the House of
David (or from captive Israel) and also (2) as a Disciple of Truth.
2 Is. xi. i =-8. Gesen. 413 gives pav as "suckling" in Is. xi. 8
and often, but as "sapling (sucker] " uniquely in Is. liii. 2.
44 (Mark ix. 14 29)
AND "LITTLE CHILDREN"
the same that "reclined in the bosom of Jesus 1 ." Indirectly,
it expresses the constant dependence of the Son on the Father,
and that of the disciples on the Son, far more forcibly than we
find it expressed by the Synoptists.
In this Gospel Jesus mentions "little-child" only twice.
On the first occasion, the term is typical, as in the Prophets,
of the promise and joy of a home, as coming through sorrow:
"The woman, when she is bringing forth, hath sorrow because
her hour is come, but when she hath given birth to the little-
child, she remembereth no more the anguish, because of the
joy that a human being is born into the world 2 ." Epictetus,
typically, bids us beware of imitating the Beast that is in us
so as to destroy "the Human Being" that is in us 3 . The
Johannine passage, typically, speaks of "the little-child," and
of its being "born" (within us) somewhat as Justin mentions
"the little-child being born," along with King, and Stone, and
1 Jn i. 1 8, xiii. 23, referred to in xxi. 20 "the disciple whom Jesus
loved. . .who also leaned back on his breast at the supper."
See Light 3814 lo on " The Holy Milk," and 3817 a foil. " Clement
of Alexandria on 'the Babe,' " where it is said (3817 c) "The Odes 01
Solomon shew no trace of caution in using the most exuberant
language about ' babes ' and ' milk ' and the ' breasts ' of God as the
Nursing Father. Clement on the contrary passes (108 9) into
a long defence of the term 'babes/ in order to shew that it does not
imply a preference for folly, and that it is not inconsistent with the
Pauline doctrine of 'the full-grown man/" John, in the opening
of his Gospel, suggests the thought of Prov. viii. 30 (R.V. "master-
workman," Aq. Ti0T)vovfji.evr)) which the Midrash on Gen. i. i (Wti.
p. T),in one of its traditions, connects with Numb. xi. 12 "nursing-
father." Instead of "milk" the Fourth Gospel substitutes the
"blood" of the Son, which is typified by the wine at Cana (comp.
Is. Iv. i "buy wine and milk without money").
2 Cramer (on Jn xvi. 21, p. 364) prints as from Ammonius
oe rfj 7rapa(3o\7) KOI ol Trpofprjrai K^pr}vrai (rvvf^S>s rfj vnfpfto\ri r
rr)v dBvpiav TrapaftdXXovTfs. On udlves in the Synoptists see Mk xiii. 8,
Mt. xxiv. 8.
3 Epict. ii. 9. 3 6 nvBpviros, as the type of humanity. In Jn
xvi. 21 there is very probably an allusion to the birth (Son 3414 (ii) d)
of Isaac, i.e. "Laughter." But that does not exclude the thought
of Man in general.
45 (Mark ix. 14 29)
"THE KINGDOM OF GOD"
other titles of the Messiah 1 . On the second occasion, Jesus
addresses the disciples as "little-children" in very peculiar
circumstances. He has been already raised from the dead
and already recognised by them. Yet now, after this recog-
nition, He stands unrecognised for the moment on the shore
of Tiberias. They have been toiling all night in their fishing-
boat, but to no purpose; and Jesus, who knows this, says to
them "Little-children, you have [I think] caught nothing to
eat 2 ?" This is the passage placed by Clement of Alexandria
at the very beginning of his long discourse on the paidia and
paides (the "little-children" and the "children") of Scripture 3 .
He draws attention to the fact that Jesus calls them "children"
although they are "already in the position of recognised dis-
ciples 4 ." Then he goes on to quote passages from the New
and the Old Testament ; and from the latter (almost immedi-
ately) he quotes the words of Isaiah "Behold, I, and the
little-children that God hath given to me 5 ."
But these last words are also quoted in the Epistle to the
Hebrews and applied, not to the Mother, the Church of Spiritual
Israel, but to Jesus, who speaks of the redeemed whom He has
"sanctified," first, as His "brethren," but secondly, as His
1 Tryph. 34, see above, p. 41. The only previous Johannine
mention of iraidiov is in Jn iv. 49, where, in reply to Christ's words
"Except ye see signs and wonders ye will in no wise believe," the
nobleman simply says "Sir, come down ere my little-child die."
Jesus, presumably taking this as a proof of belief, says at once
"Go thy way, thy son liveth."
2 Jn XXI. 5 Trcudi'a, pr] ri TT po(r(f>dyiov ex ere >'~ See Joh. Gr. 2703 (2)
"The Lord does not ask for information. He knew that the disciples
had caught no fish and that it was not possible for them to have caught
fish : because they had* oeen toiling without Him in the ' night ' of
spiritual darkness and had not cast the net on the ' right side ' of the
ship."
3 Clem. Alex. 104 foil., on which see Light 3817 a i.
4 Toiis fj8r) fv eei T>V yvcapi/xo)!/ Trdidas 7rpo0-7ro>i>. On yj/copi'/icoi/ see
Introd. p. 17 n.
5 The passages are quoted in this order (104 5) Jn xxi. 4 5,
Mt. xix. 14, xviii. 3, xxi. 9, xxi. 16, comp. Ps. viii. 2, Jn xiii. 33
(re*i>ia, Clem. Alex, reads iraidia), Mt. xi. 16, 17, Ps. cxiii. i, Is. viii. 18
(quoted in Heb. ii. 13).
46 (Mark ix. 14 29)
AND "LITTLE CHILDREN"
"little-children." The reason is, that "both he that sanctifieth
and they that are sanctified are all from one [Father]." Hence
Jesus is described as saying, not only "I will declare thy name
unto my brethren" but also "Behold, I and the little-children
that God hath given to me 1 ." The Epistle though it does
not expressly say it as Clement does assumes that Jesus is
the Paidion or "Little-Child," and that He is speaking of the
other paidia or "little-children," as being God's "gift" to
Him. This gives us a clue to the meaning of the very common
Johannine phrase, denoting the redeemed, or the Church
"all that thou hast given me" or "all that thou hast given him"
repeatedly uttered by the Son to the Father 2 . It is uttered
by the Paidion, or "little-child" of prophecy, speaking about
the paidia. or "little-children" of prophecy, who are at once
His "brethren" and His "little-children."
All these Greek details, in which the Jewish word "sucking-
child" finds little or no place, must not prevent us from recog-
nising the original Jewish thought as being the centre round
which Synoptic and Johannine traditions alike revolve, and
as having been in our Lord's mind persistently, not only when
He spoke of "babes" or of "babes and sucklings," but also
when He spoke of "the pure in heart" and the little ones that
"behold the face of the Father in heaven 3 ."
1 Heb. ii. n 13.
2 See Joh. Gr. 2422, 27404.
3 In the Johannine Epistle Traibia occurs twice certainly i Jn ii. 13,
1 8, and once doubtfully iii. 7 TCKVIU (marg. TrruSuz) fjajBels nXavdra) vp.as.
Probably the writer is at first distinguishing " beginners in the faith,"
TraiSta, from " fathers " and " young men." But perhaps he may also
include the suggestion that all those whom he addresses may be
regarded in these three aspects.
The Acts of John ( i) begins with a statement of the perplexity
caused by the assertion of Drusiana, " To me the Lord like (<us)
John [? 'as also to John,' the MS has 'iwawrf] appeared in the tomb
(eV rw /zi/^/zari), and like (u>s) a young man (veavi&Kos)." John replies
that the Lord did actually appear in various forms ( 2) e.g. to James
as a TratSiof , but to John simultaneously as an dvtjp, and soon after-
wards to John as an elderly man, but to James as a freshly-bearded
young man (vtcaturKOs). On veavia-Kos see Justin M. Apol. 35
47 (Mark ix. 14 29)
"THE KINGDOM OF GOD"
3. The "little-child" with the "dumb and deaf spirit,"
in Mark 1
Almost all the traditions peculiar to Mark in this exorcistic
narrative are omitted by John. The omissions are in accordance
quoted above, p. 41, n. 4. All these legends may have arisen from
attempts to reconcile the LXX prophecies about Jesus as the ira&iov
with the feeling that He was the Perfect Man, the Bridegroom of the
Church.
1 In the following passage R.V. renders Traidiov by "child" in
Mk ix. 24. But in Mk ix. 36, 37 its rendering is "little child/'
Mk ix. 14 29 Mt. xvii. 14 21
(R.V.) (R.V.)
(14) And when (14) And when
they came to the dis- they were come to
the multitude,
it
ciples, they saw a
great multitude a-
bout them, and
scribes questioning
with them.
(15) And straight-
way all the multi-
tude, when they saw
him, were greatly a-
mazed, and running
to him saluted him.
(16) And he asked
them, What question
ye with them ?
(17) And one of
the multitude an-
swered him, Master
(or, Teacher), I
brought unto thee
my son, which hath
a dumb spirit ;
(18) And where-
soever it taketh him,
it dasheth him down
(or, rendeth him) :
and he foameth, and
grindeth his teeth,
and pineth away :
and I spake to thy
disciples that they
should cast it out;
and they were not
able.
there
came to him a man,
kneeling to him, and
saying,
(15) Lord, have
mercv on my son : for
he is epileptic, and
suffereth grievously:
for oft-times he fall-
eth into the fire, and
oft-times into the
water.
(16) And I brought
him to thy disciples,
and they could not
cure him.
Lk. ix. 3743,
xvii. 6 (R.V.)
(ix. 37) And
came to pass, on the
next day, when they
were come down from
the mountain, a great
multitude met him.
(38) And behold,
a man from the mul-
titude cried, saying,
Master (or, Teacher),
I beseech thee to
look upon my son;
for he is mine only
child :
(39) And behold,
a spirit taketh him,
and he suddenly
crieth out; and it
teareth (or, con-
vulseth) him that he
foameth, and it hard-
ly departeth from
him, bruising him
sorely.
(40) And I be-
sought thy disciples
to cast it out; and
they could not.
48 (Mark ix. 14 29)
AND "LITTLE CHILDREN"
with what may be called the regular exceptions to the Rule of
Johannine Intervention. John -never describes an exorcism
Mk ix. 14 29
(R.V.) contd.
(19) And he an-
swereth them and
saith, O faithless
generation, how long
shall I be with you ?
how long shall I bear
with you ? bring him
unto me.
(20) And they
brought him unto
him : and when he
saw him, straightway
the spirit tare (or,
convulsed) him griev-
ously ; and he fell
on the ground, and
wallowed foaming.
(21) And he asked
his father, How long
time is it since this
hath come unto him ?
And he said, From
a child.
(22) And oft-
times it hath cast him
both into the fire and
into the waters, to
destroy him : but if
thbu canst do any-
thing, have compas-
sion on us, and help
us.
(23) And Jesus
said unto him, If
thou canst ! All
things are possible
to him that believeth.
(24) Straightway
the father of the child
cried out, and said
(many anc. auth. add
with tears), I believe ;
help thou mine un-
belief.
(25) And when
Jesus saw that a mul-
titude came running
Mt. xvii. 14 21
(R.V.) contd.
(17) And Jesus
answered and said,
O faithless and per-
verse generation,
how long shall I be
with you ? how long
shall I bear with you ?
bring him hither to
me.
Lk. ix. 3743,
xvii. 6 (R.V.) contd.
(41) And Jesus
answered and said,
O faithless and per-
verse generation,
how long shall I be
with you, and bear
with you ? bring
hither thy son.
(42) And as he
was yet a coming,
the devil dashed him
down (or, rent him),
and tare (or, con-
vulsed) [him] griev-
ously.
(15) ...for oft-
times he falleth into
the fire and oft-times
into the water.
A. F.
49 (Mark ix. 14 29)
"THE KINGDOM OF GOD"
or refers to one. Also he never mentions the words "dumb"
and "deaf" both of which are here inserted by Mark but
omitted by Matthew and Luke. If therefore the reader asks
what is the object of printing the passages below in full, the
answer is that it is partly in order that he may perceive the
Mk ix. 14 29
(R.V.) contd.
together, he rebuked
the unclean spirit,
saying unto him,
Thou dumb and
deaf spirit, I com-
mand thee, come out
of him, and enter no
more into him.
(26) And having
cried out, and torn
(or, convulsed) him
much, he came out:
and [the child] be-
came as one dead;
insomuch that the
more part said, He
is dead.
(27) But Jesus
took him by the
hand, and raised him
up; and he arose.
(28) And when he
was come into the
house, his disciples
asked him privately,
[saying] , We could
not cast it out (or,
[How is it] that we
could not cast it
out?).
(29) And he said
unto them, This kind
can come out by
nothing, save by
prayer (many anc.
auth. add and fast
ing).
Mt. xvii. 14 21
(R.V.) contd.
(18) And Jesus re-
buked him ; and the
devil went out from
him : and the boy
was cured from that
hour.
(19) Then came
the disciples to Jesus
apart, and said, Why
could not we cast it
out?
(20) And he saith
unto them, Because
of your little faith :
for verily I say unto
you, If ye have faith
as a grain of mustard-
seed, ye shall say un-
to this mountain,
Remove hence to
yonder place ; and it
shall remove ; and
nothing shall be im-
possible unto you.
(21) [Many au-
thorities, some ancient,
insert But this kind
goeth not'out save by
prayer and fasting. 1
Lk. ix. 3743,
xvii. 6 (R.V.) contd.
But
Jesus rebuked the
unclean spirit, and
healed the boy, and
gave him back to
his father.
(43) And they
were all astonished
at the majesty of
God. .
(xvii. 6) And the
Lord said, If ye have
faith as a grain
of mustard-seed, ye
would say unto this
sycamine - tree , Be
thou rooted up, and
be thou planted in
the sea; and it would
have obeyed you.
50 (Mark ix. 14 29)
AND "LITTLE CHILDREN"
kind of Marcan tradition that John regularly refrains from
inserting in any form, even when Luke omits it.
But a second object is to avoid the appearance of suppressing
any Marcan traditions that may seem to break the Johannine
Rule. For example, there is the statement that the multitude,
when they saw Jesus descending from the mountain, "were
greatly amazed, and running to him, saluted him 1 ." There
are also some words of Jesus about the power of belief ("all
things are possible to him that believeth") and of prayer
("this kind can come out by nothing save by prayer 2 ").
The words of Jesus are more important than the narrative
of events and will receive separate consideration, but the Marcan
clause about "amazement" may be dealt with at once. On
a previous occasion Mark, followed by Luke, emphasized the
astonishment produced by Jesus on the multitude by His
exorcistic power 3 . Here and later on, in order to express the
feeling produced by His personal presence or utterances, he
employs forms of a word used by Plutarch to mean something
almost amounting to dementia 4 . After the descent from the
Mount of Transfiguration it is conceivable that Jesus was
regarded by Mark as retaining traces of a divine brightness
that caused "amazement" amounting to terror. But this
might seem to some inconsistent with their "running to him
and saluting him." Victor distinguishes between the scribes
to whom Jesus said "What question ye? " and who could not
have seen His glory, and the multitude who did see it and were
attracted by it. But such a distinction only shews that he
found Mark's text difficult and that Matthew and Luke may
have condensed it because of its difficulty.
1 Mk ix. 15. - Mk ix. 23, 29.
3 Mk i. 26 cBa^drja-av , Lk. iv. 36 0d/i/3oy.
1 Mk ix. 15 efrdap&TjQTjcrav, x. 32 fQapfiovvro. Mk x. 24 cOappovvTo
refers to "amazement" at Christ's words about "a rich man."
See Steph. Thes. quoting Plut. Vit. 273 c Oa^ovvn with napa-
7rfTr\T]yp.fV(o TOV \oyi(rp.6v and Vit. 729 E F /3Xa7rro^eV( TTJV yva)fj.rjv eoi/cws
[77 5ia 6eias rjrrr/y Tfdan^rjp.fvos]. In LXX, #a/z/3e'a> expresses alarm,
panic, terror, but not reverent fear. Goodspeed gives only ftiOa^os
in Herm. Vis. iii. i. 5, of awe inspired by a vision. ea/i/3e'o> and
are not in Epictetus.
51 (Mark ix. 14 29) 4 2
"THE KINGDOM OF GOD"
Not improbably the original account has been confused
and distorted by conflation 1 . But we cannot thus explain
the words peculiar to Mark later on, where, after the phrase
"they were going up to Jerusalem" common to the Three
Mark alone has "And Jesus was going before them, and
they were amazed, and they that followed were afraid 2 ." The
context of these words indicates that Mark again regards Christ's
visible form as suffused with the glory of the impending sacrifice
in Jerusalem in such a way that even the multitudes outside
the circle of His disciples were "afraid," while the disciples
themselves were "amazed." Such a notion or at all events
the emphasizing of such a notion appears to be deprecated
by John all through his Gospel. Not only does he habitually
associate the "glorifying" of Jesus with the Crucifixion, but
also, when he says in his Prologue "we beheld his glory," he
separates the conception from that of a glory that "amazes"
by adding "glory as of the only begotten from the Father,
full of grace and truth."
Probably John is to be regarded, not as intervening with
reference to this Marcan passage in particular, but as having
in view all Mark's traditions about the "amazement" caused
by Christ's personal presence, and all the Synoptic narratives
of the Transfiguration, and the general views of Christians in
1 This is suggested by the Marcan repetition of "running to-
gether," when compared with Matthew's account. The prominence
given by Matthew to "a man," and the fact that Mark calls him
"one of the multitude," and adds (what Matthew does not add)
"a great multitude," and "all the multitude," might be explained by
the Hebrew phrase "the multitude as one man," thus: "And behold,
when he approached, the multitude as one man ran to him." "As
one man" meant "all" or "altogether." Mark took it so here (comp.
also Mk ix. 25 "a multitude came running together"}. But Matthew
has mistaken this as meaning- " When he approached the multitude,
one man, i.e. a certain maw, ran to him . . . ." Mark seems to have con-
flated it as two statements. Heb. HIND, " as one [man] " = 6fioO (A)
Ezr. ii. 64, eVi TO airro Eccles. xi. 6, a/ia Is. Ixv. 25, eW els Ezr. vi. 2O,%
and is left untranslated in Ezr. iii. 9.
2 Mk x. 32, parall. Mt. xx. 17 and comp. Lk. xviii. 31 (and
perhaps Lk. xix. 28).
52 (Mark ix. 14 29)
AND "LITTLE CHILDREN"
the first century concerning the nature of the awe or reverence
in Scripture commonly called "fear" that man should feel
toward God. John subordinates, almost to excess, this necessary
and not ignoble "fear" which the Hebrew Scriptures emphasize
and which some Jewish traditions over-emphasize. Perhaps he
assumes its existence in the feelings of awe and reverent admira-
tion with which as is suggested in the above-quoted Prologue
we are to behold the "glory" of the Only-begotten "full of
^grace and truth 1 ." In his Epistle John goes so far as to say
"Perfect love casteth out fear;... he that feareth hath not
yet] been made perfect in love 2 ." Only once in his Gospel
does he represent Jesus as using the word, and that is when
the disciples, in the storm on the sea, think their approaching
Saviour to be a phantom. Then Jesus says, "It is I, fear
not 3 ." Probably "It is I" meant more in Greek than it seems
to mean in English. Its literal meaning is I AM, and all pious
readers of the Scriptures, in Hebrew or Greek, knew what that
meant, or rather, how much more it meant than they could
hope at present to apprehend. For them it meant "I am the
Eternal"; for the Fourth Evangelist it meant "I am the
Eternal Love."
4. "All things are possible to him that believeth," in Mark*
The omission of these words by Matthew and Luke must
be classified with the omission of somewhat similar words by
Luke alone in a later passage, the Withering of the Fig-tree,
where Matthew follows Mark. Those will be discussed in
detail, more conveniently, there. But we may briefly state
here reasons for thinking that John intervenes.
The Synoptists differ as to things "possible." Mark is not
alone in having, later on, "All things are possible with God 5 ,"
1 Jn i. 14. 2 i Jn iv. 18. 3 Jn vi. 20. 4 Mk ix. 23.
5 Mk x. 27 irdvra yap Sward irapd "raj] $ea>. W. H. print this as a
quotation and refer in their notes to Gen. xviii. 14 p) ddward (NT'S ni.)
irapd ra> 6fu> prjpa; Job xlii. 2 a&vi/aret (*1V2) Se (roi ovdev, Zech. viii. 6
(bis) d8warr](rfi (fc^D). It IS parall. to Mt. xix. 26 irapa 8f 0fo> irdvra
Sward, Lk. xviii. 27 Bward irapa ra3 deep eVri'i/ (which follows rd dftvvara
irapa. di/6pa>rrois) .
53 Mark ix. 14 29)
"THE KINGDOM OF GOD"
but he alone has, at Gethsemane, "Abba, Father, all things are
possible to thee 1 ." He also places just before the last of these
utterances the statement that Jesus prayed that " if it is [indeed]
possible*" the cup might pass from Him. Instead of this if-
clause which might be criticized as inconsistent with "all
things are possible to thee" Luke has "if thou dost [so]
will and purpose." Luke omits all the Marcan statements
that "all things are possible." Matthew omits all of them
except "All things are possible with God."
So much for Synoptic utterances and silences about things
"possible" and "impossible." In LXX, the first (and perhaps
only) instance of "not possible" is one where the Hebrew has
" not right," literally " not appointed*." In the time of Epictetus
the controversy among Greek philosophers about "possibilities"
was so threadbare and seemed to him so unprofitable
that he disclaims any knowledge about the subject 4 , but he
represents Zeus as saying to the Philosopher, "// it had been
practicable, I would have done so-and-so for you 5 ." That it
is always "possible" to do right is almost the only aspect in
which Epictetus condescends to look at "possibilities."
It has been shewn in the Introduction, and other Parts of
this work, that John intervenes repeatedly on this subject. In
particular whereas Mark says that Jesus "was not able" to do
many mighty works, John emphasizes the inability of the Son to
do anything that He did not see the Father doing 6 . Practically
John's view is that what the Father wills is both right and
possible, and what He does not will is (as the Greeks would
say) "not Themis" i.e. not fit, or just, or" possible, for the Son.
1 Mk xiv. 36 navra Sward o-ot, om. in Mt. xxvi. 39, Lk. xxii. 42.
2 Mk xiv. 35, Mt. xxvi. 39 et dwarov eo-nv. The parall. IJ;.
xxii. 42 has /SouAft, "if thou dost [so] will and purpose."
3 Exod. viii. 26 "it is not meet (firs ni.) (Sui/ardi/)" : p3 (regularly
rendered by some form of croipov) = sometimes aXr/fl/^, evdvs, and o-a(/xl>? ,
but nowhere else Bwarov. But dSwaTflv "to be impossible" occurs
in Gen. xviii. 14 p.rj dSwaTfl rrapa Tto $6<u pr)p.a; lit. "surpassing (N7D)
more-than Jehovah," R.V. " too hard (marg. wonderful) for the Lord."
4 Epictet. ii. ig. 5 9. 5 Epictet. i. i. 10 ol6v re ?,v.
6 Mk vi. 5, on which see Introd. pp. 4 8, 23, and Law p. 137 foil.
54 (Mark ix. 14 29)
AND "LITTLE CHILDREN"
Hence John would ratify the Marcan saying "All things are
possible to him that believeth," but only with an interpretation
that would seem to some to refine the saying into nothing:
"All things that the believer wills are possible to him, because
he, having a vision of God's will, wills that which God wills."
In fact, however, this saying leaves us still free to believe in
the wonder-working power of prayer (as will be seen in the next
section) since prayer may be the mysterious means by which
we may not only lift up our hearts to the Father in heaven and
open our hearts to the vision of His will, but may also send
forth heart-influences into the hearts of others and influence
them in ways undefinable, and yet spiritually and sometimes
perhaps physically palpable.
5. "This kind can come out by nothing save by
prayer" in Mark 1
It will be seen below that Matthew apparently assumes this
to mean "save by the prayer of faith." At all events he para-
phrases Christ's answer as meaning "Your failure was through
want of faith." But he makes no attempt to explain "this
kind." And he drops the word "prayer" altogether. Yet he
adds a saying of Jesus which without mentioning prayer
("ye shall say to this mountain," not "pray concerning this
mountain") implies that the prayer of a living faith ("faith
as a grain of mustard-seed") can move mountains. Luke,
avro; 6 Se Ae'yei
1 .\ik ix. 28 9 Mt. xvii. 19 20
Kaielo-\d(')VTos avToii Tore 7rpoo-f\dovT(s oi
els OIKOV ot fM&rrral avrov p.a0r)Tal rep 'lr)o~ov jcnr'
jcaT* (Stay eV^pcorcoy av- Idiav tinav Ata ri rjp.ls
TDV On T)p.(ls OVK T)8vVTJ-
0r)p.(v e'jc#aAety avru ; KCU
fLTTd' aVTols TOVTO TO
ytvos ev ovv\ dvvaTai vp.o)v dp.r)v yap Ae'yco
ft p,r) ev irpoo-- vp.lv, eav f'xrjTf TTIO-TIV
coy jcujcjcoy (TiyaTTfcos 1 ,
e'petre rep opei rovreo
Mfra/^a cvBfv e'jcet, jcat
t, xat oiSey
vplv.
Lk. xvii. 5 6 is parall. to Mk xi. 23 4
see below, pp. 220 foil , 227 foil.
55 (Mark ix
fLk. xvii. 5 6]
Kttl (ITTOV OL OTTO-
aroXotrcp Kvpiat HptoQtg
1jp.lv irtOTlV. flTTfV $
6 Kvpios Et t\fTf ni
(iv rj tnncafuvtf
\ravrrf] 'Ejcpt^co^7;rt nal
(pvTfvdrjTi e'v rfj Qa\do-o~ji
icat V7rr)Kovo~V av vp.lv.
(and Mt. xxi. 21 2),
. 1429)
THE KINGDOM OF GOD"
while here wholly omitting the dialogue between the disciples
and Jesus, inserts later on a saying of Jesus ("ye could have
said to this sycamine-tree") similar to Matthew's present
addition.
In Mark, several ancient MSS and Versions insert "and
fasting" after "prayer 1 ." Some of the best Latin Versions,
while inserting " fasting (s) ," have also the plural "prayers,"
and one important one has "prayers" alone 2 . Also a very
ancient writer quoted by Clement of Alexandria refers to this
Marcan narrative in such a way as to shew that his text did not
contain the regular New Testament word for "prayer," namely,
proseuche, but a shorter form, euche, which means "vow" or
" votive prayer" or "prayer" of any kind 3 . This word euche
in the New Testament apart from two instances where it
means "vow 4 " occurs only in the Epistle of James "The
prayer (? or vow) of faith shall save the sufferer 5 ." As to this,
1 Tertullian De Jejun. 8. and Jerome Contr. Jovin. ii. 15, assume
that fasts as well as prayers are to be "the weapons for overcoming
the more direful demons." Mark however has assigned to Jesus
previously (ii. 20) words implying that Christ's disciples were not
taught by Him at that time to fast. For "fast" synonymous with
"pray " see Proclam. p. 320, and comp. Son 3407 (iv) a, 3550 a d.
2 Mk ix. 29,6 and Vindebon. "orationibus et jejuniis (or -io),"
k "orationibus" alone.
3 Clem. Alex. 993 (Decerpt. Theodot. 15) rfjs Tricrrews rrjv
la")(\}poTepav aTT(pT)Vv 6 (roor^p rols Tricrrols aTrooroXoiff eVi nvos 5atp,
ros ov OVK lo^vcrai/ /ca$apicrat eiTroov " Ta rotavra (vxfj KciTopdovrai." The
text continues, 'O p,ev 7ri<TTV(ras afyfcnv afj.apTrjp.a.Tcov e'Xa/Sef Trapa rov
Kvpi'ou, 6 8' ei> yvwarft, yev6p.evos, are p.r)Keri apapTavtov, Trap' eavrov rrjv
a(peariv rwv XOITTOJI/ Ko/u'erai. This seems to be a Gnostic utterance
magnifying gnosis above faith. If that is the meaning of what
precedes, we must render it, "The Saviour shewed forth to the
faithful apostles in the case of a certain demoniac whom they
were not strong enough to purify prayer (rrjv fi>xnv) [as being]
stronger than faith (rr)s iria-reias. . .iV^wporepai/), saying, 'Such things
are set right by prayer (fvxfj).'" But to-^vporepai/ might mean
"stronger than usual," or "of special strength." Then the meaning
would be "shewed forth the prayer of faith [as being] specially
strong."
4 Acts xviii. 18, xxi. 23. 5 Jas. v. 15.
56 (Mark ix. 14 29)
AND "LITTLE CHILDREN"
Lightfoot says "the idea of a vow may possibly be present,
though it is certainly not prominent 1 ." Comparing this
passage with the one quoted by Clement we find that the
Gnostic writer, though referring to Mark, may possibly be
using the same phrase as that in James, meaning " The prayer
(or vow) of faith is more powerful than any other." But the
Gnostic writes ambiguously. He might mean "Prayer, euche,
is more powerful than faith."
These facts lead us to inquire into the general distinction
between euche and proseuche. Inquiry shews that proseuche is
non-existent in literary Greek before the first century 2 . When
it did make its appearance there, it meant a Jewish "praying-
place" or " proseucha," and in that sense it is used abundantly
by Philo and Josephus 3 . It must have penetrated into Latin
in the first century since Juvenal makes a man contemptuously
ask "In what proseucha shall I look for you 4 ?" But Paul
brought it into vogue in his Epistles by using it not only in
the singular to mean the public prayer of the Church to which
1 See Lightf. on Clem. Rom. 41 evx&v. He adds "The v. 1.
Trpoo-fvx&v has parallels in James v. 15, 16, Ign. Ephes. 10, Rom. 9.
It is explained by the tendency to substitute a common word for
a less common."
2 See Steph. Thes. vi. 1915. It is perhaps a consequence of this
that npovtvxn does not occur in the correct text of Clem. Rom.
nor in the Index to Clem. Alex., but it is freq. in Ignatius.
3 See Wetstein on Lk. vi. 12 eV rfj Trpocrevxf} TOV Qeov, quoting fully
from the Halicarnassian Decree made in the time of Julius Caesar,
Joseph. Ant. xiv. 10. 23 rar irpoo-evxas iroiflvOai (the right of making
their proseuchae) irpbs TTJ $0X00-077 Kara TO Trdrpiov 0os, and Vit. 53 57
where, after several mentions of f) irpoo-fvxn as the "house of prayer,"
the prayers themselves are called euchai, 57 fjdrj de r^vv . . .els ei^as
Tparrop.fvtov. Sim. Philo ii. 565, 567, 568 etc. No doubt Luke must
have meant "in the act of prayer to God," but he must have known
that to educated Greeks it would also convey a mystical allusion to
"God's [heavenly] house of prayer." To Greeks and Romans a
temple was the house of the deity whose image it contained. " Ven-
tum erat ad Vestae" means "We had come to [the house] of Vesta."
A Jewish proseucha contained no image. It was "a [house of]
prayer."
4 Juvenal i. iii. 296.
57 (Mark ix. 14 29)
"THE KINGDOM OF GOD"
he was writing 1 , but also in the plural to mean private prayers,
especially those of intercession 2 . Luke twice uses the singular
to mean the act of praying 3 , and James says that Elijah
"prayed with a [special] prayer that it might not rain 4 ."
Matthew also represents Jesus as saying "Whatsoever things
ye shall ask in your prayer {proseuche) " ; but the parallel Mark
has "whatsoever things ye pray for and ask 5 ." The only place
where the Synoptists agree in using the singular "prayer" is
in the quotation of Jesus from Isaiah "My house shall be
called a house of prayer 6 ." Apart from that, the only place
where Mark uses proseuche is the one now under consideration,
and this, as we have seen, is doubtful, since there is an ancient
quotation of it using euche, and the latter would be more in
accordance with early Christian Greek.
Here we might stop and say "Not improbably the Greek
original had euche. There are several instances where the old
word euche has been corrupted into the newer proseuche brought
into vogue by Paul, and by Luke in the Acts. But this con-
clusion is not of much use. It does not help us to understand
why Jesus laid stress on mere 'prayer' whereas He seems to
have meant 'the prayer of faith,' nor what He meant by 'this
1 Rom. xii. 12, i Cor. vii. 5, Phil. iv. 6, Col. iv. 2 rff
mostly of public prayer.
2 Rom. i. 10, Eph. i. 16, I Thess. i. 2, Philem. 4, "my prayers"
or "our prayers," for those to whom the letter is addressed.
3 Lk. vi. 12 (see above, p. 57, n. 3) and xxii. 45 (not in Mk xiv.
37, Mt. xxvi. 40) dvaa-ras diro rfjs irpocrevx^s. Perhaps Luke desired to
habituate his readers to the LXX and Pauline use of the word in
order to rescue it from the contemptuous sense attached to it by
such writers as Juvenal. He uses it nine times in the Acts ; in two
of these (Acts xvi. 13, 16) R.V. gives "place of prayer."
4 Jas. v. 17 Trpoo-fvxfj Trpoo-ijvgaTo, "prayed with a prayer," is
perhaps not an ordinary instance of Hebraic reduplication. It may
be in imitation of the special and frequent "vowed a vow" Gen.
xxviii. 20, xxxi. 13, Numb. xxi. 2 etc.
6 Mk xi. 24 iravra ova Trpoo-fu^erT^e KOL alrelarde, Mt. xxi. 22 irdvTO.
ova av aiTrja-TjTf ev rfj 7rpo<revxfj. The latter appears to define the
prayer as that of the Congregation or Church.
6 Mk xi. 17, Mt. xxi. 13, Lk. xix. 46 from Is. Ivi. 7.
58 (Mark ix. 14 29)
AND "LITTLE CHILDREN"
kind.' Surely He could not have meant that any other 'kind'
of devil could have been driven out without 'prayer'? "
This indicates that something remains to be explained as
to the "kind" of devil. Putting mere verbal distinctions aside,
and looking to the facts, we perceive that the "kind" of posses-
sion from which the deaf and dumb lunatic was suffering
precluded the boy from being impressed for any good purpose
by all but the most familiar influences. Attempts of well-
meaning strangers to act directly on the sufferer by shouting
and gesticulating might even make matters worse. The
disciples, it would seem, had made matters worse. At all
events they had failed. It is quite intelligible that some
special preparation was needful before Jesus could undo the
mischief and utter with effect the words "Thou dumb and
deaf spirit, I charge thee, come out of him." Between Himself
and the boy the father stood as interpreter. But the interpreter
had no faith. The father was perturbed by the failure of the
disciples and could not at once believe in their Master. The
child, so far as his nature could take in impressions from with-
out, was infected by the father's unbelief. Nothing could be
done without the father's prayer, a real and genuine prayer,
not expressing a mere desire but having some spark of passionate
conviction that, in some form, the prayer would be granted.
In this way Jesus led the Syrophoenician woman on to
pour forth to Him a mother's prayers till the time came for
Him to say "O woman, great is thy faith 1 ." In some such way
also He put a kind of reproach on the nobleman of Capernaum,
as if he shared the unbelief of his neighbours, until He elicited
the father's prayer "Sir, come down" and replied "Go thy
way, thy son liveth 2 ." And perhaps we may add the events
preceding the raising of Lazarus including the delay of
Christ's arrival, the sorrow of the sisters, and the tears of Mary.
These indicate a desire of the Fourth Evangelist to claim for
domestic affection, and for the prayer that is inspired by it,
some of that influence which we are too often disposed to assign
1 Mt. xv. 28, comp. Mk vii. 29. 2 Jn iv. 49 50.
59 (Mark ix. 14 29)
THE KINGDOM OF GOD"
exclusively to such prayer as that of Elijah. The prayer of
love, too, "availeth much 1 ."
This being the case it is worth noting not as a complete
explanation of Mark's text, but as a partial explanation of
Luke's omission of the whole and Matthew's alteration of
a part that there may have been some confusion, in Greek
MSS, arising out of the syllable pros, which might be the first
syllable of proseuche. When proseuche came into fashion in
Christian circles and drove out euche, pros euche would naturally
be taken as proseuche, especially as words are not divided in
ancient Greek MSS. But pros, with a line above it, is also an
abbreviation of "father's," so that proseuche might mean
"father's prayer 2 ." It is conceivable that Mark's Gospel, which
abounds in details about exorcism, here described Jesus who
sent His disciples to cast out devils as giving them instructions
how to deal with special "kinds" and, in particular, with this
kind (the "deaf and dumb") as needing parental cooperation.
This will certainly seem to modern readers very strange and
(as it were) too businesslike. Probably it would seem rather
strange to the later Evangelists, and hence they would omit
it. But if we place ourselves in the position of the disciples
whose "business" it was, inter alia, to cast out devils, it will
seem less strange. At all events it removes the difficulty of
supposing that Mark regarded Jesus ds saying "Some exorcisms
do not require prayer, but the exorcism of a deaf and dumb
spirit, does require it 3 ."
1 Jas. v. 16. Comp. Mk v. 36 (Lk. viii. 50) ^17 (poftov, povov
where Luke adds KOI o-co^o-erai as if the issue for the child
depended on the father's faith. Matthew omits this.
2 See Scrivener, Codex D, Introd. p. xviii, quoting rrposin Jn vi. 65
,and ifps elsewhere. Also see 2 Chr. vi. 4 "unto David," Trpbs A.,
where A has irps (a mere scribal error).
3 Not improbably Hebrew corruption may be a partial cause of
Mark's extant text. For the context requires some mention of
"faith." It is therefore worth noting that in "this kind," run pn,
there may be found a close resemblance between pon "kind"
and pDTl (Levy Ch. i. 198) "believe." The latter may have dropped
out from contiguity with the former.
60 (Mark ix. 14 29)
AND "LITTLE CHILDREN"
We pass to the Fourth Gospel. John never mentions
either "prayer" or the act of "praying." But of course he
implies prayer. Only his view is that the Son is in so close
a communion with the Father that the word "pray" is less
suitable than "request" with an implied addition perhaps of
"inquiring" the Father's will as when Jesus says to the
disciples "I will request the Father on your behalf" and
reiterates the word in similar contexts 1 . These instances, it is
true, are in the Last Discourse and refer to the future action
of the Son. But prayer, silent prayer, is implied before, when
Jesus says, near the grave of Lazarus, "Father, I thank thee
that thou didst hear me, and I [for my part] knew that thou
dost at all times hear me. But for the sake of the multitude
that standeth round I [have] said [this] that they may believe
that thou didst send me 2 ." This implies that "at all times"
when Jesus wrought a sign, the Son "requested" or "inquired"
and the Father "heard," and that this is to be taken for
granted.
As regards prayers not proceeding from Jesus, John dis-
tinguishes and once at all events in a very subtle and per-
plexing manner between (i) "asking [to know]" and (2) "ask-
ing [to receive] 3 ." In the Gospel, after Jesus "perceived"
that the disciples "were desirous to ask him," that is, "to ask
[to know]" the meaning of a saying of His that had troubled
them, and after He had reassured them about His return to
aco, of the Son "asking" the Father, occurs in Jn xiv. 16,
xvi. 26, xvii. 9, 15, 20. See I oh. Or. 2630 c i.
2 Origen, on Jn xi. 41 2, assumes that Jesus prayed for Lazarus,
as also for the daughter of Jairus.
"Ask [to, know]," epcoraco, "ask [to receive]," atVe'co or aiYov/uu.
The two occur in i Jn v. 14 16, where after repeatedly encouraging
his readers to "ask [to receive]" (alrtbpcffa (bis), airfoara, T/r^a^ei/,
alrfoii) the writer goes on to say that there is "a sin unto death,"
and ov nepl KLvrjs A/yco iv a fprnrfoy. This appears to mean that we
must not pray, even with an interrogatory "if it be thy will," where
our consciences tell us that at present it cannot be God's will. It
may be illustrated by Exod. xxxii. 32 "if thou dost purpose to forgive
[it shall be well]," where both a question and a prayer are implied
(see below, p. 463).
6 1 (Mark ix. 14 29)
THE KINGDOM OF GOD"
them, He adds " In that day ye shall not ask me any [question] . . .
if ye shall ask [to receive] anything of the Father, he will give it
you in my name. Hitherto ye have not asked [to receive]
anything in my name. Ask [to receive] and ye shall receive 1 ."
These last words place no direct restriction on prayer. Verbally
they might mean "Ask what you like." But the reader is
made to feel that "in my name" pervades both the precept to
pray and the promise that the prayer shall be fulfilled.
John altogether avoids the words "pray" and "prayer"
(both in his Gospel and in his Epistle) whether in narrative
or in precept. Perhaps he felt that the importance attached
in some quarters to public prayer, prayer in the proseucha, had
led to an underrating of the value of private prayer, uttered
or unuttered best described without technicalities as " asking,"
but with the constant addition of the "name" of the Son, so
as to remind the Christian, whenever he "asked," that he, too,
was a son, and must "ask" as from a father.
There is no reason to suppose that John, who avoids all
narratives of Christ's exorcisms, intervened in order to explain
a Marcan misunderstanding in one of them, but he certainly
does emphasize the influence of personal affection on Jesus in
two important narratives of healing or restoring to life 2 .
6. The first Synoptic passage mentioning the
"delivering up" of "the Son of man"
We now come to the first of several Synoptic passages in
which Jesus predicts that the Son of Man will be "delivered up,"
either "into the hands of men (or, of sinful men)," or "to the chief
priests and the scribes," or "to the Gentiles" or "into the hands of
1 Jn xvi. 17 23. This agrees with i Jn v. 14 16. "Asking
to receive" is limited by what one's conscience "knows" (implied in
"asking to know") concerning the will of God.
2 Jn iv. 46 54, xi. 3 foil. As to the former, compare the healing
in Mt. viii. 6 foil., Lk. vii. 2 foil. But in Mt. the sufferer is caller]
ambiguously throughout " my boy " and " the boy " ; in Lk., " servant "
(repeatedly) and " my boy." In Jn, it is " the son," " his son," "my
little-child," "thy son," "his boy" "thy son " variations perhaps
pointing to early doubts (which Jn clears up) about the meaning
of "boy."
62 . (Mark ix. 14 29)
AND "LITTLE CHILDREN"
the sinful." Mark and Matthew connect this, the first of the
series, with a mention of "Galilee." Luke does not. But
later on, Luke describes the angels at Christ's tomb as referring
to a similar prediction uttered "in Galilee," as shewn below 1 .
In a previous discussion of these passages the conclusion
was arrived at that they are all based on an original prediction
that the Son of Man would be "delivered up for transgressors 2 ."
Referring the reader to that discussion we need do no more
here than ask what is the Johannine attitude toward the
prediction about the "delivering up" of the Messiah in general,
and also toward that part of it which is omitted by Luke here
(though not later on) and which mentions "three days" (or
"the third day").
As to the "delivering up" which, when used passively by
the Synoptists, might sometimes mean either "delivered up
by God" or "delivered up by Judas Iscariot" John avoids
ambiguity by almost always avoiding the passive and by
connecting the word repeatedly with Iscariot 3 . He also
1 Mk ix. 30 -32 Mt. xvii. 22 3 Lk. ix. 43 b 45 Lk. xxiv. 6 7
(R.V.) (R.V.) (R.V.) (R.V.)
(30) And they (22) And while (436) But while (6) He is not
went forth from they abode (some all were marvelling here, but is risen
thence, and passed anc. auth. were ga- at all the things (om. by some anc.
through Galilee; and thering themselves which he did, he auth.): remember
[he would not that together) in Galilee, said unto his dis- how he spake unto
any man should Jesus said unto ciples, you when he was
know it. them, The Son of (44) Let these yet in Galilee,
(31) For he man shall be deliver- words sink into your (7) Saying that
taught his disciples, ed up into the hands ears : for the Son of the Son of man must
and said unto them, of men ; man shall be deliver- be delivered up into
The Son of man is (23) And they ed up into the hands the hands of sinful
delivered up into the shall kill him, and of men. men. and be crucified,
hands of men, and the third day he (45) But they and the third day
they shall kill him; shall be raised up. understood not this rise again.
and when he is And they were ex- saying, and it was
killed, after three ceeding sorry. concealed from them,
that they should not
perceive it : and they
were afraid to ask
him about this say-
ing.
days he shall rise
again.
(32) But they
understood not the
saying, and were
afraid to ask him.
2 See Son 325361.
3 See Jn vi. 64 ris ca-nv 6 TrapaSdxrcoi/, and vi. 71, xii. 4, xiii. 2 etc.
where it is connected with Iscariot. The only instance of the
passive is xviii. 36 Iva ^ napadodS) TOIS 'lovdai'oi?.
63 (Mark ix. 30 32)
"THE KINGDOM OF GOD"
expresses the divine " delivering up" by using the uncompounded
verb "deliver" (literally "give") thus: "God so loved the
world that he gave his only begotten Son that everyone that
believeth in him might not perish but might have life eternal 1 ."
Paul similarly uses both "gave" and "gave-up" (or "delivered-
up") in his Epistles concerning the Father "giving" His Son
to die for sinners 2 .
As regards the "three days/' John mentions the phrase
once for all at the outset of his Gospel in the saying of Jesus
"Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up 3 ."
This appears to be a case of Johannine Intervention. For
Mark connects "three days" with the "raising up" of the
"temple" much later on, in an accusation brought against
Jesus by "false witnesses 4 ." Luke omits it. John inserts it,
but implies that it was not exactly "false," but metaphor
misunderstood at the time as literally true 5 .
7. "He would not that any .man should know [if],"
in Mark*
While considering this first Synoptic prediction of Jesus
about the "delivering up" of the Son of Man we must not
1 Jn iii. 16.
2 Gal. i. 4 "Jesus Christ who gave himself for our sins," ii. 20
" the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself up (rrapadovros) for me,"
comp. Rom. viii. 32 "God... gave him up (irapedantcv) for us all,"
Eph. v. 2 "Christ. . .gave himself up." See Son 3536.
3 Jn ii. 19.
4 Mk xiv. 58, Mt. xxvi. 61, Lk. om.
5 Of course it was open to Christians to believe, and they probably
did believe and were intended by John to believe that the words
"Destroy this temple" were also literally fulfilled by the action of
the Jewish people resulting in the destruction of the Temple by the
Romans.
6 Mk ix. 30 KCU OVK rj6f\(v Iva ris yvol, Latt. codd. "quenquam
scire," but SS "should be aware of him," and Walton sim. for the
Arab., Pers., and Aethiop. "him" ("de se" or "eum"). Comp.
Mk vii. 24 ovftfva rj6f\ev yv >v at, Latt. codd. "neminem voluit scire,"
but SS " should know o/ Mm," and Walton sim. for Arab, and Aethiop.
In Mk v. 43 SteoreiAaro avrols rroXXa Iva p.r)8cls yvol roCr, "this"
64 (Mark ix. 30 32)
AND "LITTLE CHILDREN"
pass over the words that Mark alone prefixes to it. What
motive led Jesus to desire that no man "should know" as He
passed through Galilee? Celsus implies twice that it was
cowardice, first, in the person of a hostile Jew, saying "You
run this way and that way, along with your disciples, away
from [enemies] " ; secondly, in his own person, bringing a charge
of " hiding" and most shameful flight 1 . In the present passage,
Mark's context professes to give a reason ("for he taught"),
as if saying, "He did not desire to be recognised, for He pre-
dicted that He would soon die." But this seems a non sequitur,
and it is not surprising that Matthew and Luke omit the clause 2 .
It becomes intelligible, however, if the tradition is regarded as
having meant something to this effect: "Jesus now knew and
began to teach that His hour was at hand and that He was to
die in Jerusalem. For this reason He passed rapidly through
Galilee avoiding attempts to arrest Him in that region 3 ."
is inserted (parall. Lk. viii. 56 7rdprjyyfL\ev ai/ruis p,rj8(v\ flnflv TO
yeyovos] .
Compare the ambiguity in :
Mk vi. 33 Mt. xiv. 13 Lk. ix. ii
Kdi fiftavavTOVS vrrc'i- OKOlHTaVTtS ol <>\\ni ol dl 0^X01
yovTdS Kdl f'yvoMTav
k.Y. R.V, R.V.
"and [the people] "when the multi- "but the multitudes
saw them going, and tudes heard [thereof] perceiving [it] follow-
many knew [M they followed him." ed him."
A.V. A.Y. A.V.
" and the people saw "when the people "and the people when
them departing, and had heard [thereof] they knew [it] fol-
many knew [him]." they followed him." lowed him."
In view of Marcan usage as a whole, it is probable that Mk vi. 33
eyvvo-av means "recognised the fact" (as R.V. in parall. Lk. "per-
ceiving //").
* l Origen Cels. i. 65, ii. 10.
2 The difficult "for" is omitted by codex k and is altered into
"and" by SS, and into "but" by b and Brix.
3 Comp. Lk. xiii. 33 " It cannot be that a prophet perish out of
Jerusalem." How could this be said after the recent death of the
Baptist "out of Jerusalem"? If "a prophet" could be regarded as
an error (Joh. Gr. 2492 a) for "the prophet" referring to- the Suffering
A. F. 65 (Mark ix. 30 32) 5
"THE KINGDOM OF GOD"
This passage invites us to consider what Matthew calls
a fulfilment of prophecy parallel to another Marcan passage
about "not making known":
Mk iii. 12 Mt. xii. 16 17 Lk. vi. 19 foil. om.
And he charged And he charged
them much that they them that they should
should not make him not make him known:
known. that it might be ful-
filled....
About the prophecy of Isaiah that Matthew proceeds to
quote one seldom noticed in the Talmud and Midrash Ibn
Ezra says "Most of the commentators refer this expression
(' my servant ') to the pious Israelites ; the Gaon to Cyrus ; I to
the prophet 1 ." Justin Martyr and other early Christian writers
lay stress on the mention of "the Gentiles" made by Isaiah
here, but they do not explain the deviation of Matthew's text
from Isaiah's, as given below, and the precise meaning of either 2 .
Matthew's context leaves it open to suppose that a period of
quiet and unobtrusive action on the part of the Messiah during
Servant in Isaiah that would remove the difficulty. Origen (Comm.
Matth. xii. 20, Lomm. iii. 165, and Lomm. iv. 241) allegorizes the
passage.
But Wetstein ad loc. affords a satisfactory explanation by shewing
that OVK eVSe'xercu, "it is not [humanly'] possible," is probably used, in
bitter and ironical condemnation of the Sanhedrin, for "it is not
[legally} possible," referring to the enactment in Sanhedr. 2 a "a.
ialse prophet cannot be judged except by the Council of the Seventy-
one" (comp. ib. 89 a}.
1 Is. xlii. i foil. "Behold, my servant. . .he shall bring forth
judgment, to the Gentiles. He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause
his voice to be heard in the street. A bruised reed shall he not break,
and the smoking flax shall he not quench : he shall bring forth judg-
ment in truth. He shall not fail nor be discouraged till he have set
judgment in the earth, and the isles shall wait for his law," Mt. xii.
18 foil. "Behold, my servant. . .he shall declare judgment to the
Gentiles. He shall not strive, nor cry aloud ; neither shall any one
hear his voice in the streets. A bruised reed shall he not break,
and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment
unto victory. And in his name shall the Gentiles hope."
2 Justin M. Tryph. 123, 135.
66 (Mark ix. 30 32)
AND "LITTLE CHILDREN"
which He would not "cry aloud " might be followed by a period
when He would "bring forth judgment" to all the world,
including "the Gentiles." and when (presumably) He would
"cry aloud 1 ."
The Marcan traditions that Jesus desired " not to be known "
were liable to accusation such as that of Celsus, who alleged
that Jesus "ran away'- disgracefully from danger. John avows
that Jesus "departed from Judaea" or "would not walk in
Judaea 2 ," because of the hostility of the Jews ; but he implies
that there was also a destiny, or " hour." hat regulated His
movements, by saying "his hour was not yet come" a phrase
practically confined to the Fourth Gospel 3 . On one occasion,
the Feast of Tabernacles, Jesus goes up to Jerusalem " as it were
in secret 4 ," and there, while accusing the Jews of wishing to kill
Him, He predicts His own death in the words " I go unto him
that sent me; ye shall seek me and shall not find me," upon
which the Jews say "Will he go unto the Dispersion among
(lit. of) the Greeks and teach the Greeks 5 ?"
Why does John write "teach the Greeks," if he means, and
might have written, "teach the Dispersion," or "teach them,"
i.e. the Dispersion of the Jews among the Greeks'? It is probably
an instance of Johannine irony. The men of Jerusalem speak
contemptuously of their dispersed brethren as "Greeks,"
quasi-foreigners, heretical by nature and suitable proselytes
for an heretical Messiah. But they unconsciously predict that
which literally came to pass. Christ, through His apostles,
began by "going unto the Dispersion among the Greeks," but
very soon proceeded to "teach the Greeks" themselves.
As soon as the Jews have finished speaking, John says
" Xow on the last day, the great [day] of the feast, Jesus stood
and cried [aloud]*." This is the second of three instances
1 This is the view apparently taken in Origen's De rect. Fid. i,
Lomm. xvi. 287, where Is. xlii. i 2 is contrasted with i Thess. iv.
16 17 and Dan. vii. 13.
2 Jn iv. 3, vii. i, comp. xi. 7 8.
3 See Jn ii. 4 " my hour," vii. 30, viii. 20, xiii. i " his hour," comp.
Jn vii. 6 8 (bis) " my appointed time (Kaipos)."
4 Jn vii. 10. 5 Jn vii. 33 5. R Jn vii. 37.
67 (Mark ix. 30 32) . 5 2
"THE KINGDOM OF GOD"
where the Fourth Gospel represents Jesus as "crying aloud."
And the utterance here bears witness to the Spirit ("he spake
concerning the Spirit 1 "). The first utterance was during the
same Feast, a little earlier, when the Jews spoke contemptuously
about "knowing" whence Jesus came: "We know this [man]
whence he is. But when the Christ comes no one understands
whence he is," in reply to which " Jesus cried aloud in the temple,
teaching and saying, Ye both know me, and know whence I am V
This bears witness to the Father.
The third instance bears witness to the Son, as will be per-
ceived from the context. It is a "cry" uttered shortly after
the arrival of "certain Greeks" who "desire to see Jesus."
The context should be noted. Jesus has welcomed this coming
of the "Greeks" as a token of the advent of the day of God's
glory, and He has warned the multitude to "believe in the
light," that they may become children of light. Then the
Evangelist has passed into comment, saying in effect, "And
now Jesus departed and ' was hidden ' from the Jews. For, in
spite of His signs, they could not 'believe in the Light/ since,
as Isaiah said, God had blinded their eyes, and even those
rulers who believed did not confess, for they loved the glory
of men rather than the glory of God."
It is immediately after this that John places Christ's last
public utterance, and the third and last "cry" as part of it:
"But Jesus cried aloud and said, He that believeth on me,
believeth not on me. but on him that sent me ... I am come a
light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me may not
abide in the darkness 3 ."
In Johannine Grammar it was shewn that these three acts
of "crying aloud" represent mystically a threefold testimony
to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit 4 . But it might
have been added that they seem also to contain an allusion
to the prophecy of Isaiah, as interpreted by Matthew about
"not crying," at first, and about "bringing judgment to the
Gentiles."
1 Jn vii. 39. 2 Jn vii. 27 8.
3 Jn- xii. 446. 4 Joh. Gr. 2618.
68 (Mark ix. 30 32)
AND "LITTLE CHILDREN"
Perhaps, too, John regarded the threefold "crying aloud" of
Jesus as* a kind of threefold farewell utterance corresponding to
that in the Nunc Dimittis, where Simeon thanks God for having
seen God's salvation, "a light for revelation to the Gentiles
and the glory of thy people Israel 1 ." But there is this great
difference, that whereas Simeon's vision is of spiritual parallelism
between the new-born Gentile world and faithful Israel, the
thought in the Fourth Gospel is one of spiritual contrast
between the simple faith and insight of the Gentiles and the
self-seeking blindness of Israel after the flesh.
Our conclusion is that the Fourth Evangelist desires to make
us see the unvarying principle on which Christ based His varying
practice. Sometimes He "would not that any man should
know" His movements, but sometimes He desired them to be
known. As a rule He was not given to "crying aloud," but
He did "cry aloud" on three notable occasions. The Son acts
according to the Father's bidding. If He leaves Judaea to
avoid death, He also goes back to Judaea to save life 2 . When
His brethren wish Him to go up to Jerusalem, go up publicly
He will not, but He goes "as it were in secret " to the Feast of
Tabernacles because His "time" is "not yet come 3 ." Yet,
soon afterwards, He "went up into the temple and taught"
with such freedom that some of the citizens of Jerusalem say
"Is not this he whom they seek to kill? And lo, he speaketh
openly 4 ." On two occasions we are told, perhaps ambiguously,
that He "was hidden" from the Jews in the Temple 5 . On
1 Lk. ii. 32. Note the reiterations in Isaiah (xlii. i 6) "bring
forth judgment to the Gentiles. . .shall bring forth judgment in truth. .-.
judgment in the earth. . .the isles shall wait for his law (Mt. in his
name shall the Gentiles hope) . . .for a covenant of the people, for a
light of the Gentiles." Comp. Jn vii. 35 " the dispersion of the Greeks. . .
the Greeks" (with context), xii. 20 "certain Greeks," followed by
(ib. 28) "a voice from heaven" and (76. 31) "now is the judgment of
this world," with repeated mentions of (ib. 35) "light," concluding
with the mention of (ib. 46 8) "light" and "judging" all of which
(ib. 49 50) proceed from the 'Father through the Son
2 Jn x. 39 40, xi. 8. 3 Jn vii. 3 10. 4 Jn vii. 25 6.
5 Jn viii. 59, xii. 36. Comp. Joh. Gr. 2543. Probably John plays
on the twofold meaning "was hidden" and "hid himself." He
69 (Mark ix. 30 32)
TIIK KINC.DOM OK COD"
one of these they had -it tempted to stone Him. Some mi:Jit
est, perhaps, thai .t circle of His disciples "hid" their
Master in a literal sense; but the Kv;mi;clist desires to suggest
a different kind of "hiding," as may In* seen from his context :
"These things spake Jesus and departed and wns hidden from
them. Hut though he had done so many si^ns before them
they \\onld not believe in him . . . because Isaiah said...//*'
hath blinded their eves [ ."
<S.
a 7/<> is "the
Mark relates, first, a coming of the disciples to Capei -11,111111 ;
secondly, a questioning of the disciples by Jesus "in the house"
Ms tli. it. the "hiding" waS hteial aiul miraculous but also that
it was lvpii-.il "I a spiritual blindim-, whereby Christ "was hidden "
lioin those who (ejected 1 Inn.
1 jnxii.36 |o. John quotes a passage of Isaiah (vi. 10) also quoted
1>\- the SynOptistS, Hut in his description of Jesus as beini; " hidden "
horn the |ews he has perhaps in view Is. \1\ . i , "Verily thou art
a C.od that hides! thyself. ( ) ( iod of Israel, the Saviour." 1 lis C.ospel
i-diistanth- Suggests to us that it is part of the teacher's business
to suppress the desire to teach all that he knows, and that ( iod
" hides "whenever 1 le " reveals." Km the " hiding " is \-ei \- ililti-n-ut in
(lifferiMit circumstances, sometimes bemL; a eliastisement, souu'times
a blessing,
Mt . \\ n. j i 5,
2 MU i\. ^7
(K.\'.)
(\\] Ami t hex-
came to Capernaum :
and when he was in
the house he asked
them, What were ve
reasoning in the
\\a\
Hut they
held their peace : tor
thev had disputed
One with .mother in
the wav, who was
the greatest (///.
mater).
(35) And h-
down, and called t he
t wel\-e ; and lie saitli
unto them. It .mv
man would be first ,
\\ m. i . \\in. i i ,
\\ in 2 ,. \. 40
(R.V.)
,n. .: \] Ami
when they were come
to Capernaum, they
that received the
half-shekel came to
Peter, and said, I >oth
not your master ;
teaehei-) pav the halt-
shekel
llesaith.yea.
Ami when lie came
into t he house. . . .
(xviii, i) In that
hour came the dis
ciples unto Jesus,
saving. \\'ho tluMi is
lest (///. mater)
in tlu- kius^doiu of
heaven
70 (Mark ix. 33 7)
l.k. i\. |.
\\n. 26
(RiV.)
d\. .)(>) And there
aros(> a reasoning
ainoiij; them, whicli
of them should be
greatest (///. greater 1 ).
AND "LITTLE CHILDREN"
as to their " reasoning in the way"; thirdly, the fact that they
had been disputing, " in tin- wa\ ," ,is to "who (was) the greatest"
(literally "[the] greater") ; fourthly, Christ's settlement of the
discussion; fifthly, His confirmation of the settlement by
taking a child 'in His arms and saying that whosoever received
such a child in His name received Him. Matthew and Luke
omit the questioning of the disciples by Jesus. Matthew in
a questioning of Jesus by the disciples. Luke inserts no
HiestioniiiL; oi .any kind, but implies that Jesus saw, without
questioning, "the reasoning of their heart."
But Matthew inserts ;i <piest ionin- of lYtei by JesiiN in the
Mk i\. -53 7
(R.V.) contd.
Oi all,
and minister o! all.
Am 1 he t' ink
a lit tie ( lnld, ai
him in tin- midst ..1
them : and takim-,
him in his arms, lie
UntO them,
(37) Whosoever
shall ne oi
such little children
in my name, KM eiv
et h me : and whoso-
Lveth me,
t h not me, Nut
him t hat .-nl me.
-5,
i . I , \ \ 1 1 1 II,
(K.V.) contd.
it he
that I (///.
shall he yo
(or, m
in. j) And he
called to him a little
child, and set him in
the midst ot them,
(3) -^"d
Verily I v ''v unto
V< ill , Kxcept \ e 1 mil,
and !)< omC .is little
children, ye shall in
6 enter into t he
kmj'dom o| hea\ en .
(.]) Whosoever
therefore shall hum
hie hlinselt as this
little < hild, tin
is th' ; (///.
greater) in the king-
dom of heaven.
(5) And \\
siiaii rei eive on<
little child in my
name receiveth me.
(x. 40) He that
tli \' m i ( eiv
eth me, and he lhat
ih me ret eiv-
et h him that sent me.
Lk. i.\. .\(> 8,
(K.V.) contd.
(47) I'.nt when
soiling ol their
he took a
hi tie hild. and set
him l>v his side,
d un
to them, \\h-
shall !< eh e this
little . hild ill II1V
name rei ci\-et h me :
and u bosoever shall
e me ic. eiveth
him that sent me:
ioi he thai r \< ,\- .\
(lit. lesser) ainoii'-.
von all, the same is
Meat.
fxxn. 20) But ye
[shall] not II"
but he that is the
greater amon^ you,
let hill) become as
the voinR'cr; and he
that is chief,
that doth s' i
71 (Mark ix. 337)
THE KINGDOM OF GOD"
context, as well as a mention of "the house." For immediately
after the "coming to Capernaum," Matthew says that men
"came to Peter and said, Doth not your master pay the half-
shekel?" and that, when Peter "came into the house," Jesus
questioned him about "tribute" and "kings of the earth."
Then follows the narrative of the Stater, ending with the words
of Jesus " Give unto them for me and thee." And then, without
a break, Matthew proceeds "In that hour came the disciples
unto Jesus, saying, Who, then, is greatest in the kingdom of
heaven ? " Here, the addition of " then," and " in the kingdom of
heaven," seems to connect the question "Who is the greatest? "
with the preceding story about Peter as though Peter seemed
"the greatest," having been specially favoured both by the
miracle and by being associated with his Master ("for me and
for thee") 1 .
Orifen asks the meaning of Matthew's phrase "in that hour"
or "in that day," expressly saying that the MSS vary. This
affords external evidence for the conclusion to which internal
evidence also points, that at an early period there was doubt
about the date and the occasion of this doctrine on the question
"Who is the greatest?" The Diatessaron says that the tax-
collectors came "when Simon went forth, without." But these
words occur nowhere in the New Testament except after
Peter's denial (in Mark and Matthew) 2 . And Origen regards
Jesus in the story of the Stater as symbolically "comforting"
Peter and assuring him that he is "free" from sin, and "a son"
of God 3 . These are indications that Matthew's narrative may
be another version of the story of Peter's fishing or rather
taking the lead in fishing which John places after Christ's
resurrection 4 .
1 So Clem. Alex. 947 Tierpos. . .virep ov fjiovov Kal eavTov TOV <j)6pov 6
acoTTjp KTf\f1, and Origen (and Jerome) on Mt. xvii. 24 7.
2 Mk xiv. 68 cgfj\6cv e, Mt. xxvi. 75 %\0a>v eo>, [LH. xxii. 62].
This will be discussed in its order, p. 537 foil.
3 Origen Comm. Matth. xiii. u, Lomm. iii. 232.
4 See Notes 2999 (vii) (xvi) on the story of the Stater. If " went
forth without" meant "outside the circle (Heb. house] of Christ's
disciples," then Mt. xvii. 25 "when he came into the house" would
mean "when he returned to that house." In Mark, the repeated
72 (Mark ix. 33 7)
AND "LITTLE CHILDREN"
These Synoptic variations are followed by still more impor-
tant deviations in Matthew and Luke from the Marcan version
of Christ's words "If any one desires to be first he shall be last
of all." Their natural meaning is "He shall be punished by
being last of all/' But this punitive meaning is out of place
here. A better sense would be given by substituting the
imperative "Let him become, or, make himself, last of all,"
which Luke has elsewhere 1 . That would resemble the Synoptic
tradition with the imperative, "If any one desires to follow me
let him take up his cross 2 ." There are many instances of such
an imperative in the New Testament 3 . There is probably no
instance in the New Testament (except in a Mark-Matthew
(ix. 33 4) "in the way" may naturally have been omitted by Mt.-
Lk. as superfluous. But the word is frequent in the Acts, and occurs
also in Hennas, to mean " the Way of the Lord " in a particular sense,
namely, "the Way of the Gospel" as distinct from " the way of the
Law" concerning which Jethro said to Moses (Exod. xviii. 20) " thou
shalt shew them the way wherein they uinst walk." Doubtless Mark
took it literally both here and in other passages where he alone
inserts it, but it might have meant originally "in [reasoning con-
cerning] the Way" When Jesus said (Mk vi. 8, Lk. ix. 3, comp.
Mt. x. 10) "Take nothing for the (Lk. ins. rr]v) way," it is probable
that His disciples understood Him as including the meaning "Take
nothing for the Way [of the Lord]," which perhaps Lk.'s T/)J/ emphasi/es.
In Mk x. 17 "when he was going forth to [the] way," Matthew
and Luke who omit the clause perhaps discerned another super-
fluity. But it was the way to Jerusalem, and the way to the Cross.
And it introduces the story of the rich young man, who did not
understand what the Way meant, to which succeeds, after an interval,
the story of the blind beggar who (Mk x. 52) "followed Jesus in the
way." There is much to be said for the hypothesis, here and else-
where, of a twofold meaning in Mark. See Light 3755 c -j on " The
Way of the Lord" and "The Way," and Law pp. 494 5. To
these add that (Levy i. 163 a, 424 b) the Aramaic and Hebrew
words for "way" may be used to denote "incidental (beilaufig) "
1 Lk. xxii. 26 6 neifav. . .yiveo-da o>r 6 i/ecorepo?. This is parall. to
carat (rep.) in Mk x. 43 4, Mt. xx. 26 7.
2 Mk viii. 34, Mt. xvi. 24, Lk. ix. 23.
3 Comp. I Cor. xiv. 35 d df n pavQdveiv 0(\ovariv . . .fT
2 Thess. iii. 10 ei TLS ov 6e\fi epyd{t(r0ai p-rjde eV$ie'ro>, etc.
73 (Mark ix. 337)
"THE KINGDOM OF GOD"
repetition of this tradition later on) where "he shall be," in
such a sentence as Mark's, means "let him become 1 ." It is
not surprising that Matthew and Luke have altered it and that
the Diatessaron omits it. Origen, it is true, extracts a non-
punitive sense out of Mark; but he does it with the preface
that the words "are able to be understood as meaning" so-and-
so; and in his own words, when paraphrasing Mark, he (like
Luke) alters "he shall be" into "let him become 2 "
It would be rash to say that Origen is wrong. For the
Hebrew future sometimes represents the imperative 3 , and
Mark's Greek may be Hebraic, to be interpreted Hebraically.
But the point of importance for us is, that Mark has not clearly
expressed this doctrine as to "who is the greatest?," that
Matthew and Luke have deviated from it, and that we may
consequently expect to find Johannine Intervention.
John intervenes as follows in two ways, first, as to the
general question (in Mark and Matthew) " Who is the greatest? "
and secondly, as to the particular question (in Luke) "which of
1 Mk x. 43 4, Mt. xx. 26 7, co-rat vpfov diaKovos. . .tcrrai TTCIVTUIV
(Mt. vjjubv) dov\os. The future would naturally be used of con-
sequent reward, or consequent punishment (but not of duty) as in
i Cor. iii. 12, 14, 15, 17. When the Apostle passes to what ought
to be done he uses the imperative, ib. 18 ct ris So/ccI crotyos ctVai. . .
fjicopos yfv 4o~Bu> Iva yfvrjrai o~o(pos.
In Mt. xxiii. n there is no "if-clause" (as there is in the parall.
Mk ix. 35) and the future may be the legal future : " [The Law is
that] the greatest of you shall be your servant."
2 Origen (on Mt. xix. 30, Lomm. iii. 383 foil.) OVTG> de dvvarai
Kal TO (Mk ix. 35) "Ei ns 6e\t rr-pwros elvai co-Tat TTCLVTODV
" a>s ci eAfyej/ 'ETTCI vvv TO. TrpcoreTa \a/j.f3dvovo'iv ol OTTO TCOV eOvav
. . . 'i ris /SouXcrat TO dXrjdivov rrpwrov dvaXaftclv, yevecrda) Iv roils VTTO rov
vvv 'lo-pa^X foxtrots flvai vfvopi(rp.fvois, i.e. " If anyone wills and purposes
to attain the real and ideal FIRST, 'let Mm become [one] among
those who by the Israel of this present world are thought of as last."
Also on Mt. xviii. 2 foil., Origen, when he comes to Mk ix. 35
(Lomm. iii. 245), guotes with yevecrdai (f'i riy 0e'Xet Trpatros yevfo-dai),
and prob. (Cod. Reg.) with eVreo, having previously said that the
first place shall be obtained by rov yevoptvov iravrw eo^o-rov.
3 E.g. Gen. i. 3 "Let there be light," LXX yfvrjdrjTto, Aq. yfveo-6<t>,
Sym. eo-ro, Exofl. xxxv. 2, T K. ii. 24 "let him die," LXX Exod.
, but I K. 0avciT(t)Or)o~fTai..
74 (Mark ix. 337)
AND "LITTLE CHILDREN"
them should be the greatest." In his Gospel, the GREATER
is always identified with the Father and Giver in heaven, who
is continually giving to the Son and through the Son, and of
whom the Son says that He is "greater than all," and, later on,
"The Father is greater than I 1 ." This is the general view of
greatness. Not till the Last Discourse, and after the Washing
of Feet, comes the particular warning to the disciples "A
servant is not greater than his lord nor an apostle greater than
he that sent him 2 ." By that time it has been made clear to
them that the greatness they are to aim at consists in divine
love and divine giving, or grace 3 , and that the Father, though
called GREATER by the Son, is not "greater" than the Son
according to any measurement of this world ; for almost in the
same sentence in which the Father is called "greater than all.."
the Son says "I and the Father are one 4 ." When Jesus says
to Peter in the only passage where the Fourth Gospel suggests
a thought of superiority of one disciple over another "lovest
thou me more than these 5 ?" the question is obviously a
gentle rebuke and may include the meaning "Dost thou still,
as in old days, desire to be foremost and first ? If thou dost,
there is only one way. He is the greatest whose love is the
greatest. And he who loves the shepherd will feed the sheep."
9. " Taking a little child in his arms," in Mark
Both here and later on, Matthew and Luke omit the Marcan
tradition that Jesus "took a little child in his arms 6 ." Also,
1 Jn x. 29, xiv. 28. - Jn xiii. n>, xv. 20.
3 Comp. Jn xv. 13 "greater love hath no one than this, that one
lay down his life for his friends."
4 Jn x. 29 30. 5 Jn xxi. 15.
6 Mk ix. 36 Mt. xviii. 2 Lk. ix. 47
KUI Xa/Sobv TratSi'oi/ Kmirpoa-KaX((r(ifj.vos f7riXa@op.fvos irai-
(TTTJ(T(V (1VTO fV fie'oXB TTdldlOV e(TTTJ(TfV aVTO V dtOV (TTTJ(TV O.VTO ITClp
avTwv Kfil (vayKa\i(Td- /ieovo aureoi'. eavra>.
/if I/OS aVTO . . .
Lk. xviii. 17
Mk x. i') Mt. xix. 15 foil. om.
not vay<d\i(rdfji vos <al
TO.S xpas e aura.
See Son 3425 a -/on the "carrying" of Israel by Jehovah, and
75 (Mark ix. 337)
"THE KINGDOM OF GOD"
instead of (Mark and Matthew) "caused [the child] to stand in
the midst of them [i.e. the disciples]," Luke has "caused [the
child] to stand by his side." There are other variations, some
pointing to early Semitic or Greek corruption 1 . But these do
not greatly diminish the probability that Mark has preserved
the original tradition, and that there were two distinct acts.
In the first, Jesus placed the little child within the circle of the
disciples, identifying it with them. In the second, He took it
up in His arms, identifying it with Himself. This has been
modified by Matthew and Luke, partly perhaps owing to
on its paraphrase, or misrepresentation, in LXX. Similar causes to
those which influenced the translators of Deut. i. 31 "carried," LXX
frpo(po(p6pTjar or erpOTrotyoprjcre, Aq. rjpfv, Sym. fftaaTaartv, may have
influenced Matthew and Luke here Mark being alone in preserving
Christ's symbolical action.
1 See Son 3518 a on the Marcan traditions about "raising up,"
Mk i. 31 (not in Lk. iv. 39), ix. 27 "raised up" the demoniac child
(not in Mt.-Lk.). In Mk x. 16, evayKokia-dfievos is altered by D
into irpo<r<a\<rdiJLvos which is also in the text of the parall. Lk. xviii.
1 6 and in Mt. xviii. 2 (Mt. xix. 15 om. the word). 'Ei/ay/<aXio/iai,
in LXX, occurs only in Prov. vi. TO (rep. xxiv. 33) "folding (pSfl)
the hands," Aq. 7repiXa/i/3ai>o>.
In Mk ix. 36, SS has "And he had taken (3D3) a certain (in)
lad and made him to stand (or, raised him up) among them and
looked ("in) at him" (instead of "embraced")', and in Lk. ix. 47,
omitting "certain (in)," SS has "took hold of (1HK) a lad" (Curet.
inserts "certain") "and made him to stand (or, raised him up) by
them " (instead of (Curet.) " by him"). Comp. Mk ix. 27 (the demoniac
child) "took hold of (IrlK) him by the hand and made him to stand
(or, raised him up)." These facts indicate that there may have been
confusion between "in "looked" and in "a certain," and also between
Heb. intf "one," "a certain" and Aram. iriK "take hold of" (Heb.
tnx) (see Corrections 487 (i) () foil., and Gesen. 28 a on Job viii. 17).
In i K. i. 2, Heb. "in the bosom of" is paraphrased in LXX by
/irra, and in i K. iii. 20, Heb. "from my side (^>tf) . . .inher&osow (p'n) "
are both rendered in Targ. by forms of ni/ In Goodspeed, * 0X71-0?
occurs only in 2 Clem. 4 lav $re per' e/iov o-vvrjypevoi ei> ra> KoXircp pov,
on which Lightf. says that it is perhaps from the Gospel of the
Egyptians and that the language is derived from Is. xl. 1 1 r&> ftpaxiovt . . .
KOI fv ro> KoXrroj, where the latter clause, though om. in the best MSS
of LXX, is in several MSS and Versions, and in the Hebrew.
76 (Mark ix. 33 7)
AND "LITTLE CHILDREN"
corruption of the text, partly because they did not perceive
the distinct meanings of the two symbolical acts, and, in
particular Christ's thought of the Father of Israel, "carrying"
His child in "the wilderness" as described in Deuteronomy.
It is true that Mark sometimes repeats one and the same
tradition in two forms ; but in this case the evidence indicates
either that he has not done so, or that, if he has done so, the
rare word for "embracing" or "taking in the arms" was a
part of the original. The action is so emotional and original
that we can explain its omission by Matthew and Luke. We
could not explain its insertion (without authority) by Mark.
In the Fourth Gospel the thought of the Child in the
"bosom" of the Father is brought before us at first only in
a metaphysical form as the Word " [looking] toward, or [in close
relation] with, God 1 ," but very soon definitely, as "the only
begotten Son, who is in (lit. to) the bosom of the Father 2 ." The
word does not occur again till the evening of the Last Supper,
where it is connected with the thought of love: "There was at
the table reclining in the bosom of Jesus one of his disciples,
whom Jesus loved 3 ." The Greek word here as also above
used for "bosom" means, strictly speaking, the fold of the
garment over the breast, not the breast itself. But the Gospel
proceeds to use the latter term : " He leaning back, as he was,
on the breast of Jesus 4 ." This is repeated later on, after a
dialogue about loving, when Peter "seeth the disciple whom
Jesus loved following [that same disciple] who also leaned back
on his breast at the supper 5 ." Finally this "disciple" is men-
tioned in almost the last sentence of the book: "This is the
disciple that beareth witness of these things and wrote these
things; and we know that his witness is true 6 ."
Even if these passages stood alone we might reasonably
infer that this Johannine picture of the disciple in Christ's
1 Jn i. I rrptis. 2 Jn i. 18 els rov K.O\TTOV.
3 Jn xiii. 23. 4 Jn xiii. 25.
5 Jn xxi. 20. Jesus has previously asked Peter (xxi. 15- 17)
"Lovest (aycnras) them me more than these?" and then, twice
(but using first dya-rras, then $i\eiy), " Love,st thou me ? "
6 Jn xxi. 24.
77 (Mark ix. 337)
"THE KINGDOM OF GOD"
bosom, whom Jesus loved, is intended, not only to describe
actual fact (or, actual vision) as regards one disciple, but also
to suggest to us the thought of all the disciples whom Jesus
loves and carries like little children in His bosom. As the Only
begotten Son in the bosom of the Father uniquely declares the
Father, so such a bosom disciple (it is suggested) bears witness
to, and uniquely declares, the Son. Such a disciple is the
representative of Jesus in every region of His love: "When
Jesus therefore saw his mother and the disciple standing by
whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, see, thy son \
Then saith he to the disciple, See, thy mother 1 ! " It is
from the Word with God, the Only begotten who is, like
a Little Child, in the bosom of the Father, that there comes,
to those who receive Him, authority to become "[newborn]
children of God" : "As many as received him, to them he gave
authority to become [newborn] children of God, to them that
believe in his name, who were begotten, not from . . . but from
God 2 ." Thus the doctrine of regeneration goes hand in hand
with the doctrine of belief, or faith, in the name of the Son.
But it is not to be merely barren belief: "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 abode with him 3 ." The Father
does not "come" alone, nor the Son alone; nor do they come
without the fulfilment of a condition ("if") ; they come, united,
in the Spirit of Love to those who welcome them in that Spirit.
Our conclusion is that John has intervened in favour of
Mark, or rather in favour of the Hebrew thought latent in Mark.
The Law said to Israel "The Lord thy God carried thee as
a man doth carry his sow 4 ." Isaiah, in the Hebrew text, pre-
dicted that the Shepherd of Israel would not only gather the
lambs with His arm but also " carry them in his bosom 5 ." These
metaphors were regarded by Jesus as meaning, in effect, "The
idols of the heathen are carried by their worshippers, and the
kings of this world are carried in state by the subjects whom
1 Jn xix. 26. See Proclam. p. 473.
2 Jn i. 12 13. 3 Jn xiv. 23.
4 Deut. i. 31. 5 Is. xl. ii.
78 (Mark ix. 33 7)
AND "LITTLE CHILDREN"
they oppress, but the True God is the Nursing Father who
carries His children as babes and sustains them as though He
were* their nurse." Then followed the inference that the true
and real man in the New Kingdom^-the man "made in the
image and conformed to the likeness" of God is to be, not
a servant or subject, but a child, being born from above and
resting as a babe on the bosom of the Father in heaven. Being
Himself this ideal Child, Jesus desired passionately to impart
to His disciples, as to His fellow-children, the sense of the need
of this regeneration, and He imparted it not only by uttered
word but also through passionate action which Mark has most
faithfully described. John does not describe it but leads us
to the thought of what it implies partly by Christ's doctrine,
partly by Johannine comment, partly by Johannine drama,
introducing the character of the beloved disciple reclining on
the "bosom" of Jesus.
10. "In my name," and "because ye are Christ's,"
in Mark 1
Luke omits the Marcan tradition "There is no man that
shall do a mighty work in my name and be able quickly to
1 Mk ix. 3841
(R.V.)
(38) John said un-
to him, Master (or,
Teacher) , we saw one
casting out devils in
thy name : and we
forbade him, because
he followed not us.
(39) But Jesus
said, Forbid him not :
for there is no man
which shall do a
mighty work (lit.
power) in my name,
and be able quickly
to speak evil of me.
(40) For he that is
not against us is for
us.
(41) For whoso-
ever shall give you a
Alt. x. 42 Lk. ix. 49 50
(R.V.) (R.V.)
(49) And John an-
swered and said,
Master, we saw one
casting out devils in
thy name; and we
forbade him, because
he followeth not with
us.
(50) But Jesus
said unto him, For-
bid [him] not: for
he that is not against
you is for you.
And whosoever
shall give to drink
unto one of these
little ones a cup of
cold water only, in
79 (Mark ix. 38 41
"THE KINGDOM OF GOD"
speak evil of me," though he inserts the words of Jesus that
pfecede and follow it. Perhaps Luke had in view the "vagabond
Jews" who practised exorcism with adjuration through " Jesus-
whom-Paul-preacheth" as though this compound "name" were
a name of power in the world of demons 1 . Mark's tradition
may have been used by some impostors to justify themselves
in the eyes of Christians: "We cast out devils in the name of
Jesus ; consequently we are Christians." The meaning attached
by Mark to "in my name" must be illustrated by the Marcan
context, where "name" is mentioned in the Greek, though not
in the R.V. text, "in [the] name that [R.V. (text) because] ye
are Christ's," and also by the parallel Matthew which has "in
(lit. into) the name of a disciple."
Matthew also substitutes "one of these little ones" for the
Marcan "you" (in "give you a cup of water") 2 . And this
Mk ix. 38 41 Mt. x. 42 Lk. ix. 49 50
(R.V.) contd. (R.V.) contd. (R.V.)
cup of : water to drink, the name of a dis-
because (lit. in name ciple, verily I say un-
that) ye are Christ's, to you, he shall in no
verily I say unto you, wise lose his reward,
he shall in no wise
lose his reward.
1 Acts xix. 13 "took upon them to name over them. . .the name
of the Lord Jesus, saying, I adjure you by Jesus whom Paul
preacheth."
2 Clem. Alex. 579 and 953 (quoting Mt. x. 42 loosely) and Jerome
and Chrys. ad loc. assume that "these little ones" meant either
apostles or disciples of Christ in general, without implying spiritual
littleness in the sense of weakness. This is more probable than the
notion that Jesus meant, by "little ones," those who need teaching,
as in the Midr. on Gen. xiv. i (Wii. p. 191) quoted by Wetstein on
Mt. x. 42 a saying of no authority, put into the mouth of king
Ahaz. Tertull. Adv. Marc. iv. 35 quotes Lk. xvii. 2 "one of these
little ones" as meaning "one of His disciples." Christ's tender and
affectionate use of the word "little one" may be perhaps illustrated
by Is. Ix. 22, but more by Jewish thoughts about "the little one"
as exemplified in Benjamin and David (Jacob also, as compared
with Esau, is "the little one"). See Proclam. p. 419 referring to
Aboth iv. 26 on the name "Samuel the Little."
Clem. Rom. 46 (see Lightf.) twice mentions TO>I> K\KTWV /JLOV,
in quoting the Gospels, where Lk. xvii. 2 has T&V p.iKp&v TOVTUV, but
80 (Mark ix. 38 41)
AND "LITTLE CHILDREN"
usefully reminds us that the preceding Marcan context has
been speaking of a "little-child" or "one of such little-children"
as Christ's representative. Matthew also has spoken of a
special "little-child" as being placed by Jesus "in the midst of"
the disciples, and of Jesus as saying "Whosoever receiveth one
such little-child in my name receiveth me." This "little-child"
Jerome prefers to regard, not (i) as the Holy Spirit (which is
Origen's view), nor (2) as a "casual (quemlibet) little one"
introduced as a type of simple childhood, but (3) as "Jesus
Himself 1 ." This last view (and by what act or gesture Jesus
"placed Himself in their midst") Jerome does not clearly
explain. But it is useful as reminding us of the language of
Jesus about John the Baptist and Himself as "children in the
market place 2 ," and as suggesting to us that in the Marcan
passage under consideration, "in the name that ye are Christ's"
may have originally been "in the name of the Little-Child."
This, being interpreted and rightly as meaning "in the
name of the Messiah," may have caused Mark to render it by
the paraphrase in his extant text 3 .
If this explanation is correct, the original of Mark's tradition
Mk ix. 42 adds TG>I> TritrrfvovTayv and Mt. xviii. 6 TWV TTKTTCVOVTWV ds (p.f.
Here (i) Lk. seems to have preserved the original, (2) Mk paraphrased,
(3) Mt. made the paraphrase clearer, (4) Clem. Rom. occidentalised
the mental "little ones" as "elect." The meaning is retained by
Clement, but the homely and spiritual beauty is gone, submerged in
technical theology.
1 Jerome on Mt. xviii. 2 " Vel simpliciter quemlibet parvulum, ut
aetatem quaereret et similitudinem innocentiae demonstraret : vel
certe parvulum statuit in medio eorum seipsum, qui non ministrari
sed ministrare venerat, ut eis humilitatis tribueret exemplum. Alii
parvulum ihterpretantur Spiritum sanctum, quern posuerit in
cordibus discipulorum, ut superbiam in humilitatem mutaret."
Origen Comm. Matth. xiii. 18 (Lomm. iii. 243) describes the Holy
Spirit as being "called by the Saviour, and made to stand in the
moral centre of the disciples of Jesus (crradev eV /ueV&> r<a tiyenoviKcj) TWV
IJLaOrjTav 'Irja-ov)," that is, in their heart and conscience.
- Mt. xi. ii 19, Lk. vii. 28 35, see Son 3523 5.
3 See Son 3534 d where reasons are given for preferring this
explanation to the one offered in Clue 268 72 (that the original was
"in the NAME," i.e. "in God's name").
A. F. 81 (Mark ix. 3841) 6
"THE KINGDOM OF GOD"
might be regarded by the Fourth Evangelist as meaning " When
I speak of doing a work 'in my name' I do not mean 'in the
name of Jesus' as a wizard might say 'in the name of lao'
some supposed Being of which he knew nothing except that
this combination of syllables enabled him to work wonders.
Nor is it like 'in the name of Caesar,' meaning 'in the name of
the Power at present on the imperial throne.' I mean 'in the
name of Jesus the Little One of God/ inseparable from the
Father; or 'Jesus the Anointed or Messiah of God,' inseparable
from the Anointing Spirit of Regeneration. The name of Jesus
must not be used as a charm, loosened and detached from the
thoughts of Son of God and Anointed of God." Luke gives the
impression of not perceiving that Jesus is associating Himself, as
the Little One, with the disciples, who are also "little ones."
Whereas Mark has "he that is not against us is for us," Luke
has "you" instead of "us." He has also omitted the Marcan
words "There is no man that shall do a mighty work in my
name. . . speak evil of me " ; perhaps because he did not perceive
that "in my name" meant "in my Spirit," and obviously no
one speaking "in the Spirit of Jesus" could "speak evil" of
Jesus Himself.
Turning to Johannine facts, we find the name "Christ"
apparently used by Jesus thus: "And this is eternal life, that
they should know thee, the only true God, and [him} whom thou
sentest Jesus Christ*" This extremely difficult expression
may perhaps be best explained, if the text is correct (which is
by no means certain), as a paraphrase intended to sum up the
doctrine of "eternal life," which is here mentioned for the last
time in this Gospel. It was mentioned for the first time in
a passage that speaks of "the Son of man" as destined to be
"lifted up" on earth, in consequence of the action of God in
heaven, who " so loved the world that he gave his only begotten
Son that whosoever believeth on him should not perish but have
eternal life 2 ." Now we are at last told what "eternal life" is.
We might have supposed that the definition would stop short
1 Jn xvii. 3, on which see Joh. Gr. 1936.
2 Jn iii. 14 16.
82 (Mark ix. 3841)
AND "LITTLE CHILDREN"
at " to know thee, the only true God." But the text adds words
apparently intended to remind us that when we speak of
"only," or "alone," in connection with God, we must not stop
at that word if there is a danger of its being misunderstood as
" solitary." We must go on to say that He is not really " alone,"
since He is, and always was, with the Son who declares Him 1 ,
and who is here brought before our view as giving His account
of the work that He had to do as the Man (Jesus), as the
Messiah (Christ), and as the Messenger from heaven to earth
("whom thou hast sent") 2 .
Returning to the Marcan traditions "in my name" and
"speak evil of me," we are naturally led to illustrate them from
the Pauline saying " No man speaking in the Spirit of God saith
Jesus is anathema 3 " ; for Mark's " speak-evil-of" is used by him
and by Matthew to express "cursing" (as used by LXX in
rendering the Mosaic decree "he that cur set li father or mother
let him die the death 4 "). Paul has perhaps in view such public
" speaking-evil-of (or, cursing) the Way [of Christ]" in the
synagogue as he himself experienced on the part of Jews in
Ephesus 5 . A parallel to this Pauline saying about the anathe-
matizing of Jesus is found in the Johannine Epistle "Prove
1 Jn i. 1 8 "The only begotten Son that is in the bosom of the
Father, he hath declared him." ''Only begotten (povoyevTjs) Son"
balances, as it were, " only (povos) true God." Neither epithet implies
solitude.
2 It must be admitted that this explanation of the mention of
"Jesus" is not satisfactory. It has been suggested (comp. Joh. Gr.
2768 9) that viov crov, after 6i> a7r<fo-rfiXay, may have been written
Y"NCOY and corrupted into mcoy i-6. 'Ii/o-oCv, and then Xpurrov added.
3 i Cor. xii. 3.
4 Mk vii. 10, Mt. xv. 4 Ka/coXo-ye'ca, quoting Exod. xxi. 17 R.V.
" curse " (marg. " revile ") . The causative (pi.) of the verb W?p means
(Gesen. 8866) "prop, make contemptible," but in Exod. xxi. 17 it
is parall. to (xxi. 15) "strike" and implies something more serious
than bringing into contempt. It occurs in Gen. xii. 3 " I will bless
them that bless thee and him that curseth thee will I curse." The
noun rpi?p is rendered (about 30 times) without exception as "curse,"
apd, Kardpa etc. Goodspeed gives <aKoXoye'a> only in Didach. 2 ov
\oyr](Tis, "non maledices."
5 Acts xix. 9 KdKoXoyovvTes TTJV 68ov. . ..
83 (Mark ix. 38 41) 6 2
"THE KINGDOM OF GOD"
the spirits, whether they are of God, because many false
prophets are gone out into the world . . . every spirit that
looseth (or, confesseth not) Jesus is not of God; and this is the
[spirit] of the antichrist...*." The two together bring us
back to the meaning that appears to be latent under the
Marcan tradition: "There is no fear that one who really casts
out devils in my name, that is, in the name of the Little One, the
Spirit of Sonship, will find it possible, a few minutes afterwards,
to curse me in the Synagogue. For the casting out is in the
Spirit of Christ, but the cursing would be in the spirit of the
antichrist."
It should be noted that this saying ("Forbid him not") is
the only one in the Synoptic Gospels that is recorded (so far
as concerns the first part of it) as having come from Jesus to
the Apostle John 2 . In its inclusive spirit it resembles the post-
1 i Jn iv. i 3. R.V. marg. gives no parall. to I Cor. xii. 3
except this. An examination of the authorities alleged in Westcott's
excursus on i Jn iv. 3 W.-H. txt /*?} 6/ioXo-yeI, marg. Avei, should be
supplemented by a consideration of Jn ii. 19 Xvo-are, applied to the
Holy Place and also to Christ's "body." The facts, as a whole,
suggest as the most probable conclusion that " looseth Jesus," though
no longer extant in Greek MSS, was the original reading in the Epistle.
If so, it may have been used with more than one allusion, (i) "loose
the name 'Jesus' from the name 'Christ,'" (2) "loose Jesus, the Son,
from the Father and the Spirit," (3) "loose, i.e. pull down, the One
Holy PLACE, the divine unity of the Father, the Son, and the
Spirit." The Jew that said to an evil spirit (Acts xix. 13) "I adjure
you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth" would be condemned by John
as "loosing Jesus," using the name as a mere charm, detached from
all those emotions of love and pity and faith with which a disciple of
Jesus strove to relieve the sufferings of those whom Jesus loved.
2 Mk ix. 38 50 seems continuous. The first part is certainly
addressed to John. Nothing, in Mark's text, indicates whether the
whole is, or is not, addressed to John. John's appeal is in the
plural, "we saw." The reply is also in the plural, "Forbid ye not,"
which continues in what follows. But the parallel columns of
Matthew and Luke indicate that the whole is not regarded by them
as addressed to one disciple, on a single occasion. At Mk ix. 41,
Luke departs from Mark. At Mk ix. 42, Matthew (xviii. 6) returns
to Mark, and Luke (xvii. i 2) has a parallel elsewhere. Mk ix. 43 8
has a parallel in Matthew (xviii. 8 9) but none in Luke. Mk ix.
84 (Mark ix. 38 41) '
AND "LITTLE CHILDREN"
resurrectional utterance to Peter "What God hath cleansed,
that make not thou common 1 ." If the utterance to John was
also post-resurrectional we could understand the introduction of
the phrase "in the name that ye are Christ's 2 . "
49 50 has a parallel elsewhere in Matthew (v. 13, Sermon on the
Mount) and a parallel elsewhere in Luke (xiv. 34 5).
1 Acts x. 15.
2 Perhaps the difference of prepositions in the phrase "in my
(or, thy) name " ought not to pass quite unnoticed. 'ETTI in Mk ix. 39
n\ raj ovofjLdTi p.ov , and Mk ix. 37, Mt. xviii. 5, Lk. ix. 48, contrasts
curiously with eV in Mk ix. 38, Lk. ix. 49 eV TO> ov6p.ari a-ov. "In
(3) the name of the Lord," in Hebrew, would literally be rendered
by ev. But the early books of LXX favour eVt, e.g. Exod. v. 23,
Deut. xviii. 5, 19, 20 etc. Note, however, Deut. xviii. 20 eV ui'd/man
6fo>v eVe'pcoz' and prep. ei> omitted in Deut. xviii. 7, 22. In 2 Chr.
xiv. n (Asa speaks) "O Lord,. . .we rely on thee, and in (eVl) thy
name are we come against this multitude," R.V. marg. refers to
i S. xvii. 45 (David speaks to Goliath) "I come unto thee in (eV)
the name of the Lord," and we might have expected eVi in both, to
denote reliance "on" God. But it is not so. In Deut. xxi. 5 LXX
fVi, Field assumes that Aq., Sym., and Theod. would use eV as the
literal rendering of the Hebrew. The tradition of Mark and Luke
about the words of John the son of Zebedee may have preserved the
Semitic preposition, while such words of Christ's reply as Mark alone
records were handed down in a separate tradition following the LXX
in style.
The scriptural Hebrew "in the name" must be distinguished from
the later Hebrew "to the name," exemplified in Mt. x. 41 "he that
receiveth a prophet to the name of a prophet (ds ovopa -rrpo^rov} "-
on which see Wetstein ad loc. and Dalman Words pp. 306, 123, 183
meaning "looking to his character as a prophet." Of this Gesenius
(1027 8) gives no instance. But see Oxyr. Pap. 37. 17 (A.D. 49)
JovXfTciL jtvdfjurri fXevOtpov. . .aTTtviynaa-Om, "she wishes to take away
the child on the ground that it was free-born." This is a legal use
apparently borrowed from the Latin "nomen" meaning "account"
(also applied to a safe and responsible debtor who is " a good name ").
It is also used of "property standing in the name of," or "to the
account of," with e 247. 31, 265. 45, 1274. n, with V7r(fp) 1288. 22,
also eV uvufjLciros 1102. 23, oi/o/zaros without prep. 1135. 2, 1192. 4 etc.
It appears to have passed through Latin and Greek legal usage into
later Hebrew where "operam dat legi in nomen ejus (HOB^) " means
(Berach. 17 a) studying the Law as being the Law (Wetstein).
85 (Mark ix. 38 41)
"THE KINGDOM OF GOD"
ii. "If thine eye offend, thee," in Mark and Matthew 1
There is no very obvious connection between Mark's tradition
about the "reward" for "a cup of water" and Mark's next
1 In Mark, verses
are omitted by R.V.,
Mk ix/42 50
(R.V.)
(42) And whoso-
ever shall cause one
of these little ones
that believe on me
(many anc. auth. omit
on me) to stumble, it
were better for him
if a great millstone
(lit. a millstone turn-
ed by an ass) were
hanged about his
neck, and he were
cast into the sea.
44 and 46 (which are identical with verse 48)
following "the best ancient authorities."
Lk. xvii. i 2,
(43) And if thy
hand cause thee to
stumble, cut it off:
it is good for thee to
enter into life maim-
ed, rather than having
thy two hands to go
into hell (lit. Gehen-
na), into the un-
quenchable fire.
(45) And if thy
foot cause thee to
stumble, cut it off:
it is good for thee to
enter into life halt,
rather than having
thy two feet to be
cast into hell (lit.
Gehenna) .
(47) And if thine
eye cause thee to
Mt. xviii. 6 9, v. 13
(R.V.)
(xviii. 6) Butwho-
so shall cause one of
these little ones which
believe on me to
stumble, it is profit-
able for him that a
great millstone (lit.
a millstone turned by
ah ass) should be
hanged about his
neck, and [that] he
should be sunk in the
depth of the sea.
(7) Woe unto the
world because of oc-
casions of stumbling !
for it must needs be
that the occasions
come ; but woe to
that man through
whom the occasion
cometh.
(8) And if thy
hand or thy foot
causeth thee to stum-
ble, cut it off, and
cast it from thee: it
is good for thee to
enter into life maim-
ed or halt, rather
than having two
hands or two feet
to be cast into the
eternal fire.
(9) And if thine
eye causeth thee to
stumble, pluck it out,
and cast it from
thee : it is good for
thee to enter into life
with one eye, rather
than having two eyes
to be cast into the
xiv. 345
(R.V.)
(xvii. T) And he
said unto his disciples,
It is impossible but
that occasions of
stumbling should
come : but woe unto
him through whom
they come !
(2) It were well
for him if a millstone
were hanged about
his neck, and he were
thrown into the sea,
rather than that he
should cause one of
these little ones to
stumble.
86 (Mark ix. 42 50)
AND "LITTLE CHILDREN"
words, which may be rendered for brevity's sake "whosoever
shall offend one of these little ones 1 ." Moreover Mark has
combined the warning against "offending little ones" with a
Mt. xviii. 6 9, v. 13
(R.V.) contd.
hell (lit. Gehenna) of
fire.
Lk. xVii. i 2,
xiv. 34 5
(R.V.) contd.
(v. 13) Ye are the
salt of the earth : but
if the salt have lost
its savour, wherewith
shall it be salted ? it
is thenceforth good
for nothing, but to be
cast out, and trodden
under foot of men.
Mk ix. 42 50
(R.V.) contd.
stumble, cast it out :
it is good for thee to
enter into the king-
dom of God with one
eye, rather than hav-
ing two eyes to be
cast into hell (lit.
Gehenna) ;
(48) Where their
worm dieth not, and
the fire is not
quenched.
(49) For every
one shall be salted
with fire [many anc.
auth. add and every
sacrifice shall be salt-
ed with salt .
(50) Salt is good :
but if the salt have
lost its saltness,
wherewith will ye
season it ? Have salt
in yourselves, and be
at peace one with
another.
1 Lk. xvii. i "It is impossible that offences should not come"
follows (xvi. i 13) a warning to use wealth with a view to salvation
in the next world; and then (ib. 14 18) a passing allusion to the
avarice of the Pharisees, and to John the Baptist and the law of
divorce (as to which the Pharisees had not supported the Baptist in
his protest against Herod Antipas) ; and then (ib. 19 31) the
parable of Dives and Lazarus.
Hence, in the Synopticon, it will be found that Lk. xvii. i " It is
impossible. . ." comes just after the passage where, in the parallel
Mark, Jesus speaks about the "reward" for giving "a cup of
water," and where, in Luke, Dives cries "Father Abraham ... send
Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my
tongue." Perhaps this was not thought an accidental coincidence by
the author of Joseph the Carpenter who says ( i) "A single cup of
water, if a man shall find it in the world to come, is greater and better
than all the wealth of this whole world."
87 (Mark ix. 42 50)
(xiv. 34) Salt
therefore is good :
but if even the salt
have lost its savour,
wherewith shall it be
seasoned ?
(35) It is fit
neither for the land
nor for the dung-
hill : [men] cast it
out. ..
"THE KINGDOM OF GOD"
warning against allowing one's own members to "offend"
oneself. The two sins appear at first sight so distinct that the
combination is somewhat perplexing apparently suitable to
a verbal index rather than to a record of doctrine. Luke has
omitted the whole of the warning against what may be called
"self -off ending." Clement of Rome quotes the Synoptists
freely to warn the Corinthians against "offending," not "little
ones," but "the elect," by schism and discord 1 . Justin Martyr
on the other hand (in his Apology) quotes Matthew on "self-
offending" as a specimen of Christ's inculcation of purity 2 .
The doctrine of "offences," as set forth in the Three Gospels
and in the Fourth, has been previously discussed 3 . But an
answer is due here to the special question "What, if anything,
does John teach, as equivalent to the Marcan doctrine about
' the eye ' and other bodily members as causes of ' offence ' ? "
The answer is that John goes to the spiritual root of all Mark's
precepts by substituting for all these members the single word
"flesh." Luke omits the only Synoptic tradition about the
antithesis between the flesh and the spirit 4 . John emphasizes
it. First, he himself introduces a suggestion of it in the
Prologue to his Gospel 5 . Then he represents Jesus as intro-
1 Clem. Rom. COY. 46 "Iva TL 8u\KOp.fv <al
XpioroO. . . ei7rei> yap, Oval ra> dvdpo)7ra> ctcfiviip' naXov r)v aura) ei OVK
eyevvrjdr) rj eva T>V eK\KT(ov /JLOV o~Kav8aXt.o~ai Kpelrrov rjv aural TTfpiTfdrjvai
fjivXov <a\ KaTa7rovTio~6rjvai, els rrjv Od\ao~o~av rj eva ru>v K\KTO>V p,ov o % iao~rpe'\l/'ai.
Clement is here giving the first place to a late utterance placed by
Mark (xiv. 21) and Matthew (xxvi. 24) (comp. Lk. xxii. 22) at the
Lord's Supper ; he gives the second place to a version of the earlier
utterance in Mk ix. 42, Mt. xviii. 6, Lk. xvii. 2 in which he substitutes
"elect" for "little ones." Clement of Alexandria 561 follows the
Roman Clement. The passage placed first by Clement (Mk xiv. 21
etc.) refers, in effect, to the "offence" that was on the point of being
caused to Christ's disciples by Judas Iscariot (Gal. v. n "the offence
of the cross"}.
* Justin Martyr Apol. 15 7rep\ /JLZV ovv (raxppocrvvrjs TOCTOVTOV flirev
*Os av epftXe^y. . . followed by 6i 6 6(pda\p.6s a-ov (Mt. xviii. 9).
3 See Law chap. v. 9 10.
4 Mk xiv. 38, Mt. xxvi. 41.
5 Jn i. 13 ovde CK OeXriparos vapKos. . . aXX' CK dfoii is bolder than
OVK CK crapKos aXX' (< Trvevfjiaros-
88 (Mark ix. 42 50)
AND "LITTLE CHILDREN"
ducing more than a suggestion of it in the dialogue with
Nicodemus about Regeneration 1 . Jesus also repeats it in the
doctrine about giving His own flesh and blood for the life of the
world; and in this last instance there occurs the first of the
two Johannine mentions of ''offending," thus, "Doth this
offend you ? ... It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth
nothing 2 ."
What is the outcome of all this? It is as elsewhere in the
Fourth Gospel that we are not to rest in negatives but to pass
upward to affirmatives. We are not to cut off and cast away
the flesh of the body of man ; we are to take into ourselves the
flesh and blood of the body of the Son of Man. It was in order
that we might be "begotten," not "from the will of the flesh"
but "from God," that "the Word became flesh." It is written
that, after the first Genesis, " all flesh corrupted God's way upon
the earth," and Philo's comment is "Above all things, the name
of 'flesh' is given to man when devoted to self-love 3 ." This
is what John assumes all through his Gospel. And the remedy
for this "self-love," John teaches us, is, not to destroy self, or
the love of self, but to take into ourselves another love and
another self, the love of the Father brought into our hearts by
the Son in whose Spirit we are to receive another self, being
born again from above 4 .
1 Jn iii. 6 " That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which
is born of the Spirit is spirit."
2 Jn vi. 61 3.
3 Gen. vi. 12, on which Philo says "Ante omnia hominem amori
sui deditum carnem dixit." When Jesus says (Jn viii. 15) " Ye judge
according to the flesh," the meaning is "according to the fleshly eye,"
which sees only that which suits one's own love of self. That is the
"eye" which, according to Mark, we are to "cast out." Such a
person is "alone" when he judges. Jesus says (ib. viii. 16) "If I
judge, my judgment is true ; for I am not alone, but I and the Father
that sent me.'
4 As all the Synoptists mention the doom pronounced on the man
that should "offend" one of the "little ones," there is no reason
why John should intervene about it. Yet it is worth noting that
John's first instance of "offending" is followed by a mention of the
falling away of many disciples, and then by a mention of "one of the
89 (Mark ix. 42 50)
THE KINGDOM OF GOD"
12. "The unquenchable fire," in Mark
"The unquenchable fire," in Mark, here corresponds to "the
eternal fire" in the parallel Matthew 1 . 4 Yet Matthew and
Luke have "unquenchable" in their records of John the Baptist's
teaching, "But the chaff he will burn up in unquenchable fire 2 ,"
following "fire," without "unquenchable," in both Gospels,
"Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is cut out [of
the ground 3 ] and cast into fire*."
What are the Hebrew and Greek associations with the word
"unquenchable"? In the doctrine of the Baptist, is there any
reason why the tree should be cast only into "fire," but the
chaff be burnt up in "unquenchable fire"? In the doctrin'e
of Jesus, is there any connection between Matthew's alteration
of "unquenchable" into "eternal," and Matthew's subsequent
omission of the Marcan words "Where their worm dieth not
and the fire is not quenched 5 "? On these last words, as found
in Isaiah, what has Jewish tradition to say, and is there any
evidence to shew how they were regarded by Jesus? These
are the questions now before us.
Twelve" who is described (vi. 70) as "a devil." The context seems
to me to indicate that Judas is regarded as in some degree causing
this "offence."
1 Mk ix. 43 aire\6fiv els rr/v yeevvav els TO rrvp TO ao~f3f(rTov, Mt. xviii. 8
f3\r)6r)vai els TO irvp TO aloaviov.
2 Mt. iii. 12, Lk. iii. 17 TO 5e a%vpov KaTa<avo~fL irvp\ d(7/3eVra>.
3 Mt. ill. 10, Lk. iii. 9 eKKOTrrercu KOI els 7rvp /3aAAerai. In
Dan. iv. 14, eKK67rreu> = Aram. "cut down ['a tree]" TTJ (but "the
stump" is to be left). This is an exceptional meaning for CKKOTTTO).
It might = n"Q, "eradicate," or (as Aq. in Deut. xix. 5) "cut out
[branches for firewood]," 3Bn. In Rom. xi. 22, 24 it is used of
"cutting out [a branch from one tree to graft on another]."
4 "Into fire," not "into the fire." Comp. i Pet. i. 7 "tried by
fire" The insertion or omission of "the" in the phrase "in [the]
fire" may depend not only on Greek context but also* on precedents
in Hebrew where "in the fire" is almost universal (Mandelk. 156
gives Ezek. xxiv. 12 "her rust goeth not forth [even] in fire" as
almost the only exception). See below, p. 103, n. i.
5 Mk ix. 48 O7TOV 6 O~K(i)\r)^ dVTOiV OV T(\VTO. KOI TO TTVp OV O~^fVVVTai
(comp. Is. Ixvi. 24).
90 (Mark ix. 42 50)
AND "LITTLE CHILDREN"
In LXX, the adjective "unquenchable," asbestos, occurs only
in Job (most MSS) "A fire not blown [by man] shall devour him,"
where the Targum has " the fire of Gehenna which is not blown [by
man] 1 ." Elsewhere, Biblical Hebrew and Greek use the verb
"quench," occurring for the first time in the Law of the whole
burnt offering enacting that the fire "shall be kept burning,"
and "shall not be quenched 2 ." This is also used of quenching
metaphorically a destructive flame or one kindled by the wrath
of God 3 . In particular, Isaiah, after he has said to Israel
about the Gentiles "They shall bring all your brethren out of
all the nations for an offering unto the Lord ... as the children
of Israel bring their offering in a clean vessel into the house of
the Lord,..." concludes his prophecy with a mention of fire
that shall not be quenched: "And they. shall go forth [from
Jerusalem] and shall look upon the carcases of the men that
have rebelled 4 against me ; for their worm shall not die, and their
fire shall not be quenched ; and they shall be an abhorring unto
all flesh 5 ." This accords with words near the commencement
1 Job xx. 26, riQJ &6, B N 2 aKcivo-rov, L. S. "unburnt," "incom-
bustible," but used in B to mean "not kindled [by man]."
2 Lev. vi. Q "The burnt offering shall be on the place of burning
(mp1D) upon the altar all night unto the morning, and the fire of
the altar shall be burning (ipin) thereon (lit. in it, as A.V., 12)
I. XX adds "it shall not be quenched" " . . .(12) the fire upon the
altar shall be burning (*Tpin) in it, it shall not be quenched (rG3n &6) .
(13) fire continually (Ton) shall be burning (Ipin) on the altar, it
shall not be quenched (pQDn N*?)."
Rashi's remark "He that quenches the fire on the altar trans-
gresses two negative precepts," is worth noting in view of the fact
that the LXX interpolates "it shall not be quenched" so as to make
three (not "two"), and that many MSS of Mk ix. 43 50 have
interpolated two repetitions of Mk ix. 48 ("where their worm dieth
not and the fire is not quenched").
8 Gesen. 459 (including references to Is. Ixvi. 24 "bodies of
renegade Israelites," Is. i. 31 "people and idols" etc.)
4 Is. Ixvi. 24 "rebelled," R.V. has "transgressed against me" (as
also LXX Trapaftaivo)} . But the same phrase 'O yS^S is rendered by R.V.
" rebelled against me " in Is. i. 2 ; and " transgressed " does not so well
express "renegades" or "treaty-breakers." See Son 3499 (ii) b.
5 Is. Ixvi. 20 24. Tehill. (on Ps. iv. 8, Wu. i. 48) defends Isaiah
91 (Mark ix. 42 50)
"THE KINGDOM OF GOD"
of the book of Isaiah : "I have. . . brought up children and they
have rebelled^ against me . . . I will . . . thoroughly purge away thy
dross and will take away all thy tin. . .Zion shall be redeemed
with judgment. . .But the destruction of the rebellious and the
sinners shall be together, and they that forsake the Lord shall
be consumed. . .and the strong shall be as tow, and his work
as a spark ; and they shall both burn together, and none shall
quench them 2 ."
So far, there is nothing to shew why Matthew and Luke, in
the doctrine of the Baptist, insert the Greek asbestos, " unquench-
able," to describe the fire when burning up the chaff, but not
to describe it when burning the tree. But the impression left
by the distinction is, that the simple " fire " is used about burning
an unfruitful "tree," of no use for fruit, yet good for fuel as long
as it lasts; but "unquenchable fire" is used about "fire that will
not be quenched till it has completely done its purifying work."
It is a paradox. "Chaff" could be consumed in a momentary
flame, a tree could not. But if "chaff" means "every particle,
however small, of impurity," then we can understand the
paradoxical insertion. This explanation accords with the
style of the Mark-Matthew tradition, which is Hellenic not
Hebraic. English Biblical words ending in -able and beginning
with in- or un-, generally point to a Greek origin 3 . They are
foreign to Hebrew, which prefers to say "there is no quench-
ing." Asbestos is inappropriate in Mark's tradition, where the
context speaks of Gehenna. But it is appropriate in the
against the charge of ending his prophecy in gloom by saying " He
is treating of the Gentiles." But the context indicates that they are
(as Gesen. 459) "renegade Israelites."
1 Is. i. 2 "rebelled," rjOerrjcrav, i.e. broken the unwritten compact
of family affection (a0ereo> freq. = "set aside a treaty," "break a
compact"). Heb. yt^D (Tromm.) = a#ereo> n times and 7rapa/3au/o>
nowhere except Is. Ixvi. 24.
2 Is. i. 231. Ibn Ezra says "They that rebel (DW1B) " are
worse than "sinners (D'KtDn)." The former might naturally mean
apostates.
3 Exceptional words in O.T., e.g. " unsearchable" and "incurable,"
are represented in Hebrew by " there is not (or, was not) " and nouns.
92 (Mark ix. 42 50)
AND "LITTLE CHILDREN"
Matthew-Luke tradition if the intention is to imply as to
"quenched" not only "it is not" but also "it cannot be."
In Greek literature, asbestos is applied to anything that is
"irrepressible" (including "laughter 1 "). But it is also used
literally by Philo and Plutarch, who severally apply it to the
sacred flame in the Tabernacle of Israel, and in the Temple at
Delphi 2 . The various uses of asbestos in early Greek, and the
absence of the word from the LXX, may explain why, in re-
cording the doctrine of Jesus, Matthew prefers some other
word or phrase 3 , why Luke prefers no epithet at all 4 , and why
asbestos is rarely used by early Fathers and Apologists 5 .
1 See Steph. Thes. on ao-fao-ros, to which add Euseb. vi. 41. 16 18,
d0-e'0-ra> nvpl. . . KareKaTjarav, of martyrs burned with "unslaked lime/'
quoted from a description of the Decian persecutions by Dionysius.
Such a use of the term, if common among early Christians, might
prevent its application to the fire of Gehenna.
2 Philo i. 378, and Plutarch Vit. 66 B, quoted by Wetstein on
Mt. iii. 12. To these add Philo ii. 254 quoting Lev. vi. 9 as -rrvp
67Ti TOV dvo~iao~TT)p{ov Kavdr)O~eTai 8ia iravTos o"/3foroj/.
3 Mt. xviii. 8, xxv. 41 TO nvp TO aivviov : elsewhere v, 22, xviii. 9
TTJV yeevvav TOV nvpos, xiii. 42, 50 TTJV KU/JLIVOV TOV Trvpos.
4 Lk. xii. 49.
5 *Ao-fico-Tos, in the Early Fathers (apart from Hennas Sim. ix.
jo. i "unslaked lime"), occurs (Goodspeed) twice. Ignatius Eph.
1 6 6 rotovrof, pvTrapbs yei>6/iei>oy, (Is TO irvp TO do~j3co-Tov x<apt)o~(i is
in a passage said by Lightfoot to be " founded on " i Cor. iii. 16 foil.,
vi. 9, TO, 19. The passage implies that the "corrupters" of God's
"house" are oi<o(f)d6poi (explained by Hesychius as /uot^ot, comp.
Orig. Cels. vii. 63 <p6cipfiv . . .OIKOV). But it seems also to be founded
on i Cor. iii. 13 15 which connects the "work" of the Christian
builder with "fire" thus: "The day shall declare it, because it is
revealed in fire ; and the fire itself shall prove each man's work of
what sort it is.. . .If any man's work shall abide. . .he shall receive
a reward. If any man's work shall be burned he shall suffer loss;
but he himself shall be saved; yet so as through fire." Then comes
the warning (i Cor. iii. 17) " If any man destroy eth the temple of God,
him shall God destroy."
The work is supposed to be a building. The builders are to
build up Man, or Humanity, to be a temple for God. Paul, playing
on the double meaning of <p8fipfiv "corrupt" or "destroy," distin-
guishes " workers [at the building] " some of whose work is worthless
and "will be burned up (Kara^o-erai) " while they themselves will
93 (Mark ix. 42 50)
"THE KINGDOM OF GOD
To these facts we may add that the heretic Simon Magus,
who is represented to have quoted from Deuteronomy and the
Gospels in support of his doctrine that "consuming fire" was
the divine Original, does not mention the word "unquenchable"
in the course of this exposition 1 . We are thus led to the con-
clusion that the emphatic expressions about an "unquenchable
be "punished [as it were with fining] (frfjuadrjarovrai) " from " cor-
rupters (or, destroyers) [of the building]" whom God will "destroy."
"Ao-fiearos occurs also in 2 Clem. 17 which says, after quoting
Is. Ixvi. 24, that the righteous, "when they see how those who have
denied Jesus. . .are punished with terrible torments in unquenchable
fire, will give glory to their God." (The writer has previously (7)
quoted Is. Ixvi. 24.)
Apart from a quotation from Homer in Tatian 8 ("irrepressible
laughter") and from Mt. iii. 12, Lk. hi. 17 in Tryph. 49, aV/Seo-ros
occurs only in Justin Tryph. 120, which says that Christ will cut
the Jewish nation in two (like Isaiah sawn asunder) and raise some
to the place of the Patriarchs but send others " to the condemnation
of the unquenchable fire. " "Ao-peo-ros does not occur in Test. XII Patr.
1 Hippol. vi. 4 says that Simon based on Deut. iv. 24 the doctrine
that fire was the originating principle, and (later on ; ib.) says that
the fruit has been produced for the storehouse but the chaff for the
fire (Mt. iii. 12, Lk. iii. 17). Later on (vi. n) Simon seems to blend
Jn xii. 24 with Mt. iii. 10, Lk. iii. 9 "If a tree continues alone. . .it is
utterly destroyed. For somewhere near (says [the Gospel]) the axe
[is] by the roots of the tree. Every tree (says [the Gospel!) that
produces not good fruit is hewn down and cast into fire." I have not
found a mention of "quenching" or " unquenchableness " in these
chapters.
It is hard to make sense out of Simon's apparent perversion of
the clear metaphor in Jn xii. 24 "Except a grain of wheat fall into
the earth and die it abideth by itself alone ; but if it die it beareth
much fruit." Is it the result of some question like "What if it does
abide alone? What then? What is the punishment?" Perhaps
Simon transposes the question from the "grain" to the "tree" and
says " If the tree remains without the vivifying principle it is handed
over to the destroying principle."
For us, the main value of the Simonian doctrines is that they
help us to understand why the Fourth Evangelist passed over the
Baptist's teaching and Christ's teaching about "fire." It was
already too fully and too variously recorded in such a way as to
originate superstitions and juggleries.
94 (Mark ix. 42 50)
AND "LITTLE CHILDREN"
fire" attributed to Jesus by Mark, alone among the Evangelists,
did not find favour either with heretics or with the orthodox
in the early Church; and yet we see for ourselves that the
thought of an unquenchable fire was prominent in the ancient
Scriptures, both in the Law and in the Prophets.
In the Fourth Gospel "fire" is mentioned but once, and then
in a parable about the fate of the unfruitful branches of "the
true vine " : "I am the true vine, and my Father is the husband-
man. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit, he taketh it
away; and every [branch] that beareth fruit, he purifieth it
[by pruning] that it may bear more fruit." As to the branches
that He "taketh away" it is added "Unless a man abide in
me, he is [ ? at once] cast out like the branch [above-mentioned]
and is withered up, and THEY gather them together and cast
them into the fire and they are burned 1 ."
There is a vague suggestion that while the hand that " taketh
away " belongs to One, the " gatherers for the fire " are more than
one. For the rest, there is nothing to satisfy curiosity about
the fire. It is all done in the way of nature. " The fire " is the
natural place for that which is useless except as fuel. At the
same time the reader is made to feel that this "nature" is not
dead machinery but a vital order of things in which he himself
is to play a part. He may, if he will, "abide" in the Vine,
Christ's love. If he will not abide in it, that is, in the Law of
brotherhood, "he is cast out and withered." What casts him
out? In the main, he himself, but also the hand of the
Husbandman. There is a curious interlacing and there may
be some uncertainty in the disentangling of metaphor (or
personification) and literal statement ; but there can be no
uncertainty at all about the moral and spiritual lesson. Man
is part of a whole, a living part of a living whole, and the
destiny of each part is to help by being helped.
1 jn xv. i6. On the aorist e^Xr^ see joh. Gr. 2443 c, 2445,
27545. On "THEY" see Joh. Gr. 2426, From Letter 738 a b etc.
95 (Mark ix. 42 50)
"THE KINGDOM OF GOD"
13. The undying "worm," in Mark 1
We have seen above that Isaiah's prediction of the "worm"
and the "fire" here reproduced by Mark was regarded by
some Jews as applying to Gentiles on whose torments the
Jews were to "look 2 ." It is perhaps not an accidental coinci-
dence that, although Luke does not insert the fire-and-worm
tradition, yet, just in the place that would be parallel to it
and following after the Marcan doctrine about the "cup of
water" he inserts a parable describing Abraham, with a
faithful Israelite in his bosom, as holding a dialogue with an
unfaithful Israelite who is in Hades, suffering torments.
It is probable that many of the Pharisees in Christ's time
considered that in the world to come in the New Jerusalem,
or in Abraham's bosom they would look upon the torments
of Gentiles, publicans, and sinners in Gehenna. Luke at all
events prefixes to his parable a statement that the Pharisees
" who were lovers of money" scoffed at Jesus, who, in the course
of a reply, said to them "Ye are they that justify yourselves
in the sight of men . . . that which is exalted among men is an
abomination in the sight of God 3 /' Then, still apparently
addressing the Pharisees, after a rapid reference to John the
Baptist, whom they had not supported in his protest against
"adultery" in high places, Jesus introduces the picture of the
"rich man" in Hades and "in torments."
It seems to contain allusions, not at once obvious, to Jewish
prejudices. For example, a Jewish tradition bids us take care
to be among those who "see" the torment, not among those
who "are seen 4 ." But here it is Dives in torment who "lifted
up his eyes and seeth Abraham 5 ." Moreover, whereas some
Jewish traditions, and Christian too 6 , imply that those who
"see" rejoice over those who suffer, no joy is manifest in
1 Mk ix. 48 OTTOV 6 (TKco\rj^ avT&v ov
2 Is. Ixvi. 20 24 "they shall look upon the carcases," see above,
p. 91, n. 5 ad fin.
3 Lk. xvi. 14 foil.
4 See Midrash on Eccles. vii. 14 15 (Wu. p. 103).
5 Lk. xvi. 23. 6 See above, p. 93, n. 5 ad fin.
96 (Mark ix. 42 50)
AND "LITTLE CHILDREN"
Abraham. He still calls the sufferer "son." And the sting
of brotherly affection forces Dives to pray, even in the midst
of his own anguish, that his "five brethren" may not "come
into this place of torment." This sting is not mere torture.
According to some Jewish traditions, it may be regarded as
coming from "the worm 1 ."
The total result of Luke's narrative is an impression that
either the "Hades" that he mentions here is not the same as
the "Gehenna" that he once mentions elsewhere, or else that
he regards both Hades and Gehenna as places where those
who suffer may still be regarded as sons by Abraham and still
be capable of an unselfish affection.
Luke's picture of Abraham seeing Dives in torment meets
some objections that might be brought against ancient inter-
pretations of Isaiah, and suggests a pathetic though hardly
complete explanation of the "worm." But it does not
illustrate Mark's context which attacks religious jealousy and
exclusiveness and represses "we forbade him" by "forbid him
not." Jesus appears to call the man described as "casting out
devils" in His "name" one of "His little ones." The attempt
of John to "forbid" him He seems to regard as a "causing to
stumble," against which His disciples are to be warned. Rather
than persist in such action it would be better to perish, for
persistence implies entrance into Gehenna, the region of the
worm and the fire. When they desire to cast others out from
the royal City, the children of the Kingdom are warned that
they may be casting themselves out into a place of weeping
and gnashing of teeth, the home of remorse and envy.
The Fourth Gospel describes such an act of exclusiveness
in detail. The man born blind and healed by Jesus is cast
out of the synagogue for refusing, in effect, to adopt the language
of the rulers who say "Give glory to God: we know that this
man is a sinner 2 ." But the result is that the outcast sees,
1 See Son 3499 (iv) a quoting Berach. 18 b about "the worm" as
painful to "the dead," where the context speaks of a dead father's
knowledge or ignorance of the sorrows of his children.
2 Jn L\. 24. In effect, this is a command to the man to " speak -
evil-of {KdnoKoyflv} Jesus," see above, p. 83.
A. F. 97 (Mark ix. 42 50) 7
"THE KINGDOM OF GOD"
and the casters out, blind before, become more blind than ever.
Such is the "judgment" passed upon them 1 . And this thought
recurs at the close of Christ's public career: "They were not
able to believe/' it is said, "for that Isaiah said again, He hath
blinded their eyes and he hardened their heart 2 ." Some indeed
of the rulers "believed" in Jesus, after a fashion, "but because
of the Pharisees they did not confess it lest they should be put
out of the synagogue 3 ." Thus "the Jews" were shut out or
shut themselves out from the City of God, but concerning the
man whom they shut out, the excommunicated, it is said, as
of no other in this Gospel, that he "worshipped" Jesus 4 .
14. "For every one shall be salted with fire," in Mark 5
Matthew and Luke omit these words, and many authorities
alter them in Mark perhaps because they might be interpreted
as meaning that every one shall be salted with the fire of
Gehenna or Hades. But the Marcan tradition may be explained,
both as to its meaning and as to its context, if we suppose Mark
to be abridging a doctrine of fire in which this came as a con-
clusion: "It is not enough to avoid evil; follow after that
which is good. Set your thoughts not on the unquenchable
fire of Gehenna but rather on the unquenchable fire of the altar
of the Lord. Aim not at self-mutilation but at self-devotion.
Present your bodies as a continual living sacrifice on that
altar 6 . But whoso would present such a sacrifice must be
1 Jn ix. 39 "For judgment came I into this world, that they
which see not may see ; and that they which "see may become blind."
2 Jn xii. 39 40. 3 Jn xii. 42. 4 Jn ix.. 38.
5 Mk ix. 49 rras yap irvpl dXio-Orjo-erai, with many variations for
which see Swete and Journ. Theol. Stud. Oct. 1915, pp. 16 7
(Burkitt) ,
6 Comp. Rom. xii. i "Present your bodies a living sacrifice,"
and the following verses most of them laying stress on positive
precepts, but terminating with the contrast " Be not conquered by
the evil but conquer the evil with the good." The context (ib.
Z 8 20) has the Marcan word, rare in N.T., elprjvfveiv ("be at peace")
and shews how to "heap coals of fire" on the head of an "enemy."
A contrast between "peace" and "victory," with a mention of
"tribulation" in the context, is found in Jn xvi. 33.
98 (Mark ix. 42 50)
AND "LITTLE CHILDREN"
salted with fire. The Scripture says that every sacrifice on
the visible altar shall be salted with salt. So every one that
would present himself as a sacrifice on the invisible and spiritual
altar must be salted with the fire of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit
of love, trust, and peace peace even under trials and troubles
and persecutions."
At the same time, we must not pass over the Hebrew and
Jewish practice of "salting" newly born children. Ezekiel
takes this for granted; Jerome writes of it as an existing
custom; and so does the Talmud, which permits it to be per-
formed on the sabbath 1 . It is very probable that Jesus with
whom the thought of "the little ones" was always near at hand
was referring to the doctrine of regeneration. In this there
is nothing incompatible with the doctrine of sacrifice. Unless
a human being is born again he cannot "present his body as
a sacrifice" to God. If Jesus referred to the new birth as a
"salting/' it would seem to be only one of many homely
metaphors adapted for Galilaean hearers, women as well as
men.
Philo somewhat resembles Mark in the order of some
observations about a sacrifice of praise or thanks, and a
mention of salt. For he places first the Levitical command-
ment to keep the fire burning and "unquenched." He tells
us that "the sacred flame is the symbol of thanksgiving (lit.
1 See Ezek. xvi. 4 " In the day'that thou wast born thy navel
was not cut, neither wast thou washed in water to cleanse thee;
thou wast not salted at all, nor swaddled at all." The Targum
accepts all these statements as literal. Jerome says ad loc. "The
tender bodies of infants. . .are wont to be salted by midivives (solent ab
obstetricibus sale contingi, ut sicciora sint et restringantur)." Then he
quotes Mt. v. 13 ("Ye are the salt of the earth"), Coloss. iv. 6, and
Lev. ii. 13 ("omne sacrificium vestrum sale salietur"), but not
Mark. In Sabb. 1296, the "salting" is allowed on the sabbath.
Rashi, on Ezek., like Jerome, uses the present tense as of a present
custom ("hinc est quod sale fricent infantem"). Enc. Bib. ii. 1503
describes the "salting" as "still kept up to the present day."
Hastings (iv. 632) about "the newborn infant in the East," says that
"during the first week salt water is applied daily to the lips and
flexures of the body," as "a hardening process."
99 (Mark ix. 42 50) 7 2
"THE KINGDOM OF GOD"
of the eucharist) 1 " ; and then he adds "After this, it [i.e. the
Law] says 'On every offering ye shall offer salt 2 /" As a fact,
the injunction to add "salt" comes much earlier than the law
of the burnt offering ; but the order followed by Philo is natural
where the first thought is about a sacrifice and the second
thoughts are about how, and in what spirit, it is to be pre-
sented.
Plutarch, supplementing Philo, may help us to understand
how the Marcan doctrine of "salt" might be expanded for
Greek-speaking Christians in other traditions than those of
Matthew and Luke. For Plutarch reminds us that Homer
called salt "divine 3 ," and that Plato declared "the body of
salt" to be "most beloved by the Gods in accordance with the
Law of human nature*." Plutarch adds that men ascribe a
divine nature to things that are common and wide-reaching in
application to their needs as, for example, the water, the light,
the seasons," and that such ascription is specially due to salt,
since it has the divine quality of preserving for a long time the
bodies of the dead, and since it "arrays itself against death."
Salt, he says, does as it were "the work of the soul," keeping
together what would otherwise fall to pieces. This praise of
salt he concludes by calling attention to the fact or what is
alleged by him as a fact that lightning has the same power
of preserving bodies from putrefaction, and by asking "What
wonder, therefore, if salt, having the same power as the divine
fire, was itself also supposed to be divine by the ancients 5 ?"
The Fourth Gospel, though it nowhere mentions "salt,"
implies a sympathy with the feeling that would ascribe " a
1 Philo ii. 254 quoting Lev. vi. 9 thus irvp. . . Kav^crerai did TTCLVTOS
2 Philo ii. 255 Mera raOra (j)r)<TLv . . . (Lev. ii. 13).
3 Iliad ix. 214.
4 Plut. Mor. 684 F nXdrcovos 5e TWV a\&v <rai/ia /cara vopov dv6pa>7ra)v
dvai (frdcrKovros, from Plato Tim. 60 D E dXcoi/ Kara \6yov
6eo<pi\f$ trco/xa (on Kara \6yov v6p.ov see Archer-Hind) .
5 Plut. Mor. 685 B D. Comp. Plato Symp. 177 B evfjo-av d\(s
e-rrmvov 6avp.do-iov e'xovTfs, which suggests that "praises of salt" were
not uncommon. See Pliny H. N. xxxi. 102 on the proverb that
for certain diseases "nihil esse utilius sale et sole."
100 (Mark ix. 42 50)
AND "LITTLE CHILDREN"
divine nature" to the elemental things that help us. It does
not shrink from representing Jesus as saying, in effect, "I am
the Light," "I am the Bread," "I am the giver of the Water."
In all these cases the epithet "living" is implied if it is not
expressed. The Light is "the life of men." The Bread is
expressly called "living." Plutarch might tell us that this
meant "bread made with salt" as distinguished from the
bread of the Egyptian priests 1 . The Fourth Evangelist (we
may be sure) would have in view no such literal details as
these. But he would not think the epithet "living" a small
detail, and he would probably tell us that he included in it
what Mark meant by "salt" and "salting." It was a form of
expressing the influence of the Holy Spirit, which invigorated
life besides being a preservative against death.
15. "Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace one
with another," in Mark 2
Matthew and Luke differ from Mark as to the contexts in
which they mention "salt." Matthew apparently takes salt
to mean a purifying influence exerted by the prophets of the
old Dispensation and to be exerted by the preachers of the
Gospel. Both the prophets and the preachers he regards as
being themselves purified by persecution and preserved from
the corruption of sloth and self-will: "Blessed are ye when
[men] shall reproach you. . .for so persecuted they the prophets
that were before you. Ye are the salt of the earth 3 ." This is
1 Plut. Mor. 684 F rovf AiyvTrriova itpeas uyvovs uvras
7riip.rrav aXa>i> cocrre KOI TOV apTov (ivaXov 7rpo<r(ppf(r0ai.
2 Mk ix. 50 f\fTf ev tavTois aXu <u\ tipijvevtr* v dXX^Xou. Elsewhere
ill X.T. eipTjvevo) OCCUTS only in Rom. xii. 18 et ftwarov . . .p.era TTCLVTW
avQptoTTw dprjvfvovTfs, and 2 Cor. xiii. n elprjvfveTf, i Thess. V M 13
flprjvvT ev (avTols (prob. not meaning "in yourselves," but "among
yourselves," though it suggests an inclusion of the former meaning
as well). On the strange reading ev avTols see Lightfoot ad loc.
3 Mt. v. ii 13. Luke is parallel as far as Mt. v. 12 (Lk. vi. 23),
but breaks off there, and does not mention "salt" till much later,
as the moral appended to Lucan parables (the Building of the Tower
and the Plan of Campaign) illustrating the Doctrine of Renunciation
(Lk. xiv. 2535).
101 (Mark ix. 42 50)
"THE KINGDOM OF GOD"
in the Sermon on the Mount. The parallel Luke makes no
mention of salt. Later on, when multitudes are following
Jesus on the way to Jerusalem, Luke represents Him as
"turning- to them and teaching them that those who come to
Him need special renunciation. They must think before they
begin to build the "tower" or wage the "war": "Whosoever
he be of you that renounceth not all that he hath, he cannot
be my disciple ; salt therefore is good : but if even the salt hath
lost its savour. . .*? "
This question as to what is done if the salt loses its savour
is found also here in Mark, and Matthew includes it in the
Sermon on the Mount. But Matthew and Luke hardly give a
positive answer to the question. They imply that little or
nothing can be done. The salt must be thrown away though
perhaps, says Matthew (according to a doubtful modern inter-
pretation), it may help to make a footpath. Apparently they
were not satisfied with the answer given by Mark: "Have salt
in yourselves, and be at peace one with another." Perhaps
they were in doubt as to its meaning. Hermas uses the pre-
cept "be at peace among yourselves" to forbid those who are in
authority in the Church to set a bad example by dissension 2 .
With a similar application, Clement of Rome exhorts any
member of the Church of Corinth who feels that he is a cause
of discord to say "I will depart where ye will only let the
flock of Christ be at peace with the appointed presbyters 3 ."
If early Christians narrowed down the precept "have salt in
yourselves" so as to make it mean simply "avoid discord
among yourselves," it is not surprising that Matthew and
Luke omitted it as being hardly weighty enough to come at
the close of a very solemn warning.
t We pass to the examination of Johannine doctrine corre-
sponding to the Marcan metaphors of "salt" and "fire" and to
the precept "be at peace one with another." Is John's con-
1 Lk. xiv. 33 4.
2 Hermas Vis. iii. 9. 2 10.
3 Clem. Rom. 54 arreip-i ov eav /3ovXr)(r0^ /ecu -rroiS) ra 7rpo<rrao r <ro/iei>a
V7TO TOV ir\T)0OVS ' JJ.OVOV TO TTOl/JLVlOV TOV XplOTOl! flpr)VCVT(t) fJ.(Tll TtOV
102 (Mark ix. 42 50)
AND "LITTLE CHILDREN"
ception of "peace" like that of Mark? And whence is that
"peace" to be obtained? And has John anything to say that
bears on Matthew's apparent axiom, that "persecution" helps
to make the preachers of the Gospel "the salt of the earth"?
16. Johannine doctrine on fire 1
. The Matthew-Luke tradition of the Baptist's doctrine on
fire says, "Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is
hewn down and cast into (lit.) fire 2 ." Taken literally, this
would condemn to fire every tree including cedars and
oaks that does not bear "good fruit." Another difficulty is
the insertion of "good." This, at first sight, seems superfluous.
But it is explicable if the sentence is as it were against hypo-
critical fruit-trees, trees that profess to bear eatable fruit but
in fact produce only that which is uneatable. It is obvious
that the Baptist meant "every fruit-tree." But, more par-
ticularly, he probably had in mind the Vine of Israel, in contrast
with the wild vine mentioned in the word of the Lord to Ezekiel,
1 In Jn xv. 6 $ TO irvp fid\\ovo-iv , may we infer anything from
John's insertion of the article (TO Trvp) as contrasted with Mk ix. 22
(Is Trvp avrov tftaXev, Mt. iii. io (rep. Mt. vii. 19), Lk. m.gds rrvp /rfoAAfTcu?
The question is complicated by the fact that the lit. Hebrew almost
without exception (Mandelk. 155 6) says "in (or, with) the fire"
(when the phrase is used absolutely] whereas LXX says "in fire."
Also in Greek, as in English, one may speak of a child "falling into
the fire" (as in Mt. xvii. 15, but not in the parall. Mk ix. 22 "into
fire ... into waters ") meaning " the fire [on the hearth]" (comp. Acts
xxviii. 5 "shaking off (the viper) into the fire"}. It is worth noting
that in O.T. the only instance of Heb. "in fire," used absolutely, is
Ezek. xxiv. 12, where the meaning is "not [even] in fire [much less
in water]," and the only instance of "in water," used absolutely, is
(Mandelk. 670) Ezek. xvi. 4 "not [even] in water wast thou washed."
Perhaps John wished to avoid the suggestion that "into fire" here
meant "not into water." He preferred to say "into the fire" as
being the natural place for the unfruitful vine-branches.
2 Mt. iii. IO, Lk. iii. 9 TTCLV ovv dfvdpov prj noiovv xapTrbv KaXov , but
W. H. bracket Ka\6v in Luke, and Origen (Comm. Joann. vi. 14,
Lomm. i. 219) expressly says that " good " is omitted in Luke, because
there the words are addressed to the multitudes, and the meaning is
fruit of any kind.
103 (Mark ix. 42 50)
"THE KINGDOM OF GOD"
" Son of man, what is the vine tree more than any tree, the vine
branch that is among the trees of the forest 1 ?" This means,
as Rashi says, "I do not speak unto thee about the vine of the
vineyards that beareth fruit, but about the branches of the
[wild] vine that groweth in the forest." The context implies
that the wild vine is appointed by nature to be burned ("the
vine tree, among the trees of the forest, which I have given to
the fire for fuel") and is of no other use. But the Baptist is
speaking of Israelites as trees appointed to bear fruit, for whom
it is a condemnation to degenerate, falling back as it were into
the wild vine and out of the cultivated vine the Vine of the
Vineyard of the Lord. Isaiah had accustomed Israelites to
this personification or allegory of the degenerate and ungrateful
Vine, bound to produce "fruit" worthy of the name, and
failing to produce anything but " wild grapes 2 ," and this thought
perhaps is latent under the Baptist's expression "good fruit."
The Fourth Gospel takes us back to the positive doctrine
about the Vine, which, in the Prophets, is more common than
the negative doctrine. John makes no mention of the "wild
vine" or the "tree that bringeth not forth good fruit." But
beginning from the true Vine, he describes the Husbandman,
God, as "cleansing" those branches that bear fruit and taking
away those that bear none 3 . This is metaphor. But he
passes on into allegory when he implies that the "branches"
have a power of "abiding" or "not abiding" in the Vine:
"The branch cannot bear fruit of itself except it abide in the
vine," "I am the vine, ye are the branches: he that abideth
in me,. . .the same beareth much fruit," "If a man abide not
in me he is [? at once] 4 cast forth outside like the branch [above
mentioned] and is [at once] withered ; and THEY [then] 5 gather
them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned 6 ."
1 Ezek. xv. 2, comp. Jerem. xxiv. 2.
2 Is. v. 2 4. 3 Jn xv. 2.
4 "At once," see above, p. 95, n. i.
5 "XHEY," see Joh. Gr. 2426. Nonnus supplies aWtpioi fyjr/or^pe?.
Comp. Rev. xiv. 18 ayyeAos. . .[6] e^cav eov(riav eVi rou nvpos. In Jn
xv. 6 "the branch " = r6 K\fj/j.a (R.V. has "a branch").
6 Jn xv. i 6.
104 (Mark ix. 42 50)
AND "LITTLE CHILDREN"
This is the only mention of the Greek word "fire" in the
Fourth Gospel, and it cannot be said that this "fire" purifies.
The pruning-knife purifies, the fire destroys. It is only in a
symbolical form, if at all, that the Evangelist suggests the
thought of fire as a purifying influence. He speaks of a
"[fire] of coals" on two occasions, first, when Peter denied his
Master, and secondly, after Christ's resurrection,.' when the
same Apostle received not only the food that was to prepare
him for following Christ but also a special command to " follow."
Thus, says Ephrem Syrus, in a fiery trial Peter fell, and by
a fiery purification he was uplifted and strengthened 1 .
A mystical suggestion of this kind was not likely to add to
heretical perversions (such as those mentioned above 2 ) of the
fire-doctrine of the Synoptists. And the "fire of coals" is well
adapted to suggest the stinging of a conscience that does not
pain openly and momentarily, but gnaws like a worm that will
not cease, or burns like embers that will not expire, until nothing
remains to be consumed. For the most part, however, the
Fourth Evangelist prefers other ways of expressing what Mark
calls the "salting" that the disciples of Christ are to "have in
themselves 3 ."
17. How John expresses "salting with fire"
John's non-use of the metaphor of fire to express purifying
influence is probably based on other grounds beside the fear of
heretical perversion of fire-doctrine. The Fourth Gospel is, in
one aspect, the Gospel of Nature. Earth and the fruits of the
earth including bread and wine; water and especially water
that is pure and running, or (as the Greek and Hebrew have
it) "living"; wind or spirit or the breath that we breathe
these three elemental metaphors are well suited to express in
a homely and natural way that invisible life of the soul which
1 Jn xviii. 18, xxi. <> " fire of coals," dvOptiKid, on which see
Son 3369 a e. Modern prosaic sobriety shrinks from discrediting
John with such allusions. But the Fourth Gospel is not modern
and not prosaic.
2 See above, p. 94, n. i.
3 Mk ix. 50.
105 (Mark ix. 42 50)
"THE KINGDOM OF GOD"
corresponds to the visible life of the body. Fire is not so well
suited. The other three elements, or their products, represent
internal sources of life ; fire represents an external influence.
Yet something more is wanted beside food and breath for
the development of the body, and similarly something more is
needed for the soul. Both want exercise. Both must learn
to "endure hardness/' and to cast off everything that conduces
to sloth and uselessness, preventing fruitful action. Let us
consider whether this finds any expression in the Johannine
metaphor of the Vine that is to bear fruit, with its accompanying
thought of pruning.
"Pruning" is not indeed mentioned. And perhaps pruning
is not exactly the- process implied. John may be alluding to
the Hebrew Law, which regards a fruit-tree in the Promised
Land as having a kind of Hebrew humanity, so that it has
to be "circumcised" before it takes its place in the service of
the nation. The Law said that for three years after an Israelite
had planted a fruit-tree he was to " treat-as-uncircumcised its
uncircumcision [namely], its fruit." In other words he was to
take it away and destroy it. This the LXX paraphrases as
"Ye shall cleanse [by taking from] around [it] its uncleanness 1 ."
This explains the extraordinary expression in John, who applies
the verb "cleanse" (nowhere else used in the New Testament
in any sense) to the cleansing of the fruit-bearing branches of
the Vine: "Every branch that beareth fruit, he cleanseth it
that it may bear more fruit 2 ."
Philo quotes the Levitical passage as enjoining complete
dependence upon God, the only Planter, and as bidding us
"cleanse the uncleanness" of what we suppose we ourselves
have planted: "For it bids us cut away self-conceit, and self-
conceit is unclean by nature 3 ." Elsewhere Philo refers to the
1 Lev. xix. 23 ^>~\D, LXX nepKaOapielre rrjv anaOapcriav aiiroii, followed
by 6 Kapirbs avrov. . . The translators have aKpo/Sucrrtetre TTJV aK
See Gesen. 7906. Heb. ?"U? = (Tromm.) aKpoftvcrros (i), a
(l), aTrepLTp,r)Tos (26). 2 Jn XV. 2 KaOaipei avrb. . ..
3 Philo i. 53 K\evi Kadapia-ai TTJV amadapo-iav avroO rouro Se eori, TO
Soicclv (pvTfveiv. 'ArroTffjiflv yap o'irjo'iv eVayycAAerai, o^rjais 8e
(plHTfl.
1 06 (Mark ix. 42 50)
AND "LITTLE CHILDREN"
Law still more fully, with repeated mentions of "cleansing,"
and "clean," and "cleansing around 1 ." No instance is given
in the Greek Thesaurus of "cleanse" applied to a tree, either
in the sense of pruning, or in the sense of discarding immature
fruit in saplings. It may be added that LXX uses "cleansing
around" (in two forms) concerning literal "circumcising" and
concerning circumcising "the heart 2 ." The same Greek word
is also applied to the "cleansing" of the sins of Isaiah by fire
from the altar, and to the forbidden worship of Moloch by a
father "causing" his son "to pass through the fire 3 ."
In setting forth this doctrine of "abiding" in the Vine and
of being "cleansed" in it in order to bear much fruit, Jesus
"Now are ye clean because of the word that I have spoken
unto you 4 ." This appears to refer to the words "Ye are clean,
but not all 5 " uttered previously, after Jesus had washed the
feet of the disciples, and had communicated to all but Judas
some share in the New Covenant of brotherly love which, He
said, was to be the sign of their discipleship. The offscouring 6
from the washing of their feet Jesus had as it were taken upon
Himself, when He wiped it upon the napkin with which He had
girded Himself, and symbolically admitted them into this New
Covenant. In both utterances in the simile of the Washing
and in the simile of the Vine there is an allusion to the New
and cleansing Covenant of the circumcision of the heart, a
heart created anew in the Spirit of the new Love that Jesus
had brought into the world ("even as I have loved you, that
ye also love one another 7 ").
It remains to consider whether John expresses in any other
form that training and disciplining of the soul which corresponds
1 Philo i. 344 6 KaOapcris, anaBapros^ 7rfpiKa6aip(r6ai,
- Josh. v. 4 7TCpiK.adaipa> (71E), Deut. xxx. 6 nepiKadapifa
3 Is. vi. 7 irfpiKdtiapifa (1D3), Deut. xviii. 10 TTfpiKadaipo) ("Qy hi.).
4 Jn xv. 3. 5 Jn xiii. 10 n.
6 This would naturally be called, in the language of i Cor. iv. 13,
pua or jrcptytyjia, terms said by Origen (Comm. Joann. xxvin.
14, Lomm. ii. 355) to be more applicable to Jesus than to any apostle.
7 Jn xiii. 34.
107 (Mark ix. 42 50)
"THE KINGDOM OF GOD,"
to the Marcan "salting with fire" and to the Johannine
" cleansing [of the vine]/'
18. " Tribulation^"
We have seen above that Matthew, in the Sermon on the
Mount, placed before the words "Ye are the salt of the earth"
an exhortation to rejoice under persecution. This suggests the
thought that persecution had "salted" the Prophets of old and
would similarly " salt " the preachers of the Gospel : " Rejoice . . .
for so persecuted they the prophets that were before you. Ye
are the salt of the earth 2 ." "The earth" is "the world 3 ."
It may be fairly replied that the persecuting world can no
more " salt " a prophet so as to keep him " the salt of the world,"
than it can "enlighten" a prophet so as to keep him "the light
of the world." Yet still the world's persecution of the prophet
may be made by God the instrument for keeping the prophet
unworldly.
Luke, later on, says "Salt therefore is good," but does
not connect the saying with any mention of "persecution"
(having, instead, several precepts enjoining self-renunciation) 4 .
"Tribulation" is used synonymously with "persecution" for
the sake of the Gospel in the explanation of the Parable
of the Sower, where Mark and Matthew say "When there
cometh to pass tribulation or persecution because of the Word" ;
but Luke has "in time of temptation* '." And in the Discourse
on the Last Days, where Mark and Matthew predict "tribula-
tion," the parallel Luke predicts "distress" (literally "necessity"
or "straits")^. Luke never uses the word "tribulation" in
his Gospel.
1 " Tribulation " is used as the rendering of 6\fyis throughout this
section.
2 Mt. v. 12 13. If the two verses are to be regarded as dis-
connected, then "Ye are the salt" (Chrys.) may be taken as intro-
ducing eyd)/j,ia after Trapaivfa-is. See McNeile, ad loc. on the paradox
in "salt of the earth" in view of Ps. cvii. 34 "a salt desert."
3 See Son 3442 c h on "The earth" variously interpreted.
4 Lk. xiv. 34. 5 Mk iv. 17, Mt. xiii. 21, Lk. viii. 13.
6 Mk xiii. 19, Mt. xxiv. 21 6\fyis, Lk. xxi. 23 ai/ay/cq.
1 08 (Mark ix. 42 50)
AND "LITTLE CHILDREN*'
Yet he uses it several times in the Acts twice in Stephen's
speech, once in his own description of the persecution that
followed Stephen's martyrdom, and twice in the Pauline
declarations: "Through many tribulations we must enter into
the kingdom of God," and "Bonds and tribulations await me 1 ."
In none of the Gospels does "tribulation" occur except in
utterances of Christ, and Luke may have been influenced by
the fact that the word does not appear to have been in literary
use before the end of the first century; and, as then used
meaning literally "pressure" or "squeezing" it may have
seemed to him not quite appropriate for a historian recording
utterances of Jesus 2 . The following parallels seem to shew
Luke drawing out from Mark's brief and vernacular "tribula-
tion" (or "pressure") all that seemed to him implied in the
original :
Mk xiii. 24 (R.V.)
After that tribu-
lation the sun shall
be darkened . .
Mt. xxiv. 29 (R.V.)
After the tribu-
lation of those days
the sun shall be
darkened . .
Lk.xxi. 25 6(R.V.)
There shall be
signs in sun . . . and
upon the earth dis-
tress of nations, in
perplexity . . . men
fa in ting (or, expiring)
for Jear, and for ex-
pectation . . . 3
Origen tacitly explains Luke's motive in his comment on
the first of the very numerous instances of "tribulation" in
the Psalms. "The divine Scripture," he says, "with a meaning
of its own . . . seems to give the name of ' tribulation ' to that
which environs and meets the saint for the purpose of training,
whereas that which befalls the sinner it calls 'scourge.' For it
1 Acts vii. 10, n, xi. 19, xiv. 22, xx. 23.
2 See Steph. Thes. on 6\ty ts .
" Distress "=<rwo^77, "perplexity " =airopia.
m or IV; o-ui/e^co = (i) Ti, (i) T1S;
(2) -I1VD, (i) (by error) IV (read as IS) ; airopia =
(i) -nv.
109 (Mark ix. 42 50)
In LXX,
(a rare word) =
m; a-jropov^ai.=
"THE KINGDOM OF GOD"
says ' Many are the tribulations of the righteous ' and ' Many are
the scourges of the sinner 1 .' "
Origen's view agrees with such inferences as would naturally
be drawn from Scripture and Jewish tradition. The first
Biblical mention of (LXX) "tribulation" is where Jacob says
"I will make there an altar unto God, who answered me in
the day of my tribulation (R.V. distress) 2 ," The Midrash on
an earlier passage in Genesis remarks that the elect Patriarch
(Jacob) and the elect Prophet (Moses) were both subjected to
fear and anxiety. God had promised to be with them, but
"the righteous must not build upon that in this world," "In this
world the righteous must have no self-confidence^ "
Let us turn to the Fourth Gospel. Above we find it suggest-
ing " tribulation " under the metaphor of "cleansing" the
fruitful boughs of the Vine an act that Philo described as
the "cutting away" of "self-conceit." Now looking on a
little we find a mention of "persecution" where Jesus says to
the disciples "If they persecuted me they will also persecute
you 4 ," thus strengthening them that they might not " stumble 5 ,"
and preparing them for a general antagonism with " the world 6 ."
And at this point, in quite a new metaphor, the naturalness
and the ultimate fruitfulness of some kind of suffering and
"tribulation" are brought before us in a sentence alluding
to the ancient "sorrow" of childbirth predicted for Eve, but
describing it as swallowed up in the joy that follows: "The
woman when she is bringing forth [a child] hath sorrow because
1 Origen on Ps. iv. i, quoting Ps. xxxiv. 19, xxxii. 10. "With a
meaning of its own " = 181108.
8 Gen. xxxv. 3.
3 See Gen. r. (Wii. p. 373) on Gen. xxxii. 7. "Self-confidence
(Selbstvertrauen) " appears to mean here what a man of the world
might call "confidence in his fortune," while a man calling himself
religious, yet feeling the same thing, might disguise it under the
phrase "confidence in God."
4 Jn xv. 20.
5 Jn XVI. I Iva HTJ <TKav8a\i<r0f)T, Comp. Mk iv. 17 yevopfvrjs
OXfyevs f) Stcoy/xou 8ia TOV \6yov v0v$ o-Kav8a\iovTai (sim. Mt. xiii. 2l).
6 Jn xvi. 20 "Ye shall weep and lament, but the world shall
rejoice."
no (Mark ix. 42 50)
AND "LITTLE CHILDREN"
her hour is come, but when she is delivered of the little-child she
no longer remembereth the tribulation for the joy that a man is
born into the world. And ye now therefore have sorrow, but
I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice and your joy
no man shall take from you 1 ."
Soon after this, comes the final mention of "tribulation,"
at the conclusion of Christ's Last Discourse. It is in a sentence
closely resembling the Midrashic comment quoted above on
Jacob's "tribulation" as being, "in this world," inevitable:
"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 gained the victory over the world 2 ." Thus the final
mention of "peace" by Christ before His crucifixion is connected
with a mention of "victory" that implies war, and with a
"tribulation" through which that victory is to be achieved.
All these Johannine words are far removed from the words
of Mark. But they accord not only with Hebrew and Jewish
thought, but also with Mark himself when Mark is interpreted
in accordance with the thought that underlies his brief traditions.
1 Jn xvi. 21 2. W. H. txt ape! "shall take."
forth "=TiKTt], " sorrow " = \vnr)v. The first Biblical mention of \vnrj
is combined with T'KTV in Gen. iii. 16 "Multiplying will I multiply
thy sorrows. . .in sorrows shalt thou briny forth children (ev XVTTCUS
rer; TCKVO.}."
2 Jn xvi. 33 "Ye have (f'xfrf) " is given by W. H. without alter-
native, but naturally it has been altered by many authorities into
the future, the meaning being probably "ye have [in store]." SS
has " that there may be to you in me peace, and [yet that] in the
world there may be to you distress," perhaps meaning "that ye may
have peace in me, and this in spite of inevitable tribulation in the
world."
in (Mark ix. 42 50)
CHAPTER III
MARRIAGE AND CHILDREN
[Mark x. i 16]
i. Divorce, the discussion of, how originated^
MARK and Matthew say that certain Pharisees questioned
Jesus in public on the lawfulness of divorce, and mentioned the
1 Mk x. i 12 (R.V.)
(1) And he arose
from thence, and
cometh into the
borders of Judaea
and beyond Jordan :
and multitudes come
together unto him
again ; and, as he
was wont, he taught
them again.
(2) And there
came unto him
Pharisees, and asked
him, Is it lawful for
a man to put away
[his] wife? tempting
him.
(3) And he an-
swered and said unto
them, What did
Moses command you ?
(4) And they
said, Moses suffered
to write a bill of
divorcement, and to
put her away.
(5) But Jesus
said unto them, For
your hardness of
heart he wrote you
this commandment.
(6) But from the
Mt. xix. i 10
v. 312 (R.V.)
(xix. i) And it
came to pass when
Jesus had finished
these words, he de-
parted from Galilee,
and came into the
borders of Judaea
beyond Jordan;
(2) And great
multitudes followed
him ; and he healed
them there.
(3) And there
came unto him
(many auth. ins. the)
Pharisees, tempting
him, and saying, Is
it lawful [for" a man]
to put away his wife
for every cause ?
(4) And he an-
swered and said,
Have ye not read,
that he"
(7) They say
unto him, Why then
did Moses command
to give her a bill of
divorcement, and to
put [her] away ?
(8) He saith unto
them, Moses for vour
Lk. xvii. n, xvi. 18
(R.V.)
(xvii. 11) And it
came to pass, as they
were (or, as he was")
on the way to Jeru-
salem, that he was
passing through the
midst of (or, between)
Samaria and Galilee.
112 - v Mark x. i 12)
MARRIAGE AND CHILDREN
ordinance of Moses, but do not add any reference to the divorces
that had preceded the marriage of Herodias to Herod Antipas.
Mk x. i 12
(R.V.) contd.
beginning of the
creation, Male and
female made he
them.
(7) For this cause
shall a man leave his
father and mother,
and shall cleave to
his wife (some anc.
auth. omit and shall
. . . wife) ;
(8) And the
twain shall become
one flesh ; so that
they are no more
twain, but one flesh.
(o) What there-
lore God hath joined
together, let not man
put asunder.
(10) And in the
house the disciples
asked him again of
this matter.
(n) And he saith
unto them, Whoso-
ever shall put away
his wife, and marry
another, committeth
adultery against her:
(12) And if she
herself shall put
away her husband,
and marry another,
she committeth ad-
ultery.
Alt. xix. i 10,
v. 31 2 (R.V.) contd.
hardness of heart
suffered you to put
away your wives :
but from the be-
ginning it hath not
been so.
(4) And he an-
swered and said,
Have ye not read,
that he which made
(some anc. auth. cre-
ated) i them i from
the beginning made
them male and fe-
male,
(5) And said, For
this cause shall a
man leave his father
and mother, and shall
cleave to his wife ;
and the twain shall
become one flesh ?
(()) So that they
are no more twain,
but one flesh.
What therefore God
hath joined together,
let not man put
asunder.
(g) And I say
unto you, Whosoever
shall put away his
wife, except for forni-
cation, and shall
marry another, com-
mitteth adultery :
(some anc. auth. sav-
ing for the cause of
fornication, maketh
her an adulteress, as
in v. 32) : and he that
marrieth her when
she is put away
committeth adultery
(some anc. auth. omit
the last sentence).
(10) The disciples
say unto him, If the
case of the man. .
Lk. xvii. n, xvi. 18
(R.V.) contd.
(xvi. 1 8) Every
one that putteth
away his wife, and
marrieth another,
committeth adultery:
and he that marrieth
one that is put away
from a husband
committeth adultery.
A. F.
113 (Mark x. i 12)
MARRIAGE AND CHILDREN
In Mark the Pharisees ask "Is it lawful for a man to put away
his wife? " but Matthew has "put away his wife for every cause."
Luke omits the question altogether:
Afterwards Mark (and Mark alone) tells us that in private
"the disciples asked him again of this matter." And now Jesus
modifies the phrase in such a way as to suggest a reference to
Herod : " Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another,
committeth adultery." Matthew also has not as in private,
but as part of the public doctrine "put away his wife. . .and
marry another." And this same combination is given by Luke,
but in quite a different context. Luke represents Jesus as
saying consecutively, in an attack on the covetousness of the
Pharisees, (i) "The law and the prophets [were] until John,"
(2) "It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for
one tittle of the law to fall," (3) "Every one that putteth
away his wife and marrieth another, committeth adultery ; and
he that marrieth one that is put away from a husband com-
mitteth adultery 1 ."
This indicates that the Pharisees described by Mark and
Matthew as questioning Jesus are to be regarded as putting
a dilemma before Him. - Either He must dissent from John
the Baptist's condemnation of Herod (which they knew He
would not do) or else He would come into collision with Herod
Mk. x. i 12 Mt. xix. i 10, Lk. xvii. n, xvi. 18
(R.V.) v. 312 (R.V.) contd. (R.V.)
(v. 31) It was said
also, Whosoever shall
Eut away his wife,
;t him. give her a
writing of divorce-
ment.
(32) But I say
unto you, that every
one that putteth
away his wife, sav-
ing for the cause of
fornication, maketh
her an adulteress :
and whosoever shall
marry her when she
is put away com-
mitteth adultery.
* Lk xvi. 14 1 8.
114 (Mark x. i 12)
MARRIAGE AND CHILDREN
and probably share the Baptist's fate 1 . This also explains
Mark's brief language, which assumes that "put away his wife/'
in the lips of the Pharisees, meant in general "put away his wife
at his own pleasure," and was meant to include the particular
question, "Was it lawful for Herod Antipas to put away his
wife [as he did] and [i.e. in order to} marry another? " Further,
it explains Matthew's amplification of the first part of Mark's
text (adding "for every cause 2 ") and his alteration of the
second part ("if she herself put away her husband"), if the
latter referred to the divorce of a husband by Herodias an act
assumed by Mark to be referred to, but quite exceptional, and
not contemplated by Jewish Law.
A tacit allusion to John the Baptist in Mark and Matthew
(corresponding to the one expressed in Luke) is not incom-
patible with Christ's general condemnation of the Rabbinical
laxity in allowing divorce, and also with His condemning a
continued adherence to the letter of the ancient Law itself 3 .
Luke, when he says that "not a tittle of the Law shall fall,"
seems to mean, not the Law permitting divorce, but the Law
1 Some motive, not quite clear, seems to underlie the variations
in Mk x. i, Mt. xix. i "into the borders of Judaea and (Mt. om. and)
beyond Jordan " (Mt. has "from Galilee and came into the borders
comp. Lk. xvii. IT "between (8ia /zeVoi/) (?) Samaria and Galilee").
The text may have originally meant that Jesus was on the point of
passing out of the jurisdiction of Herod Antipas, and that the
Pharisees desired to bring down on Him the hostility of Antipas
before He entered Judaea. See Corrections 438 (i) (v). John may
perhaps be said to intervene as to "beyond Jordan" which Luke
never uses (Joh. Voc. 17146, 18136). But the question is com-
plicated by the possibility of allusion, see below, pp. 152 5.
2 Origen, on Mt. xix. 3 (Lomm. iii. 303), says that Mark has TO
Icrodwapovv. Probably he regarded Mark as using ce<mv to
mean " there is absolute power," which Matthew expressed by adding
"for every cause," i.e. any cause that might seem sufficient to the
husband.
3 Deut. xxiv. i " If she find no favour in his eyes because he hath
found some unseemly thing in her (on clpfv eV oury mr^/ioi/ irpay^a) "
on which Hor. Heb. (on Mt. xix. 3) says (/. Sotah fol. 16. 2) "The
school of Shammai permitted not divorces but only in the case of
adultery."
115 (Mark x. i 12) 8 2
MARRIAGE AND CHILDREN
forbidding adultery, which Law he regards as having been
broken by Herod Antipas and Herodias.
There are good reasons why John would not intervene here.
First, there is the non-logical nature of the argument from
Genesis, and the very different "precept of Moses," and the
Jewish interpretations of that " precept" ; secondly, there is
the fact that some of the utterances of Jesus on this subject
were bound up with the special case of Herod Antipas, a name
not mentioned in his Gospel ; thirdly, some of these utterances
referred to the connivance of the Pharisees at Herod's conduct
contrasted with the Baptist's condemnation of it a con-
demnation mentioned by all the Synoptists but not by John 1 .
Incidentally, it would be true to say that (i) in this passage
Mark, followed by Matthew, represents Jesus as appealing from
the Law of Moses to that which was "from the beginning";
and (2) somewhat similarly, as to healing on the sabbath,
John represents Jesus as going back, in thought at least though
not in word, to "the beginning," by saying " My Father worketh
hitherto and I work 2 ." There is no such argument anywhere
in Luke. But as regards the main subject, divorce, Johannine
intervention was not to be expected and does not exist.
2. "And he blessed them," in Mark 3
This is the only instance in which Jesus is described by
Mark as "blessing" persons. Matthew does not retain (nor
1 Mk vi. 18, Mt. xiv. 4, Lk. iii. 19.
2 See Son 3583 (i) quoting Mk x. 6, Mt. xix.
3 Mkx. 13 16
(R.V.)
(13) And they
brought unto him
little children, that
he should touch
them ; and the dis-
ciples rebuked them.
(14) But when
Jesus saw it, he was
moved with indigna-
tion, and said unto
them, Suffer the little
Mt. xix. 13 14,
xviii. i 3, xix. 15
(R.V.)
(xix. 13) Then
were there brought
unto him little chil-
dren, that he should
lay his hands on them
and pray : and the
disciples rebuked
them.
(14) But Jesus
said, Suffer the little
children, and forbid
4, Jn v. 17.
Lk. xviii. 15 17
(R.V.)
(15) And they
brought unto him
also their babes, that
he should touch
them : but when the
disciples saw it, they
rebuked them.
(16) But Jesus
called them unto him,
saying, Suffer the
little children to come
116 (Mark x. 13 16)
MARRIAGE AND CHILDREN
does he describe elsewhere) the act of "blessing" persons,
though he retains here the "laying on" of "hands 1 ." Luke
retains neither, and does not describe Jesus as "blessing"
persons till after His resurrection 2 . Here Luke also alters
"children" into "babes." He introduces the incident, after
a contrast between a proud Pharisee and a humble Publican,
abruptly, thus: "But he that humbleth himself shall be
exalted. And they brought unto him even their (lit. the)
babes that he might touch them 3 ." "Touching" (which is
Mk x. 13 16
(R.V.) contd.
children to come un-
to me ; forbid them
not: for of such is
the kingdom of God.
(15) Verily I say
unto you, Whosoever
shall not receive the
kingdom of God as a
little child, he shall
in -no wise enter
therein.
(16) And he took
them in his arms, and
blessed them, laying
his hands upon them.
Lk. xviii. 15 17
(R.V.) contd.
unto me, and forbid
them not : for of such
is the kingdom of
God.
(17) Verily I say
unto you, Whosoever
shall not receive tin-
kingdom of God as a
little child, he shall
in no wise enter there-
in.
Mt. xix. 13 14,
xviii. i 3, xix. 15
, (R.V.) contd.
them not, to come
unto me : for of such
is the kingdom of
heaven.
(xviii. i) In that
hour . . . .Who then
is greatest (lit. great-
er) in the kingdom of
heaven ?
(2) And he called
to him a little child,
and set him in the
midst of them,
(3) And said,
Verily I say unto
you, Except ye turn,
and become as little
children, ye shall in
no wise enter into
the kingdom of
heaven.
(xix. 15) And he
laid his hands on
them, and departed
thence.
Mt. xviii. i 5 is also parallel to Mk ix. 34 foil. See above,
p. 70 foil.
1 Mk x. 1 6 Koi fvayKoXiardfifvos avra KarfvXoyci ridfls TUS x W ns >7r '
avra, D rrpo<rKa\e<rdp.cvos, SS "and he called them," b "con-
vitans," c, d, /, ff, q, r (Swete) "convocans," see above, chap. ii. 9.
The parall. Mt. xix. 15 KOI tiriQfis ray )(lpa$ avrols eiropevOr) tKfWev
includes a parall. to Mk x. 17 <a\ cKTropcvopevov avrov. Luke omits
this, but has n-poo-eKaAeVaro in Lk. xviii. 16.
2 Lk. xxiv. 50, 51.
Lk. xviii. 15 Trpotre'cpfpoi/ 8e auroJ KOL TII (3pf(pr) Iva OVTWV aVrr/Tat
117 (Mark x. 13 16)
MARRIAGE AND CHILDREN
also Mark's word) might seem to Luke different from Matthew's
parallel phrase, "laying on hands," and a less formal act.
Hence Luke might omit Mark's "blessed" as being also too
formal. Matthew's omission of "blessing" may be explained
in the same way. At the beginning of his narrative he has
'''that he might lay his hands on them and pray." "Praying
for" is different from, and less formal than, "bestowing a
blessing on," and does not imply any conscious act, or even
conscious receptiveness, in the person for whom the prayer is
offered.
But all these divergences from Mark excite a reasonable
suspicion that Mark is diverged from because difficult, and that
here, as ofteji, the difficult version is the right one. This is
confirmed by Mark's very rare and very strong word, in-
adequately rendered "blessed." It is very hard to say why
Mark uses it. It does not occur in the New Testament
elsewhere, nor even in LXX except in Tobit 1 . Goodspeed
does not give it as occurring in any Apologist or early Father.
The Thesaurus gives no instance of it outside Tobit .and
Plutarch 2 . In Plutarch it is used thrice, and always of
exaggerated eulogy ('pour-out-praise "). One of these instances
occurs in a discussion where some one, depreciating marriage,
declares that legislators, because citizens are needful for the
state, "pour out praise " on marriage. The defender of marriage
has previously exclaimed "Marriage and the coming together
of husband and wife, than which there neither is nor ever has
been a holier yoke dost thou call this shameful 3 ? " Now in
(Mk ch/xT/rat, and Traidia without TO). R.V. renders ra fiptcpr), as Greek
idiom necessitates, "their babes." Who "they" are is not stated.
But probably they are the mothers of babes in the "multitudes"
mentioned in Mk x. i as being taught by Jesus.
1 Tob. xi. i, 17.
* L. S. "Plut. 2. 66 A, LXX, etc." is misleading. The "etc."
should have come after "A" to shew that there are two other
instances in Plutarch, viz. Mor. 750 c, 1069 c (or E).
3 Plut. Mor. 750 C Km 6 Aa^aios-, Aor^icr-Toi/ 5e KaAets-, f^ij, ya/zoi/
KOI truvo&OV dvo~p()s <al yvvaiKos, rjs ov ytyovtv ovo* fcrnv ifpwTfpa K(iTa.fvis;
'AXXa raura /xeV, fl-rrev 6 TIpcoToytvrjs , dvayKala irpbs ycvf <riv ovra, o-p.vvvov(Tiv
ov (pav\(as ol vop.o6(rat KOI KaTfv\oyov(TL Trpos TOVS TroXXovs.
nS (Mark x. 13 16)
MARRIAGE AND CHILDREN
the Synoptic passage under consideration, this blessing of
children is preceded almost immediately in Matthew by an
argument of the disciples that "it is not expedient to marry"
and by Christ's reply 1 . This suggests that the blessing of
children described by Mark was part of a series of Christ's acts
and sayings bearing on marriage and the birth of children, and
that Mark has omitted some argument against marriage that
called forth an emphatic protest from Jesus.
This suggestion is favoured by the fact that the first two
Biblical instances where God is introduced as "blessing" are
connected with the propagation of animal life ; and the second
of these connects "blessing" and "multiplying" with a creation
of man in the image of God, expressly mentioning "male" and
"female 2 ." This passage Mark (followed by Matthew) has in
the previous context represented Jesus as quoting 3 , in reply
to the* Pharisees, and apparently in the presence of the multi-
tudes whom He had been teaching 4 . Now it would seem that
some of the mothers in the crowd after hearing Christ's
maintenance of the divine ordinance of matrimony press
forward that He may "touch" their little ones. The disciples,
engaged in discussing the divorce question, obstruct the parents.
Jesus, resenting the interference of the obstructing disciples,
does more than "touch" the children. He "blesses" them,
or "pours forth blessing" on them. Thus not only does He
sanction the inference that the faith of parents can avail for
their infant children, but He appears indirectly to teach the
disciples and the multitudes an object lesson, saying, in effect,
1 Mt. xix. 10 12.
2 Gen. i. 22, 28. Neither of these verses about "blessing" occurs
in the Index to Philo (ed. Richter).
3 Mk x. 6 drrb Se dpx*l s < T ^ ( <^f (quoting Gen. i. 27) apo-ev <al 6rj\v
fTToirjcrfv [avTovs], Mt. xix. 4 OVK dvfywrf on 6 KTi(ras aTr' dp^f/f apircv
<a\ flrjXu firoirja-fv avrovs ; Mark favours the view that "male and
female" were so created "from the beginning" (and not the male
before the female). Matthew's arrangement of the words does not
favour it. Rashi says " Est autem expositio mystica quod creaverit
ilium duas fades habentem ab initio sed postea ilium separaverit."
4 Mkx. i.
119 (Mark x. 13 16)
MARRIAGE AND CHILDREN
what the Epistle to the Hebrews says, that " marriage" is to
be "had in honour 1 ."
The First Epistle to Timothy speaks of certain Christians as
"forbidding to marry 2 ." Paul himself, under the pressure of
a missionary life, and with an overhanging uncertainty as to
the day of the Coming of the Lord, is dubious as to the general
propriety of marriage for Christians 3 . Luke, in his version of
the Parable of the Refusal of the King's Invitation, inserts as
one excuse "I have married a wife and therefore I cannot
come 4 ." From these facts, and from Matthew's peculiar
tradition about "eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake"
(which seems out of place or erroneously reported) we may
infer that some readers would not easily understand the strong
language in which Mark describes Christ as "pouring-out-
blessing" on children if it meant that He blessed them not
only for their own sakes, but also as being the representatives
of the concord and affection of family life.
In the previous context of both Mark and Luke, the typical
meaning of "little children" is expressed in an ambiguous
1 Heb. xiii. 4 ri/uos- 6 ydpos ev -rrda-iv, on which see Westcott.
2 i Tim. iv. 3.
3 Comp. Epictet. iii. 22. 67 foil, praising marriage as an institution
in an ideal city (o-o$o>i/ iroXiv), but regarding it as perhaps unfit for
the Cynic in the present battle of good against evil if he is to be
"without distraction (a7re/3tWa<rroi>) " (comp. i Cor. vii. 35) and
"wholly given to the service of God."
4 Lk. xiv. 20, not in Mt. xxii. 5. The tradition peculiar to
Matthew (xix. 12) about "eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's
sake" is. perhaps out of place, and separated from context that
would make it intelligible. Apart from historical passages in
Jeremiah (xxix. 2 etc.) the only mention of "eunuchs" in the
Prophets is in Is. Ivi. 3 4 "neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am
a dry tree. For thus saith the Lord of the eunuchs that keep my
sabbaths " In the Pauline Epistles, the question about marriage
is raised, not by Paul himself, but by the Corinthians (i Cor. vii. i
"the things whereof ye wrote") consulting Paul. If it were raised
by Jewish missionaries of Christ, after Christ's resurrection, the
answer would naturally be in a tone of consolation, as in Isaiah,
regarding the eunuch's condition as an evil, but an evil that might
be overruled to good. See McNeile's note on Mt. xix. 12.
120 (Mark x. 13 16)
MARRIAGE AND CHILDREN
sentence "Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as
a little child 1 ." "Child" might be, but is not, the object.
Matthew clears away the ambiguity, but narrows the inter-
pretation, thus, "Except ye turn and become as little children,"
and then adds, as explanation, "Whosoever shall humble
himself as this little child, the same is the greatest in the
kingdom of the heavens 2 ." But in truth it is not a conscious
"self -humbling," or "making oneself little," that is contem-
plated by Jesus. It is the affectionate clinging of the little
one to the parents, or to the mother's breast, as is indicated
by an ancient comment on Mark 3 .
Turning to the Fourth Gospel, we see that so far as the
first part of Mark's tradition about "receiving the kingdom
of God as a little child," John is not bound to intervene by
the rule of Johannine Intervention. For Luke follows Mark
verbatim. But the whole of the Fourth Gospel, from the
Prologue onwards, is permeated with the thought of the Word,
or Son, above, "in" the bosom of the Father," and with the
thought of men, below, as receiving the Son from above, and
thereby receiving authority to become "God's children 4 ."
As regards the second part of Mark's tradition, which
represents Jesus as "pouring out blessing" on the little children
brought to Him, the question is whether we accept the suggestion
1 Mk x. 15, Lk. xviii. 17. See Origen Comm. M tilth, xiii. i<>
(Lomm. iii. 247) dn<pijBo\os 17 Ae'|iy and Comm. Matth. xv. 9 (Lomm.
iii. 345) <r;(f86i/ 8e raty aural? \ct-(ri KOI 6 MdpKos, /iaXiara TO reXeuraia,
axram-cor e'e'0fro. Neither in these passages, nor elsewhere, does he
quote Mk x. 16 " blessed."
2 Mt. xviii. 3 4. This is also parall. to Mk ix. 36.
3 See Cramer on Mk x. 13 containing Victor's collection of
traditions about the typical child: "When it is whipped by the
mother the child still seeks her, and honours her above all things,
and even though you shew him a crowned queen he does not prefer
her to his mother in rags." It adds "And it is well said 'He took
them in His arms and poured blessing on them.' For [by that act]
there is brought back again as it were into the arms of the Creator
His handiwork, which had been separated from Him in the beginning
and had fallen away from [His arms, or bosom! (x^pia-dev avrov KOT"
Kd\ CKTTfTTTGiKOs} ."
4 Jn i. i, 12, 18 etc.
i2i (Mark x. 13 16)
MARRIAGE AND CHILDREN
that the "blessing" indirectly upholds the sanctity of marriage,
about which Jesus has previously quoted from Genesis the
words describing the creation of mankind as male and female.
If we do, Johannine intervention may be asserted, not indeed of
a verbal, but (as often) of a dramatic kind. For John is the
only Evangelist that describes Jesus as present at " a marriage 1 ."
The marriage takes place at the conclusion of the Johannine
Hexaemeron that corresponds to the six days of Creation in
Genesis 2 . Jesus does not indeed pronounce a verbal blessing
on the marriage, but, at the request of His mother, He bestows
a practical and typical blessing on the wedded pair by supplying
them with "the good wine 3 ."
1 Jn ii. i.
2 On "the new Hexaemeron" see Joh. Gr. 2624.
3 Jn ii. 10. " Wine " is connected with the thought of " blessing "
in many passages of Scripture. Gesen. 139 b under "blessing" refers
to "new wine" implied in Is. Ixv. 8. See also Levy i. 268 a and b
" the cup of blessing," a term used both in Heb. and Aramaic, to mean
a cup of wine over which a blessing was spoken, and used by Paul
(i Cor. x. 1 6) in connection with the Christian Eucharist as a term
with which his readers would be familiar.
122 (Mark x. 13 16)
CHAPTER IV
HOW TO ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM
[Mark x. 17 52]
i. "And Jesus looking upon him loved him," in Mark 1
IN the narratives printed below 2 , describing how a rich man
failed to enter the Kingdom, there are several striking differences,
1 Mk x. 21.
2 Mkx. 1722
(R.V.)
(17) And as he
was going forth into
the way (or, on his
way), there ran one
to him, and kneeled
to him, and asked
him, Good Master
(or, Teacher), what
shall I do that I may
inherit eternal life ?
(18) And Jesus
said unto him, Why
callest thou me good ?
none is good save
one, [even] God.
(19) Thou know-
est the command-
ments, Do not kill,
Do not commit adul-
tery, Do not steal,
Do not bear false
witness, Do not de-
fraud, Honour thy
father and mother.
(20) And he said
unto him, Master (or,
Teacher), all these
things have I ob-
Mt. xix. 16 22
(R.V.)
(16) And behold,
one came to him and
said, Master (or,
Teacher : some anc.
aut/i. prefix Good),
what good thing shall
I do, that I may have
eternal life?
(17) And he said
unto him, Why ask-
est thou me concern-
ing that which is
good? One there is
who is good (some
anc. auth. Why call-
est thou me good ?
None is good save
one, [even] God) :
but if thou wouldest
enter into life, keep
the commandments.
(18) Hesaithunto
him, Which? And
Jesus said, Thou
shalt not kill, Thou
shalt not commit
adultery, Thou shalt
not steal, Thou shalt
Lk. xviii. 18 23
(R.V.)
(18) And a certain
ruler asked him,
saying, Good Master
(or, Teacher), what
shall T do to inherit
eternal life ?
(19) And Jesus
said unto him, Why
callest thou me good ?
none is good, save
one, [even] God.
(20) Thou know-
est the command-
ments, Do not com-
mit adultery, Do not
kill, Do not" steal, Do
not bear laJse witness,
Honour thy father
and mother.
(21) And he <?aid,
All these things have
I observed from my
youth up.
(22) And when
Jesus heard it, he
said unto him, One
thing thou lackest
vet: sell all that
123 (Mark x. 17 22)
HOW TO ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM
some of which imply verbal transpositions, (i) Where Mark
and Luke have "Good Master, what shall I do?" Matthew has
"Master, what good thing shall I do?" with a corresponding
difference in Christ's reply 1 . (2) Mark and Luke represent
Jesus as saying "One thing is lacking (Luke, wanting) to thee,"
but Matthew's only mention of " lacking " is " What lack I yet ? "
and Matthew represents Jesus as adding " If thou wouldest be
perfect 2 ." (3) In Mark and Luke, Jesus mentions several of
the Commandments, but Matthew alone inserts "Thou shalt
my
Mk x. 17 22
(R.V.) contd.
served from
youth.
(21) And Jesus
looking upon him
loved him, and said
unto him, One thing
thou lackest : go,
sell whatsoever thou
hast, and give to the
poor, and thou shalt
have treasure in
heaven : and come,
follow me.
(22) But his
countenance fell at
the saying, and he
went away sorrow-
ful : for he was one
that had great pos-
sessions.
Lk. xviii. 18 23
(R.V.) contd.
thou hast, and dis-
tribute unto the poor,
and thou shalt have
treasure in heaven:
and come, follow me.
(23) But when he
heard these things,
he became exceeding
sorrowful ; for he
was very rich.
Mt. xix. 1 6 22
(R.V.) contd.
not bear -false wit-
ness,
(19) Honour thy
father and thy
mother: and, Thou
shalt love thy neigh-
bour as thyself.
(20) The young
man saith unto him,
All these things have
I observed : what
lack I yet ?
(21) Jesus said
unto him, If thou
wouldest be perfect,
go, sell that "thou
hast, and give to the
poor, and thou shalt
have treasure in
heaven : and come,
follow me.
(22) But when -
the young man heard
the saying, he went
away sorrowful : for
he was one that had
great possessions.
1 Mk X. 17, Lk. xviii. 18 SiSao-xaXe aya$e, ri TTOI^O-CO (Lk. iroir)(ra$) ;
Mt. xix. 1 6 8i8do-Ka\f, ri dyadov TTOITJO-Q); It would be easy to confuse
AFA0E with AFAOO (i.e. dyaSov). But we should still have to
suppose that Matthew (or Mark and Luke) altered Christ's reply (as
well as the order of the words in the question).
2 Mk x. 2T ?v <re vorepet, Lk. xviii. 22 ert > <roi XeiVei, Mt. xix. 2O
ri Ti va-TfpS) ; Confusion would be easy between en (i.e. ev n) and en.
Mt. xix. 21 6i 0c\fis TfXfLos fivai implies, but does not assert, that
something is "lacking."
124 (Mark x. 17 22)
HOW TO ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM
love thy neighbour as thyself 1 ." (4) Mark alone inserts "Do
not defraud 2 ."
Besides these variations, all of which concern words of
Jesus, there is a statement, peculiar to Mark, which imputes
a motive to Jesus, "And Jesus, looking stedfastly upon him,
loved him 3 ." "Looking stedfastly" appears to imply Christ's
insight into the mind of the man whom He was intending to
test. The man professed to have kept all the Commandments
from his youth, including (according to Matthew) the Command-
ment to love one's neighbour as -oneself 4 . Can it be denied
that if the man was honest, he thought too well of himself
and deceived himself 5 ? He was rich, and Mark himself else-
where speaks of "the deceitfulness of riches 6 ." It has been
therefore suggested in a previous part of this work that Mark
has erroneously substituted "loved" for the very similar word
1 Mk x. 19, Lk. xviii. 20, Mt. xix. i 8 i<>.
2 Mk x. 19 M) d7roirTfpT)(T7]s, Del. pcry. Comp. Lev. xix. 13 "Thou
shalt not (A.V.) defraud (R.V. oppress) thy neighbour, nor rob him;
the wages of a hired servant shall not abide with thee all night"
(where Rashi explains pjj'JJ as "defraudat mercenarium mercede"),
and Deut. xxiv. 14 ptry, A dnoarfp^afis, B dnadiKr)o-is, of a hireling's
pay. The word is also Aram, and Syr. SS and many authorities
omit the clause in Mk x. 19, probably because it seemed wrong to
add to "the Ten Commandments." Josephus, however (Ant. iii.
5. 4), says that it was "not lawful" for him to set down their exact
words, but only their " import." In Mk, the word seems appropriate
to "their import." The rich man would not be tempted to "steal,"
but he might be tempted to "keep back" what was morally "due"
to neighbours or dependants.
3 Mk X. 21 6 8e 'l/jo-oCf ffjifiXf-^as aura) rjydnrjo-fv avrov. Comp. Mk
x. 27 fp.(3\\lfas avrols 6 'lijo-ovs, where Jesus is regarded as not
only "looking stedfastly" at the disciples but also having insight
into their feelings.
4 Origen (on Mt. xix. 22, Lomm. iii. 367) uses jjydna, but in
a different context, c^cov KTr}p.aTa TroXXa ancp TjyaTra.
5 Comp. Gal. vi. 3 "if any man seemeth [to himself] to be some-
thing when he is nothing he deceiveth ((ppfvanaTa) himself," and Jas i.
26 "deceiving (diraT&v) his own heart."
6 Mk iv. 19 (Mt. xiii. 22) 17 a-norr) rov TT\OVTOV the only mention of
in the Gospels.
125 (Mark x. 17 22)
HOW TO ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM
(in Greek) "deceived," and that the original stated that Jesus
looked stedfastly at the man and saw that "he deceived him-
self V
How does John deal with this Marcan tradition about a
would-be disciple whom "Jesus loved"? Only indirectly
perhaps, but still effectively. Some would say that he inter-
venes directly, since he is the only other Evangelist that
describes Jesus as "loving"; and he mentions an actual, not
a would-be, "disciple whom Jesus loved 2 ." But putting that
aside as a mere verbal coincidence, we may regard the Johannine
Nicodemus as in some respects a parallel to the Synoptic
questioner. Luke describes the latter as "a ruler"; air the
Synoptists say that he was rich, and they all agree that he came
to Jesus saluting Him as "teacher," and asking to be taught
the way to eternal life. John says of Nicodemus that he was'
"a ruler of the Jews"; that he came to Jesus saluting Him
as "rabbi" and "a teacher come from God," and receiving
from Jesus instruction as to the way of entering into the king-
dom of God 3 ; and later on, John, agreeing with Jewish tradition,
leads us to infer that he was rich since he joined with Joseph
of Arimathaea in giving to the body of Jesus a costly burial 4 .
But John represents Jesus as giving to Nicodemus a very
different reply from that which the Synoptists describe as
given to their "rich man." Instead of the Synoptic "one
thing is lacking to thee," or "if thou wouldest be perfect," the
Johannine reply is, in effect, "The one thing needful for thee
is that love of God and man which belongs to those who are
1 See Beginning pp. 263 4 where this is given among several
explanations. It is also suggested that the original of Mk x. 21
may have meant "one thing is lacking to thee" in a different sense
from that which is commonly attached to the words, so that Jesus
meant "Thou lackest the one thing needful" (comp. Lk. x. 41 2).
2 Jn xi. 5, xiii. 23 etc. If John knew of the Marcan tradition as
now extant and regarded it as erroneous he might see an additional
reason for emphasizing the reticence of "the disciple" whom Jesus
really "loved." The Marcan young man is by no means reticent.
Strong's Concordance has " loved " Mt. (o), Mk (i), Lk. (i), Jn (22).
3 Jn iii. i 2 foil.
4 Jn xix. 38 9. On the wealth of Nicodemus, see Corrections 519.
126 (Mark x. 17 22)
HOW TO ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM
born from above." And the end corresponds to the beginning.
Nicodemus is described at the end as joining with Joseph of
Arimathaea in burying Jesus, but there is a distinction ; Joseph
is called "a disciple of Jesus" (though "secretly for fear of the
Jews"). Nicodemus, even with such a qualification of secrecy,
is not so called 1 . On the whole it may be said that the Fourth
Evangelist, whether consciously alluding or not alluding to the
Marcan peculiar tradition, makes it more difficult for us than
before to suppose that Jesus regarded with special "love" the
rich man here mentioned by the Synoptists 2 .
2. "'Children, how hard it is," in Mark 3
The word here translated "hard" means etymologically
"squeamish," and hence " crossgrained " about persons, and
1 Jn xix. 38 41. It may be argued that the stand-point of
Nicodemus has been already described. But has it? Do his words
(Jn vii. 51) " Doth our law judge the man ^accused] except it first hear
from himself...?" describe any definite "stand-point"? Do they
not rather suggest an oscillation, or an attempt to be just and coldly
impartial, putting aside the previously uttered conviction (iii. 2)
"we know that thou art a teacher come from God" ?
2 It must be admitted that in one very important respect the
rich young ruler differs from the rich Nicodemus. The former came
to Jesus openly, not "by night"; and his combination of a love of
righteousness with a love of wealth, and of complacency with self-
distrust, may have drawn forth from Jesus a special compassion and
pitying love. But against this view is the hard fact that Matthew
and Luke ^mit the words "Jesus, looking upon him, loved him."
3 Mk x. 23 7 Mt. xix. 23 6 Lk xviii. 24 7
(R.V.) (R.V.) (R.V.)
(23) And Jesus (23) And Jesus (24) And Jesus
looked round about, said unto his dis- seeing him said, How
arid saith unto his ciples, Verily I say
disciples, How hardly unto you, It is hard
shall they that have for a rich man to
riches enter into the enter into the king-
kingdom of God ! dom of heaven.
(24) And the dis-
ciples were amazed
at his words. But
Jesus answereth a-
gain, and saith unto
them, Children, how
127 (Mark x. 17 22)
hardly shall they that
have riches enter into
the kingdom of God !
HOW TO ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM
" awkward " or" difficult " about things 1 . It is frequent in literary
Greek, but from Old Testament Greek it cannot be illustrated
Mk x. 23 7
(R.V.) contd.
hard is it for them
that trust in riches
(some anc. auth. omit
for . . . riches) to enter
into the kingdom of
God!
(25) It is easier
for a camel to go
through a needle's
eye, than for a rich
man to enter into the
kingdom of God.
(26) And they
were astonished ex-
ceedingly, saying un-
to him (many anc.
auth. saying among
themselves), Then
who can be saved?
(27) Jesus looking
upon them saith,
With men it is im-
possible, but not with
God : for all things
are possible with
God.
Mt. xix. 23 6
(R.V.) contd.
Lk. xviii. 24 7
(R.V.) contd.
(24) And again I
say unto you, It is
easier for a camel to
go through a needle's
eye, than for a rich
man to enter into the
kingdom of God,
(25) And when
the disciples heard it,
they were astonished
exceedingly, saying,
Who then can be
saved ?
(26) And Jesus
looking upon [them]
said to them, With
men this is im-
Sossible ; but with
od all things are
(25) For it is
easier for a camel to
enter in through a
needle's eye, than for
a rich man to enter
into the kingdom of
God.
(26) And they
that heard it said,
Then who can be
saved ?
(27) But he said,
The things which are
impossible with men
are possible with
God.
possible.
The Diatessaron, besides inserting "those that rely on their
possessions," transposes the text as follows (as also D transposes
Mk x. 24 and 25) :
" And when Jesus saw his sadness, he looked towards his disciples,
and said unto them, How hard it is for them that have possessions
to enter the kingdom of God ! 9
" Verily I say unto you, it is difficult for a rich man to enter the
kingdom of heaven. And I say unto you also, that it is easier for
a camel to enter the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter
the kingdom of God. And the disciples were wondering at these
sayings. And Jesus answered and said unto them again, My
children, How hard it is for those that rely on their possessions to
enter the kingdom of God ! And those that were listening wondered
more, and said amongst themselves, being agitated, Who, thinkest
thou, can be saved? And Jesus looked at them intently, and said
unto them, With men this is not possible, but with God [it is] : it is
possible for God to do everything."
1 Mk X. 24 reKva, Trots 8v<TKO\6v eVrti/ is rrjv /Ba(Ti\iav TOV Bfov
128 (Mark x. 23 7)
HOW TO ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM
except from a translation of the saying of Elijah to Elisha
"Thou hast asked a hard thing," i.e. a thing against nature' 1 .
In the present passage the entrance into the Kingdom of God
is described as being, not indeed impracticable, but effected
''with difficulty," or " awkwardly," or " as it were against nature."
It is not Hebraic Greek, but vernacular, and almost confined
to Hermas among early Christian writers 2 .
This fact bears on the interpretation of the phrase rendered
by R.V. "they that have riches," The parallel Matthew has
"a rich [man}," and this would lead the English reader to infer
that the three Synoptists had, in effect, the same word ('rich,"
"riches"). But the Marcan word (used also by Luke) does not
mean "riches." From LXX we can learn little about it 3 .
But in literary and vernacular Greek it means "money," often
in a bad sense 4 . When used elsewhere in the New Testament,
where it is confined to the Acts, it means "price" (once) in the
singular, and a bribe of " money " (thrice) in the plural (concerning
" money " offered by Simon Magus to Peter and hoped for by Felix
from Paul) 5 . It is found in Greek proverbs corresponding to
1 2 K. li. IO LXX (TK\r)pvvas TOV aiTrjvao-Oai, but "AXXoy has
dvo-Ko\ov yTT)<ra>. The only other instance is Jerem. xlix. 8, where
LXX renders TX "calamity" by 8vo-KoX<i.
2 Avo-KoXoz/ (adj. and adv.) occurs (Goodspeed) in Ign. Rom. i and
Smyrn. 4 "if haply they may repent which [indeed] is difficult,
but [still] the Lord Jesus Christ hath power to effect this," elsewhere
only in Hermas (about 10 times) (mostly SvoxoXcoj).
3 In canon. LXX, xPW aTa (pl ur -) occurs about ten times and =four
different Heb. words. In Dan. xi. 13, 24, 28 chDI, LXX has xPW ara >
Theod. inrapgis. It does not occur in the Pentateuch, nor in the
Prophets outside Daniel.
4 Steph. Thes. quotes Aristot. Eth. iv. i xP^P- aTa Myop-fv iravra
o(TU)v T) a^ia vo^ucr/icm /ierpeirat, and Pind. Isthtn. ii. 17 (also Alcae.
50, L.S.) xp*lP- (lT(l i XP*lP- aT> avTlp- Thuc. ii. 60 Kpfio-o-w xP T H l< * T( v an d
Xpfip-aviv viKaa-dai, and Eurip. Hec. 865 xpr)na.TG)v dov\os illustrate the
freq. unfavourable use of the word. Comp. Epictet. Mosch. 5 ov
TO. xpr]/j.aTa <pi\oi dXX' 6 <pi\os xpjy/xara. Ib. Stob. 33 (Schweig. lo) TOV
p,ev TOV o-co/zaroy 8f(rp,bv \vfi. . . KUKLO 8ia xpT)p,aTa>v seems to mean
"releases by means of bribes."
5 Acts iv. 37 r6 xPW a > "the price"; viii. 18, 20, xxiv. 26
"money."
A. F. 129 (Mark x. 23 7) 9
HOW TO ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM
such English ones as "money makes the man." Perhaps Mark
intends to accentuate the unfavourable sense he attaches to
it by a previous use of a less unfavourable phrase, "great
possessions." Now perhaps he represents Jesus as pronouncing
a warning to "the monied class 1 ."
Side by side with this vernacular Greek form of Christ's
utterance is a Hebraic one, in all the Synoptists, about a "rich
man" and a "camel." Mark alone has placed between the
two a third utterance in which Jesus says to the disciples,
" Children, how hard it is [for them that trust in riches] to enter
into the kingdom of God 2 !" Many authorities omit the
bracketed words. For their insertion, we may argue "Jesus
must have meant 'them that trust in riches,' not 'the rich,' for
1 Delitzsch gives as the rendering of "them that have money,"
"the masters of (*bjD) money." Comp. Eceles. vii. 12 "Wisdom is
a defence [even as] money is a defence, but. . .wisdom preserveth
the life of its master (rp^JD)," v.r. TOV e^oi/ra OVTTIV (A B N TOV Trap'
avTfjs mistaking the noun for the prepositions 3 and ^y) R.V. "the
life of him that hath it." The Heb. 750, baal, is rendered by e'^co
in Eceles. x. 20 6 ex> v (B 6 ras) -rrrepvyas, "that which hath wings,"
lit. "a master of wings" (where Aq. has 6 Kvpcevwv Trrepvyos,
Sym. r6 TrrepuTov, Theod. 6 e^ow irTcpvyas). So in Dan. viii. 6, 20
LXX and Theod. have "the ram. . .that had the horns," where Heb.
has "that was master of the horns." It will be perceived that "the
master of" means, not "the possessor of" anything whatever, but
"the possessor of" some characteristic, so that "the masters of
money " might mean those who are notable for their money and for
nothing else.
"E^o), in LXX, represents 59 different Heb. words or idioms. It
seems prob. that Mark had some reason for not using -n-Xova-ios here,
which the parallel Mt. adopts, and which Mark himself has in the
context. "Masters, or lords, of money" might be interpreted as
"proud of their money," "trusting in money" (Cramer, p. 381 ai/re^o-
pevois xpypaTav). Thus the Marcan variations might be explained.
On the Marcan peculiarity (x. 23) 7rept/3Xe^a/xei/o$- see Beginning
p. 263, Proclam. p. 361, and especially Introd. p. 93. When it repre-
sents a mere gesture, it would not be likely to be reproduced in the
Fourth Gospel, but its use in Mk xi. n is different and will be dis-
cussed in its place
2 See W. H. Notes on Select Readings p. 26. But add that SS has
twice (Mk x. 23, 24) "them that trust in their wealth."
130 (Mark x. 23 j)
HOW TO ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM
Abraham was 'rich." 1 Against their insertion, we may argue
"If Jesus had meant 'them that trust in riches,' He would have
said that their entrance into the Kingdom was 'impossible,'
not 'difficult."' And would not such an explanation have
banished all "astonishment" from the disciples? It will be
seen above that the Diatessaron, which adopts the doubtful
explanatory clause, alters the order so as to make it the climax
of Christ's utterances. But the result is a non sequitur : " Those
that were listening wondered more." They ought to have
"wondered less." And they ought to have said not "Who
then can be saved?" but "Now the Lord's lesson is clear.
If we are rich we must not trust in our riches."
It seems certain that Jesus must have uttered something
much stronger than a condemnation of "them that trust in
riches," some warning against "money" in itself as being
a dangerous temptation to the soul that does not constantly
turn to God as the Giver, and hear His voice, as Abraham
heard it, promising Himself as man's "reward 1 ." Though we
may be uncertain of the exact nature and order of Christ's
words, we can hardly be wrong in assuming that the rich self-
righteous young ruler, who was confident that he had performed
all the commandments, would be regarded by Jesus as being
on the level of Ephraim, whom Hosea represents as saying
"Surely I am become rich, I have found me wealth; in all
my labours they shall find in me no iniquity. . . 2 ." Measuring
spiritual things by "money," the young man thought himself
really rich rich in goodness and able to "do" some "good
thing" at will. He was willing perhaps to give alms to the
amount of several hundred denarii to "inherit eternal life."
This implied offer to do some "good thing" was, in effect,
of the nature of a bribe, an offer of "money" to Jesus for the
poor in order to secure from Him a verdict that would ratify
1 Gen. xv. i "I am. . .thy exceeding great reward."
2 Hos. xii. 8. Comp. Zech. xi. 5 "they that sell them (i.e. the
flock) say, Blessed be the Lord, for I am rich," and Rev. iii. 17
"Because thou sayest, I am rich. . .and knowest not that thou art
the wretched one and miserable and poor. ..."
131 (Mark x. 23 7) 9 2
HOW TO ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM
the man's good opinion of himself; and Jesus, knowing that
the man would fail to pass His test, and that he would gain by
failure, tests him so that he fails. It is in the light of the failure
of this rich young man that we must interpret the following
words of Jesus, "Children, how hard it is," and the rest. The
man was a type of "them that have money." It is true that
Abraham (or rather Abram) might also be said to have "had
money." In the first Biblical passage that uses the word
"rich," we find that "Abram was very rich in cattle, in silver,
and in gold 1 ." But Abraham was not of the class of "them that
have money." He was of the class of them that have righteousness
and faith. He was not the typical "rich man" but the typical
" friend of God 2 ." Before he became " rich" Scripture says that
he had obeyed the voice of God bidding him become an exile 3 .
Our conclusion is that Jesus, beginning from the occasion
of the failure of the rich young man, goes on to impress on His
disciples the hardness of entering into the Kingdom, for all, not
only for the rich, as amounting to an "impossibility 4 " unless
they receive the Spirit of God. Those who lightheartedly
asked to "enter" were in a position resembling that of
Elisha when he "asked" from Elijah "a hard thing," a thing
"against nature" in some sense, and not to be accomplished
except with supernatural help. This it is that makes the
disciples exclaim "Then who can be saved?" because their
Master had declared that it was "hard" "hard," not for the
rich, but "hard" absolutely to enter into the Kingdom.
All this, from a different point of view and with some
difference of language, John sets forth in the Dialogue with
Nicodemus, where the Synoptic "hard" is latent under the
Johannine " not possible " (literally " not able"). Jesus begins
by saying "Except a man be born from above, it is not possible
1 Gen. xiii. 2.
2 Is. xli. 8, Jas ii. 23.
3 Gen. xii. i. It was also an early Jewish belief that he had been
thrown into a furnace by Nimrod for refusal to worship false gods,
see Son 3501 g, Light 3822.
4 Mk x. 27 "With men it is impossible, but not with God."
132 (Mark x. 23 7)
HOW TO ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM
for him to see the kingdom of God," and the last saying of
Nicodemus is " How is it possible that these things should be 1 ? "
3. "He shall receive a hundredfold. . .with persecutions,"
in Mark 2
The noun rendered "persecutions" occurs nowhere else in
the Gospels except in the Mark-Matthew phrase "when tribula-
tion or persecution ariseth," where Luke has "in time of
(3)
1 Jn iii. 2 9.
ov dvvarat . .
Note the reiterations: (2) ovdfls yap &Wr<u....
(4) Tr&Jy dvvaTai. . . ', prf dvvarai. . . ', (5) ov 8v-
varai . . . , (9) TTOJS- dvvarai . . . ; Nicodemus recognises that it is
"impossible" for any man to work such "signs" as Jesus worked
without the aid of God; but he does not recognise that it is
"impossible" to enter the " Kingdom of God" without the action of
God in a still more wonderful way, not externally aiding but internally
regenerating. This is differently expressed in Mt. vii. 13 ei
8ia rrjs 0-revrjs 7rv\r)Sj Lk. Xlti. 24 dy<0vif(r6c ftVeX^eii/ 8ia TTJS
Ovpas, where Luke's dya>i>i'o/i<u emphasizes the need of human co-
operation. John emphasizes the need of divine operation.
2 Mk x. 28 31 Mt. xix. 27 30 Lk. xviii. 28 30,
(R.V.) (R.V.) xiii. 30 (R.V.)
(28) Peter began (27) Then an- (xviii. 28) And
to say unto him, Lo, swered Peter and Peter said, Lo, we
said unto him, Lo,
we have left all, and
have followed thee.
(29) Jesus said,
Verily I say unto
you,
There is no man
that hath left house,
or brethren, or sis-
ters, or mother, or
father, or children, or
lands, for my sake,
and for the gospel's
sake,
(30) But he shall
receive a hundred-
fold now in this time,
houses, and brethren,
and sisters, and
we have left all, and
followed thee; what
then shall we have ?
(28) And Jesus
said unto them,
Verily I say unto
you, that ye which
have followed me,
in the regeneration
when the Son of man
shall sit on the throne
of his glory, ye also
shall sit upon twelve
thrones, judging the
twelve tribes of
Israel.
(29) And every
one that hath left
houses, or brethren,
or sisters, or father, or
mother (many anc.
auth. add or wife), or
children, or lands, for
my name's sake, shall
have left our own (or,
our own [homes]),
and followed thee.
(29) And he said
unto them, Verily I
say unto you,
There
is no man that hath
left house, or wife, or
brethren, or parents,
or children, for the
kingdom of God's
sake,
(30) Who shall
not receive manifold
more in this time,
and in the world (or,
age) to come eternal
life.
133 (Mark x. 28 31)
HOW TO ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM
temptation 1 ." In literary Greek the noun means "pursuing"
or "chasing." Plutarch uses it when describing Antiochus as
separated from his friends "while following the hounds and
[engaged] in [the] chase 2 ." In LXX, it occurs once as a rendering
of "he that pursueth evil 3 ." In Goodspeed, the noun occurs
Mk x. 28 31 Mt. xix. 27 )0 Lk. xviii. 28- 30
(R.V.) contd. (R-V.) contd. xiii. 30 (R.V.) contd.
mothers, and child- receive a hundred- (xiii. 30) And be-
ren, and lands, with fold (some anc. auth. hold, there are last
persecutions ; and in manifold) , and shall which shall be first,
the world (or, age) to inherit eternal life. and there are first
come eternal life. (30) But many which shall be last.
(31) But many shall be last [that
[that are] first shall are] first; and first
be last ; and the last [that are] last,
first.
The phrase peculiar to Mark (x. 30) "with persecutions" is com-
mented on at great length by Clem. Alex, (who appears to have had
a different reading from our present text, see below, p. 140, n. 8) but
not by Origen (as far as Lommatzsch's Index shews) nor by TertulHan
(as far as Rigaud's Index shews) nor in Jerome's commentary on the
parall. Matthew. Origen's only reference (in Lomm.) to Mk x.
30 is in a statement that Jesus did not include "wife" (as the
parall. Lk. xviii. 29 does), Exhort, ad Mart. 16 (Lomm. xx. 254)
ov yap ctpTjraf Has oo-ns d(pr/KV d8e\(pov$, rj dde\(pas, rj yoveis 1 , rj re'/cva, 77
dypovSf r) oiK/as, 77 -ywaiKa, evKv TOV ovo/J-aros /xov, 7ro\\an\a(TLOva Arj^frat
fv yap rfj dvaardcrei ratv vfKpwv ovre ya/u.oucrti/ . . . (Mt. xxii. 30, Mk
xii. 25).
Victor, on Mark, has preserved a tradition that justifies "re-
nouncing the wife" in some circumstances, as also Jesus bade
disciples "lose, or destroy, their life (drrdXecras TTJV ^v^j/)." It
explains "persecutions" as a word "darkly hinting (alvirTco-Oai)"
at distractions and temptations placed in the way of believers by
their families: Ao/tet Se uot KOL TOVS 8ia>yiJ.ov$ tvravBa alviTT(T0ai'
yap TroXXoi rjcrav, nal Trarcpes els dcreQfiav e\<ovrfs iraldas, KOI
avdpas, orav ravra KcXfvcrwcri, (prjcrl, p.rjr yvvalites ecrTtocrav, (J-'fjTf
OTTfp ovv KO.I 6 Hav\os eXeyev, " ft de <a\ 6 atria-ros ^copi'^erat, x<upiVo-$a>."
Victor's use of alviTTfo-dai suggests Origen's comment on
"persecutors" in Ps. cxix. 157 (see below, p. 140, n. 8, ad fin.) e'x$pojj?
oparovs <al dopdrovs aiviTTfrai.
1 Mk iv. 17, Mt. xiii. 21, parall. Lk. viii. 13.
2 Plutarch Mor. 184 F f'v rivi nw^yecr'nd <al Stcoy/iw.
3 Prov. xi. 19 ^"PE. LXX has 8ia>yp.bs de do-ffiovs, "the pursuit,
i.e. the aim, of the impious man." In Lam. iii. 19, 8ia>yp.6s is a
134 (Mark x. 28 31)
HOW TO ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM
only twice. In the Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corin-
thians, it apparently refers not to external, but to internal
"persecution 1 ."
The verb "persecute" is never used by Mark. Matthew
attributes it four times to Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount ;
but Luke, in at least three of these four instances, has some
different word 2 . Where however Matthew has, later on, "ye
[i.e. Jews] shall pursue [them] from city to city," the parallel Luke
has "shall pursue" without any modifying clause, apparently
taking "pursue" as having a local meaning 3 . In the Discourse
on the Last Days, Mark and Matthew represent Jesus as saying
"If any man saith unto you 'See, here is the Christ/ or 'See
there,' do not believe"; but a passage in Luke (not in that
Discourse) has "Do not go away nor pursue," i.e. "do not
follow them" the only instance in the New Testament where
"pursue" is applied to a personal object in a friendly sense 4 .
On the other hand, in the same Discourse, where Mark and
misrendering of HTID (leg. as epic, which perhaps occurs (Gesen.
923 a] in Is. xiv. 6, but Targ. leg. JWMD).
1 Clem. Rom. Coy. 3. The preceding context describes tin-
degeneracy of the Church: "All glory. . .was given unto you, and
that was fulfilled which is written (I knit, xxxii. 15, very freely
quoted) : 'My beloved ate. . . .and kicked.' Hence jealousy and envy,
fand] strife and sedition, persecution and tumult, war and captivity"
that is, a repetition of the history of rebellious Israel. In Mart.
Polyc. $ i it refers to external persecution of Christians.
Ml. v. IO ol 8(8i(i)yp.evoi evfKfv 8iKaio(rvvTjs, Lk. om. ; Mt. V. II orav
ovfi8icru>(Tiv i'fids KCI\ didtf-tao'Lv , Lk. vi. 22 orav p.i(rf)craxriv vp.ds. . . KCU orav
d(popi(TU>(nv vfjias xai ovi8i(T(t)<Tiv ', Mt. v. 12 ovrvs yap e'5tG>ai> TOVS
irpo(f)TjTas, Lk. vi. 23 Karara avrayap ftroiovv rols n poffrrjTms ; Mt. V. 44 ra>i>
VfJ.d$, Lk. Vi. 27 TOIS pLKTOlKTlV V[J.ds.
Mt. xxiii. 34 Lk. xi. 49
U>V d7TOKTVelT K(li (TTdV- f aVTO)V dTTOKTfVOVCTlV KOL ld>-
paxrere, KOI % CIVTWV p.a(TTiya>crfTf fv ovcriv (AD e'fc8id>oucrij').
rais crvvayu)yais vp-wv KOI fiia>erf
(ZTTO TToXecoy els 7r6\tv.
4 Mk xiii. 21, Mt. xxiv. 23, Lk. xvii. 23. Luke places the saying,
as one addressed to the disciples, after a similar one addressed to
Pharisees "Men shall not say, 'See here' or ' [See] there.'"
135 (Mark x. 28 31)
HOW TO ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM
Matthew do not mention "persecution," Luke alone represents
Jesus as expressly predicting it 1 .
These facts, indicating that Luke differs from Matthew in
his use of the verb "persecute," make it probable that he does
not take the same view of the noun "persecution " as was taken
in Mark's Original both in the Parable of the Sower, and here
in the statement that a Christian's reward is to be "with
persecutions." Mark appears to assume "persecution" as a
condition of reward. So does the Sermon on the Mount 2 .
Paul says to the Galatians, "We, brethren, as Isaac was, are
children of promise. But as then he that was born after the
flesh persecuted him [that was born] after the Spirit, even so
it is now 3 ." This appeal to precedent implies something like
a rule or law. "Persecution" is not mentioned in the literary
Greek of the Wisdom of Solomon ; but the author assumes that
the righteous man will be "grievous" to the unrighteous, who
will treat him despitefully and "condemn him with a shameful
death 4 ."
The Pauline assumption of a kind of Law of Persecution
may be illustrated from a passage of Ecclesiastes, as rendered
1 Mk xiii. 9 Mt. xxiv. 9 Lk. xxi. 12
fls<rvvedpia Kaifls(rvv f a- els 6\tyiv KOI dfTOKTev- vp,as ras
ycayas 8apr](j-(rdf . . . OIHTIV vp,as. . . /ecu dia>
dovTes els ras crvva-
ycoyas KOL (pv\a.K(is . . .
Comp. Dan. iv. 25 "that thou shall be driven (TltD) from men,"
Theod. KOI ere e'/cStoo^oixru/ airb T&V dvdpaTTtov, LXX (see context) "his
angels run down against thee and shall lead thee away into prison
(els (pvXaicrjv aTrd^ovai (re) and send thee into a desolate place," ib. 32
Theod. OTTO reoi/ dv6pa>7ra)v (re e'^Sioo/couo'tJ', LXX ol ayyeXot diat^ovTat ere.
In Mark and Luke, but not in Matthew, the context proceeds to
say that the disciples shall be brought before kings (Mk a-ra^o-eo-tfe,
Lk. aTrayofjifvovs which is used by LXX alone).
2 Mt. v. 12 "for so persecuted they the prophets," see above,
p. 101.
3 Gal. iv. 28 9. Comp. 2 Tim. iii. 12 "All that would live godly
in Christ Jesus shall be persecuted."
4 Wisd. ii. 12 20. AICOKCD in Wisd. means (i) "chase away," as
the mists chased by the sun, (2) "chase" as criminals, runaway
slaves etc.
136 (Mark x. 28 31)
HOW TO ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM
by the Targum and Jewish Midrash, as well as by LXX, "God
shall seek after him that is persecuted 1 ." The Midrash exempli-
fies God's action from the instances of Abel, Noah, Abraham,
Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, and Israel, and adds that similarly
God accepts as offerings only those beasts that are "chased"
(or "persecuted"), but not those that "chase" (the "perse-
cutors"), thus playing on the meaning of rddaph, "pursue"
or "chase*."
Modern readers may be pardoned if they fail to perceive
how Abraham and Isaac are types of the "persecuted" But
all Jews believed that Abraham was persecuted by Nimrod 3 .
Paul also, as we have seen, assumes (strangely, but unmistake-
ably) the "persecution" of Isaac by Ishmael 4 . And Genesis
describes Isaac as badly treated by the Philistines until they
recognised that God was with him 5 .
Here we must note a verbal similarity between Genesis
and Mark. Mark alone says that the reward shall be "a
hundredfold." Genesis says about Isaac that he "sowed in
that land and found in the same year an hundredfold, and the
Lord blessed him 6 ." This is not only the first, but also, with
one exception, the only Old Testament instance of " a hundred-
fold 7 ." In the other instance it is used of divine increase.
It is appropriately used by Mark in describing the Christian's
reward as corresponding to that of Isaac whom God "blessed."
But Luke, and perhaps Matthew, have substituted "manifold."
1 Eccles. iii. 15 R.V. "God seeketh again that which is passed
away," marg. "Heb. driven away" (nif. of epl "chase," "pursue"),
Gesen. 923 a, "seeketh the pursued (i.e. what has disappeared, is
past, but dub.)." Rashi interprets it as "the persecuted."
2 See Pesikt. (Wii. pp. 96 7) and Lev. r. (Wii. pp. 1867) on
Lev. xxii. 27 "a bullock or a sheep."
3 See Sou, 3501 g, Light 3822.
4 See Gen. xxi. 9 and Rashi's numerous explanations of Ishmael's
"mocking."
5 Gen. xxvi. i 33. Pesikt. recognises Isaac's persecution as
coming from the Philistines (and does not mention persecution by
Ishmael). 6 Gen. xxvi. 12.
7 The other is 2 S. xxiv. 3 " Now the Lord thy God add unto the
people. . .an hundredfold."
137 (Mark x. 28 31^
HOW TO ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM
These apparently petty verbal details are not petty if they
are used as adjuncts to the consideration of the similarity
between the picture of Peter, and the picture of Abraham
(with Isaac in the background), both in the attitude of expectants
of reward. In Mark, it is true, Peter does not mention " reward."
He merely says to Jesus "Behold we have left all things and
have followed thee." But Mark implies, and Matthew adds,
"What then shall we have?" In Genesis, Abraham says
merely "O Lord God, what wilt thou give me 1 ?" but he
implies a reference to what has preceded, as if saying, "Thou
hast said unto me, ' Get thee out of thy country, and from thy
kindred, and from thy father's house 2 ,' and I have renounced
all these things at thy word." Commenting on this utterance
of the Patriarch, Philo represents him as saying to God, "Thou,
Lord, art my country and my kinsfolk and my father's hearth 3 " ;
and this thought would naturally be connected with the thought
of their forefather by pious Jews, who would see in the lives of
Abraham and Isaac, and in the whole history of faithful Israel,
God's divine recompense, "a hundredfold," for all the earthly
blessings that Abraham renounced 4 .
Regarded in this light as an allusion to the "persecution"
of all the saints, from Abel 'downward, and to the "reward"
promised for the first time to Abraham and in part fulfilled
by the birth of Isaac the Marcan tradition "along with
persecutions" is seen to give us the only Marcan glimpse of
a doctrine that actually played a large part in Christ's teaching.
1 Gen. xv. 2. 2 Gen. xii. i.
3 Philo i. 477.
4 Philo connects the mystical use of " a hundred " with Abraham's
"planting" as well as with Isaac's "sowing" thus (i. 607) 'AXXa <al
"'A/3paa/i apovpav (pvrfvei" (Gen. XXI. 33 LXX) xco^aros 1 , exaroo-roJ
Adyco irpbs dvafJ,TpT)(riv TQV ^copt'ov, KOI Icraafc e/carocrrvov(rar cvptcrKfi
npi6r)v" (Gen. xxvi. 12 LXX), and he comments elsewhere (i. 619)
on Gen. xxvi. 12 " Isaac found in the same year" not "reaped" but
"found" "a hundredfold." In the context, he contrasts alvv
with xpovos apparently taking "the same year" to mean the latter.
Philo's distinction between alu>v and xp vos corresponds to Mark's
distinction between ala>v and natpos. I have not found any explana-
tion of "a hundredfold" in connection with Abraham's planting.
138 (Mark x. 28 31)
HOW TO ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM
Jesus recognised for Himself, and endeavoured to impress on
His disciples, that the Teacher of the truths of heaven and
eternity and the spirit must come into collision with the
children of the earth and the hour and the flesh, and that,
on earth, and during the hour, and in the flesh, the latter must
gain a temporary victory. But Mark's brief phrase was likely
to be ignored amid the great differences in the Synoptic con-
texts 1 , and also because it contradicted the views of those who
regarded Christ's words as promising a Millennium on earth
("in this time") in which there would be no room for "perse-
cutions 2 ."
In the Fourth Gospel, though "persecution" is never
mentioned, and "persecute" only twice, the Law of Persecution
is clearly recognised, and accepted as it were by Jesus for
Himself and His disciples in the words "If the world hateth
you, ye know that it hath hated me before [it hated] you. ... If
they persecuted me, they will also persecute you 3 ." The
1 On these, see Corrections 4467. But the verbal facts there
collected must of course be supplemented by others, such as the
influence exerted by Jewish traditions about persecution, and about
the renunciations of Abraham, and about the "hundredfold" that
Isaac "found." Questions might also arise as to the renunciation
of "wife," mentioned by Luke (xviii. 29) alone.
2 Origen, on Gen. xxvi. 12, besides commenting at great length
on "barley" and its allegorical meaning in the Gospels, has a brief
comment on a "hundredfold " : " Isaac, the word of the Law [as distinct
from the word of the Gospel], sows barley and yet even in the [inferior
produce of] barley itself finds a hundredfold return. For even in
the Law you find martyrs, whose {privileged is the hundredfold return."
This assumes an allegorical connection between "a hundredfold"
and "persecutions."
That Origen is alluding to the "hundredfold" in Mark is made
probable by the fact that in Comm. Rom. i. 4 he calls attention to the
fact that "Mark seems to make a distinction between Christ and the
Gospel" in Mk. x. 29 "propter me vel propter Evangelium." Else-
where he says (Exhort, ad Mart. 14) "that I may receive manifold
(Mt. xix. 29 v.r.) or, as Mark says (x. 30), a hundredfold." Subse-
quently he alternates between the two words, saying once (ib.)
"manifold, or, to speak definitely, a hundredfold."
3 Jn xv. 1 8 20.
139 (Mark x. 28 31)
HOW TO ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM
reason alleged for the beginning of this persecution is Christ's
act of healing on the sabbath, "For this cause the Jews began-
to-persecute Jesus because he was doing these things on the
sabbath"; and the deadly nature of their "persecution" is
indicated in what follows about their "seeking to kill him 1 ."
Christ's prediction of "persecution" is preceded by a promise
of the Paraclete 2 and of present peace ("my peace I give unto
you") 3 , and by a suggestion that it is of the nature of a
"cleansing," or pruning, of the fruitful branches of the Vine
that they may "bear more fruit 4 "; and by a bestowal of the
title of "friends," appointed to "bear fruit 5 "; and then, after
a frank preparation of the disciples for an internecine conflict
with the hostile religious "world" ("whosoever killeth you
shall think that he offereth service unto God 6 ") the Discourse
terminates with the assurance, "These things have I spoken
unto you that in me ye may have peace. In the world ye
[must] have tribulation : but be of good cheer ; I have gained
the victory over the world 7 /'
Indirectly these last words give the Johannine answer to
the question of the disciples, expressed or implied by the
Synoptists, "What shall we have?" The answer is "peace."
But it is not peace of an ordinary kind. It is peace in the Son
("in me ye may have peace") ; and it implies such unity with
the Father that the Son says to them " If ye shall ask anything
of the Father, he will give it you in my name . . . Ask and ye
shall receive, that your joy may be fulfilled 8 ."
1 Jn v. 16, 18. 2 Jn xiv. 16. 3 Jn xiv. 27.
4 Jn xv. i 2. 5 Jn xv. 15 16.
6 Jn xvi. 2. 7 Jn xvi. 33.
8 Jn xvi. 23 4. Space does riot allow a discussion of the
comment made by Clement of Alexandria on /uera Sicoy/iwr. He
twice quotes Mk X. 30 with fX ftv thus (949) : Tavrrjs Se o^oiW e'^erai
TJJS yvo)/J,r]s Koi TO CTrop-evov " Ni> ev rw /caipco rourcp aypovs <ai ^prj^ara <ai
otKia? /cat d8f\(f)ovs e'^eti/ /Aera divypStv." Then, after saying that Jesus
did not call on His disciples to give up their "brethren " etc. literally,
he adds To de /xera Sicoy/icoi/ ravra e/cacrra ex flv aTo8o*a/iaf, apparently
meaning "But He disapproves of our retaining these things 'along
with persecutions.'" [Perhaps a negative has dropped out, "not
along with persecutions." Clark's rendering is "And the expression
140 (Mark x. 28 31)
HOW TO ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM
4. "But many that are first shall be last," in Mark
and Matthew 1 -
This sentence is ambiguous because "first" and "last"
may be used either in respect of time, or in respect of meta-
phorical place, that is to say, rank, or dignity. In Mark, the
context does not indicate what the meaning is. It may be
(i) " Many that are first in the time of coming to me shall be last
in the time of receiving their reward," or (2) "Many that are first
in the time of coming to me shall be last in rank and dignity in
the Kingdom of God," or (3) "Many that are first in rank and
dignity now, i.e. in the Kingdom of this World, shall be last in
rank in the Kingdom of God 2 ." The conjunction "but" used
by Mark and Matthew, is not adversative. It might differ
little from "and." SS reads "for" instead of "but."
'with persecutions' rejects the possessing of each of those things."]
Then he proceeds to define two kinds of persecution, (i) one proceeding
from enemies, (2) but another, and far worse, from one's own soul
and its passions (6 5e ^aXeTrcoraroy ev8o6fv (<m di<ayp.bs e aurJjy exacTO)
rrjs ^vxfjs TrporrepTronevos) .
The comment whatever may be its precise meaning indicates
that in very early days the Marcan tradition must have caused
difficulty, and that it would be likely to elicit Johannine intervention.
Origen, on Ps. cxix. 157 "many are my persecutors," says TO 7r\ij6os
e%6povs oparovs <al aopiirovs aim'rrercu.
1 Mk X. 31, Mt. xix. 30 TToXAoi &e cVoi/rat Trpeoroi err^arot KOI [of]
(Mt. om. of) eo-^aroi Trpcoroi, SS "for" instead of "but"; and in
Mt., a, b, Corb. have "sunt," Corb. "enim"; Lk. xiii. 30 <al I8ov
ci(rlv 6(7^aroi ot ecroi/rai Trpcorot, <al elalv Trpooroi 01 f'croirai eo^uroi.
2 Mark's omission of of at first, and (bracketed) insertion of it
subsequently, suggest that his exact meaning may have been "Many
shall be, [though now] first [in the kingdom of this world], last [in
the Kingdom of God], and the last [i.e. last in the kingdom of this
world], [shall be] first [in the Kingdom of God]." This would agree
with Lk. xvi. 15 "that which is exalted among men," [namely
wealth greedily grasped and giving power to the graspers], "is an
abomination in the sight of God." If that is the meaning, dc, in
Mark, differs little from *at. It may be rendered "now" or "and
indeed" (like the parall. Lk. "and behold"). SS "for" (in that
case) gives the meaning at all events better than "but."
141 (Mark x. 28 31)
HOW TO ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM
Matthew, who follows Mark in placing this saying at the
conclusion of Christ's doctrine about the Reward in the
Kingdom, indicates his way of interpreting it by immediately
adding "For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is
a householder," and by relating how this man, after hiring
labourers at different hours of the day, paid them all the same
wage and paid the last first ("pay them their hire, beginning
from the last unto the first"). Those who were hired first
complain, but without success. Then it is added " So the last
shall be first, and the first last 1 ." Here, "first" and "last"
refer to time (but with a suggestion also that those who are
paid last are treated as last in merit though they were the first
to work).
Luke does not follow Mark in connecting this saying with
the doctrine about the Reward in the Kingdom. He places
it after a saying of Jesus about the exclusion of certain persons
from the feast of Abraham amid the faithful of Israel: "Ye
shall see. . .yourselves cast forth without. And they shall come
from the east and west and from the north and south. . . . And
behold, there are last that shall be first, and there are first
that shall be last 2 ." Now the first part of these words is
in Matthew also, very similarly. But Matthew, besides
having "the children of the kingdom," where Luke has "ye,"
places the saying after the expression of Christ's wonder at
the faith of the Centurion whom he apparently regards as a
type of the Gentile converts to the Church 3 .
These facts throw light on Luke's interpretation of the
ambiguous word "last" and of its application to the history
of the Church. He appears to use it as it is used in the Odyssey
("last [men]" and "last of men 4 ") to mean men coming from
the extreme boundaries of the earth, as mentioned in such pro-
phecies of Isaiah as "Lo, these shall come from far, and these
from the north and from the west, and these from the land of
Sinim 5 ." But he considered that it ought to be placed, not
1 Mt. xx. i 16. 2 Lk. xiii. 28 30.
3 Mt. viii. 10 12. * Odvss. i. 23, vi. 205.
5 Is. xlix. 12, comp. Is. viii. 9 10 "all ye of far countries," and
xlix. 6 "I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles that thou
142 (Mark x. 28 31)
HOW TO ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM
in connection with the doctrine of Reward (as in Mark), nor
in connection with the Centurion's faith (as in Matthew), but
in connection with a warning and reproach uttered by Jesus,
while on His way to Jerusalem, and as denoting the Gentiles
under the term "last," contrasted with the Pharisees who were
"first 1 ."
Passing to early Christian writers for their interpretation
of Mark's saying about "first" and "last," we find Clement
of Alexandria, in a detailed exposition of the whole Marcan
narrative, quoting the words and saying that they are "full as
a flood both as to meaning and as to [need of] explanation,"
but that they do not come within his scope because he is
dealing with the question of a rich man's salvation, and these
words go beyond that question and are of general application 2 .
Irenaeus, in an argument about the Incarnation, after con-
trasting Eve and the Virgin Mary and speaking (very ob-
mayest be my salvation as far as the utmost part (nvp) of the earth
(eW <rxarov rr/y yijs)." "Eo-^aroy, about "the utmost (eV^firou) [part]
of the earth," occurs in N.T. only in Acts i. 8 "ye shall be my
witnesses. . .as far as the utmost [part 1 , of the earth," and xiii. 47
(Paul and Barnabas quoting Is. xlix. 6 " as far as the utmost [part] of
the earth"}.
1 The thought of Israel as a Missionary, or at all events as an
instrument for the recognition of God as (i) a chastising Judge, or
(2} a Saviour, may be illustrated from the expression "ends of the
earth" (Gesen. 67 a "ptf <I D2N) (i) in Deut. xxxiii. 17, i S. ii. TO etc.,
and (2} in Mic. v. 4 "great unto the ends of the earth," Jerem. xvi. 19
"unto thee shall the nations come from the ends of the earth,"
Is. xlv. 22 "look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth,"
ib. Hi. 10 "all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our
God." The Heb. DDX (pU is found only in this phrase. It is
variously rendered by forms of eV^a-ros- (2], axpos (5), irepas (6), but
in almost every case it refers to the spread of God's glory. In one
instance, Gk co-xaros represents Heb. "far off," Is. viii. 9 "all ye of
far countries" (there in hostile sense, but illustrative of Eph. ii i '<
"ye [Gentiles] that were far off," in friendly sense).
2 Clem. Alex. 950 ea-ovrai of irpS>roi eo-^arot Trpcoroi [sic Klotz, but
Hinrichs, Leipzig 1909 eVoi/rai of Trparroi e. /cat of e. TT.\ rouro rroXv^ow
fj.ev can Kara TTJV VTrovoiav /cat TOV o-a(pi(rp.bv, ov pr]v ev ye r< napovTL rrjv
{jfnpruf OTrairti, ov yap povov peirci irpbs TOVS 7ro\VKTT)p.ovas, aXA'
rrpos aTravTas avdpoirrovs TOVS ITtOTCt naQaira^ eavrovs eT
143 (Mark x. 28 31)
HOW TO ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM
scurely) about a "first compact" as "loosing" from a "second
tie," and of a "second tie" as taking the place of the "first,"
which has been cancelled says "For this reason did the Lord
declare that the first indeed should be last and the last first. And
the Prophet too signifies this same thing, saying, Instead of
thy fathers there are born unto thee children. For the Lord
being born [as] first begotten of the dead and receiving into His
bosom the fathers of old time [before the flood] regenerated
them into the life of God, becoming Himself the beginning of
the living since Adam had become the beginning of the dying 1 ."
All this is justly described by editors of Irenaeus as fanciful
and obscure, but it has a historical value. It shews us that in
the days of Irenaeus the Marcan tradition actually called forth
what Clement calls "a flood," in the form of explanatory com-
ment; and it suggests that, already in the days of Matthew
and Luke, the "flood" had begun in Matthew's parable of the
Workmen and the Denarius which Luke does not insert. It
was perhaps an Apostolic Targumistic exposition of Christ's
brief words, which words it repeated at its close.
Origen, on Matthew, begins by saying that the words about
"first" and "last" make some kind of sense when taken as
referring to time, according to their simple meaning, namely,
that those who are called early to Christ's service must be
diligent not to fail in their course so as to fall behind others
whose call comes later 2 . Then he proceeds to apply the
"first" and "last" to the Jews and the Gentiles. After this,
he discusses the question whether the "first" may not mean
"angels," many of whom "were [originally] first with respect
to men [yet] become last with respect to some men 3 ." It is
remarkable that Jerome, in his commentary on Matthew, says
nothing about the meaning of "first" and "last." He leaves
us in doubt whether he thought that the "flood" of comment
1 Iren. iii. 22. 4, on which see Grabe. Clark's transl. quotes
Massuet's opinion that the writer's remarks are "paulo subtiliora."
2 Origen on Mt. xix. 30, Comm. Matth. xv. 26.
3 Origen Comm. Matth. XV. 27 TroXXoi pev d-y-yeXtov ot Trp&Jroi jjo-av
dv6pu>7TQ)v yivovrai rtvcav dv6pa)iro)v eV^aroi. On npcvTos thus used With
gen. see Joh. Gr. 26657.
144 (Mark x. 28 31)
HOW TO ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM
mentioned by Clement might now profitably be left without
further addition, or whether he thought it already super-
abundant and fanciful 1 .
We now pass to the question whether Biblical precedent and
Jewish interpretation throw any light on the antithesis between
" the first " and "the last." It resembles the antithesis between
"the great" and "the little," which has previously come before
us in a passage where all the Synoptists agree that the dis-
ciples had been discussing who was to be "greater [than the
rest]," but Mark alone adds that Jesus (apparently assuming
"greater" to be synonymous with "first") said to them "If
any one desireth to be first he shall be last of all and servant
of all 2 /'
Now this points back to the ancient story of the birth of
Rebecca's children, and to the prophecy (quoted by Paul)
"The elder shall serve the younger," rendered by LXX "The
greater shall serve the less*." The context in Genesis proceeds
to describe Esau as being born "the first" of the two: "The
first came forth." This is the exact and literal rendering; for
the Hebrew word regularly means "first," "former," etc. and
never "firstborn." But the LXX renders it here uniquely
"the firstborn son 4 ."
1 See Jerome's Letters xlvi. 10 where, after saying that Jerusalem
is the Christian Athens, he adds, " We ourselves are among the last,
not the first; yet we have come hither to see the first of all nations."
Then after describing the concourse of many nations, he says "Yet
amid this great concourse. . .all strive after humility, that greatest
of Christian virtues. Whosoever is last is here regarded as first."
- Mk ix. 35. Mt. xxiii. n is similar, but comes in a different
context. See the parallels above, p. 70 foil.
3 Gen. xxv. 23 where R.v. marg. refers to Obad. 18 21, as
well as to the quotation in Rom. ix. 12. Hos. xii. 3 ("took his
brother bv the heel") refers to the narrative. LXX has o pftfav
SouXevo-ei r<a \d<T(Tovi. See Son 3521 foil, on the various meanings
of "greater" and "less" in Hebrew and Greek.
4 Gen. XXY. 25 (grjXQfv Se 6 vlos 6 trpwruroKOS TrvppUKrjs o\os ebo-ei
8opa 8aavs. npwroroxos- = 1Y33 more than a hundred times, but
here 6 vtoy 6 ?r. =| < iJ^S"in, " the first," or ." the former." This (Gesen.
QII b) is given as the first Biblical instance of pirjO "former
A. F. 145 (Mark x. 28 31) 10
HOW TO ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM
The LXX here commits what Jews would regard as a fatal
error; for the Jews would regard Esau as "first" indeed in this
world, but not "first" in God's sight, and not really "firstborn."
The Talmud appears rarely to refer to Esau's being "first,"
but the Midrash repeatedly mentions it in a bad sense, con-
trasting it with "first" in a good sense applied to God, or the
Temple, or the Messiah. Thus Pesikta represents God as saying
to Israel in effect, "If ye begin the Feast of Tabernacles for me
on the first day, I will appear to you as 'the FIRST ' (i.e. God),
and avenge you on ' the first' (i.e. Esau), and will build for you
' the first ' (i.e. the Temple) and will bring unto you ' the First '
(i.e. the Messiah) 1 ."
In contrast with Esau, who is regarded as firstborn only in
a literal and earthly sense, Scripture presents David as "the
little one" in his father's house, but one whom the Psalmist
describes as " made firstborn" (a unique combination of words)
" by God 2 ." In Hebrew poetry and Jewish tradition there were
probably frequent contrasts between the false firstborn (Esau)
and the true firstborn (David) . Some of these might extenuate
the fancifulness of Origen, who detects a contrast of meaning
in the identical epithet "red" or "ruddy*" applied to the two,
but implying murderous hatred in Esau while it implies beauty
and goodness in David 3 . At all events this epithet "red" is
[in time}." Tromm. gives pfc?N"i as = 7rpom>s more than a hundred
times, also irportpos (15), but TrparoroKos only here.
1 Pesikt. 28 ad fin., quoting Lev. xxiii. 40, Is. xli. 4, Gen. xxv. 25,
Jerem. xvii. 12, Is. xli. 27. Pesach. 5 a is to" the same effect. So are
Gen. r. on Gen. xxv. 24 5 and on Gen. xxxii. 2, of which the latter
implies that everything about Edom (i.e. Esau) was "red," and
alludes to Is. Ixiii. 2 "red in thine apparel," as predicting the ven-
geance to be exacted from Edom. Sim. Exod. r. (on Exod. xii. 2),
Lev. r. (on Lev. xxiii. 40).
2 i S. xvi. ii (see Son 3522 b) Heb. "the little one," Ps. Ixxxix. 27
"I also will make him firstborn ("1132)." Gesen. 114 a gives a few
other instances of the figurative use of "firstborn" but none of
"firstborn " with "make."
3 Origen on i S. xvi. 12 (Lomm. xi. 286). Elsewhere, on Ps. xxii. 9
"thou art he that took me out of the womb," he contrasts this
phrase, implying God's election, as follows, TWV uXXooi/ avdpaiTrw OVK.
146 (Mark x. 28 31)
HOW TO ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM
applied in Scripture to none but Esau and David 1 . And the
Midrash on Genesis contains a tradition of R. Abba bar Kahana
about the alarm of Samuel, before anointing David 'to be king,
when he saw the youth for the first time. "Why was Esau
'red'? Because it was as if he would be a shedder of blood.
When Samuel found David 'red/ he feared and said 'Is this
man also a shedder of blood like Esau? ' But God said to him,
' He is beautiful in the eyes 2 / "
These facts suffice to shew that Christ's doctrine about the
"first" and the "last" goes back to Hebrew Scripture and
probably to Jewish tradition, and that its exposition in the
Synoptic Gospels varied in such a way that we might naturally
expect some further exposition in the Fourth Gospel.
5. "First Simon" in Matthew 3 , and "first" in John
I have found no early comment of importance on the
epithet "first," assigned by Matthew alone to Simon, except
that of Jerome: "The order of the Apostles, and the merit of
each one, was for Him to distribute who searches the secrets
of the heart." That Matthew did not mean merely first in
order of calling (that is, by the sea of Galilee) or first in order
of naming (that is, "naming as an apostle," or naming by a
new name, "Peter") but "first in rank," appears from several
considerations.
Matthew alone represents Jesus as saying to Peter "I will
give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven 4 ." "First"
would be superfluous if attached to a name placed first in a list
and meaning merely "first in the list." In Chronicles, when
fKcnraa-fJievcav (sic) dAX' eep;^o/zei>a>i>, " cr)\6e yup, (f)Tj(rlv, 6 'Hcraii (Gen.
xxv. 25)."
1 Gesen. 10 b 'OIDIK, Gen. xxv. 25, i S. xvi. 12, xvii. 42 (again
applied to David).
2 Gen. r. on Gen. xxv. 25 referring to i S. xvi. 12. "A good eye/'
or "a beautiful eye," implied kindliness (the opposite of "an evil
eye," which implied envy).
3 Mt. x. 2 To)v 5e ScoSe/ca aTroo-rdAaji/ ra ovop-ard eVrtf raCra -rrpwros
6 \eyop.vos Herpos. . ..
4 Mt. xvi. [9.
147 (Mark x. 28 31) 10 2
HOW TO ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM
"first" (A.V.) is attached to a name in a list of names it corre-
sponds to the Hebrew "head," "chief" "ruler," and is rendered
"chief" by R.V. and "ruler" by LXX 1 . In other passages
the LXX "first" corresponds to the Hebrew "head" or "chief"
applied to persons 2 . The word was also applied by Jews to
the president of a course of priests that happened to be serving,
or of a court of justice, or of a synagogue 3 . There can be little
doubt that Luke, who uses the Greek "first" to mean "chief"
or "principal" rather freely in the Acts 4 , would understand
Matthew's "first" as claiming some priority of rank for Peter.
Luke does not insert it in his apostolic list. As Mark also does
not insert it, the word does not belong technically to the province
marked out by the rule of Johannine Intervention ; but while
inquiring into Johannine doctrine generally about "the first,"
we shall find it profitable to inquire whether John has anything
to say about the word in connection with the calling, or naming,
of Peter.
John does not use the word "first" in the sayings of Christ,
and (apart from "the last day") he does not use the word
"last" at all. But he uses "first" in the sayings of the Baptist
in such an antithetical way as to suggest "later," or "last/'
giving it a peculiar and spiritual significance in connection with
the nature of Christ: "This was he [of] whom I said, He that
cometh behind me is become before me, because he was my First"
"This is [indeed] he in whose behalf I [myself] said, Behind me
cometh a man (vir) who is become before me, because he was my
1 i Chr. xii. 9. This happens to be not only the first of several
instances but also one in which the number is "eleven" (unique in
such lists, Gesen. 911 a). This might remind early Christian
Hebraistic Evangelists of the number of Christ's apostles, reckoned
without Judas Iscariot. For "first" A.V. = " chief" R.V., see i Chr.
xxiii. 19, 20, xxiv. 21.
2 i Chr. xi. ii LXX "first (irpwros] of the thirty," Heb. K'&n, R.V.
"chief," Nehem. xii. 46 -rrpwros TWV a&Won/, also 2 K. xxv. 18, 2 Chr.
xxvi. 20 etc. "chief priest."
3 See Schiirer n. i. 184, 221, 257, n. ii. 64.
4 Acts xiii. 50, xxv. 2, xxviii. 17, comp. xvi. 12, xvii. 4, xxviii. 7.
IlpwTos pi. means "chief" in Mk vi. 21, Lk. xix. 47 (comp. Lk. xv. 22
a-To\r]v rr]v Trpwrrjv) . In Mk x. 44, Mt. xx. 27, ' ' chief (est) A.V. = "first" R.V.
148 (Mark x. 2831)
HOW TO ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM
First 1 ." These sayings distinguish "first" from prior in mere
time and from prior in mere place, and give it the meaning of
priority in nature. Also, by using the word as a quasi -noun,
the Evangelist suggests to the reader the thought of "the
First" as thrice used by Isaiah in the title "the First and (or,
and with) the Last 2 ." Thus the opening utterance in the drama
of the Fourth Gospel for no one has spoken hitherto coming
immediately after the Prologue, suggests to any reader familiar
with the language of prophecy a conception of "first" as being
not opposed but preparatory to "last" and of both as being
included in the divine Nature, which is threefold: "first"
and "midst" and "last," or "was" and "is" and "will be 3 ."
Incidentally, the Fourth Gospel discourages those who
regarded Simon Peter as being called to be an apostle, or
called by the name Peter, with some kind of priority implied
in Matthew's title of "first." A compromise might have been
suggested, namely, that Simon was called, along with his
brother Andrew, first in order of time, just before the calling
of the sons of Zebedee. But this suggestion John puts aside
by saying that Andrew and an unnamed companion came to
Jesus before any other disciples, and that " Andrew first found
his own brother Simon," and "brought him unto Jesus," saying
to him "we have found the Messiah 4 ." He adds that Jesus
1 Jn i. 15 (for various readings see Joh. Gr. Index) Xtyw OVTOS fy
6 el-rratv 'O OTTLO-CO /iou ep^o/ifi/oy e/zTrpoo-tftV p.ov ye'yofei/, on Trpaxrdy pov rjv,
i. 30 OVTOS fomv virep ov eyo> flirov 'OTTto-o) JJLOV ep^erat dvfjp os ep.irpo<T0fv
p.ov yeyovfv, OTI Trpairo? /iou rjv.
2 Is. xli. 4, xliv. 6, xlviii. 12 (Gesen. on b). The LXX has
Severally (xli. 4) tyob #eoy Trpcoroy, KOI fis TO. eVep^o/zffa eya> dpi, (xliv. 6)
(6fbs <7a/3aa>0) 'Eya> Trpcoror /cat fya> /xera raCra, TrX^y e/xoG OVK ea-Tiv #eos,
(xlviii. 12) e'-ycl) dpi 7rpa>ror, KOI eyu> clfju fis rbv aloiva.
3 Revelation thrice uses ca^aro? in this phrase i. 17, ii. 8, xxii. 13
supplementing it severally thus (i) <al 6 <ov, (2) 6s eyevero veKpbs KOI
tfao'tv, ^3) eya> TO A\0a KOI rb 7 Q, [6] Trpcoro? KOI [6] 6O"^arof, fj apx*l KOI TO
T\OS. It also has xxi. 6 cya> rb"AX(f>a xot TO 7 Q, 17 dpxr) KOI TO re'Xoy, and
111. 14 raSe Xcyei 6 'A/i^j/. . . fj dp^ TTJS KTLO~(I)S TOV deov.
4 Jn i. 41 "he first findeth his own brother," see Joh. Gr. 1901 b,
1985. W. H. read irp&Tov. But whatever be the reading, the text
implies that Andrew, after becoming a convert, brought Simon to
149 (Mark x. 28 31)
HOW TO ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM
did not exactly name Simon "Peter" ("thou art Peter") but
said "Thou art Simon, the son of John, thou shall be called
Cephas (or, Peter) 1 ," and that, later on, He momentarily with-
drew the title, saying "Simon, son of John, lovest thou me 2 ?"
Also, he represents Peter as making a confession of faith to
Jesus, not in his own name singly, but in that of all the
disciples 3 . And immediately after Christ's resurrection, the
disciple that first "believed" is not Peter, but Peter's unnamed
companion 4 , of whom it is twice 5 said that he " came first" to
the sepulchre after "outrunning" Peter. In all this there is
a desire, not to disparage Simon, the apostle of impulse and
utterance and action, but to distinguish him from the unnamed
apostle of insight and reticence, and to exhibit the two, at the
close of the Gospel, as serving Jesus in their several ways, one
"following," the other "tarrying 6 ."
But all this incidental doctrine about Andrew and the
unnamed disciple, as being the "first" to do this or that, is
altogether subordinate to the thought of Christ as being our
FIRST, in whom we are to be all one. This FIRST is also
COMING; "Abraham," says Jesus, "exulted in order that
he might see my day"; yet He says also "Before Abraham
was I AM 7 ." As for the way in which the FIRST is to become
Jesus before the latter had become a convert and before he was
named Peter. " In some sense, if priority could be claimed by the
first disciple to bring another disciple to Jesus, it could be claimed
by Andrew " such is the impression produced on the reader. Comp.
Introd. pp. 143 4.
1 Jni. 42. 2 Jn xxi. 1517.
3 Jn vi. 68 9 "Lord, to whom shall we go?. . .Thou hast the
words of eternal life, and we perfectly (Joh. Voc. 1629, Joh. Gr. 2475)
believe and know that thou art the Holy One of God."
4 Jn xx. 8 "and he saw and believed." Of Peter it is said (ib. 6)
"he beholdeth," but not "he believed."
5 Jn xx. 4, 8. 6 Jn xxi. 22 3.
7 Jn viii. 56, 58. On Jn i. 9 epxdp-fvov, prob. to be taken with (pus,
"the light. . .[continually] coming," see Joh. Gr. 2277, 2508. Its
technical sense of "coming from God" or "coming as the Deliverer"
may in part explain the omission of -rrpb epov by many authorities in
Jn x. 8 irdvTfg oo-oi rj\6ov irpb (/JLOV. The meaning "came [professing
150 (Mark x. 28 31)
HOW TO ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM
LAST, it is set before us in the Washing of Feet, not as a
penalty or degradation, but as an act of divine service wherein
the Son represents to us the Father in heaven, and shews us
how we are to conform ourselves to His image as His children
on earth 1 . If we do this, there can be no first or last in the
worldly sense among those about whom Jesus says to the
Father "I in them and thou in me, that they may be perfected
into one 2 ."
6. "And Jesus was going before them, and they were
amazed,"' in Mark 3
This passage has been discussed above with other Marcan
to be the Deliverer] " may have seemed deducible from rjXdov without
Trpo fp.ov, which some heretics might interpret as definitely condemning
all the ancient heroes of Israel.
1 Jn xiii. 4 i 7.
3 Mk x. 324
(R.V.)
(32) And they
were in the way,
going up to Jeru-
salem; and Jesus
was going before
them : and they were
amazed ; and' they
that followed (or, but
some as they follow-
ed) were afraid. And
he took again the
twelve, and began to
tell them the things
that were to happen
unto him, [saying],
(33) Behold, we
go up to Jerusalem ;
and the Son of man
shall be delivered
unto the chief priests
and the scribes ; and
they shall condemn
him to death, and
shall deliver him
unto the Gentiles :
(34) And they
shall mock him, and
shall spit upon him,
- Jn xvii. 23.
Mt. xx. 17 19
(R.V.)
(17) And as Jesus
was going up to Jeru-
salem,
he took the twelve
disciples apart, and
in the way he said
unto them,
(18) Behold, we
go up to Jerusalem;
and the Son of man
shall be delivered
unto the chief priests
and scribes ; and
they shall condemn
him to death,
(19) and shall
deliver him unto the
Gentiles to mock,
and to scourge, and
to crucify: and the
Lk. xix. 28, xviii.
31-3 (R.V.)
(xix. 28) And
when he had thus
spoken, he went on
before, going up to
Jerusalem.
(xviii. 31) And
he took unto him the
twelve, and said unto
them,
Behold, we go up
to Jerusalem, and
all the things that
are written by (or,
through) the pro-
phets shall be accom-
plished unto the Son
of man.
(32) For he shall
be delivered up unto
the Gentiles, and
shall be mocked,
and shamefully en-
151 (Mark x. 32 4)
HOW TO ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM
passages of the same kind 1 , and it has been shewn that John
prefers to describe the wonder inspired in the disciples by
their Master as a feeling caused by His "grace and truth,"
rather to be called "reverence" than amazement or "fear" as
here ("they that followed were afraid"). But it is worth
noting that on this occasion the amazement and "fear" re-
corded by Mark might have a correspondence with a particular
passage in the Book of Joshua, where it is said about the first
Jesus when he led Israel across the Jordan (LXX) "The Lord
magnified Jesus before the face of all Israel and they feared him,
as 1 they feared Moses. . . 2 ." This passage appears to be almost
unique in Scripture. Nowhere else does Scripture speak thus
of "fearing" persons in the sense of honouring or reverencing
them except in the Levitical precept "Ye shall fear every
man his mother and his father 3 ." Scripture describes Israel
as fearing to "come nigh" Moses when they saw that "the skin
of his face shone 4 ," but not as "fearing him."
The long account of Israel's crossing the Jordan under
Joshua begins thus: "This day will I begin to magnify thee
in the sight of all Israel, that they may know that, as I was with
Moses, so I will be with thee 5 ." Origen, describing John the
Mk x. 32 4 Mt. xx. 17 19 Lk. xix. 28, xviii.
(R.V.) contd. (R-V.) contd. 31 3 (R.V.) contd.
and shall scourge third day he shall be treated, and spit
him, and shall kill raised up. upon :
him ; and after three (33) And they
days he shall rise shall scourge and kill
again. . him: and the third
day he shall rise
again.
1 Mk x. 32, on which see above, Chap. II. 3.
Josh. IV. 14 LXX (j)of3ovVTO avrbv <aa~7rep [AP + e<poftn>vToj Ma>v(TTJv.
3 Lev. xix. 3. Gesen. 431 b gives under this heading only these
instances of "fear" with accus. of person. In i K. iii. 28 ffpofrrjtirja-av
drrb Trporrw-TTov rov /3., the LXX correctly renders the Heb. which has
not the accusative.
4 Exod xxxiv. 30.
5 Josh. iii. 7. Mk x. i "cometh. . .and beyond Jordan (fp^frm y
ra opia TTJS 'lovSat'as 1 KOL -rrepav rov 'lopltdvov)," though obscured by the
insertion of "and," leaves no doubt, when it is combined with
Mk x. 46 "and they come to Jericho/' that Jesus had been "beyond,
152 (Mark x. 32 4)
HOW TO ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM
Baptist as baptizing "beyond Jordan," breaks off to devote
a long section to Israel crossing Jordan under "Jesus," i.e.
Joshua, as being typical of Christian baptism 1 ; and this, for
Christians, would be a natural application 2 . The Baptist, "in
the Wilderness," would represent the Law ; Jesus, in the
Jordan, being baptized in it, and also the first of those bap-
tized by the Holy Spirit, would represent the Gospel. When
Jesus passed "over the Jordan" at any time He might be
regarded as passing to. the conquest of the Promised Land.
But on. the occasion we are now considering He had recently
passed over it for the last time, going up to the glorious victory
of the Cross in Jerusalem. Moreover, like a spiritual Joshua,
immediately after crossing the Jordan, He might be said to
take Jericho in a spiritual capture, bestowing sight on the
blind, and leading the multitude onward in His train, rejoicing
in His triumph. Might not all this recall to the earliest disciples
in their Christian hymnal worship the first crossing of the Jordan
by the Leader whom the Lord "magnified" in the sight of Israel
so that they "feared him as they feared Moses"?
In the Fourth Gospel, apart from descriptions of the acts of
John the Baptist, the phrase "across Jordan" occurs only once,
"And he went away again beyond Jordan into the place
where John was at first baptizing 3 ." Christ's first "crossing
i.e. eastward of, Jordan" just before He "came to Jericho" which
was westward of Jordan. If so, He had crossed the Jordan just
before He "came to Jericho."
The par*ll. Mt. xix. i omits "and" (3\0fi> d$ ra o. rf/s- 'I. ircpw
rov 'inpftiivov}. This might mean "He came to. . .passing-over the
Jordan," as in Jn x. 40 aV^Atfei/ ndXiv Trtpav rov 'InpStivnv. Comp.
nfpav with verb of motion in Jn vi. 17 and especially xvm. i "went
forth passing-over Cedron." Here, Westc. says, "probably with a
significant reference" to David crossing the Kidron. It is not im-
probable that also in Mk-Mt. here a unique Synoptic use of "over"
or "passing across " in connection with Christ's movements there is
a " significant reference " to Joshua, the first " Jesus," crossing Jordan
to Jericho.
1 Origen Comm. Joann. vi. 26.
2 See [Tertull. Reply to Marcion iii. 80 90 (Clark iii. 3467)].
3 Jn x. 40.
153 (Mark x. 324)
HOW TO ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM
of the Jordan" from this place is implied but not expressed 1 .
It is at this place ("Bethany beyond Jordan") that Jesus
receives the news of the sickness of Lazarus and says "Let us
go into Judaea again." This would involve a second "crossing
of the Jordan." The disciples remonstrate and Thomas says
"Let us also go that we may die with him 2 ." If this journey
"into Judaea" had ended in Jerusalem, a case might be made
out for supposing that the Johannine journey ("across
Jordan") coincided with that under discussion in Mark, and
that the alarm expressed by the disciples and Thomas in
John, corresponded to the amazement and fear of Christ's
disciples and followers in Mark. But the feelings ascribed to
Thomas and his companions differ too much from those
described in Mark to allow, in this instance, the inference of
any Johannine allusion or intervention of this particular kind.
It would be nearer the truth to say that in the Fourth Gospel
the disciples are never represented as "fearing" except when
they have been separated from their Master and fail to recognise
Him as He approaches them 3 .
It is otherwise as to the general use of the phrase "beyond
Jordan." Here John probably intervenes for Mark against
Luke who never uses it. Luke, as a historian, might object to
it because of its geographical ambiguity 4 . But John would not
be likely on that account to sacrifice a phrase replete with
Scriptural poetic associations', and capable of being freed from
ambiguity by a careful arrangement of the context 5 . It was
from beyond Jordan that Jesus, like Joshua advancing to vic-
tory over the kings of Canaan, Himself advanced to victory over
1 The first "crossing of the Jordan" would take place when Jesus
(Jn i. 43) rjde\rj(Tv f^ik&flv els rrjv Ta\i\aiav. This was (Beginning
p. 213), according to Origen, "to find the lost, namely, Philip."
2 Jn xi. 16. 3 Jn vi. 19 20.
4 See Joh. Voc. 17146, 18136. John also supports Mk-Mt.
against Luke in the phrase "sea of Galilee" (Joh. Voc. 1811 d), not
" lake " as Luke.
5 Jn i. 28 " Bethany beyond Jordan " clearly means " Bethany E,
of Jordan" contrasted with Bethany W. of Jordan, near Jerusalem,
and iii. 26, x. 40 clearly refer to the former.
154 (Mark x. 324)
HOW TO ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM
death, as typified in the raising of Lazarus. At the same time
John is careful to fortify his readers against the objection "In
departing from 'beyond Jordan/ that is, Peraea, Jesus was flee-
ing from Herod Antipas, who ruled over it 1 ." John tells us, in
effect, that this was not so. The great danger was from the Jews,
as the disciples implied, when in answer to their Master's words,
"Let us go into Judaea again," they replied "Rabbi, the Jews
were but now seeking to stone thee; and goest thou thither
again 2 ?"
7. " With the baptism that I am baptized withal shall
ye be baptized," in Mark*
It will be seen, in the texts printed below, that Matthew
omits mention of baptism, not only here in Christ's promise to
1 Comp. Lk. xiii. 31, where "certain Pharisees" say to Jesus
"Get thee out, and go hence; for Herod would fain kill thee."
2 Jn xi. 7 8. See above, p. 65.
3 Mk x. 35 40
(R.V.)
(35) And there
come near unto him
James and John, the
sons of Zebedee, say-
ing unto him, Master
(or, Teacher) , we
would that thou
shouldest do for us
whatsoever we shall
ask of thee.
(36) And he said
unto them, What
would ye that I
should do for you ?
(37) And they
said unto him, Grant
unto us that we may
sit, one on thy right
hand, and one on
[thy] left hand, in
thy glory.
" (38) But Jesus
said unto them, Ye
know not what ye
ask. Are ye able to
drink the cup that
I drink? or to be
Mt. xx. 20 23
(R.V.)
(20) Then came
to him the mother of
the sons of Zebedee
with her sons, wor-
shipping [him], and
asking a certain thing
of him.
(21) And he said
unto her, What
wouldest thou ? She
saith unto him, Com-
mand that these my
two sons may sit,
one on thy right
hand, and one on thy
left hand, in thy
kingdom.
(22) But Jesus
answered and said,
Ye know not what ye
ask. Are ye able to
drink the cup that I
am about to drink ?
Lk. om.
Comp. Lk. xii. 50
(R.V.)
But I have a bap-
tism to be baptized
155 (Mark x. 3540)
HOW TO ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM
the sons of Zebedee, but also before in His question to them
(Mark) "Are ye able to drink the cup* that I drink, or to be
baptized. . . ?" where Matthew stops short at "drink 1 ." Luke
omits the whole narrative. This is therefore a case where we
might expect some kind of Johannine intervention as to the
sons of Zebedee, and, more particularly, as to the "baptism"
wherewith they were to be "baptized."
Why should Matthew omit the mention of baptism? One
reason may be that he found the Marcan tradition already used
as it was before the days of Irenaeus by heretics who
introduced new rites of "redemption." These might affirm
not only that the Lord said "I have another baptism to be
baptized with," but also that He "appointed as an addition
this redemption to the sons of Zebedee . . . saying, ' Can ye be
baptized with the baptism which I shall be baptized with 2 ?"
Another reason may be that Christians in the first century
found it hard, as Origen appears to have done 3 , to define the
Mk x. 35 40 Mt. xx. 20 23
(R.V.) contd. (R-V.) contd. Lk. om.
baptized with the with : and how am I
baptism that I am straitened till it be
baptized with ? accomplished !
(39) And they They say unto
said unto him, We him, We are able,
are able. And Jesus (23) Hesaithunto
said unto them, The them, My cup indeed
cup that I drink ye ye shall drink : but
shall drink; and to sit on my right
with the baptism hand, and on [my]
that I am baptized left hand, is not miae
withal shall ye be to give, but [it is for
baptized : them] for whom it
(40) But to sit on hath been prepared
my right hand or on of my Father.
[my] left hand is not
mine to give : but [it
is for them] for whom
it hath been pre-
pared.
1 Mk x. 38 9, Mt. xx. 22 3.
2 Iren. i. 21. 2, quoting Lk. xii. 50 and Mk x. 38.
3 Origen on Mt. xx. 22 (Lomm. iv. 15 foil, and i. 266). In the
latter passage (Comm. Joann. vi. 37) the words JW yap roX/ir/porepoi/
ftcuravi^uiv TOV \ftyov (TTO) jrpos TO. VTTO ra>v TrXf/OTODV VTrovoovfjLeva indicate
his dissent from the prevalent interpretation.
156 (Mark x. 35 40)
HOW TO ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM
difference between the cup and the baptism, and the way in
which the sons of Zebedee actually drank the cup and were
baptized with the baptism. James the son of Zebedee died
as a martyr and might be said to have fulfilled Christ's pre-
diction, but how was it fulfilled by John the son of Zebedee,
who was believed to have lived to a great age and to have
died a' natural death?
In attempting to explain Matthew's omission we must
start from ancient facts and not import into them modern
notions. The Greek word baptizein, rendered by us "baptize,"
means literally "immerse," and metaphorically implies for the
most part immersion in evil of some kind 1 . In canonical LXX
it occurs only once literally and once corresponding to Heb?
"frighten 2 "; but Aquila uses it metaphorically in Job 3 "Yet
wilt thou immerse me in the ditch," where the word rendered
"ditch" means "[the] pit [of Sheol]" and recurs in the Psalms
(R.V. txt) "Thou wilt not leave my soul to Sheol; neither wilt
thou suffer thy holy one to see corruption (marg. the pit)' 1 ."
The word therefore, when used metaphorically and para-
doxically with "fire," might be connected with something
bordering on Sheol, something suggestive of extreme and
depressing humiliation, as well as fiery trial.
In attempting to define Christ's meaning more closely we
are hampered by the want of evidence in the New Testament.
For Matthew nowhere represents Jesus as using the word
"baptize" or "baptism" except about "John's baptism 5 "
till after the Resurrection, and then in a tradition that he alone
1 See Steph. Thes. ii. 109, which shews that it means ''plunged"
in debt', sleep, drinking, perplexity etc.
2 2 K. v. 14 "dipped [himself]," Is. xxi. 4 "hath affrighted."
3 Jobix.3i "immerse," "pnD, "pit" nn^ (see Gesen. 1001). Heb.
nn^ = (Tromm.) /3o#pos, @66wos (4), <#opd, duxfrQopd etc. (12), Qdvaros
(5). BaTrn'^o) occurs also in Jerem. xxxviii. 22 (Sym.) e/3d7rrraj> els
re'A/ia TOVS nodas crov, Heb. "thy feet are sunk in the mire," Aq.
KaTfdvcrav (hif. of JJ2D), LXX KaraXvcrovfTiv (prob. error for <ara<\v-
(rowiv). See also Ps. Ixix. 2 (Sym.).
4 Ps. xvi. 10 (LXX 8ia<f>6opdv} is quoted about Christ in Acts ii. 27,
xiii. 35.
6 Mt. xxi. 25 " the baptism of John."
157 (Mark x. 35 40)
HOW TO ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM
has recorded 1 . Luke omits the whole of the Marcan story
under consideration. But he represents Jesus elsewhere as
saying on the only occasion when He mentions baptism (except
about ' 'John's baptism ' '),"! came to cast fire on the earth ... But
I have a baptism to be baptized with ; and how am I straitened
till it be accomplished 2 !" This, so far as it goes, indicates
that Jesus used the term metaphorically, in the sense of a fiery
trial. It points to the conclusion that, in Mark also, " baptism "
should be interpreted as something approaching to temporary
"immersion in the pit," that is, in Sheol, or as the Psalmist
says, in "the dust of death 3 ."
Now turning to the preceding context in Mark we see that
k predicts for the Messiah not only death but also painful
humiliation and "mocking" before death; and this is what
is predicted at great length in the Psalm just quoted 4 . It
would therefore be quite consistent that Mark should represent
Jesus as first predicting, in language that was clear to Himself
though not to the disciples, the cup of humiliation and the
immersion in Sheol, and then as saying immediately afterwards
to the sons of Zebedee "Are you prepared to drink my cup
and to undergo my immersion?" not meaning a baptismal
purification like that introduced by John the Baptist, nor like
the familiar immersion of hands or feet on certain occasions,
but meaning a "plunging in the pit" or a "bringing down to
the dust of death." A trace of this thought, in the use of the
word "buried," may be found in the Pauline Epistles, "All we
who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his
1 Mt. xxviii. 19 " baptizing them into the name of the Father and
of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." 2 Lk. xii. 49 50.
3 Ps. xxii. 15 "My strength is dried up. . .and thou hast brought
me into the dust of death. For dogs. . . ." What Justin Martyr calls
"the whole Psalm," almost verse by verse, is applied by him to
Christ, Tryph. 98 106 ( 99 "I will demonstrate to you that the
whole Psalm refers thus to Christ"). Origen's frequent expositions
of the italicised words (ad toe. and Comm. Joann. xx. 31 etc.) indicate
that he regarded them as referring to the Fall of Man as well as to
Christ's death, and Jerome refers them to the Incarnation as well as
to the Descent into Sheol.
4 Mk x. 34, Ps. xxii. 7 18.
158 (Mark x. 35 40)
HOW TO ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM
death; we were buried therefore with him through baptism
into death," and "Having been buried with him in baptism 1 ."
But it is not surprising that the dark aspect of the word
"baptize" was at once subordinated, and soon ignored, in early
Christian literature, imbued as it was with the conception of
baptism as an "enlightening" of the soul 2 .
In the Fourth Gospel baptism is practically not mentioned
except in connection with the Baptist or with a statement that
the Baptist's practice was carried on by Christ's disciples ; as
to which it is noteworthy that the Evangelist first describes
Jesus as "baptizing," and then, instead of cancelling it as an
error, adds a correction, "Howbeit Jesus himself baptized not,
but his disciples [did] 3 ."
But as regards the applicability of "baptism" (in the sense
of martyrdom) to John the son of Zebedee, the Gospel may
possibly imply something of the kind if at least we may
regard him as identical with "the disciple whom Jesus loved "-
in the comparison tacitly drawn between this disciple and Peter
at the close of the Gospel. Peter is bidden to "follow" Christ
.in a special way after Jesus has predicted "by what manner of
death he should glorify God," namely, by crucifixion. The
beloved disciple, though not bidden to follow, is seen "follow-
ing" ; and about him Jesus says to Peter " If I will that he tarry
while I am coming, what is that to thee? Follow thou me 4 ."
Hence, says the Gospel, "this saying went forth among the
brethren, that that disciple should not die." The best inter-
pretation of this obscure passage appears to be that the unnamed
disciple lived to a great age and did not "follow" Christ by a
martyr's death, but that he "followed" Him in a different way
while "tarrying," by living a martyr's life 5 .
1 Rom. vi. 3 4, Col. ii. 12.
2 See Joh. Gr. 2532 c on $am<u and Son 3407 (vii) a quoting Justin
Martyr Apol. 61 "this washing is called enlightening (<f>a>rurfj.6g)."
3 Jn. iv. i 2. 4 Jn xxi. 19 23, see p. 302, n. 2.
5 See Jerome's comment on Mt. xx. 23 indicating early doubt as
to the applicability of the "cup" to John, because, in his case, "the
persecutor did not shed blood." The Fourth Gospel appears tacitly
to protest against such technical distinction.
159 (Mark x. 35 40)
HOW TO ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM
8. "Not mine to give but for those for whom it hath
been prepared," in Mark and Matthew' 1
Matthew, after "prepared," adds "by my Father," and
Origen discusses "what things are given by the Saviour [and]
what things by the Father 2 ." Also the best Latin MSS, and
the Syro -Sinai tic, have rendered AAAOIC, in Mark, as "for
others" (which would be its usual meaning) 3 . Jerome, on
Matthew, takes "prepared by my Father" as referring to the
worthy: "Whoever shall have so conducted himself as to be
worthy of the Kingdom of Heaven." It is "prepared," he
says, " not for a person but for a life." He strenuously dissents
from unnamed critics who thought that the reference was to
"Moses and Elias whom they [i.e. the sons of Zebedee] had
recently seen speaking with Him on the mountain."
John appears to intervene in the only passage in which he
uses the word "prepare." There Jesus says "In my Father's
house are many abiding-places" and then (in an obscure con-
text) twice uses the phrase "go to (or, go and) prepare a place
for you 4 ." Whatever may be the exact interpretation of the
sentence, the context indicates a perfect unity between the
Father and the Son, so that what the Son speaks of " preparing,"
the Father Himself might be said to be "preparing," or to have
already "prepared 5 ." And here we may note that Jews would
see a sacred meaning, not obvious to Gentiles, in this thought
of a "prepared place." For the verbal noun mdcoun, derived
from coun "prepare," while meaning etymologically "prepared
place," means regularly "the fixed place of Jehovah's abode
1 Mk x. 40 OVK (TTiv ep.bv dovvai, aXX' ols j^roi'/iacrrcu, Mt. XX. 23 +VTTO
TOV Trarpos p.ov.
2 Origen on Mt. xx. 23 (Lomm. iv. 14).
3 That is to say, nXXoiy would occur in Greek literature much more
frequently than dXX' ols. For confusion between aXXa and dXXa in
Jn vi. 23 see Law p. 60 foil.
4 Jn xiv. 2 3, on which see Joh. Gr. 2080 6.
6 Jn xiv. 9 "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father," ib. 13
" Whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father
may be glorified in the Son."
1 60 (Mark x. 35 40)
HOW TO ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM
on earth," the Temple 1 . To be in that "prepared place" was
to be in a region that excluded all favouritism all thought of
what Jerome called "preparation for a person" as distinct
from "preparation for a life."
Thus the Fourth Gospel indirectly meets all such personal
claims as those of the sons of Zebedee, and all misunderstandings
arising from the narrative about them. It suggests a unity in
which are merged all thoughts of equality, inequality, and
rivalry. It admits, at the outset, that the abiding : places in
the Father's House are "many"; but it adds simultaneously
that the essential object is to be not at the right hand or at the
left, but where Christ is ("that where I am there ye also may
be ") and, later on, it declares that the Father and the Son will
come and take up their abode in the believer's heart 2 .
9. "They that are accounted to rule," in Mark 3
For Mark's "they that are accounted to rule" Matthew sub-
stitutes "rulers," and Luke "kings"; but there is abundant
1 Gesen. 4676 gives, as the first instance, Exod. xv. 17 "the
mountain of thy inheritance, the prepared [place} (pDD) for thy
abiding. . .thy hands prepared," LXX eroipov, Aq. and Sym.
. . .LXX f)Toifj,a(rav, Aq. fj$pa(rav.
2 Jn xiv. 2, 3, 23.
3 Mk x. 415 Mt. xx. 248
(R.V.) . (R.V.)
(41) And when (24) And when
the ten heard it, they
were moved with in-
dignation concerning
the two brethren.
the ten heard it, they
began to be moved
with indignation con-
cerning James and
John.
(42) And Jesus
called them to him,
and saith unto them,
Ye know that they
which are accounted
to rule over the Gen-
tiles lord it over
them ; and their
great ones exercise
authority over them.
(43) But it is not
so among you : but
whosoever would be-
A. F.
(25) But Jesus
called them unto
him, and said, Ye
know that the rulers
of the Gentiles lord it
over them, and their
great ones exercise
authority over them.
(26) Not so shall
it be among you :
but whosoever would
Lk. xxii. 24 7
(R.V.)
(24) And there
arose also a conten-
tion among them,
which of them is
accounted to be
greatest (lit. greater).
(25) And he said
unto them, The kings
of the Gentiles have
lordship over them;
and they that have
authority over them
are called Benefac-
tors.
(.26) Put ye [shall]
not [be] so : but he
that is the greater
161 (Mark x. 41 5)
li
HOW TO ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM
evidence to shew that the Greek phrase meaning literally
"those seeming to be rulers" means in effect "those commonly
called rulers," or "those reputed to be rulers," with a tacit
implication that they are unworthy of the name 1 . Luke has
also altered Mark's significant words " abuse-their-lordship "
and " abuse-their-power " by dropping that part of the verbs
which signifies abuse 2 . Thus Luke has taken the sting out of
the Marcan tradition and converted it into a statement, perhaps
mildly ironical, that "rulers," simply because they are rulers,
are called by their flatterers "benefactors 3 ."
John, though he nowhere uses the phrase "those seeming to
be rulers" to mean "those whom the world calls rulers," goes
Mk x. 41 5
(R.V.) contd.
come great among
you, shall be your
minister (or, ser-
vant) :
(44) And whoso-
ever would be first
among you, shall be
servant (lit. bond-
servant) of all.
(45) For verily
the Son of man came
not to be ministered
unto, but to minister,
and to give his life a
ransom for many.
i
Mt. xx. 248
(R.V.) contd.
become great among
you shall be your
minister (or, ser-
vant) :
(27) And whoso-
ever would be first
among you shall be
your servant (lit.
bondservant) :
(28) Even as the
Son of man came not
to be ministered un-
to, but to minister,
Lk. xxii. 24 7
(R.V.) contd.
among you, let him
become as the
younger ; and he
that is chief, as he
that doth serve.
(27) For whether
is greater, he that
sitteth-at-meat (lit.
reclineth), or he that
serveth? is not he
that sitteth-at-meat
(W*. reclineth) ? but I
am in the midst of
you as he that serv-
eth.
and to give his life a
ransom for many.
Mk x. 42 01 8oKovvTfs apxeiv, Mt. xx. 25 01 ap^ovres, Lk. xxii.
25 01 {Bacrikels. SS, in Mk, has briefly " Ye know that the chiefs of
the peoples are their lords. Not so...." See Wetstein on Mk,
quoting Epict. Ench. 51 (error for 33) T>V eV virfpoxfi SOKOVVTW and
Plutarch Vlt. 1047 c ro " ^at-pov, at 8ov\evovcriv ol doKOVvre
besides Gal. ii. 9, Susann. 16 etc.
2 Mk-Mt. KdTdKvpievovcriv, Kdre^ova-id^ovcnv^ Lk. K.vpivov(Tiv,
OVTCS. Comp. Origen on Mt. (Lomm. iv. 22) ov< dpKovp-cvoi T<
3 On fvfpycrrjs, as a title or surname, see Steph. Thes. iii. 2248.
Epictetus uses it twice, (i) ironically, of Chrysippus whom he regards
as a pretender (i. 4. 29) "O, [joy] for [our] great good-fortune! O,
[joy] for [our] great benefactor, who points the path out [for us] ! "
(2) seriously, of our God and Father, whom (i. 6. 42) we fail to
recognise as our ''benefactor."
162 (Mark x. 41 5)
HOW TO ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM
to the root of the Marcan thought by introducing (alone among
the Evangelists) "the ruler of this world"; whom he regards
as the source of all misrule, the ruler for a time, de facto but not
de jure, already "judged," and destined to be speedily "cast
out 1 ."
There is a preparation for this, in the parable of the Good
Shepherd, where John assumes that all his readers knew the
Jews from the Psalms and the Gentiles from Homer that
kings were called shepherds of their peoples. There, after
Jesus has said "I am the door of the sheep," He adds immedi-
ately "All that came before me are thieves and robbers 2 ."
The text is disputed 3 . Some authorities omit "before me";
some omit "all." And the Greek for "before me" is, in itself,
ambiguous. With most verbs it would naturally mean "before
my time." But with some verbs such as "come," "speak,"
"do "-the Greek "before me," from Homer downwards, might
mean "in my behalf," or "representing me*."
That is probably the meaning of the Evangelist in any case.
Jesus is regarded as the incarnate Logos, the Shepherd of
Humanity, teaching men that all rulers of the type of Nimrod
who claimed for themselves, as a cover for their arrogant
self-seeking, that they came in His behalf and stood in His
place were thieves and robbers, false shepherds, rulers sent
by "the ruler of this world," not by Him. Mark expressed
this by saying that such rulers only "seem" to rule, and that
they "abuse their lordship" and their "authority" Luke
omitted the words indicating the "seeming" and the "abuse."
But they appear necessary for the full understanding of Christ's
1 Jn xii. 31, xiv. 30, xvi. n. 2 Jn x. 7 8.
3 See Blass, who prints TrdvTfs oaoi rf\6ov <\firrai rfa-av Kal XT/ oral,
SS has " and all those that have come are the thieves and the robbers."
4 Steph. Thes. is not so full on this point as L.S. But both shew
that rrpb fj.ov with a personal object, apart from the phrase ot irpb e'/io{)
[yfv6p.fvoi], would naturally mean in many contexts "for my sake,"
or "as my representative." Comp. Iliad x. 286 irpb 'A^atwv ayyeXos
jjci, xxiv. 734 ddXfvcov irpb (iva<ros, Xen. Cyrop. IV. 5. 44 eya>...
irpaTTuv rrpb vpwv, Soph. Oed. T. TO irpb ra>i/Se (fxovflv, Epictet. i. 24. 6
irpb (Tov KdTa.o'K.oiros aTrooraXe/.S' Aioyei^c.
163 (Mark x. 41 5) n 2
HOW TO ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM
doctrine, and John, essentially though indirectly, inculcates the
truth that Mark had (perhaps too briefly) implied.
10. "To give his life a ransom for many," in Mark
and Matthew' 1
These words, and their context in Mark and Matthew, and
the parallels in Luke, have been discussed in a previous volume 2 .
The conclusion arrived at was that John's attitude toward Luke's
version is that of one partly accepting, but partly correcting
and supplementing, as though saying, "Jesus did not merely
talk about being a minister at the table to the disciples as Luke
relates; He also made Himself their minister in fact; He
assumed the clothing, as well as the office, of one of the lowest
class of those waiting at table 3 ."
Beside this, it has been shewn 4 in Diatessarica that John
indirectly answers a question arising out of the difficult word
"ransom," which Luke omits, " To whom was the ransom paid? "
There was no "ransom" paid to Satan. Our Redeemer laid
down His life for us, contending against "the wolf." Ransoms
as a rule are paid by the conquered. But our ransom was paid
by our Conqueror 5 , conquering and ransoming us by conquering
the evil in us.
As a minor point it was shewn that whereas Luke both here
and elsewhere avoids speaking about Christ's "soul," John
represents Jesus as thrice using the expression "my soul (or,
life) 6 ." This is a case of Johannine verbal Intervention in
a definite matter, more easy to prove than the indirect and
non-verbal Intervention as to "ransom." The proof of the
latter will depend in part on many other instances where John
appears to intervene as to old Synoptic doctrine with new
Johannine metaphor. If we consider these cumulatively we
may reasonably say, not only that the Synoptic "ransom"
1 Mk x. 45, Mt. xx. 28. 2 Son 326778.
3 Son 3276. 4 Son 343843.
5 Christ might be described as conquering us by conquering the
evil in us, and at the same time "ransoming" us from our sinful
selves (Son 3438).
6 Son 3434.
164 (Mark x. 41 5)
HOW TO ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM
is illustrated by the Johannine Shepherd laying down life in
conflict against "the wolf," but also that the illustration is
intentional.
ii. "The son of Timaeus, Bartimaeus," in Mark 1
The omission of this name in the parallel Matthew and
Luke, the substitution of two blind men for one in Matthew
1 Mk x. 46 52
(R.V.)
(46) And they
come to Jericho : and
as he went out from
Jericho, with his dis-
ciples and a great
multitude, the son
of Timaeus, Bar-
timaeus, a blind
beggar, was sitting
by the way side.
(47) And when he
heard that it wtis
Jesus of Nazareth, he
began to cry out, and
say, Jesus, thou son
of David, have mercy
on me.
(48) And many
rebuked him, that he
should hold his
peace : but he cried
out the more a great
deal, Thou son of
David, have mercy
on me.
(49) And Jesus
stood still, and said,
Call ye him. And
they call the blind
man, saying unto
him, Be of good
cheer: rise, he call-
eth thee.
(50) And he, cast-
ing away his gar-
ment, sprang up, and
came to Jesus.
(51) And Jesus
answered him, and
said, What wilt thou
that I should do unto
Mt. xx. 29 34
(R.V.)
(29) And as they
went out from
Jericho, a great mul-
titude followed him.
(30) And behold,
two blind men sitting
by the way side,
when they heard that
Jesus was passing by,
cried out, saying,
Lord, have mercy on
us, thou son of
David.
(31) And the
multitude rebuked
them, that they
should hold their
peace : but they
cried out the more,
saying, Lord, have
mercy on us, thou
son of David.
(32) And Jesus
stood still, and called
them, and said, What
will ye that I should
do unto you ?
(33) They say un-
to him, Lord, that
our eyes may be
opened'.
(34) And Jesus,
being moved with
compassion, touched
their eyes : and
straightway they re-
ceived their sight,
and followed him.
Lk. xviii. 35 43
(R.V.)
(35) And it came
to pass, as he drew
nigh unto Jericho, a
certain blind man sat
by the way side
begging :
(36) And hearing
a multitude going by,
he inquired what this
meant.
(37) And they
told him, that Jesus
of Nazareth passeth
by.
(38) And he cried,
saying, Jesus, thou
son of David, have
mercy on me.
(39) And they
that went before re-
buked him, that he
should hold his peace :
but he cried out the
more a great deal,
Thou son of David,
have mercy on me.
(40) And Jesus
stood, and com-
manded him to be
brought unto him :
and when he was
come near, he asked
him,
(41) What wilt
thou that I should do
unto thee? And he
said, Lord, that I
may receive my sight.
(42) And Jesus
said unto him, Re-
ceive thy sight : thy
165 (Mark x. 46 52)
HOW TO ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM
together with the mention of two more blind men described
by Matthew elsewhere as simultaneously healed and the
Syriac reading "Timaeus, Bar Timaeus" (that is, "Timaeus,
son of Timaeus"), indicate early obscurity. Victor has
preserved the following explanation of Matthew's substi-
tution: "It is possible that Mark and Luke have made
mention of the more illustrious of the two, as also Mark
has made clear by the name, saying the son of Timaeus,
Bartimaeus, a blind man, as being illustrious at that time 1 ."
This assumes (as Origen does) that Timaeus is derived from
the Greek timios, "honourable 2 ." But this explanation is
Mk x. 46 52 Mt. xx. 29 34 Lk. xviii. 35 43
(R.V.) contd. (R.V.) ' (R.V.) contd.
thee ? And the blind faith hath made thee
man said unto him, whole (or, saved
Rabboni, that I may thee).
receive my sight. (43) And im-
(52) And Jesus mediately he received
said unto him, Go his sight, and follow-
thy way; thy faith ed him, glorifying
hath made thee God : and all the
whole (or, saved thee) . people, when they
And straightway he saw it, gave praise
received his sight, unto God.
and followed him in
the way.
Comp. Mt. ix. 27 31 (after the healing of Jairus' daughter)
(27) And as Jesus passed by from thence, two blind men followed
him, crying out, and saying, Have mercy on us, thou son of David.
(28) And when he was come into the house, the blind men came to
him : and Jesus saith unto them, Believe ye that I am able to do
this? They say unto him, Yea, Lord. (29) Then touched he their
eyes, saying, According to your faith be it done unto you. (30) And
their eyes were opened. And Jesus strictly (or, sternly) charged
them, saying, See that no man know it. (31) But they went forth,
and spread abroad his fame in all that land.
1 Cramer on Mk x. 51 eVSe^erai yap TOV C7ri<pavo-Tcpov p,vr]fj.T)v Mdpxov
Tf <a\ A.OVKO.V TTfTrotrjo-flai, &o~7rep KOI OVO/JLCITI 8fdr)\a>Kv 6 MapKos ei7ra>i>, TOV
vibv Tip.aiov Bapri/xaioi' TV(p\bv, as fTrifpavfj rdre ovra.
z Origen Comm. Matth. xvi. 12 (Lomm. iv. 38) rbv T^S TI^S
Ttfjioiov KOI TOV vibv avTov Baprt'/iatoi/, OTrep eariv vibv Tt/xaiov.
8e dia TO rifjiiov TOV naTpidp^ov 'laKco/3. . .TpoiriK&s fKtlvos fO~Tiv 6
Tt/ualo?. . ..
166 (Mark x. 46 52)
HOW TO ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM
antecedently improbable, and is not mentioned by Jerome 1 .
It is also unusual that a Jew should be called by the same name
as his father except in special circumstances 2 .
We have therefore to consider other possibilities, and one
is, that the enemies of Jesus might stigmatize this beggar a
conspicuous instance of His miraculous powers as being under
the curse of God, not only because he was a beggar 3 , but also
because he "was unclean (Tame) and the son of the unclean
(Bar-Tame)*." The Evangelists might reply, playing on this
word and on the Greek Time 5 , which is also adopted into late
1 Jerome, on Mt. xx. 29 foil., allegorizes at great length, but does
not mention the Marcan Bartimaeus. In Onomastica p. 66 he says
" Barsemia filius caecus, quod et ipsum corrupte quidam Bartimaeum
legunt." He apparently derives it from Aram. K'DD "blind" (Levy
Ch. ii. 170 a). HOY. Heb., on Mk, says (inter alia) "What if K^OTl,
Thima (sic), be the same with K^D Simai, blind. . . ? "
2 Hor. Heb. (on Lk. i. 59) says that in the case of a deceased
husband whose wife bore a son to the husband's brother, the husband's
name might perhaps be given to the son : " Otherwise, indeed, it was
very seldom that the son bore the name of the father." See Cor-
rections 448 d.
3 See Ps. xxxvii. 25 "I have not seen the righteous forsaken nor
his seed begging (&J>p2) [their] bread." Comp. Ps. cix. 10 "Let his
children . . . beg (TOP) " LXX " let them be beggars," TraiT^o-droxrai/ .
This is the only instance of eVan-to/ in canon. LXX. But it occurs in
Sir. xl. 28 " it is better to die than to beg (enaiTflv) (Heb. hithp. of h^D,
besiege with entreaties)." Luke, if we may judge from Lk. xvi. 3
(nairelv atV^wo/zat, appears to use it to mean systematic or
importunate beggary. IIpoo-atTciv occurs in LXX only in Jobxxvii. 14
"If his children be multiplied, it is for the sword, and his offspring
shall not be satisfied with bread (eav 8c <al dvdpwOua-
Steph. Thes. vi. 1851 quotes Plutarch and Lucian as using
and Suidas as saying that it = irairr)s, but does not enable us to
distinguish exactly between them. Upoaair^s is non-occurrent in
LXX. It occurs in N.T. only here (Mk x. 46) and Jn ix. 8 (of the man
born blind).
4 See Gesen. 379 80 shewing the frequency of XOD and its
derivatives. Levy ii. 153 b quotes Sabb. 67 a "Son of clay, son of
("11) uncleanness (SOD) " as names of a demon in an incantation.
6 See Hor^ Heb. which quotes Esth. iii. 8 Targ. "no profit (Timai) "
from Ok ri\t,r\, on which see Krauss p. 264.
167 (Mark x. 46 52)
HOW TO ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM
Hebrew, "Not so, but Timaeus, i.e. honourable, and the son
of Timaeus." Horae Hebraicae leaves us free to believe this
by saying "Perhaps there was a Timaeus of some more noted
name in that age, either for some good report or some bad."
We turn to the Johannine account of Christ's healing a
blind man. There the disciples seem to assume that either
the man had sinned or his parents, saying to Jesus "Who did
sin, this man, or his parents, that Jie should be born blind?"
Jesus replies "Neither did this man sin nor his parents, but that
the works of God should be made manifest in him." But John
represents the Pharisees as apparently assuming afterwards, in
spite of the miracle, that the man had sinned, or his parents,
or both, so that he was " altogether born in sins 1 ." This would
be equivalent to saying that he was "Unclean and the son of
the Unclean, or Tame and Bartdme." This, judged by the
ordinary standard of transliteration from Hebrew to Greek, is
not far from "Timaeus and Bartimaeus."
According to the Synoptists, Jesus healed blindness on
several occasions, and the scene and details of one such healing
may have been confused with the scene and details of another.
This might cause early confusion 2 .
1 Jn ix. 23, 34.
* The Gospel according to St Matthew, ed. A. H. McNeile, p. 128,
contains the following interesting remarks on Mt. ix. 27 31 :
"Mk twice relates the cure of a blind man (viii. 22 26, x. 46
52) ; Mt. twice relates the cure of two blind -men (here, xx. 29 34).
The second instances in Mk and Mt. are parallels, but the present
passage is widely different from Mk viii. 22 26, and cannot be
derived from it, although both of Mt.'s narratives appear to contain
a reminiscence of Mk viii. 22 26 in the touching of the eyes. Mt.
may have derived it from an unknown source, but more probably
it is compiled by a later hand from xx. 29 34 and Mk x. 46 52,
with i. 43 45. Notice the following points of similarity to ch. xx. :
(i) 8vo rv(f)\oi. (2) eXerjo-ov f)p.as vie Aavet'8. The title occurs also
in Mk x., where it is not, as in Mt., a characteristic of the evangelist.
(3) The Lord asked them a question as a spur to their faith (note
Troiija-aL and TTOI^O-O)). (4) He touched their eyes. (5) He spoke of
their faith (Mk ; not Mt. in ch. xx.) . (6) ' Their eyes were opened ' . . . ;
xx. 33 'that our eyes may be opened.' Thus all the essential points
in the two accounts are the same. But the remainder of the narrative
168 (Mark x. 46 52)
HOW TO ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM
We cannot say that John intervenes as to these Synoptic
narratives of the .healing of blindness, but we may fairly say
that he makes suggestions that bear on them. He suggests
that the Marcan names were not really names but appellations ;
that they were applied not to two blind men but to one 1 ; that
the man was really a beggar; that, because he was born blind,
he was supposed by the Pharisees to be, but was not, born in
sin; and that he was a conspicuous instance of the way in
which Jesus, the Light of the World, revealed the light to those
that sat in darkness, and combined spiritual with physical
healing.
12. "In the way,'' in Mark' 2 '
The parallel Matthew omits "in the way" ; naturally, for it
seems superfluous, if not bathos. Luke substitutes "glorifying
God." He also adds that "all the people seeing [it] gave
praise to God." This reads like an addition made by Luke in
order to obtain an appropriate end to the story. But in early
Christian tradition, " the Way " meant " the way of the Christian
faith." Hence "he followed Jesus in the Way" might mean
"he became a convert." When this poetic play on the phrase
failed to be understood the phrase would be dropped (as by
Matthew) or altered (as by Luke) 3 .
There are several minor reasons for thinking that John, in
spite of many differences, wrote with some view to Mark's
story. In Mark, there is probably an implied contrast between
a poor blind man, who had nothing but a cloak to encumber him
on his way to Jesus, and a previously mentioned rich ruler, who
seems to be due to Mk i. 43 45 ; note the uncommon words
epfipifMao-dai and 8ia<pTjfjii^fiv , and the fact that the Lord's injunction
was disobeyed, which are the very points that Mt. omits in viii. 2 4."
In addition to these points, note also Mt. ix. 29 rj-^aro TMV o^Oak^wv
avT(i>v, contrasted with xx. 34 rj-^aro TWV 6p.p.dr(t)v avrvv. On o/z/xa in
N.T. elsewhere only in Mk viii. 23 see Law p. 485.
1 Matthew's duplication (Law pp. 70, 74! may have arisen fr< in
a version of Mk vibs Ttfj.al.ov 6 <al Baprijuatoj, by the omission of 6. Mk's
txt vibs Tipaiov Bapn'/zaioy is a very unusual order of words.
2 Mk x. 52, Mt. xx. 34, Lk. xviii. 43.
3 See Light 3755 gh on "The Way."
169 (Mark x. 46 52)
HOW TO ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM
had great possessions 1 . In John, there is a contrast between
a poor blind man, assumed by everybody to be " born in sin "
because he was born blind, and Pharisees who say "we see,"
and who bid the poor man stigmatize as a "sinner" the Healer
who has given him sight.
Both narratives are full of passion. " Rabboni," for example,
is an appellation that occurs nowhere in the New Testament
except in the exclamation of the blind man, in Mark, praying
for light, and of Mary Magdalene, in John, when it flashes upon
her that she sees the risen Saviour 2 . And if the blind man in
the Gospel of Mark is represented to have followed Jesus "in
the way," meaning, in the Way of Life and Light, this finds a
parallel in the Gospel of John, which tells us that the blind man
not only "believed" but also "worshipped" Jesus 3 .
1 Mk x. 50 52 (R.V.) "casting away his garment" (not in the
parall. Mt.-Lk.) "...folio wed him in the way." Contrast Mk x. 21 2
"Come, follow me. But his countenance fell... for he was one that
had great possessions."
2 Mk x. 51, Jn xx. 16. 3 Jn ix. 38.
170 (Mark x. 46 52)
CHAPTER V
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
[Mark xi. I 25 (26)]
i. "A colt tied at the door without in the open street,"
in Mark 1
IN the following investigation we shall have to study, in
detail, evidence bearing on the Greek word amphodon, unique
1 Mk xi. i 7 a
(R.V.)
(1) And when
they draw nigh unto
Jerusalem, unto Beth-
phage and Bethany,
at the mount of
Olives, he sendeth
two of his disciples,
(2) And saith un-
to them, Go your
way into the village
that is over against
you : and straight-
way as ye enter into
it, ye shall find a colt
(nvXov) tied, whereon
no man ever yet sat ;
loose him, and bring
him.
(3) And if any one
say unto you, Why
do ye this ? say ye,
The Lord hath need
of him ; and straight-
way he will send (lit.
sendeth) him back
(or. again) hither.
Mt. xxi. i 7 a
(R.V.)
(1) And when
they drew nigh unto
Jerusalem, and came
unto Bethphage, un-
to the mount of
Olives, then Jesus
sent two disciples,
(2) Saying unto
them, Go into the
village that is over
against you, and
straightway ye shall
find an ass (ovov)
tied, and acolt(7rwAoi/)
with her : loose
[them], and bring
[them] unto me.
(3) And if any one
say aught unto you,
ye shall say, The
Lord hath need of
them; and straight-
way he will send
them.
(4) Now this is
come to pass, that it
might be fulfilled
which was spoken by
(or, through) the pro-
phet, saying,
(5) Tell ye the
Lk. xix. 28 b 35 a
(R.V.)
(28) . . .going up
to Jerusalem.
(29) And it came
to pass, when he drew
nigh unto Bethphage
and Bethany, at the
mount that is called
[the mount] of Olives,
he sent two of the
disciples,
(30) Saying, Go
your way into the
village over against
[you]; in the which
as ye enter ye shall
find a colt (n&Xov)
tied, whereon no man
ever yet sat: loose
him, and bring him.
(31) And if any
one ask you, Why do
ye loose him? thus
shall ye say, The
Lord hath need of
him.
171 (Mark xi. i 7)
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
in the New Testament, rendered by R.V. "open street 1 ." It
is probably a relic of poetry. But that, in itself, is not incom-
Mk xi. i 7 a
(R.V.) contd.
(4) And they went
away, and found a
colt (TrcoXov) tied at
the door without in
the open street; and
they loose him.
(5) And certain of
them that stood there
said unto them, What
do ye, loosing the
COlt- (na>\ov) ?
(6) And they said
unto them even as
Jesus had said : and
they let them go.
(7) And they
bring the
Mt. xxi. i 7 a
(R.V.) contd.
daughter of Zion,
Behold, thy King
cometh unto thee,
Meek (-n-pavs), and
riding upon an ass
(ovov}, And upon a
colt the foal of an ass
\7ru>\ov vlov i/TTO^vyiov) .
(6) And the dis-
ciples went, and did
even as Jesus ap-
pointed them,
(7) And brought
the ass (ovov) and the
Colt (TTO)\OV). . . .
Lk. xix. 28 b 35 a
(R.V.) contd.
(32) And they
that were sent went
away, and found
even as he had said
unto them.
(33) And as they
were loosing the colt
(7700X01;), the owners
thereof said unto
them, Why loose ye
the colt (TTO)\OV) ?
(34) And they
said, The Lord hath
need of him.
(35) And they
brought him to
Jesus....
unto Jesus. . . .
For all this detail John substitutes xii. 14 15 "And Jesus, having
found a young ass (ovdpiov), sat thereon; as it is written, Fear not,
daughter of Zion : behold, thy King cometh, sitting on an ass's colt
(TTO>\OV ovov)."
1 Mk xi. 4 K.a.1 aTrrjXOov KOL cvpov rrcoXoi/ dedepevov Trpos Qvpav eco eVt
TOV dp.(p68ov. For dfjL(f)68ov, the Latin versions have platea, transitu,
and bivio, SS and Syr. (Walton) platea. Mk xi. 2, Lk. xix. 30 "as
ye enter," imply that the animal will be found at the entrance, not
of the house, but of the village. Mt. xxi. 2 omits "as ye enter."
"Ap.cpoo'ov is used by LXX only in Jerem. xvii. 27, xlix. 27 to mean
"palace," fiEnx, but by Sym. repeatedly to mean "street" or "out-
side place," Heb. pn. See Oxf. Cone. In Amos v. 16, Sym.
d/j.(po?)ois = Heb. ninn"), LXX TrXaretats 1 . The Egyptian Papyri shew
that it regularly means a "quarter" of a city. Wetstein, on Mk/
quotes Epiphanius as testifying to the Alexandrian use of the
word in the sense of a "square" or "block" of houses. But the
usage of Sym. indicates that he took it to mean a "square" in the
sense of an open space. And it is so used in Acts xix. 28 9 (D)
8pafji6vTs els TO (ifj.(po8ov, (d) " currentes in campo " i.e. the open space
at the entrance into the theatre followed by a>pp.r)o~av . . .eiV r6 OeaTpov.
Steph. Thes. quotes Polyb. Exc. Vat. xl. 7 ov Svpa, TO 8rf Xeyo/xei/oi/, a'XX'
dfj-fpadu, where it seems to be used proverbially to imply publicity..
These differences of usage throw light on Justin Martyr's apparent
allusion to Mark's word, mentioned below, p. 174, n. 3.
On the reasons for rejecting the suggestion that cip.(po8ov was a
172 (Mark xi. i 7)
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
patible with the historical truth of the context. Historical fact,
related in, and modified by, the language of ancient poetry or
prophecy, is not to be confused with non-historical narrative
derived entirely from ancient poetry or prophecy and having no
basis of fact. Mark's narrative may belong to the former class,
and may be influenced, in expression, by that prophecy of Jacob
about the Messiah in Genesis which speaks of the "tying" of
a "foal 1 ." It will be shewn that the context in Genesis was
variously interpreted by the Jews themselves in ancient times
so as to introduce some suggestion of such a phrase as Mark's
"at the door without in the amphodon."
But the historical action of Jesus was probably influenced,
not by Jacob's prophecy, but by some words of Zechariah,
predicting that the Messiah will come "riding upon an ass, even
upon a colt, the foal of an ass 2 ," where the ass appears to be
the symbol of "peace 3 ." Matthew, influenced by this prophecy,
has rejected the Marcan tradition about "the door" (and "the
open street"). He has also quoted in full the prophecy of
Zechariah. But, quoting it in Greek, which renders the
Hebrew "even" (the ambiguous vaw) by "and," he represents
the Prophet as mentioning and Jesus as riding upon "an
ass and a colt the foal of an ass." Luke adheres to Mark in
mentioning one animal alone, namely, "a colt." But he, like
translation of "Bethphage," as if the latter were ,"a place of the
parting of ways," Ny3D JV3, see Dalman, Words p. 68.
1 Gen. xlix. 10 n (R.V. txt) "The soeptre shall not depart from
Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until Shiloh come;
and unto him shall the obedience of the peoples be. Binding his foal
unto the vine, and his ass's colt unto the choice vine; he hath
washed his garments in wine, and his vesture in the blood of grapes."
2 Zech. ix. 9 (Heb.) "Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout,
O daughter of Jerusalem : behold, thy king cometh unto thee : he
is just, and having salvation (or, victory) (Heb. lit. saved) ; lowly,
and riding upon an ass, even (lit. and) upon a colt the foal of an ass."
3 There appears to be a suggestion of "peace," and of contrast
between the "ass" and the "[war] horse," in Zech. ix. 10 "I will
cut off the chariot from Ephraim, and the horse from Jerusalem, and
the battle bow shall be cut off; and he shall speak peace unto the
nations."
173 (Mark xi. i 7)
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
Matthew, rejects the Marcan tradition about "the door without
in the amphodon."
2. The origin of Mark's tradition
In tracing Mark's tradition we are at a disadvantage because
his text is so seldom quoted by ancient authorities. The
Diatessaron omits the Marcan phrase together with its context 1 .
But Justin Martyr (though it is not certain that he elsewhere
quotes a single phrase of Mark 2 ) seems to have preserved an
allusion to Mark's meaning here when, in his Apology and in his
Dialogue, he says, severally, "the foal of an ass stood bound
to a vine at a certain entrance of a village," and " a certain ass
in [very] truth, along with its foal, bound to [a wall] in a certain
entrance of a village called Bethphage 3 ."
In the Apology, Justin has previously quoted the prophecy
of Jacob about the foal and the vine, and he ventures to
represent Christ's foal as fastened to "a vine" not mentioned
in any Gospel; he also, like Mark, mentions only one animal.
In the Dialogue, although he quotes Jacob's prophecy ("binding
to the vine"), he omits "vine" in describing the fulfilment of
it; and, like Matthew, he mentions two animals. Moreover,
like Matthew, the Dialogue proceeds to quote Zechariah about
the King "riding upon an ass and the foal of an ass." In effect,
Justin seems to give us two traditions, one, for Gentiles, based
on Genesis and agreeing rather with Mark than with Matthew ;
the other, for Jews, based on Zechariah, and agreeing rather
with Matthew than with Mark. But the latter, as well as the
former, contains a curious mention of "a certain entrance,"
which we will now examine.
1 Diatess. omits the whole of Mk xi. 4.
2 Justin's alleged references to Mk ii. 17 and Mk xii. 25, 30 might
refer to Luke and Matthew.
3 Apol. 32 ZIcoXos 1 yap rts ovov eio-Trjicfi ev nvi eurodo) K(ap.Tjs Trpos
a^TTcXov SeSe/^eVos 1 , Tryph. 53 ovov &e nva a\r]Bws <rvv 7ra>Ao) avrfjs Trpocr-
df8ep.fvrjv ev nvi 10-68(0 KWfJirjs Be6(payfjS \eyop,VT]s.
Clark renders ei/ nvi eiVoo> severally "at the entrance" and "in
an entrance," but ns does not mean "the," and means (here) more
than "an." In Tryph., it has been proposed to emend n poo-fad* pevyv
into Trpos ap.7Tf\ov dedfpevrjv.
174 (Mark xi. i 7)
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
3. The ass and the foal of the Messiah in Genesis
In Genesis the Hebrew for "foal" is confusable with the
Hebrew for "city"] and the Hebrew for "ass" is confusable
with a word in Ezekiel meaning "entrance." And that these
words were actually confused in very early times, earlier than
most traditions of the Talmud, we learn from the Targum of
Onkelos, who according to Rashi 1 , combining these two con-
fusions, and taking the vine to be Israel gives the following
paraphrase: "Israel shall dwell around his [i.e. Israel's] city,
the peoples shall build his temple, and the righteous shall be
round about him, and the doers of the law [shall be abiding] in
his doctrine 2 ."
Turning to Ezekiel for the context of the word meaning
"entrance," we find that it occurs nowhere else in the whole
of the Bible, and that it denotes the "entrance" to the "house"
of God ; and Rashi declares it to be Aramaic, so called because
it " afforded entrance and exit to all that came into the Court 3 ."
1 Rashi on Gen. xlix. n. "Onkelos [locum istum] interpretatus
est de rege Messia (videlicet hoc modo) vitis sunt Israelitae ; pullus est
(urbs) Hierosolyma ; palmes sunt Israelitae (veluti scriptum est) et
ego plantavi te palmitem, pullum asinae suae (interpretatus est
Onkelos) aedificabunt templum ejus (respexit autem Onkelos quoad
explicationem dictionis uiriN ad locum ilium) porta }1JVNn i.e. in-
troitus, in libro Ezechielis (xl. 15)." Jerome mentions the possibility
of the former confusion (Quaest. Gen. ad loc.) " Pro pullo in Hebraeo
possit legi urbem suam." Both might be represented by TJ/. Also
Ezek. xl. 15 ''entrance," JIJVN, or pns\ resembles finN "she-ass " ; and
a play on "entrance" and "she-ass" might possibly (but not very
probably) bear on the interpretation (Gen. r. ad loc.) that in the
Messiah's days the majority of Israel will be in their own land.
2 Jer. Targ. I and II have paraphrases quite different from that
of Onkelos. They retain the Hebrew "binding," but in an entirely
different context : Jer. I (Etheridge) " He hath girded his loins and
descended and arrayed the battle. . .," Jer. II (Etheridge) "Binding
his loins, and going forth to war against them that hate him. ..."
3 Ezek. xl. 15, Rashi, "Dicitur autem porta introitus, quoniam
ilia introitum et exitum praebebat omnibus, qui veniebant ad
atrium, (vocis Hebraeae) H&O3 id est, introitus, Chaldaica interpre-
tatio est jlJVN."
175 (Mark xi. i 7)
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
This enables us to understand the phrase in Onkelos "the peoples
shall build his temple," if the Gentiles are regarded as being
bound to the " entrance " of the Temple. The notion of
"entrance" would also be connected in the minds of Jerusalem-
ites of the first century with the very name of Bethphage ; since
it is described in the Talmud as a kind of border line or party-
wall, called sometimes " within the walls of the city and reckoned
as Jerusalem itself" and sometimes "the outmost place in
Jerusalem 1 ."
All this indicates that Mark's accumulation of words signi-
fying externality had a symbolic meaning in early times. Onkelos
interpreted and allegorized Genesis from the point of view of
a Jew. Early Christians allegorized Christ's action as Christians.
For them, the "foal" meant the Gentiles, never subjected to the
yoke of the Law, and standing, "bound," outside the gate of the
House, or City, of God 2 . As a rule, an ass or foal, thus " bound "
or "tied up," would be under shelter. But this is "outside."
Origen says "Who is it that is 'outside'? It is the [proselytes]
from the Gentiles, who were strangers to the covenants and
aliens from the promise of God, [standing] in the open way
[amphodori] and . not resting (or, feeding) under shed or roof,
bound by their own sins. . . 3 ."
4. John on the "finding" of the ass
Chrysostom, in his comment on the Johannine Finding of
the Ass, asks "How is it that the other [evangelists] say that
1 Hor. Heb. i. p. 81 "outmost (pXTi)." In Prov. i. 20 "Wisdom
crieth in the street (pm)," A.V. "without," LXX V ed8ois [Sym.
ev d/i<oSois-, s. Field], Targ. has Np1B>3, which occurs in Mk xi. 4,
SS, Burk. "in the street/'
2 Comp. Clem. Alex. 106 7 "And he bound (the Scripture says)
the colt to the vine, having bound this simple and childlike people to
the Word, whom it figuratively represents as a Vine." Sim. Origen
Horn. Genes, xvii. 7 "Ipse enim alligavit ad vitem pullum suum qui
dixit, Ego sum vitis veva (Jn xv. i)."
3 Origen Comm. Joann. x. 18, Lomm. i. 333, where there appears
to be a contrast between eV! roO d^i^oSov and inro (rreyrjv rj oiKiav
dvairavupcvoi, indicating that the former implies "left out in the cold
(or, uncared for)."
176 (Mark xi. i 7)
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
Jesus sent disciples and said, 'Loose ye the ass and the colt,' but
this [evangelist] says nothing of that kind, but [merely] that,
' having found a young ass, He sat thereon'?" His answer is
"Because it was likely that both these things came to pass,
and that, after the loosing of the ass, while the disciples were
bringing [it], He [Himself], having found [it], sat thereon 1 ."
This, as it stands, is hardly intelligible. But it suggests that
Chrysostom has condensed, and obscurely expressed, some
early tradition using "found" in a mystical sense and saying
that the real Finder was Christ. Origen says something of this
kind when he points out the same difference between John and
the Three, and says that the language is " somewhat figurative 2 /'
No doubt, if "finding" must always imply some ignorance
in the finder, John would not have transferred the act from
the disciples to Jesus. But in Scripture Jehovah is repeatedly
described either Himself or through an angel as "finding"
a wandering soul. The angel of the Lord "found" Hagar "in
the wilderness 3 ." The Lord Himself "found" Israel "in a
desert land and in the waste howling wilderness 4 "; and Hosea
1 "OTL a/z0orepa ycvecrBai eiKos ^v, KCU /J.(TII TO XvSr/vni TTJV ovov ayovrutv
TOOV na&T)Ta>v* fvpoi'ra dvrov f7TiKci0i(Tiu. Here (ivTov is prob. emphatic, as
in the passage quoted from Ongen in the next note.
2 Origen Comm. Joann. x. 18, Lomm. i. 335 nXyv OVTOS VTT* avrov
(pr/o~i TOV '\T](rov vpi(TKfcr6tii TO ovdptov (f)' o Kdd(fTai 6 XpKrroy, nXfov ri
TTfpl TOVTOV (V. T. TOVTO) TpO7TlK(t>TpOV dl]\OVp,(VOV OVdpLOV TTaplOTCty, p,fioV(l
fvfpyeo-iav xa>pr]O-avTosTTjv (Gal. i. l) U OVK dnb di>#pa>7rcoi>, oufie t' av 6 'pcorr cov ,
a\Xa 8ta 'irjo-ov \pi(TTov." He means that as Paul, the Apostle of the
Gentiles, so also the Gentile world itself, the formerly untrained
"colt," was pressed into the service of Christ.
3 Gen. xvi. 7, on which see Philo Quaesi. Gen. ad loc.
4 Deut. xxxii. 10. On this, see Numb. r. (on Numb. ii. 2, Wii. p. 14)
"A great finding hath God wrought over Israel, as it is said (Hos. ix.
10) 'Like grapes in the wilderness did I find Israel.'" It adds "The
world was a 'wilderness' before the Israelites came forth from
Egypt," perhaps implying that Jehovah had also "found" Israel
before the Exodus. [In theory, Hos. xii. 4 " he found him in Bethel,"
might refer to the Lord as "finding" Jacob, when he went forth as
a homeless wanderer, but the Targum and Rashi take Jacob as the
person "finding."] Jesus (Jn i. 43) "findeth Philip" to whom (Son
A. F. 177 (Mark xi. i 7) 12
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
represents the Lord as saying " I found Israel like grapes in
the wilderness." Such a "finding" is almost equivalent to
"saving," and Philo explains it thus when allegorizing the story
of Hagar.
John seems here to put aside the finding of the ass by the
disciples, on the same principle as that on which, in the Feeding
of the Five Thousand, he puts aside the distribution of the
bread by the disciples 1 . There Jesus was the real Distributer.
Here Jesus is the real Finder. The minute distinctions between
"ass," and "colt," and the Semitic "son of a beast of burden"
(R.V. "foal of an ass") these, too, John puts on one side,
substituting one word onarion ("little-ass"). This word was
known to disciples of Epictetus as representing the name given
by that philosopher to the fleshly body, the drudge of the
mind or spirit 2 .
We have seen that Onkelos wholly paraphrased the Binding
of the Ass by the Messiah in Genesis as a Building up of the
Judaean City or Church. Justin Martyr and Clement of
Alexandria regard the "foal" or "colt" in the Gospels as a
type of the Gentiles, or the new childlike people (not yet sub-
jected to the yoke of the Law) 3 . It was not unnatural that
Christians, even in the first century, should connect the Riding
of their Messiah into Jerusalem with such thoughts as these.
As Onkelos introduced a mention of the peoples or Gentiles, so
might Christian Evangelists, from the Christian point of view,
3377 a) according to tradition, He said " Let the dead bury their
dead" and also (Jn v. 14) "findeth in the temple" one to whom
He says "Sin no more, lest a worse thing befall thee."
1 See Law pp. 332, 355 6.
2 Epict. iv. i. 79 80 (where ovdpiov occurs five times) 6\ov TO o-oo/za
ovTO)$ fx ftv Cr ^ e * ^ S ovdpiov 7no~o~ayfjLfvov. The context bids us
recognise that our "body," "hand" etc. are not our real selves but
merely tools. 'Ovdpiov occurs also in ib. ii. 24. 18 literally, in a remark
about the impracticability of playing with an ass ; we gambol with
little children, but who gambols with an ass ? " For even though it
be a little-thing (piKpov) it is still a little-ass (o/io>y ovdpiov co-nv)."
Steph. Thes. gives no instance of it (as distinct from oviSiov) except
from a comic poet (circ. A.C. 280). It is not in Goodspeed.
3 Justin Martyr Tryph. 53, Clem. Alex. 106 7.
178 (Mark xi. i 7)
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
regarding the Gentiles as corresponding to the "foal" or "colt,"
and as subjecting themselves to Jesus.
In the Fourth Gospel, immediately after the mention of
Christ's literal riding on the ass, when the Pharisees have
exclaimed "Lo, the world hath gone after him," "certain
Greeks" come to Philip saying, "Sir, we would see Jesus 1 ."
It is a mere hint. Nothing is said of any definite conversion.
Nothing of any kind is added about the Greeks. But Jesus
replies to their request conveyed through Philip and Andrew
"The hour is come that the Son of Man should be glorified."
These words certainly imply much more than is written. They
point to a not distant time when the gate of the House of God
shall be thrown open to the Gentile world which is regarded as,
at present, "standing bound, at the door, without, in the open
street."
But as to the actual riding on the ass, what are we to con-
clude ? Did Jesus deliberately ride thus, in the conviction that
He was riding to some mysterious consummation of His career,
and endeavouring, in dumb show, to inculcate on the vast
multitude that the consummation would be brought about, not
through war symbolized by the war-horse, but through peace
it might be, even after His death symbolized by the ass?
That is in accordance with His antecedent predictions about
"the third day" after His death (derived from Hosea), and it
accords also with the prophecy of Zechariah, which does not
speak of the "ass" without a suggestion that it symbolized
"peace," and without an antithetical mention of the "chariot"
and the "horse": "I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim,
and the horse from Jerusalem, and the battle bow shall be cut
off; and he shall speak peace unto the nations 2 ."
1 Jn xii. 20 foil.
2 Zech. ix. 10, quoted by Origen on Jn xii. 15 and on Mt. xxi. 5.
179 (Mark xi. i 7) 12 2
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
5. (R.V.) "Branches (marg. layers of leaves)," in Mark 1
No instance has been alleged where "branches" or "layers
of leaves" is the correct rendering of Mark's word 2 . Wherever
1 Mk xi. 7 10
(R.V.)
(7) And they
bring the colt unto
Jesus, and cast on
him their garments;
and he sat upon
him.
(8) And many
spread their garments
upon the way; and
others branches (lit.
layers of leaves),
which they had cut
from the fields.
(9) And they that
went before, and
they that followed,
cried, Hosanna ;
Blessed [is] he that
cometh in the name
of the Lord :
(10) Blessed [is]
the kingdom that
cometh, [the king-
dom] of our father
David : Hosanna in
the highest.
Mt. xxi. 7 9
(R.V.)
(7) And brought
the ass and the colt,
and put on them
their garments ; and
he sat thereon.
(8) And the most
part of the multitude
spread their garments
in the way; and
others cut branches
from the trees, and
spread them in the
way.
(9) And the mul-
titudes that went be-
fore him, and that
followed, cried, say-
ing, Hosanna to the
son of David : Bless-
ed [is] he that cometh
in the name 'of the
Lord ; Hosanna in
the highest.
Lk. xix. 35 8
(R.V.)
(35) And they
brought him to
Jesus : and they
threw their garments
upon the colt, and
set Jesus thereon.
(36) And as he
went, they spread
their garments in the
way.
(37) And as he
was now drawing
nigh, [even] at the
descent of the mount
of Olives, the whole
multitude of the dis-
ciples began to re-
joice and praise God
with a loud voice for
all the mighty works
(lit. powers) which
they had seen;
(38) Saying, Bless-
ed [is] the King that
cometh in the name
of the Lord : peace
in heaven, and glory
in the highest.
Jn xii. 12 15 (R.V.) (12) On the morrow a great multitude (some
anc. auth. the common people) that had come to the feast, when they
heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem, (13) took the branches of
the palm-trees, and went forth to meet him, and cried out, Hosanna :
Blessed [is] he that cometh in the name of the Lord, even the King
of Israel. (14) And Jesus, having found a young ass, sat thereon;
as it is written, (15) Fear not, daughter of Zion : behold, thy King
cometh, sitting on an ass's colt.
vir(TTpa)vvvov TO.
V TTj 6<0.
Mt. xxi. 8 Lk. xix. 36
6 8e 7T\fl(TTOS O^Xoff
tavrutv ra
t/xarta ev TTJ o8a>, XXot
5e CKOTTTOV K\ddovs drro
TWV devdpav KOI eVrpa>i>-
VVOV (V TT) 6So).
Jn xii. 12 13 o^Xoy TroXvs- 6 e\6a>v els TTJV eopTTjv . . .e'Xa/3ov ra /3ai*a
(poiviKwv Km f^rjKOov fls V7rdvTr)(riv nvrw.
1 80 (Mark xi. 7 10)
2 Mk xi. 8
KCU TToXXot ra t/xarta
avTU>v (marg. favraiv}
<TTp(t)(rav (IS TT]V 6&OV,
XXoi 8e crrifBadas KO-
\lsavTfS fK T0)v aypwv.
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
it is used absolutely, its natural meaning is bedding, mattress,
or rug to recline on. Epictetus uses Mark's word thus in a
warning to a host, entertaining a few guests : " It is absurd that
many souls should wait on a few stuffed-couches" meaning
that the waiters, who stand, ought not to be in excess of
the guests, who recline 1 . This is the regular Greek use. The
meaning is illustrated by Juvenal's line about "the cophinus
and furniture of straw 2 " of the Jews, that is, their basket and
bedding. In Mark, the pilgrims that came up to the Passover
would seem to have taken some of the leaves and rushes that
they carried in their " cophini," and to have scattered them
on the ground before Jesus as an extemporised act of homage.
That, at least, was probably the original meaning of the tra-
dition in Mark.
But Mark himself may be suspected of not knowing this
meaning. For he adds "having cut them from the fields," as
though the "cutting" were simultaneous with the scattering.
Matthew departs still further from it, for he alters "bedding"
into "boughs," and "fields" into "trees." Luke omits both
"bedding" and "boughs." These alterations or omissions of
Mark's text constitute a case for Johannine Intervention.
That John does 'intervene can hardly be doubted although
the correctness of his intervention is uncertain. Without con-
tradicting either Mark or Matthew as to the action of the
pilgrims accompanying Jesus into Jerusalem, John describes
the action of those who came forth to meet Jesus from Jerusalem.
These, he says, "took the branches of the palm-trees" and went
out to meet Him.
John's word for "branches" which, by itself, means
palm-branches has been the subject of much comment 3 . And
1 Epict. Fragm. 23 (Schw. 33, Schenkel p. 468) MfXeYo) o-ot eV rols
(TITIOLS OTTtoS (701 Ol VITQVpyOVUTfS fJ-T) 7T\fioVS TWV {j7rOVpyoVfJ.Vfi)V VTT dp^dXTlV '
('ITOTTOV yap oXiyais (TTi(3d(ri TroXXas 8ov\Vii> x/rv^ay, See also Steph. Thes.
Etymologically it means "pressed [leaves, rushes, straw etc.]," but in
practice it means "bedding."
2 Juvenal Sat. iii. 14, vi. 542, "cophinus foenumque supellex."
3 See the very full discussion in Steph. Thes. ii. 47 8 on #aiV,
fiatov, quoting i Mace. xiii. 51 /*era ai^eo-eco? KCU (Bai(i>v t and Chaeremon
181 (Mark xi. 7 10)
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
no one has satisfactorily explained why the Book of Maccabees
speaks of a procession "with thanksgiving and branches (of
palm-trees) " without the article, while John here calls them
"the branches of the palm-trees." The forms of the Greek word
vary and one of them might be confused with the Marcan word
for "bedding 1 ." It is not safe to say that John has correctly
explained Mark's original but it is safe to say that he has
attempted to explain it 2 .
6. " Hosanna," in Mark, Matthew, and John*
It will be seen, in the parallel columns printed above, that
Luke omits Hosanna but inserts in its place several words
Stoicus ap. Porphyr. De abst. 4, 7 about Egyptian priests, KoiV?/ '
avrols K TWV (nradiKatv TOV (poiviKos, as KaXovcri /3cu9, eVe'TrAe/cro. This
connects the word with bedding. It occurs as a rendering (for
<d\\vv6pa) in Lev. xxiii. 40 ]"ID3 "branches [of palms]."
1 If John had before him a tradition about "their bedding and
their garments," ras o-Tiftddas /ecu rd t/zaria, the difficulty an'd unique-
ness of ray crTifidSas might lead him to read it as rds re fiaidas (comp.
his use of re in Jn ii. 15 ra re 7rpo/3ara KOI TOVS /Soar). When he altered
this into /3aia, he might still retain the article, in spite of its difficulty,
explaining it as "the palm-branches usual in processions of honour."
2 See 2 Mace. x. 3 7 on the re-dedication, or "cleansing (<ada-
-os)," of the Temple by Judas Maccabaeus : Qvpo-ovs, <al <\ddovs
Ti e KCU (poivi<as e^ovrey, Tqv^apicrTovv ro> evodoxravTi KaOapio-ai TOV
v TOTTOV. This is said to have been in imitation of the thanks-
giving in the Feast of Tabernacles : "They kept eight days after the
manner of [the Feast of] Tabernacles (o-K^i/co/Lurrooi/ Tpotrov}." These
"thursoi," or "bunches of twigs and branches," appear to correspond
to i Mace. xiii. 51 ftatuv carried in the (ib. 50) "cleansing" of the
"Tower" of Jerusalem by Simon who (ib. 52) "ordained that that
day should be kept every year [with gladness]."
3 For the parallel texts, see above, p. 180.
This section was written before I had read Prof. F. C. Burkitt's
note on Mk xi. 9 (Journ. Theol. Studies, Jan. -1916), in which he says
(p. 142) :
"The conclusions to which these ritual facts seem to point are
these :
(i) ' Hosanna ' had come to be a cry for good luck to God at the
Feast of Tabernacles, from quite ancient times, before the minor
details of the Feast were finally stereotyped.
182 (Mark xi. 7 10)
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
suggesting that he regarded it as a doxology, ascribing praise,
and might, and glory, to God: "They began to praise God
with a loud voice for all the mighty works that they were seeing,
saying. . .in heaven [may there be] peace and glory... 1 ."
This agrees with the earliest Christian use of the word, outside
the Gospels, " Hosanna to the God of David," in the Didache,
near the conclusion of the Eucharistic Service 2 . It agrees also
with the earliest Patristic explanation of the word confidently
set forth by Clement of Alexandria. It is, he says, "light, and
glory, and praise, along with supplication to the Lord for this is
the meaning of the [word] Hosanna, when interpreted in Greek 3 /'
The explanation of this long paraphrase is to be found in
Luke's rare verb "praise," ainein, combined with Matthew's
noun "praise," ainos, in the parallel context. The chief priests
blame Jesus for not checking "the children that were crying in
the temple and saying Hosanna to the Son of David." Jesus
(ii) The fact that the name for the thyrsi is Hosanna, not Hosianna
(Mrnn not N3 nrrin), suggests that the Gospels are correct in
giving this shortened form as a popular exclamation.
(iii) Psalm cxviii., composed for the Dedication of the Temple by
Judas Maccabaeus, gives us a hint of the ritual procession to the
Temple then made ; it confirms 2 Mace. x. 6 in representing this pro-
cession as modelled upon the ancient procession at the Feast of
Tabernacles.
(iv) Psalm cxviii. 25 is not the ultimate source of the cry Hosanna,
but Hosanna finds a place in the Psalm because the ancient cry of
Hosanna was used at that Dedication.
(v) It is a fair deduction to suppose that the behaviour of the
Galilean crowd at our Lord's Entry into Jerusalem was based on
what was appropriate for Hanukka, for the Feast of the Dedication,
rather than by what was appropriate for Tabernacles."
1 Lk. xix. 37 8 fjp^avTo. . .alvtlv TOV dcov (puivf) fj,-yd\r) irfpl iravaiv
wi' flftov Swafiecoi/, Xe'-yovrey . . .eV oupaixp elprjvr) KOI 6a V v^ifTTOis.
2 Didach. x. 6 T<B 0f<u Aa/3/S (so the MS). The Lat. has "filio
David." The context is as follows : " For thine is (fcrrlv) the power
and the glory for ever ; let grace come and this world pass away.
Hosanna to the God of David. If any one is holy, let him come;
if any one is not, let him repent. Maran atha. Amen."
3 Clem. Alex. 104 5 <$><&$ <i d6a KOL alvos p.ed' l<Tr)pias TG>
TOUT! yap c/*<>atpl pp.r)vev6p.vov 'EXXaSi 0a>i'# TO axravvd.
183 (Mark xi. 7 10)
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
replies "Did ye never read, 'Out of the mouth of babes and
sucklings thou hast perfected praise 1 ''} " This, at least, is how
the words of the Psalm, quoted by Jesus according to Matthew,
read in Greek. But the Hebrew has, not ''praise," but
" strength*-"
The Hebrew " give strength " is elsewhere used in ascriptions 3 .
But Greeks might well say "How can men 'give strength to
God'? It is better to write 'give praise.' " Hence the Hebrew
strengthen the Psalm just quoted, is rendered by LXX "praise,"
ainos, and sometimes elsewhere "honour" (as well as "power"
and "might 4 "). Clement might well be unable to find in
Greek one word that would suffice by itself to render the
Hebrew 5 . The phrase really meant "Thine is the kingdom,
that is to say, the kingdom of light and glory and divine
majesty 6 ."
Now the Aramaic word corresponding to the Hebrew
"strength" used in ascriptions closely resembles Osanna 1 . And
Ossanna (or Osanna) (not Hosanna) is the form found in the
early Latin versions before Jerome 8 . This similarity may throw
light on the reply of Jesus to the chief priests above quoted.
It indicates that, in Aramaic, Jesus might say something like
"Out of the mouth of babes. . .thou hast perfected Osanna" -
as a reply to the complaint that the children were "saying
1 Mt. xxi. 16 KaTT)pTi(T<0 alvov.
2 Ps. viii. 2. ty, R.V. "strength," LXX alvov, Aq. and Sym.
3 See Gesen. 739, instancing Ps. xxix. i, xcvi. 7 etc.
4 Tromm. (which omits alvos (i) by error) gives Ty as=S6a (3),
SvvafjLis (23), lo-xvs (29), Kpdros (6), rtju,?; (3).
5 Cramer, on Mk xi. 9, prints To yap " axravva" vpvos epfj.Tjvev(Tai.
This is quite inadequate.
6 For a doxological mention of light see Acts of John on the
Eucharist n "We praise thee, O Father; we give thanks to thee,
O Light, wherein dwelleth not darkness. Amen."
7 Ps. yiii. 2 Targ. fcME'iy, i.e. us(h)na, freq. in Psalms, Levy
Ch. ii. 248 b.
8 As the earliest Greek MSS never use the aspirate, they afford
no guidance on this point. Jerome, as will be seen below, by his
theory of the derivation of the word from Hebrew (not Aramaic)
committed himself to the insertion of the Latin aspirate "Hosanna."
184 (Mark xi. 7 10)
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
Hosanna." The meaning, in both cases, would be an ascription
of praise and glory. This also throws light on Luke's omission
of "Hosanna," and his parallel addition of words signifying
"praise," "mighty works," and "glory." Apparently he is not
omitting, but substituting 1 . So, too, Clement of Alexandria is
substantially justified in his paraphrase of Osanna, provided
that we regard it as Aramaic, not Hebrew.
Against this view of derivation from Aramaic we have the
opinion of Origen expressed in his commentary on Matthew
that Hosanna is derived from the Hebrew, transliterated as
Osienna, of words in the u8th Psalm "I beseech, O Lord, save
now (osienna), I beseech, O Lord, prosper [us] now; blessed [be]
he that cometh in the name of the Lord 2 ." But Origen makes
no mention of this in his earlier work (the commentary on
John) where he quotes passages mentioning Hosanna and their
contexts 3 . In his commentary on Matthew he puts forth his
suggestion as a novelty ("it seems to me") from which others
might differ, and explains that he was led to it by the similarity
of hosanna to the Hebrew hosienna(n), which comes in the Psalm
above quoted just before the words "Blessed is he that cometh
in the name of the Lord 4 ."
1 Lk. xix. 38 (v ovpavui elpfivf), KOI So|n, substituted for Mk-Mt.
uKTavvd, before *V rails r Lk. om. rot? v^in-rms, may be illustrated, not
only by Lk. ii. 14 "glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to
men of his good pleasure," but also by Jewish Prayer Book (comp. ed.
Singer, p. 76) " He that maketh peace in His high places (vonss)
may He make peace upon us (13'by) and upon all Israel ; and say ye,
Amen."
2 Ps. cxviii. 25.
3 Comm. Joann. x. 15 (Lomm. i. 316) *cu enpagov 'Sltrawu, fv\oyrj-
p.fvo<f (v ovopan Kvpiov 6 jBacriXfvs TOV 'lo-pa^X (omitting o epx6p.fvo$), x. 18
(Lomm. 1. 335) KfKpayoTa "Kv\oyrjp.cvo$ 6 fp^opevos ev 6vnp.ari <vpiov icai 'O
tfamXfvf TOV 'la-pa 17 A (omitting 'Qnravva).
4 Origen Comm. Matth. xvi. 19 (Lomm. iv. 58) "It seems to me
that the equivalent of the [expression] (ra dvrl TOV) (Ps. cxviii. 25)
O Lord, save now (& nvpic o-uo-ov 8fj) placed before the [expression]
(ib. 26) Blessed [is] he that cometh in the name of the Lord, is set forth
Hebraically in the [expression] (Mt. xxi. 9) Hosanna to the son of
David. And thus also ran the Hebrew phrasing: 'Awa (LXX d>)
185 '(Mark xi. 7 10)
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
This seems a happy conjecture. But we should have to
suppose that the crowd of pilgrims that shouted Hosanna
shouted in Hebrew, for the Aramaic "save now" is quite
different from the Hebrew 1 . The alternative would be to
suppose that although they shouted in Aramaic, some Gospel
written in Hebrew recorded the word in Hebrew. Jerome
adopts this supposition 2 . But he does not explain why
Matthew should have transliterated the Hebrew word instead
of translating it "Save now!" the obvious translation, given
by LXX, Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion.
The question is complicated by the fact that the Hebrew
phrase "Save now" was connected in the Talmud with the
Feast of Tabernacles, and with a procession of branch-bearers
i (LXX Kvpif) hosiennan (LXX o-wo-oi/ 817) . . . . Then it seems
to me that the Gospels being written continuously" i.e. (?) so as
to blend hosie "save" with na "now" "by persons not knowing
the [Hebrew] language have been confused in those expressions of
the text which contain these [syllables] from the above-mentioned
psalm (eV rols Kara TOV TOTTOV e^ovfri TO.VTO. OTTO TOV irpofLprj^tvov \^aX/xo{}) .
But if you would learn the exact [meaning] of the phrasing,
hear Aquila. . ..And now let this be added, that, on this point, the
foregoing remarks represent our view (cu ds ravra de r]^ls p.ev roo-aCra
e'ido/jicv} ; but if anyone differs from us, let him look further into it
and teach [us]. But in one of the sections on the Gospel according
to John I partially investigated this point as well [as others] when
my object was to expound Jn xii. 12 On the morrow. . .."
1 "Save" Heb. y&2 is regularly rendered" by Onk. pis. And in
Ps. cxviii. 25, the Syr. has pis for y^\ The Targ. omits "save"
while retaining "prosper us." The Targumist supposes the verse
to be uttered by the parents of David as part of a dialogue
between them and David's brethren and David and "the builders,"
and it paraphrases thus : " We beseech thee, O Lord, now, said the
builders'; we beseech thee, O Lord, to prosper [us] now, said Jesse and
his wife." The Midrash on Ps. cxviii. 25 retains "save," and assigns
the words differently as follows: "The men of Jerusalem say from
the inside, O, Eternal, save now ; and the men of Judah say from the
outside, O, Eternal, prosper us."
2 See Jerome's letter on Hosanna (Epist. xx), written to Damasus
in reply to a request for an explanation of the word. Neither in the
summary of his letter, nor in his Matth. Comment, where he gives the
letter's substance, is Origen's name mentioned.
1 86 (Mark xi. 7 10)
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
usual during that Feast. In this the above-quoted words of
the Psalm ("save now") were habitually recited, so that the
Hebrew "save-now" became a title given both to the Feast,
and to the day of the procession, and to the prayer for salvation,
and even to the "bundle" of branches carried in it 1 . The
carrying of palm-branches was also practised at the Feast of
Dedication "as in the feast of tabernacles," and might be
extemporised on any public rejoicing 2 . In Revelation, the
bearers of palm-branches, instead of crying "Save, O Lord/'
cry "Salvation [belongeth] unto our God." This seems to be
an ascription, like other following clauses : " Blessing and glory
. . . and power and might . . . [belong] unto our God for ever and
ever. Amen 3 ."
John does not attempt to paraphrase "Hosanna" as Luke
does. He accepts it without attempt at explanation, but in
such a context as to suggest that the cry did not come from all
the multitude. Luke might lead hasty readers to the con-
clusion that it did, since he mentions the "praise " as uttered by
"the whole multitude of the disciples." Mark and Matthew say
that the cry "Hosanna" came from "those who went before
and those who followed." John alone says "A great multitude
that had come to the feast . . . went forth to meet him, and cried
out Hosanna, blessed is he that cometh in the name of the
Lord 4 ." It is implied (no doubt) that this crowd, after having
met Jesus, turned round and preceded Him into the City.
John adds, "the multitude therefore that was with him when
1 See Lev. xxiii. 40, and Wetstein's note on Mt. xxi. 9 " Then also
they recited Ps. cxviii. 24 5. And in separate prayers, which they
use to this day, they make mention of Saving (Salutis) ; whence both
the branch-bundle (fascicule) and the prayers, and the feast itself,
have been named by them Hosanna from Saving (a Salute)." Levy
i. 461 a gives instances.
2 See 2 Mace. x. 6 (comp. i Mace. xiii. 51 2).
3 Rev. vii. 10, 12. On God's "salvation," as implying that in
saving others God, as it were, saves the honour of His own Name,
see Exod. r. on Exod. xxii. i (Wii. p. 233) quoting the lit. Heb. of
Zech. ix. 9 "saved (y^lJ)," not "having salvation," which would have
been JT^ID.
4 Jn xii. 12 13.
187 (Mark xi. 7 10)
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
he called Lazarus out of the tomb. . .bare witness 1 /' Appar-
ently this second "multitude" includes the disciples and others,
who had accompanied Jesus from Bethany, and who now
followed Him into Jerusalem. These are not said to have
cried " Hosanna." Thus John, besides correcting an im-
pression that might have been derived from Luke, appears to
be explaining, and correcting, the Marcan "those who went
before and those who followed after." He seems to say, in
effect, "It should have been 'those who at first went out, and
afterwards went before*.'"
1 Jn xii. 17.
2 Prof. Burkitt says (Journ. Theol. Stud. Jan. 1916, p. 151) "In
Lk. xix. 376. . .for AIIAN the newly-discovered text W is found to
read AIIANTAN . . . .Origen also has AHANTAN," and "quite clearly
understands by it diravrav 'to meet/ for the subsequent
alveiv is changed," by Origen, "into x a>L P OVTfs Kctt
I may add that a-rravrav .is confirmed by Origen's comment on Lk.
(Lomm. v. 228) "If He had not come to the descent [of the Mount of
Olives] the multitude would not have been able to meet Him (non
ei poterat occurrere multitude)." This is important, for Lommatzsch
prints Origen i. 315 anav TO TrXrjQos, in spite of the bad syntax ^'p^aro
airav TO Tr\f)6os TCOI/ /j,adrjTwv ^aipovrev KOI alvovvTfs.
That Luke would not have written d-n-avTav is suggested by the
fact that (Notes 2999 (iii) d) diravTav is mostly used (by careful
writers) of evil that "befalls" or is "met." As parall. to Mk xiv. 13
(,, Lk. xxii. 10 has (rvvavTrjo-ei, and in Lk. xvii. 12 W. H. marg.
is perh. correct (txt cnr^vTrja-av] . In Hermas Vis. iv. 2.
i 3, first vTravTav is used of a virgin, and then dvavTav (v.r. v-n-avTav)
of a monster (fypiov), meeting Hermas. In Justin M. (apart from
a quotation (Tryph. 58) of Gen. xxviii. n) diravTqv is used only
Apol. 60 of "monsters (%na) " (but Apol. 44 uses the middle,
dTravTrjo-co-Bai (along with a/iet'-v^eo-^ai) apparently signifying divine
visitation, for good or ill). In Melito (Euseb. H.E. iv. 26. 8) diravTav
is used of persecution "befalling" the Church.
These facts are of some interest as they suggest a question as to
John's use of (Jn xii. 13) vnavT^viv applied to the multitude in a
parallel to Lk. xix. 37. Did John write with allusion to some Greek
tradition already current about the "meeting" of the multitude and
derived from an interpretation of Lucan' sources ? The answer is
uncertain. Hebrew sources might originate confusion owing to
(Notes 2999 (iii) g) " the frequent oscillation (Corrections 472 c, 474 a]
1 88 (Mark xi. 7 10)
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
To some slight extent this Johannine picture resembles the
picture presented by the Midrash (above quoted) on the
Processional Psalm, "The men of Jerusalem say from the inside,
O, Eternal, save now, or Hosanna." Not improbably, John
desired to suggest that the word Hosanna had a technical
Jewish meaning, with which "the men of Jerusalem" were
familiar, but on which it was unprofitable to dilate for Gentile
readers 1 . "Hosanna" like the title in the Johannine context,
" King of Israel*" (where John alone inserts " Israel") suggests
Jewish traditions some of them likely to be used by the multitude
in a narrow, restrictive, and transitory sense. Probably John
does not take a very favourable view of the acclamations of
between 'meet' and 'call/ " But here the case for Greek corruption
seems strong.
1 Prof. Burkitt says very instructively (Journ. Theol. Stud. Jan.
1916, p. 140) "We may thus distinguish here two distinct tendencies
in Christian documents. On the one hand there was a tendency to
get rid of Hosanna altogether as a ' barbarous ' word : this is seen in
the paraphrase given by Luke, and also in W. On the other hand the
texts that retain Hosanna tend tp add an object in the dative.
"This brings us to consider what the meaning of Hosanna was.
Here again there are two traditions, the one grammatical, the other
ritual. It is as if we were asking the meaning of the German cry
Hoch !, and one should say it meant ' high ' and another that it meant
' hurrah ! ' The ultimate derivation of hosanna is, no doubt, N'j nyi"in,
i.e. 'save-on!' No doubt, also, the original use of the word as an
exclamation is to be seen in 2 Sam. xiv. 4, 2 Kings vi. 26, where nyC'in
is used as the call of a suppliant to the King, like Haro ! a mon aide /
But the general import of a ritual exclamation is not necessarily
exhausted by its grammatical derivation : when we shout ' God save
the King ! ' we do not think of the King as in particular need of rescue
or salvation."
Though the Heb. verb ytr\ "save," was superseded in Aram, by
P~iD, yet the technical Heb. noun Kjy&'in, Hosanna, "save-now,"
was adopted into Aramaic as a noun, Levy Ch. i. 1966 "Der
Bachweide (auch Myrte) die man mit dem Feststrauss verbindet,
Hosiana, Hosana, weil man dabei dieses Gebet sagte (Esth. Targ.
II. iii. 8) 'sie machen die Hosiana (entlehnt von Ps. cxviii. 25
JO nyK'in verkiirzt: Krytnn).'"
2 On "King of Israel," see below, p. 191, n. 4.
189 (Mark xi. 7 10)
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
the multitude and their "blessing 1 ." Perhaps he mentally
contrasts it with the impending arrival of "certain Greeks"
and their simple request to Philip "Sir, we would see Jesus 2 ."
7. "The coming kingdom of our father David," in Mark*
The expression "our father David" occurs nowhere else in
the Bible. According to a Jewish tradition, "the fathers call
no one ' our father' except the three patriarchs 4 ." But Peter,
in the Acts, speaks of "the patriarch David," apparently
meaning that he was the founder of the royal line of the kings
of the Chosen People 5 . And Jeremiah (followed by Ezekiel)
regards the future royal Deliverer of Israel, not merely as a
son of David, but as David himself, so that God says concerning
Israel "They shall serve the Lord their God, and David their
king, whom I will raise up unto them 6 ."
Such a phrase as "the kingdom of our father David" might
well be familiar to the peasants of Palestine during the period
when they looked for the re-establishment of a Davidic reign ;
but it might become obsolete at the end of the first century,
when the hopes of Jewish patriots were modified by the fall of
Jerusalem, and those of Jewish Christians by the resurrection
of Him whom they had learned to call the Son of God, or the
Son of the Father, or still, occasionally, the Son of David, but
no longer "the son of our father David."
Accordingly Matthew substitutes the conventional "son of
David" placed after "Hosanna," apparently as an ascription,
" Hosanna to the son of David " ; he does not in his own narrative
1 See Law p. 319 n. on v\oyr)p.i>os, nowhere used in Jn except
here, and perhaps regarded as the cry of the fickle multitude (as in
Philo, who (i. 453) distinguishes it from euXoyj/ros).
2 Jn xii. 21.
3 Mk xi. 10. So SS, and W.H., a "benedictum regnum patris
nostri David," k "benedictus qui venit in regnum (sic) patri (sic)
nostri David."
4 Wetstein on Mk xi. 10, quoting Massecheth Semachoth. Levy
i. 2 quotes traditions calling Moses " father of wisdom and father of
the prophets" etc. but not "our father."
6 Acts ii. 29.
6 Jerem. xxx. 9, comp. Ezek. xxxiv. 23 4.
190 (Mark xi. 7 10)
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
mention ''coming kingdom" or "kingdom" at all, but suggests
the thought of it in the phrase "thy King cometh unto thee,"
loosely quoted from Zechariah in the form "Tell ye the daughter
of Zion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee 1 ."
Luke mentions "the King" in his own narrative, as part of
the acclamation of the disciples, and appears to mean by it
"the ideal, or Messianic, King/' perhaps also denning by it "he
that cometh," which really means the Deliverer: "Blessed [is]
He that Cometh, the King 2 ." John prefers to divide " He that
Cometh 3 " from "King," and to define the latter as being, not
of the secular nation ("the Jews"),' but of the nation regarded
theologically (" Israel ") : ' ' He that Cometh ' . . . and ' The King
of Israel*.' "
In addition to these variations in the four Gospels, there
are in Matthew and John strange departures from the text of
Zechariah, which both of them misquote 5 . No explanation of
these difficulties is attempted by Jerome 6 . But Origen grapples
1 Mt. xxi. 5 2 Lk. xix. 38.
3 On "He that Cometh" see Son 3240 1.
4 Jn xii. 13. Comp. Jn i. 49 "the Son of God... the King of
Israel." In the Synoptists this title occurs nowhere but in Mk xv. 32,
Mt. xxvii. 42, where Luke, missing the meaning, substitutes (xxiii. 37)
"the King of the Jews." In O.T., "the king of Israel" (apart from
Saul and David) mostly means the king of the ten tribes. But see
Is. xliv. 6 "The Lord, the King of Israel" and Zeph. iii. 15 "The
King of Israel, even the Lord." The title might be given to the
Messiah as the representative of the One King, or as the second
David.
5 Zech. ix. 9 R.V., " Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion ; shout,
O daughter of Jerusalem : behold, thy king cometh unto thee : he
is just, and having salvation (or, victory) (Heb. saved) ; lowly, and
riding upon an ass, even upon a colt the foal of an ass," LXX Xaipe
acpodpa, dvyarfp Scttov KT)pvo-o~, dvyarep 'lepouo-aAq/u, Idov 6 (3a(ri\vs <rov
fpXfTai (TOI fttKaios KCU <ra>fa>i> , avrbs irpaijs KOL eTTt/Se/S^Kwy CTTI viro^vyiov
K.CLL 7T(a\ov veov, quoted in Mt. xxi. 5 E ITT are TTJ dvyarpl 2ta)i/ 'iSov 6
/3a(TiAeu o~ov ep^erai trot Trpavs <al eVi/Se/S^Kajy eVt ovov KOI firl TTO>\OV vlov
vnovyiov, quoted in Jn xii. 15 Mj7 (poftov, dvydrrjp 2ic!>i> 'lSot o /3a(ri\vs
(rov ep^erai, Ka^rj/ifi'oy eVi TrcoAoi' ovov.
6 Jerome on Mt. xxi. 5 merely says that the riding on two animals
is impossible and therefore must be allegorized. On Zech. ix. 9 he
191 (Mark xi. 7 10)
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
with them 1 . Origen also frankly asks how the joyful tone of
Zechariah's prophecy can be reconciled with the "weeping" of
Jesus, which Luke describes as occurring, after the acclamations
of the disciples, when He "drew nigh" and "saw the city 2 ."
In his opinion the Gospel narratives are permeated with
allegory, and the quotations from Zechariah are influenced by
Christian allusions. Such allusion could explain John's altera-
tion of the prophetic "rejoice greatly," into "fear not." The
former might be addressed to Israel of old expecting the revival
of the Kingdom of David ; the latter to the remnant of Israel,
preserved from the destruction which was soon to fall on
Jerusalem.
Origen is extremely fanciful in some of his explanations,
but at all events he recognises that the Evangelists would not
again allegorizes the two animals as representing the Jews and the
Gentiles.
1 In Comm. Joann. x. 17 (Lomm. i. 326) Origen says that Matthew
has both altered and curtailed Zechariah 's text, and adds "the Jews
press us with arguments not to be despised" as to the Christian
application of the context. In ib. x. 18 (Lomm. i. 336) he says that
the Johannine "Fear not, daughter of Zion" part of the Johannine
quotation "is not mentioned at all (ovd* 6Aa>$- eip^rm) " in the
prophecy. Also, on Mt. xxi. 5 (Lomm. iv. 45 6) Origen points
out the discrepancies in detail between Zechariah, Matthew, and
John, and says of the latter, " Indicating that the discussion of the
passage requires knowledge (yvwaews), John introduces the remark (Jn
xii. 16) Now these things his disciples knew not (ov< eywo-av) at the first
(TO TTporepov)."
2 Comm. Matth. xvi. 15 (Lomm. iv. 46 7) "One would naturally
inquire how, with any consistency (euXoycof), command is given
(according to the prophet) that the daughter of Zion should rejoice
greatly, and the daughter of Jerusalem make [glad] proclamation
because of the Rider on the ass . . . when, after a short [interval] He
(Lk. xix. 41) having seen it, [namely] Jerusalem, wept [saying] 'Thou
that killest the prophets ' and so on" (txt perhaps corrupt).
Origen has here connected with the weeping of Jesus which Luke
alone mentions in connection with the City (xix. 41 I8u>v rr]v rroXiv
K\avo-fv eV CIVTTJV) words ("thou that killest") placed by Luke
(xiii. 34) some time-before His coming to Jerusalem, but by Matthew
(xxiii. 37) immediately before He leaves the Temple for the last time
a position that seems much more appropriate.
192 (Mark xi. 7 10)
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
have altered the words of Zechariah without some reason, and
he calls our attention to the Johannine recognition of some
latent mystery in Christ's action not perceived by the disciples
at the time: "These things his disciples knew not at the first,
but when Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that these
things had been written of him and [that] they did these things
to him 1 ." "Remembered" must not be taken as implying
"They forgot at first but remembered later on." It means
"They knew at first with their senses, but not with their
minds, that is to say not with full recognition of the meaning
of what they knew ; afterwards their spirits were enlightened
and they knew with their minds 2 ." This ignorance, which
John attributes to the disciples, the parallel Luke attributes,
in a more intense form, to Jerusalem. as a whole: "If thou
hadst known. . .the things that belong unto peace! But now
are they hid from thine eyes 3 ." This, in Luke, is consistent
with his context, which represents none of the people of Jeru-
salem, but only Christ's disciples, as acclaiming Christ 4 .
8. "He looked round about upon all things," in
These words and their Marcan context are omitted by the
Diatessaron 6 . They describe a preliminary visit of Jesus to the
1 Jn xii. 16 "remembered
2 Comp. ffju'Tja-Brjaav in Jn ii. 17, 22 "remembered that it was
written," "remembered that he had said," meaning "recalled with
recognition of the real meaning," and inro/jivrjo-fi in Jn xiv. 26 "the
Paraclete. . .shall bring to your remembrance all that I said unto
you."
3 Lk. xix. 42. 4 Lk. xix. 37.
5 Mk xi. ii Mt. xxi. 10 n
(R.V.) (R.V.) Lk. om.
And he entered (10) And when he
into Jerusalem, into was come into Jeru-
the temple; and salem, all the city
when he had looked was stirred, saying,
round about upon all Who is this ?
things, it being now (ii) And the mul-
eventide, he went out titudes said, This is
unto Bethany with the prophet, Jesus,
the twelve. from Nazareth of
Galilee.
6 After Mk xi. 10 a "our father David," Diatess. has Lk. xix. 38
A. F. 193 (Mark xi. n) 13
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
Temple in which there is no action but only a "looking round 1 ,''
with a view to the action of the morrow when the Temple is
to be visited again and purified. Matthew and Luke represent
the Temple as being purified at once 2 . No writer in the New
Testament except Mark (and Luke once, following Mark) uses
the word "look-round." Mark applies it five times to Jesus.
The first instance is where Jesus asks "Is it lawful on the
sabbath day to do good. . . ?" and those who are asked "held
their peace." Then Jesus, "when he had looked round about on
them with anger, being grieved at the hardness of their heart,"
healed the man 3 . The silence of those whom Jesus questions and
on whom He "looks" with indignation, recalls the words of the
Lord in Isaiah "And when / look, there is no man. . .that, when
I ask of them, can answer a word 4 '." And the mention of "no
man," as a reason for the intervention of the Lord, may be
illustrated from other passages in Isaiah 5 . Moreover the rare
Greek verb " look round about " occurs in Exodus to describe one
of the earliest and most conspicuous instances of intervention
"Peace in heaven and praise in the highest," and then Jn xii. 12
"And a great multitude. ..."
1 Mk xi. II KCU aVtyA$ez> fls 'lepocroXt^za els TO lepov /cat 7repi/3Ae\|/ > a-
2 Mt. xxi. 12 13. Luke, after xix. 38 "glory in the highest,"
inserts (ib. 39 40) a remonstrance from Pharisees in the crowd ;
then Christ's weeping at the sight of the city (ib. 41 4 "And when
he drew nigh, he saw the city. . . thy visitation") ; and then xix. 45
" And he entered into the temple, and began to cast out them that
sold." There is no interval in Luke between "he saw the city" and
"he entered into the temple," such as would enable the reader to
suppose the "seeing" to refer to a preliminary visit.
3 Mk iii. 5. The parall. Lk. vi. 10 "And he looked round about
on them all, and said unto him," omits Christ's "grief," and also the
"silence" of those whom He had questioned.
4 Is. xli. 28.
5 Is. lix. 15 16 "Yea, truth is lacking. . .and the Lord saw it,
and it displeased him that there was no judgment. And he saw
that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor :
therefore his own arm brought salvation unto him," Ixiii. 4 5 "The
year of my redeemed is come. And / looked and there was none to
help. . .therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me."
194 (Mark xi. n)
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
for the oppressed, where it is said of Moses " He saw an Egyptian
smiting an Hebrew, one of his brethren. And he looked round
about him this way and that way, and when he saw that there
was no man, he smote the Egyptian 1 ." "No man" here seems
to mean simply "no one to witness the action of Moses"; but
theoretically it might mean "no one else to help," and it is
explained by Philo as meaning that Moses surveyed the whole
of human nature and perceived that no human being was
fixed and stable., but only the True God 2 .
It is highly improbable that Mark himself used this Greek
verb in this first instance with any allegorical purpose. Probably
he is recording a Petrine reminiscence of the actual gestures of
Jesus, a turning round of the whole body such as is ascribed to
the Buddha in Buddhist Suttas 3 . In connection with the
purification of the Temple, the question of the meaning is
complicated by the various senses attached to the word in
Greek literature, and by the fact that Mark himself applies it
to Jesus in various ways, and once to the disciples 4 . But this
is certain, that the verse of Mark containing this clause adds
a preliminary visit to the Temple not mentioned by Matthew
and Luke. On the day after this first visit, Jesus, according
to Mark, makes a second, and (on the way) condemns a fig-tree
from which He has sought fruit in vain after which He purifies
1 Exod. ii. ii 12.
" Philo i. 94 5 Trepi^Ae^u/^ei/oj 8e TJJV O\TJV "^V^TIV &>Se /cat
p.r}deva Idwv ecrrwTa., on fj.i] TOV oi/ra deov. Comp. Baruch iv. 36, V. 5
" look round to the east " to behold God's Deliverance.
3 See Buddhist Suttas, T. W. Rhys Davids, 1881, p. 64. It is
however limited to the practice of the Buddhas in "looking back-
ward." The context describes the Buddha's last view of a familiar
place.
4 U.pifi\^afjifvos, in Mark, precedes (iii. 5) avrovs, (iii. 34} rovs -n-epl
ai'Tov KVK\O> KaBrjpevovs, (v. 32) idclv TTJV TOVTO 7roir)<ra(Tai' (where it implies
search), and here (xi. n) navra. In x. 23 it is used absolutely. In
ix. 8, -rrfpi^\f^(ififvoi is applied to the disciples after the vision in
the Transfiguration, "looking about them" and "seeing no one."
The active, used of "turning round to look back" in Gen. xix.
17, Josh. viii. 20, might have described Jesus as "turning round" to
take a final view of the Temple when leaving it for the last time.
195 (Mark xi. n) 13 2
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
the Temple. But according to Matthew, the Temple has been
already purified before Jesus condeinns the fig-tree.
Luke omits the condemnation of the fig-tree, and the
omission raises the question of Johannine Intervention. So
does the Matthew-Luke omission of Mark's preliminary visit.
In the discussion of John's attitude toward the two Marcan
traditions it will be convenient to include a Lucan parable
about a fig-tree to which the owner has come seeking fruit for
three successive years in vain, so that he consequently commands
it to be cut down 1 .
9. John on Christ's visits to the Temple 2
In the accounts, printed below, of Christ's visits to the
Temple, it will be seen that John differs from the Synoptists
1 Lk. xiii. 6 9. It follows traditions peculiar to Luke (xiii. i 5)
about Galilaeans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices,
and about "those eighteen upon whom the tower of Siloam fell,"
concluding with the warning "Except ye repent ye shall all like-
wise perish."
2 The first visit in Mk (xi. n) having been discussed above,
pp. 193 6, we have to start from the second visit in Mk. Parts of
it are parallel to parts of the first visit in Mt.-Lk.
Mk xi. 12 19
(R.V.)
[The second visit
in Mk]
(The condemning of
the fig-tree)
(12) And on the
morrow, when they
were come out from
Bethany, he hunger-
ed.
(13) And seeing a
fig-tree afar off
having leaves, he
came, if haply he
might find anything
thereon: and when
he came to it, he
found nothing but
leaves; for it was not
the season of figs.
(14) And he an-
swered and said un-
Mt. xxi. 12 19
(R.V.)
[The second visit
in Mt.]
Mt. xxi. 1 8 19
(The condemning of
the fig-tree)
(18) Now in the
morning as he re-
turned to the city,
he hungered.
(19) And seeing a
(or, a single) fig-tree
by the way side, he
came to it, and found
nothing thereon, but
leaves only; and he
saith unto it, Let
there be no fruit
from thee hencefor-
ward for ever. And
immediately the fig-
tree withered away.
Lk. xiii. 6 9, xix.
45 8, xxi. 37 8
(R.V.)
[?]
Lk. xiii. 6 9
(The parable of
the fig-tree)
(6) And he spake
this parable; A cer-
tain man had a fig-
tree planted in his
vineyard ; and he
came seeking fruit
thereon, and found
none.
(7) And he said
unto the vinedresser,
Behold, these three
years I come seeking
fruit on this fig-tree,
and find none: cut
it down ; why doth
it also cumber the
ground ?
196 (Mark xi. 12 19)
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
both positively and negatively. Positively, he represents Jesus
as going up to the Temple, before the final Passover, on four
Mk xi. 12 19
(R.V.) contd.
[The second visit
in Mk] contd.
(The condemning of
the fig-tree) contd.
to it, No man eat
fruit from thee hence-
forward for ever.
And his disciples
heard it.
(15) And they
come to Jerusalem :
and he entered into
the temple, and be-
gan to cast out them
that sold and them
that bought in the
temple, and over-
threw the tables of
the money-changers,
and the seats of them
that sold the doves ;
(16) And he would
not suffer that any
man should carry a
vessel through the
temple.
(17) And he
taught, and said
unto, them, Is it not
written, My house
shall be called a
house of prayer for
all the nations ? but
ye have made (nf-
7roir)<aTe)'it a den of
robbers.
(18) And the chief
priests and the scribes
Mt. xxi. 12 19
(R.V.)
[The first visit
in Mt.]
Mt. xxi. 1214 (K-V.)
(12) And Jesus
entered into the
temple of God (many
anc. auth. omit of
God), and cast out
all them that sold
and bought in the
temple, and over-
threw the tables of
the money-changers,
and the seats of them
that sold the doves ;
(13) And he saith
unto them, It is
written, My house
shall be called a
house of prayer : but
ye make it a den of
robbers.
(14) And the blind
and the lame came
to him in the temple :
and he healed them.
Lk. xiii. 69, xix.
458, xxi. 378
(R.V.) contd.
[?.]
Lk. xiii. 6 9
(The parable of the
fig-tree) contd.
(8) And he an-
swering saith unto
him, Lord, let it
alone this year also,
till I shall dig about
it, and dung it :
(9) And if it bear
fruit thenceforth,
[well] ; but if not,
thou shalt cut it
down.
[The first visit
in Lk.}
Lk. xix. 458 (R.V.)
(45) And he enter-
ed into the temple,
and began to cast out
them that sold,
(46) Saying unto
them, It is written,
And my house shall
be a house of prayer :
but ye have made
(fTToifjo-aTe) it a den
of robbers.
(47) And he was
teaching daily in the
temple. But the
chief priests and the
scribes and the prin-
cipal men of the
people sought to
destroy him :
(48) And they
could not find what
they might do; for
the people all hung
upon him, listening.
197 (Mark xi. 12 19)
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
occasions 1 , not one of which is mentioned by the Synoptists
unless we suppose that the first Johannine visit, including a
Mk xi. 12 19
(R.V.) contd.
[The second visit
in MK] contd,
heard it, and sought
how they might de-
stroy him : for they
feared him, for all
the multitude was
astonished at his
teaching.
[The end of the
second visit in MK]
Mk xi. 19 (R.V.)
And every even-
ing (lit. whenever
evening came) he
(some anc. auth.
they) went forth
out of the city.
[Daily visits in Lk.~]
Lk. xxi. 378 (R.V.)
(37) And every
day he was teaching
in the temple; and
every night he went
out, and lodged in
the mount that is
called [the mount] of
Olives.
(38) And all the
people came early in
the morning to him
in the temple, to
hear him.
[The end of the first
visit in MtJ]
Mt. xxi. 15 17 (R.V.)
(15) But when the
chief priests and the
scribes saw the won-
derful things that he
did, and the children
that were crying in
the temple and say-
ing, Hosanna to the
son of David; they
were moved with in-
dignation,
(16) And said un-
to him, Hearest thou
what these are say-
ing ? And Jesus saith
unto them, Yea : did
ye never read, Out of
the mouth of babes
and sucklings thou
hast perfected praise ?
(17) And he left
them, and went forth
out of the city to
Bethany, and lodged
there.
1 The Johannine mentions of the Temple in narrative, with their
contexts (R.V.), are given below. It will be seen that in every case
there is a previous reference to one of the Jewish feasts whether the
word "feast" be used or not. For the sake of completeness, the
mention of the Temple in the interpolated passage Jn viii. i 2 is also
given.
(i) Jn ii. 13 21 "And the passover of the Jews was at hand, and
Jesus went up to Jerusalem. (14) And he found in the temple those
that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money
198 (Mark xi. 12 19)
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
purification of the Temple, which John records as Christ's first
public act, is to be identified with the Synoptic visit and
sitting : (15) And he made a scourge of cords, and cast all out of the
temple, both the sheep and the oxen ; and he poured out the changers'
money, and overthrew their tables; (16) and to them that sold the
doves he said, Take these things hence ; make not my Father's house
a house of merchandise. (17) His disciples remembered that it was
written, The zeal of thine house shall eat me up. (18) The Jews
therefore answered and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto
us, seeing that thou doest these things? (19) Jesus answered and
said unto them, Destroy this temple (or, sanctuary) and in three
days I will raise it up. (20) The Jews therefore said, Forty and six
years was this temple (or, sanctuary) in building, and wilt thou raise
it up in three days ? (21) But he spake of the temple (or, sanctuary)
of his body.'*
(2) Jn v. i, 14 "After these things there was a (or, the [(?) above-
mentioned, see Introd. p. 81]) feast of the Jews. . .. Afterward Jesus
findeth him in the temple. ..."
(3 a] Jn vii. 2, 14, 28 " Now the feast of the Jews, the feast of taber-
nacles, was at hand. . ..But when it was now the midst of the feast
Jesus went up into the temple and taught. . .Jesus therefore cried
in the temple . ..."
[(Interpolated) Jn viii. 1,2" But Jesus went unto the mount of
Olives. And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and
all the people came unto him, and he sat down and taught them."]
(3 b] viii. 20, 59 "These words spake he in the treasury as he
taught in the temple. . .But Jesus. . .went out of the temple." The
Feast of Tabernacles covers Jn vii. 2 viii. 59; thus 3 a and 36
cover a single "going up" for a "feast."
(4) x. 22, 23, 39 "And it was the feast of the dedication at
Jerusalem: it was winter; and Jesus was walking in the temple in
Solomon's porch They sought again to take him : and he went
forth out of their hand."
There is no further mention of the Temple, connected with Jesus,
in Johannine narrative. But there is a mention of people (Jn xi. 56)
"standing in the temple" and wondering whether Jesus will come for
the Passover. And Jesus says (Jn xviii. 20) "I ever taught in
synagogues (Gk synagogue) and in the temple."
There are good reasons (Introd. p. 81) for placing Jn chap. v.
after chap. vi. which says (vi. i) "Now the passover was near."
Hence Jn v. i (xC etc. rj v 77 t'oprq) may mean "The above-mentioned
feast had [now] arrived."
199 (Mark xi. 12 19)
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
purification of the Temple, which the Synoptists place as
almost Christ's last public act 1 .
Negatively, when John comes to speak of the final Passover,
where the Synoptists represent Jesus as riding into Jerusalem
and purifying the Temple, John, though he too describes the
riding, makes no mention at all of the Temple nor even of
Jerusalem, except as it were casually, "when they heard that
Jesus was coming to Jerusalem 2 ." Mark, on the other hand,
multiplies his mentions of "coming to Jerusalem" day by day.
For example, where Matthew and Luke say that Jesus "entered
into the temple" and cleansed it, Mark says "And they come
to Jerusalem, and he entered into the temple 3 ."
Examining John's mentions of the Temple, and of Christ's
words or deeds in the Temple, we find that in every case the
mention of the Temple is preceded by some mention of Passover,
or Feast, or Feast of Tabernacles, or Feast of Dedication,
sometimes at an interval but never so long a one as to obscure
the suggestion that the Feast is the cause of Christ's presence
in the Temple. This accords with Luke's tradition that the
parents of Jesus used to go year by year to Jerusalem on the
occasion of the Passover, and that when He was twelve years
old, they went up "after the custom of the feast 4 ." The Law
commanded all males of suitable age to go up thrice in the
year 5 . Luke's tradition, which says that Christ's mother also
1 The Diatessaron does identify the two." Consequently it omits
Jn ii. 12 13 and places Jn ii. 14 a almost immediately after one of
Luke's latest parables "(Lk xix. ii 27) And he spake a parable
because he was nearing Jerusalem. . .slay them before me. (Mk
xi. 15 a, loosely rendered) And when Jesus entered Jerusalem he
went up to (Mt. xxi. 12 a) the temple of God and (Jn ii. 14, loosely
rendered) found there oxen and sheep and doves...." Clark's
edition of the Diatessaron gives Mt. xxi. 12 a alone, without
Mk xi. 15 a, but wrongly, since Mt. has merely "went into the
temple of God," whereas Mk prefixes "they come to Jerusalem."
2 Jn xii. 12. This is the last Johannine mention of Jerusalem.
3 Jerusalem occurs in (a) Mk xi. i, Mt. xxi. i, om. by Lk. xix. 29,
but see Lk. xix. 28; (b) Mk xi. ii, Mt. xxi. 10, om. Lk. ; (c) Mk xi. 15,
om. Mt. xxi. 12, Lk. xix. 45 ; (d) Mk xi. 27, om. Mt. xxi. 23, Lk. xx. i.
4 Lk. ii. 41 2. 6 Exod. xxiii. 14 foil.
200 (Mark xi. 12 19)
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
went up (though women's obligation was not included in the
Law), leads to the inference that, in the family of Jesus, attend-
ance at the feasts would be regular.
Now Luke himself, according to the best authorities, tells
us that Jesus at a very early period in His public life was
preaching in the synagogues of Judaea 1 . It is true that the
parallel Mark and Matthew mention Galilee. But Luke aims
at chronological order. And for this and other reasons, given
in a previous volume 2 , it seems probable that Luke here inserts
in its right place a statement of historical doings in Judaea about
the nature of which he himself says nothing because he knew
nothing and Mark and Matthew recorded nothing. There w r ould
be a natural tendency to alter Judaea into Galilee, as many
authorities have done in the text of Luke itself.
But if, as a fact, Jesus preached in Judaea quite early in
His career, it becomes probable that at an early period, and more
than once, He went up to Feasts at Jerusalem. In that case,
before the publication of any of our extant Gospels, there
would be traditions telling how Jesus went up to "a feast" at
Jerusalem, or to "the feast" meaning "the feast" last
mentioned in the traditional context and that He said this
or that. Such traditions it would be difficult or impossible for
Evangelists to arrange chronologically. Luke has preserved one
of these, relating how Jesus went up for the first time to
Jerusalem at the Passover, and had conversations with the
teachers, saying afterwards, to His mother, "Knew ye not that
I must be in my Father's house (or, business) 3 ?"
If Jesus went up to the Feasts at Jerusalem on several
occasions, saying and doing things unknown to Galilaean
evangelists, they might pass over these visits in their chrono-
logical order but make some reference to them in their account
of the final visit to the Passover in which they regarded Jesus
as going up to Jerusalem to seek fruit from Israel as being the
1 Lk. iv. 44.
2 See Proclam. pp. 240 42 on Mk i. 39, Lk. iv. 44 (R.V. (Lk.)
txt "Galilee," but marg. "Judaea"; and W. H. txt "Judaea"
without alternative).
3 Lk. ii. 49.
201 (Mark xi. 12 19)
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
Vineyard of the Lord of hosts, and from Judah as being the
Lord's "pleasant plant 1 ." One parable of this kind uttered in
Jerusalem all the Synoptists have preserved, shewing how the
Lord of the Vineyard deals with the refractory vinedressers 2 .
Another similar parable Luke has placed earlier, wherein the
owner of a fig-tree comes seeking fruit " these three years " and
finding none, so that he commands the tree to be cut down 3 .
No other Evangelist has this. But Mark, followed by
Matthew, has placed in his account of Christ's daily visits to
Jerusalem a story about one visit in which Jesus comes seeking
fruit in vain, from a fig-tree, on His way to the Temple, and
commands the tree to be henceforth barren and dead; and it
dies accordingly. This story Mark and Matthew place in
different positions among their accounts of Christ's visits
(printed above), so that the parallelism between the two is
disturbed. The parallel Luke wholly omits it. It seems as
though Mark has confused and conflated a literal with a poetical
account, so as to make two visits out of one. Matthew, except
in respect of order, has followed Mark. But Luke seems to be
right both in rejecting the literal version and in substituting
a poetical or parabolic one. Further, Luke may be right in
placing the parable in a comparatively early position before
Jesus came to Jerusalem for the final Passover.
Again, Luke agrees with Mark in describing Jesus as teaching,
during one of these daily visits, a doctrine about almsgiving,
and about a correct judgment of its merit, placing the widow's
mite above the larger offerings of the rich 4 . The parallel
Matthew omits this, but inserts a condemnation of the Pharisees
for emphasizing outward observances of tradition to the neglect
of "judgment 5 "; to which Luke has a parallel, mentioning
1 Is. v. 7.
2 Mk xii. i 12, Mt. xxi. 33 46, Lk. xx. 9 19.
3 Lk. xiii. 6 9. The "three" visits to the fig-tree might be
perhaps regarded, in accordance with Johannine chronology,' as
corresponding to three visits to Jerusalem. But I have not found
any ancient adoption of this view.
4 Mk xii. 41 4, Lk. xxi. i 4.
5 Mt. xxiii. 23, Lk. xi. 42.
202 (Mark xi. 12 19)
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
'judgment," but at an earlier date and not in Jerusalem.
Now Mark and Luke say that the teaching about the widow's
mite was in the Temple, near "the treasury." "The treasury"
is nowhere else mentioned in the New Testament except by
John 1 , in recording a discourse of Jesus in the Temple, pre-
sumably at the conclusion of the Feast of Tabernacles, wherein
Jesus says to the Pharisees that they "judge after the flesh"
.and explains why His own judgment is true: "If I judge, my
judgment is true, for I am not alone, but I and the Father that
sent me 2 ."
Is there any reason for thinking that in Mark's original,
as in the Fourth Gospel, the Treasury was regarded as the
appropriate place for a doctrine about "judgment" of a certain
kind that judgment which distinguishes dross from pure
metal and false coin from true? In Mark, it is said that Jesus,
"having sat down over against the treasury , beheld how the multi-
tude cast money into the treasury 3 ." "Having sat down" is
altered by Codex Bezae into " [while} sitting," and by the
Syro-Sinaitic Version into "standing" in which latter form
Origen twice quotes it 4 . The parallel Luke has "having looked
up he saw." "Having sat down" is the more difficult reading,
and might naturally be altered by Luke and modified by
editors of Mark. But if it was the original, what was its
original force?
A reasonable answer may be supplied from Malachi's
account of the Messiah's coming to the Te'mple : "The Lord. . .
shall suddenly come to his temple . . . and he shall sit as a refiner
and purifier of silver, and he shall purify the sons of Levi. . .
and they shall offer unto the Lord offerings in righteousness 5 ."
Jesus regarded ostentatious offerings of the rich as dross or
brass. The Refiner was to "sit" in authority and to teach
Israel to separate the dross or brass from the silver. According
to this view, "sat" is not superfluous, nor need it be taken as
a literal statement rightly rejected by Luke. It implies not
only the general authority of a teacher, but also a special
1 Jn viii. 20. - Jn viii. 15 16. 3 Mk xii. 41.
4 Origen Lomm. ii. 151, 155. 6 Mai. iii. i, 3.
203 (Mark xi. 12 19)
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
allusion to the authority of the Messiah, teaching men how to
distinguish true sacrifice from false and "to offer offerings in
righteousness." Not improbably a similar allusion is latent
in the Lucan account of the boy Jesus unexpectedly found " in
the temple sitting in the midst of the teachers, both hearing
them and asking them questions 1 ." It is perhaps implied that
even in this first visit to the Father's house, the Child separates
truth from falsehood, pure metal from dross.
In addition to these facts, indicating that Jesus visited
Jerusalem on more than one occasion, there is evidence, derived
from Mark's mention of "cornfields" and "plucking ears of
corn 2 , "that the original of theMarcan narrative of Christ's public
life must have covered a longer period than that of one year
(extending from the sequel of one Passover to the beginning of
another). This agrees with the text of John which speaks of
1 Lk. ii. 46. See the very full comment in HOY. Heb. ad loc. on
"sitting," and also Schottgen, who begins by saying "It was lawful
for no one to sit in the temple," and proceeds to quote Aboth
R. Nathan 39 (Aboth VI F) on different kinds of "sitting." During
the time of Hillel disciples did not "sit" but stood in the presence
of their teachers ; not till a later period did they " sit on the ground."
Here, however, Jesus is described as not only "sitting," but also
"sitting in the midst of the teachers." HOY. Heb. says "It is less
wonder if they suffer him to sit amongst them, being but twelve
years of age, whenas they promoted R. Eleazar Ben Azariah to
the presidency itself when he was but sixteen." But the writer
fails to add that this Eleazar was (Schiir-er n. i. 372) "a rich and
eminent priest, whose genealogy is traced back to Ezra," whose
wealth was proverbial, and who was elected in a crisis to fill a gap
which he filled only for a time. It is futile to compare such a " pro-
motion" of a youth of sixteen with the position assigned to Jesus
at the age of twelve in Luke's story. -Hor. Heb., however, is
of value as shewing the difficulty felt by so learned a writer in
attempting to explain the Lucan narrative literally. It cannot be
thus explained. It points back to a poetic story derived from the
picture of the Judge or Refiner in Malachi.
Cyril of Alexandria substitutes (Cramer ad loc.) p.Tav for eV
/zeVcj so as to make it clear that Jesus is seated " amidst the teachers "
(and not, as some have supposed, on the floor, with the teachers
seated in chairs forming a semi-circle round Him).
2 Introd. pp. 89 90, quoting Mk ii. 23.
204 (Mark xi. 12 19)
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
two Passovers before the final one. Even John's omission to
give us in every case the name of the "feast " that he mentions,
regrettable though it is for many reasons, is very instructive if
we can assume that he does not want to mystify his readers.
For then it proves that he did not himself know in each case
the name of the " feast " and that he set down a vague tradition
as he found it. That would explain many chronological
variations in the Synoptists. It might also explain other
errors. " Sayings uttered in Jerusalem might sometimes be
liable to misinterpretation if recorded as being uttered to an
audience in Galilee.
10. The symbolism of the fig-tree, misunderstood by Luke
That Luke misunderstood the symbolism of the fig-tree in
Christ's doctrine appears from his version of the following
words of Jesus uttered a little later on :
Mk xiii. 28 Mt. xxiv. 32 Lk. xxi. 29 30
Now from the fig- Now from the fig- (29) And he
tree learn her para- tree learn her para- spake to them a para-
ble: when her branch ble : when her branch ble : Behold the fig-
is now become tender, is now become tender, tree, and all the trees :
and putteth forth its and putteth forth its (30) When they
leaves, ye know that leaves, ye know that now shoot forth, ye
the summer is nigh. the summer is nigh. see it and know of
your own selves that
the summer is now
nigh.
The peculiarity of the fig-tree, as here mentioned, was that
its fruit appeared before its leaves, so that, when the leaves
themselves appeared, they announced, not the coming, but the
ripening, of the fruit not spring but "summer." Pliny notes
this exception to the ordinary rule of fruit-trees 1 . Luke seems
1 Pliny Nat. Hist. xvi. 49 (113). Other trees, he says, have the
fruit under the leaf, except the fig ("excepta fico"). He adds " ei
demum serins folium nascitur quam pomum." Hor. Heb. on Mt.
xxi. 19 indicates a great variety of Jewish traditions about various
kinds of figs. These might naturally vary in the different climates
of Galilee and Judaea. But the language of Mark, and the testimony
of Pliny, make it clear that the original of the Synoptic tradition
referred to the ordinary fig and to its exceptional character among
205 (Mark xi. 12 19)
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
to have missed this allusion to an exceptional characteristic. At
all events he has added "and all the trees 1 " as if the meaning
were "When trees (lit.) push forth, you know that summer is
near." This is obscure since "push forth" might have for its
object "buds" or " fruit." No instance is alleged of its use thus
without an object. But Aquila employs it about "ripening,"
with "green figs" as object 2 . Luke seems to use it absolutely
in the sense of putting forth leaf and to apply it to trees in
general, not fruit-trees alone.
Mark may perhaps be paraphrased as follows: "Seeing
afar off leaves on a fig-tree, Jesus came up to it on the chance
that 3 it might have fruit. [It ought to have had according to
rule. But Jesus came only on the chance] and when He came
to it He found nothing but leaves for it was not [yet] the
season for figs 4 ." The fig-tree, so to speak, if it was not
deceiving, was bound to have fruit since it had leaves. But
it was deceiving. It gave the spectators the impression that
it had fruit before the time, whereas it had none, and would
have none at any time.
The first Biblical mention of the leaves of the fig-tree is
fruit-trees. Pliny himself says that there were exceptional fig-trees
that followed the rule of other fruit-trees, but those are not con-
templated by Mark.
1 The Diatessaron, immediately after Lk. xxi. 28 " Your salvation
is near," places Mt. xxiv. 32 foil. "Learn the example of the fig-tree."
It does not add (from Lk. xxi. 29) "and all the trees," here or
anywhere.
2 Cant. ii. 13 "The fig-tree hath ripened (R.V. ripeneth) her green-
figs." LX.X. r)VfyKv o\vvdovs ourr)?, Aq. TrpoeftaXtv , Sym. cf0T}\cv.
3 Mk xi. 13 "On the chance that," apa, only here in the Gospels.
Comp. Acts viii. 22 pa where it is implied that Simon Magus is
not forgiven, and i Cor. xv. 15 eiWp apa ov< which introduces as an
impossibility the non-raising of the dead. In Acts xvii. 27 et apa ye,
the ye makes a difference.
4 Ephrem on Mt. xxi. 19 supposes the season to be late, after
the fig-gathering, and the owner to be in fault for not leaving
(Deut. xxiv. 19 21) a gleaning. Origen expatiates on the peculiar
merit of "fruits of the Spirit" if they are forthcoming when "not
in season " (Lomm. iv. 79 82) but does not help the reader to under-
stand the action imputed to Jesus.
206 (Mark xi. 12 19)
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
connected with sin. With such leaves Adam and Eve clothed
their nakedness just before they "hid themselves from the
presence of the Lord God"; and Philo allegorizes these fig-
leaves as indicating the sweetness of pleasures 1 . The context
might be applied to the soul of man, fleeing from God into
itself and from the service of God into selfishness or self-service 2 .
In Mark, the unfruitful but leafy fig-tree may have been intended
to signify the splendour of the Temple, which, under the
appearance of solemn service to God, was used for the service
of men, and, to a large extent, for the gains of monopolising
priests and avaricious rulers 3 . Thus conducted, the ritual of
the Temple might well seem an obstruction rather than a help
to religion, a fruitful fig-tree that had become a barren fig-tree,
cumbering the ground a thought that indicates how the
Lucan parable, and the Marcan narrative, about a fig-tree,
might proceed from one and the same original.
According to Luke, Jesus, on His way to Jerusalem but
on an earlier occasion, and not in one of these daily visits from
Bethany used language about "uprooting" a "sycamine-
tree" very similar to that placed here in Mark and Matthew:
Alk xi. 22 3 Mt. xxi. 21 Lk. xvii. 6
Have faith in Verily I say unto If ye have faith as
God. Verily 1 say you, if ye have faith a grain of mustard-
unto you, Whosoever and ... ye shall not seed ye would say to
shall say unto this only do the [deed] this sycamine-tree, Be
mountain, Be thou of the fig-tree, but thou rooted up and
taken up and cast even if ye shall say be thou planted in
into the sea... it shall to this mountain, Be the sea, and it would
be [done] for him. thou taken up and have obeyed you.
cast into the sea, it
shall come to pass.
There is abundant evidence to shew that a Jewish teacher
would use phrases about rooting up trees or mountains in a
metaphorical sense, speaking of obstacles or difficulties in the
way of the acceptance of the Law 4 . Such phrases Jesus might
1 Philo Quaest. Gen, on Gen. iii. 7. 2 Comp. Law p. 507.
3 On the monopolies see Son 3585 c.
4 See From Letter 764 foil, on the Rabbinical title Uprooter of
Trees or Mountains, and comp. i Cor. xiii. 2.
207 (Mark xi. 12 19)
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
apply to spiritual difficulties, the obstacles presented by sin.
And it is conceivable, and indeed antecedently probable, that
when He stood on the Mount of Olives and looked upon the
Terrfple, which He had attempted to purify, and on the whole
of what the Jews called the Mountain of the Lord's House,
He would regard that "mountain" as no longer the Lord's,
but as an opposing "mountain" to be addressed in the words
of Zechariah, "Who art thou, O great mountain! Before
Zerubbabel [thou shalt become] a plain; and he shall bring
forth the head stone with shoutings of Grace, grace, unto it 1 ."
Such a saying Luke, finding it attributed to Jesus as He was
"going to Jerusalem 2 ," might assign to an earlier period while
Jesus was journeying by slow stages to the City, and before
the time when He began a course of daily visits to the Temple.
In that case he would have to interpret "this sycamine-tree"
as meaning literally a casual tree indicated by a gesture of
Jesus. But really, in the original saying, it might have meant
the visible Temple "this barren tree that I see before me."
As regards the parallelism between "this mountain" in
Mark and "this sycamine-tree" in the passage last quoted
from Luke, it has been shewn that a similar parallelism is found
in Jewish tradition between "this mountain" and "this plane-
tree*." Both of them meant Mount Gerizim. In the Fourth
Gospel the Samaritan woman speaks of worshipping God "in
this mountain" (that is, Gerizim), whereas the Jews say that
"the place where men ought to worship" is "in Jerusalem."
Jesus replies "Neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem"',
the place of worship is to be "in spirit and truth 4 ."
1 Zech. iv. 7.
2 Luke from ix. 51 onward ("set his face to go to Jerusalem")
is describing Christ's journey to Jerusalem; and the saying about
the (xvii. 6) "sycamine-tree," is closely followed by (xvii. u) "as
he was going (eV r<u TropeiW&u) to Jerusalem." What Luke regards
as one journey in several stages, John may have regarded (and perhaps
correctly) as separate journeys in separate years.
:J See Son 3364 lq. 4 Jn iv. 20, 21, 24.
208 (Mark xi. 12 19)
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
ii. Does John intervene?
The Docetae (according to Hippolytus) declaring "the First
God" Himself to be as it were the seed of a fig-tree, blended
together the Parable of the Search for fruit from the Fig-Tree
in Luke with the Curse of the Fig-Tree in Mark-Matthew,
along with strange allusions to the clothing of the nakedness
of Adam and Eve 1 . From a different point of view, that of
the ordinary Greek reader, we might expect to find in John
something that might meet the apparent jibe of Epictetus,
"You can only have figs in the regular time of the year; if
you long for them in winter, you are a fool 2 ."
Nothing, however, of the riature of a definite intervention
can be found in John. But Jesus, after calling Nathanael "an
Israelite indeed without guile," is represented as saying to him
"When thou wast under the fig-tree I saw thee 3 ." The two
sayings perhaps imply that Nathanael, under the stress of the
temptations of the flesh and the world, had not clothed himself
in falsehood or hypocrisy but remained "without guile."
John nowhere again mentions the fig-tree. But this passage
leads us to ask how he would express, ist, the similitude,
suggested by Mark, between the misused Temple and a barren
fig-tree, 2nd, the lessons inculcated by it concerning the fruit
that God sought from Israel, and God's treatment of the
fruitful and the unfruitful.
Roughly and briefly we may say that John places before
us a positive alon$ with a negative aspect of the Congregation,
or Church, or Body, of Israel. First he regards it as the Temple
and later on as the Vine. As to the Temple, he represents
1 Hippol. viii. i. The seed is described as "refuge of those that
fear, covering of the naked, veil of shame, fruit sought after (J?TOV-
iitvcts KapTros), to which came the Seeker (it is said) thrice, and found
not, wherefore also (it says) He cursed the fig-tree."
2 Epict. iii. 24. 86.
3 Jn i. 478. See Son 3375 / k .on "THE FIG-TREE" in Jn,
where the conclusion is " the story of Nathanael under the ' fig-tree '
is probably to be regarded as a version of the story of Zacchaeus in
the 'sycomore.' "
A. F. 209 (Mark xi. 12 19) 14
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
Jesus as Himself using a phrase " destroy (lit. loose) this temple,"
a form of which Mark and Matthew place only in the mouths
of false witnesses testifying against Jesus. The Gospels vary
as follows:
Mk xiv. 58 Mt. xxvi. 61 Jn ii. 19
We heard him This man said, / Jesus answered
say, / will destroy 1 am able to destroy 1 the and said unto them,
this temple that is temple of God, and Destroy' this temple,
made with hands, to build it in three and in three days I
and in three days I days. will raise it up.
will build another
made without hands.
John adds "But he spake of the temple of his body 2 ."
The variation of imperative and indicative may be illus-
trated by the following:
Mk xiv. 27 and Mt. xxvi. 31 Zech. xiii. 7 (Heb.)
It is written, / will smite the Smite \thou\ the shepherd, and
shepherd, and the sheep (Mt. + of the sheep shall be scattered,
the flock) shall be scattered
abroad.
If Jesus said "Destroy this temple," the imperative would
be quite intelligible as meaning "Go on in your evil way, if ye
are so resolved, and destroy this temple*, this body of the faithful
of Israel" followed by a warning, "But know that on the
third day it shall be raised up." But some, taking "temple"
literally, would read into the words a contrast between " this
temple" (of stone) and "another 4 ." They would also find in
the words a prophecy that Jesus would "or could 5 destroy the
temple of stone (as it was destroyed through the hand of the
Romans) and build it up again as the Church of Christ. Luke
1 "Destroy" is in Mk-Mt. KaraXvw, in Jn Avo>.
2 Jn ii. 21.
3 For a similar imperative see Mt. xxiii. 32 " Fill ye then up the
measure," where, however, W. H. marg. and SS have "ye will fill"
(D "ye filled") [The parallel Luke differs]. There are similar variations
in the Gk of some of the imperatives in Is. viii. 9 10 "Make an
uproar. . . gird y ourselves . . .take counsel. . .speak the word" (see Field).
4 Mk xiv. 58 "build another."
5 "Could," Mt. xxvi. 61 "/ am able."
210 (Mark xi. 12 19)
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
omits the whole as a false accusation. John intervenes to shew
the truth on which the falsehood was based. He does not deny
that Jesus, on some occasion, invoked or predicted destruction
on the visible building of the Temple, but at all events he does
not record it. He records, instead, a warning addressed to the
rulers of the Jews that if they persist in their course they will
be destroying though not ultimately, yet as far as they can
the true and invisible Temple of God 1 .
As to the other metaphor, that of a tree, the Fourth
Evangelist substitutes "vine" for "fig," and again fixes our
thoughts mainly on the positive aspect. He does not as
Isaiah does in his parable of the Vineyard describe the whole
of the Vine as being retributively "trodden down" for failing to
bear good fruit 2 . Isaiah's parable is addressed to rebellious
Israel. The Johannine parable is addressed not to " the Jews "
but to those to whom Jesus says afterwards " I am the vine, ye
are the branches," that is, to the disciples. To them He has said
" I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. Every
branch in me that beareth not fruit, he taketh it away; and
every [branch] that beareth fruit, he cleanseth it, that it may
bear more fruit 3 ." This differs both from the Marcan story
of cursing and from the Lucan Parable of condemnation. In
both of those, there was "a coming to look" for fruit, as for
something external. In John, there is no "coming to look."
Everything is internal and personal. The Vine is in fact the
Lord Himself; the branches, if they abide in Him, are as it
were His limbs. The action of "the husbandman," God, is for
the good of the Vine as a whole, through fire and steel fire
for the unfruitful, the pruning-knife for the fruitful branches.
In conclusion, we must say that if John intervenes it is rather
in favour of Luke than in favour of Mark, in order to shew the
justice and impartiality of the Lord of the Vineyard.
1 At the same time the impending destruction of the visible
Temple is not left wholly unmentioned. But it is the Jews who
mention it, Jn xi. 48 "If we let him alone. . ., the Romans will come
and take away both our place and our nation." It is an instance of
Johannine irony, see Son 3106 a.
2 Is. v. 5. a Jn xv. i 6.
211 (Mark xi. 12 19) 14 2
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
12. "Carrying a vessel through the temple," in Mark 1
This is omitted by Matthew and Luke. Wetstein quotes, in
illustration of Mark, Josephus against Apion, as saying that no
vessel was allowed to be carried "in templo*." But the Latin
gives "in templum," and the context indicates that the meaning
is "into the Holy Place" ; for it adds "there were therein only
the altar, the table, the censer, and the candlestick."
This, therefore, does not help us to understand Mark. But
John perhaps does by saying that there were "in the temple
people selling oxen and sheep 3 " (not mentioned by the Synop-
tists). The care of these animals might necessitate the "carry-
ing" of "vessels." Along with this Joh'annine addition must
be considered the Johannine substitution of "Make not my
Father's house a house of merchandise 4 " for the Synoptic
"Ye made it a den of robbers." Origen says that the Synoptic
words are "more severe" than the Johannine 5 . Is this so?
And what is John's attitude to the Synoptic narratives as a
whole ?
The first point to be noted is that the exact words in Jeremiah
are "Is this house. . .become a den of robbers in your eyes?"
And these words do not refer to any "robbery" committed inside
the Temple. They refer to sins committed outside. This is
indicated by the preceding question "Will ye steal, murder, and
commit adultery, and swear falsely. . .and come and stand before
me in this house . . . and say ' We are delivered ' ; that ye may do
all these abominations 6 ?" That is to say, the people came
into God's House, as robbers might come into their cave,
commemorating or condoning their exploits rather than repent-
ing of them, but at all events not continuing them in the House
itself.
The Gospels on the other hand refer to a systematic extortion,
1 Mk XI. l6 <at OVK fj<j)ifv Iva TIS 8tfVfyKT) (TKfvos 8ia TOV iepov.
2 Joseph. Contr. Ap. ii. 8.
3 Jn ii. 14. 4 Jn ii. 16.
5 Origen Comm. Joann. x. 17 (Lomm. i. 328) TOVS TTUVTOS. . .^Xf-
ocrov 67rt Tols XoiTTols fvayyf\i(TTals Trapa TOV Itodvvrfv (iKovo~avTas.
6 Terem. vii. 9 10.
212 (Mark xi. 12 19;
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
practised by the rulers of the Temple, and in the Temple, on the
pilgrims who came to offer sacrifice frauds so open and
coercive that they deserved to be called "robberies" rather
than thefts 1 .
Jerome in his commentary on Matthew explains this at great
length. But the length of his explanation indicates that in the
first century educated Greeks might not understand the force
of the word "robbers" and might think that it savoured of
exaggeration. In the place of this fervid sentence from
Jeremiah which was probably only one of many sayings of
Jesus on the abuses of the Temple John substitutes another
saying that refers to the busy "merchandise," or traffic, implied
by Mark's tradition about "carrying vessels." There is in
this saying a unique use of the Greek word emporion, i.e.
"emporium" or "place of traffic 2 ." John has "Make not my
Father's house a house of emporium." Why does he not
say "an emporium"? Probably because he has in view the
Synoptic tradition "My Father's house shall be a house of
prayer," and he wishes to contrast "house of prayer" with
"house of merchandise."
But if he wished to do this, why did he not (instead of
emporium) use emporia which regularly means merchandise in
LXX- -and in the single instance where it occurs in Matthew 3
whereas emporium never has this meaning ? The most probable
explanation is, that John had in view a saying based on Isaiah's
mention of Tyre (LXX) "she shall be an emporium to all the
kingdoms of the world" and on Ezekiel (LXX) "Thou shalt say
to Tyre,. . .the emporium of the peoples*." These are the only
instances of emporium (sing.) in the LXX.
But in Isaiah, the Hebrew for "she shall be an emporium"
is "she shall play the harlot" and Ibn Ezra illustrates the
expression by a Deuteronomic one, "the hire of an harlot 5 '* and
paraphrases the context of Isaiah as meaning that "all the
e Son 3585 c.
2 Steph. Thes. gives no instance of it.
3 Mt. xxii. 5 "one to his merchandise (ffnropiav)."
4 Is. xxiii. 17, Ezek. xxvii. 3. The only other LXX instance of
is pi. Deut. xxxiii. 19. 5 Deut. xxiii. 18.
213 (Mark xi. 12 19)
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
kingdoms" will "come to her for merchandise." The same
connection between "fornication" and "merchandise" is found
in Revelation where the writer says that "the kings of the earth
committed fornication " with "Babylon the great/' and then
speaks of "the merchants of the earth" as mourning over the
loss of their " merchandise" in her 1 .
All this is very unlike Western thought. But when the
metaphor is probed it will be found accordant with the thoughts
of the prophets of Israel. In the Temple of God, all human
thought must go up in sacrifice and God-worship, not gad about
in self -pleasing and self- worship. Israel's concentrated worship
of the One God is wedded union ; Israel's gadding about to the
love of false gods is harlotry. It would seem, then, that Mark's
quaint and obscure tradition about "carrying vessels" points to
something much deeper than at first appears to a consecration
of the traffic of greediness resulting in a desecration of the ordi-
nances of pure worship. This "traffic" Jesus could not but
condemn. And the form in which John alleges Him to have
condemned it accords with the precedents set by two of the
greatest prophets of Israel 2 .
Possibly a third prophet has also contributed to Mark's
tradition. The last, words of Zechariah, describing the future
holiness of the Temple, say according to Aquila, whom Jerome
follows "There shall be no more a trafficker in the house of the
Lord of hosts 3 ." This is preceded by a poetic forecast about
the "pots," or "vessels." in the Lord's House, which are all to
1 Rev. xviii. 2 3, 9 n.
2 See Son 3370 c, where mention should have been made of John's
use of cpTTopiov. Westcott says (on Jn ii. 16) that fpiropiov means
the place of traffic and not the subject or art of trafficking (f/uTropi'n) :
"comp. Ezek. xxvii. 3 (LXX). Thus the 'house' is here regarded
as having become a market-house " I do not understand this.
It can hardly be intended to suggest that the genitive is appositional
(like "the name of George") "the house of (i.e. that is called)
emporium."
3 Zech. xiv. 21 R.V. txt " Canaanite," marg. "trafficker," on which
see Jerome. The Targ. has ''trafficker," and so has Rashi. Comp.
Hos. xii. 7 R.V. txt "trafficker" marg. "Canaanite]" Targ. "traf-
fickers" Pesach. 50 a supports " trafficker " in both passages.
214 (Mark xi. 12 19)
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
be "holy/' destined (as Rashi interprets the passage) to be of
gold and silver, sanctified to the Lord's use, made out of the
bells of the horses (war-horses being discarded in the days of
peace) so that henceforth (it might be inferred) no ordinary
vessel of clay was to be allowed in the sacred precincts 1 . This
is remote, in tone, from the bare prose of the Marcan tradition
about "carrying a vessel through the temple." But the pro-
phetic simultaneous mention of "vessel" and "traffic" is worth
noting, in view of Mark's mention of "vessel," simultaneously
with John's mention of "traffic," in the evangelistic accounts
of the Purification of the Temple.
13. "For all the nations," in Mark 2
Reasons have been given in Diatessarica* for believing that
the clause "for all the nations," though omitted by Matthew
and Luke, was a part of the original tradition. We can see
one reason why Matthew and Luke might omit the clause when
we examine the context in which Justin Martyr quotes Christ's
words from Matthew and Luke. It is in a fierce attack on
Jews and on their rejection of Jesus: " He [i.e. Jesus] appeared
distasteful to you [Jews] when He cried among you, It is
written, My house is a house of prayer, but ye have made it a den
of robbers*." Justin makes it appear that Jesus was "dis-
tasteful" to the Jews simply because He accused them of
making the Temple "a den of robbers," and because they were
actually "robbers." But if Jesus said "a house of prayer for
all the nations," there was somewhat more reason for His being
1 Zech. xiv. 20 21 "The pots in the Lord's house shall be like
the bowls before the altar. Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah
shall be holy unto the Lord of hosts."
2 Mk xi. 17 quoting fully Is. Ivi. 7 "My house shall be called a
house of prayer for all the nations (so LXX, but Heb. peoples},"
Codex k om. "for all the nations." Pseudo-Jerome, on Mk, says
"House of prayer' according to Isaiah, 'Den of robbers' according
to Jeremiah," which looks as though he omitted " for all the nations,"
as introducing a separate thought and weakening the antithesis.
3 Son 3353 (i) (iv) on " The inclusiveness of the Gospel," and
3468 c foil, on "The Holy Mountain."
4 Justin M. Tryph. 17.
215 (Mark xi. 12 19)
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
"distasteful" to them. Had the accusation of "robbery"
been Christ's uppermost feeling, there would have been much
to say for omitting the Marcan mention of " all the nations."
But probably that accusation was not Christ's uppermost
feeling. The uppermost feeling was more probably that "zeal"
for the Father's "house" which consumed, or "ate," the Son's
heart 1 , a sympathetic indignation at seeing the outrage done
by His professed ministers, the Jewish priests, to His Gentile
children, the proselytes, as well as to the poor among their own
countrymen, whom they "made to stumble" by their extortions.
And if Jesus was purifying that part of the Temple, or Mountain
of the House, which was called "the Court of the Nations (or,
Gentiles) " where beasts were sold for sacrifice, there would be
a special force in Isaiah's words "for all the nations," as though
Jesus said to the chief priests, "How can the Lord make
'strangers 2 ' from the nations joyful in His 'holy mountain,'
and how can His house be ' called a house of prayer for all the
nations,' Gentiles as well as Jews, when you, His priests, fill
the Mountain of His House, the Court of the Gentiles, with
noise, traffic, and extortion that make prayer impossible 3 ?"
John, almost immediately after the Riding into Jerusalem,
places a mention of "certain Greeks among those that went up
to worship at the feast" who say to Philip, "Sir, we would see
Jesus 4 ." This immediately follows a testimony from the
Pharisees themselves to the universal attraction exercised by
Jesus. "Behold how ye prevail nothing;, lo, the world is gone
after him 5 ." Coming together at this point, the two passages
remind us that John has himself described the "body" of Jesus
as being a "temple 6 ," or, in other words, a "house of prayer" ;
and now he seems to bring Him before us as a " house of prayer "
not only for "certain Greeks" but also for "all the world."
1 Jn ii. 17, quoting Ps. Ixix. 9.
2 Is. Ivi. 6 7 "Also the strangers . . . even them will I bring to
my holy mountain and make them joyful in my house of prayer, and
their sacrifices shall be accepted."
3 Quoted from Son 3353 (iii).
4 Jn xii. 20 21. 5 Jn xii. 19.
6 Jn ii. 21.
216 (Mark xi. 12 19)
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
14. "A scourge of cords," in John 1
Why does John insert this picturesque detail? Why do the
Synoptists omit it? Of what nature were the "cords"?
Whence were they obtained? What typical meaning, if any,
may be attached to this Johannine insertion ? Does it indicate
a historical fact omitted by the Three Gospels or a symbolism
peculiar to the Fourth?
It has been suggested that the cords were "probably the
ntshes which were littered down for the cattle to lie on 2 ." But
the Johannine word never means "rushes" either in LXX or in
Greek literature 3 . Etymologists may use the word thus, but
other writers do not. Moreover "rushes" would seem more
suitable to the bank of the Nile than to the neighbourhood of
Jerusalem 4 .
A different explanation presents itself in the words of the
Psalm "Bind the sacrifice with cords even to the horns of the
altar 5 ." Each victim, presumably, would have a cord attached
to it for the purpose of leading it, and binding it, to receive the
sacrificial stroke. From such "cords" Jesus might construct,
and encourage His followers to construct, the "scourge" in
question. No doubt, John would see in this a typical action
the true Sacrifice, the Lamb of God, casting out the false
sacrifices, the "bullocks" and "lambs" about which the Lord
had said "I delight not in their blood 6 ." But that does not,
1 Jn ii. 15 Km TTou'jo-as 0/juye'AAtoi> e' o-^otriW. Nonnus calls the
whip "counterfeit," voOrjv luaa-OXrjv , indicating that he read o>$- after
TroiTjo-ds, with the best Latin versions, which have tanquam, or quasi.
- So Alford. Westcott says "The 'cords' (<T X mvia, properly of
twisted rushes) would be at hand." Keim speaks of the whip as
made of "rushes."
3 In LXX, a-xotviov represents Heb. *?2n, "cord," more than
20 times, and never represents Heb. "bulrush" or "rush." Steph.
Thes. vii. 1677 an d L. S. give no instance where it means "rush."
See Acts xxvii. 32 "ropes" (the only other N.T. instance).
4 Exod. ii. 3, Is. xviii. 2.
5 Ps. cxviii. 27, "cords," D'my, variously interpreted (Gesen.
721 b) in ancient and modern times.
6 Is. i. ii.
217 (Mark xi. 12 19)
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
in a case like the present, afford grounds for rejecting the
alleged action as a fiction. It is too original to be treated
thus, yet not too original for a great Jewish prophet.
But, if historical, why is the "scourge of cords" omitted
by the Synoptists? The first answer that suggests itself is
"Because in the Synoptic narrative there is no mention of the
sheep and oxen that would require them." If we ask why there
are no sheep and oxen, the answer might be given "Because,
after one or two visits of Jesus to the Temple, He had succeeded
in abating the market abuse to such an extent that the sheep
and oxen were removed and nothing remained but the doves."
If we could believe this, we might explain not only the Synoptic
omission of the sheep and oxen in the account of the visit to
the final Passover, but also the Johannine omission of all
cleansing of the Temple in the final visit. Unquestionably
this view presents great difficulties. And in some ways it
would be less difficult to believe that Mark had fastened on
one abuse the oppression of the poor, who bought doves to
the neglect of other abuses, as to sheep and oxen, which
affected only the rich. But in any case the "scourge of cords"
does not appear to have been a Johannine invention.
15. "Doves," "tables," and "money-changers" in all
but Luke 1
Luke omits these Marcan details, partly perhaps because, at
the time when he was writing, the Temple" had fallen and details
about its service had lost their interest, but partly also because
he did not see the force of them. Why this distinction between
the "tables" of the money-changers and the "seats 2 " of them
that sold doves? Why introduce "money-changers" at all,
since -selling, not money-changing, was the fault? Why
mention "doves" alone, and no other sacrificial victims?
John treats these details as obscure but not out of date.
He perhaps regarded them as a useful and enduring protest
against the view, not unknown among early Christian teachers,
1 Mk xi. 15, Mt. xxi. 12, Jn ii. 14 16.
2 SS, in Mk, has "tables. . .tables" for "tables. . .seats."
218 (Mark xi. 12 19)
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
that religion might be made a "way of gain 1 ." At all events
he intervenes as to each point. As for the "tables" and the
"seats" the radical thought was perhaps not about distinctions
between tables and stalls or seats but about " sitting." It was
unseemly for anyone to "sit" in the Lord's House except by
special commission. The true Messiah was to "sit" therein
and to purify the sons of Levi 2 . A false Messiah, a repre-
sentative of Mammon, might also "sit in the temple of
God 3 ," and claim men's worship. These salesmen and money-
changers in their cathedral, as Mark calls their seats, were such
representatives. They sat, so to speak, in cathedra, exercising
the authority of Mammon. John expresses this by the word
"sitting," which is to be understood with allusion to the Hebrew
sense "sitting [as if with authority] 4 ."
In the next place, as to the Marcan "money -changers,"
John explains the meaning by not only using it himself but
also adding to it two depreciatory words ("small-change" and
"dealers-in-small-change") which suggest that these men made
a discreditable gain out of those who came to them to exchange
their money for the coin that was exacted by custom for sacrifices
in the Temple. The noun, "small-change," is not used in the
Greek Bible anywhere but here ; but it is frequent in Epictetus
in the sense of "pelf" as being the object of the worldly minded,
who " refer everything to paltry pelf 5 ." Thus John consistently
shapes his narrative so as to bring out for Greek readers the
base, unspiritual, and God-detested nature of the " merchandise "
that Luke was content to term mere "selling." In the Double
Tradition of Matthew and Luke Jesus says, "Ye cannot serve
God and Mammon 6 ." The incompatibility that is conveyed to
1 I Tim. vi. 5 vop.i6vru>v Tropicrp-bv fivtu TTJV fv&ejBfiav.
2 Mai. iii. 3.
3 2 Thess. ii. 4 tis rov vabv rov 6eov KaQiaai, comp. Ezek. xxviii. 2
M I sit in the seat of God."
4 See Exod. xviii. 14, Mai. iii. 3 etc.
6 Epict. ii. IO. 2O ft fVl. K(pp.drLOV irdvra dvdyfts. Kepp-driov is
very freq. (see iii. 2. 8, iii. 5. 3 etc.), and <epp.a occurs in ii. 10. 14,
ii. 10. 19, iv. 3. 2, iv. 9. 9.
6 Mt. vi. 24, Lk. xvi. 13.
219 (Mark xi. 12 19)
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
Jews in those words is indirectly suggested here in the contrast
implied between such sacrifices as ought to be offered to the
One God and such sacrifices as were actually offered in the
Jewish Temple under the control of the priests, the hierophants
of "small change 1 ."
16. What followed after the purification of the Temple 2
The Diatessaron describes the departure of Jesus from the
Temple, after the purification of it, as follows: "And when
1 If the Kcppara represent the brass or copper coins of the poor
received, and often over-received, by the KoAAv/3rrai, then the
Johannine word (Jn ii. 15) fgex fv > "poured forth," signifies a
retributive "shedding," as it were, of that which the miserly
extortioner values as his own blood. It was the blood of the
poor and he has to give it back.
2 Mk xi. 18 19 and its parallels are printed above (pp. 197 8),
but are repeated here for the sake of continuity.
Mt. xxi. 15 17, 19 b, Lk. xix. 47 b 48,
Mk xi. 1 8 25
(R.V.)
(18) And the chief
priests and the scribes
heard it, and sought
how they might de-
stroy him: for they
feared him, for all the
multitude was aston-
ished at his teaching.
(19) And e very-
evening (lit. when-
ever evening came)
he (some anc. auth.
they) went forth out
of the city.
(20) And as they
passed by in the
morning, they saw
the fig-tree withered
away from the roots.
(21) And Peter
calling to remem-
brance saith unto
him, Rabbi, behold,
the fig-tree which
thou cursedst is
withered away.
(22) And Jesus
answering saith un-
20 22, vii. 7, vi.
1415 (R-V.)
(xxi. 15) But when
the chief priests and
the scribes saw the
wonderful things that
he did, and the chil-
dren that were crying
in the temple and
saying, Hosanna to
the son of David;
they were moved
with indignation,
(16) And said un-
to him, Hearest thou
what these are say-
ing ? And Jesus saith
unto them, Yea: did
ye never read, Out of
the mouth of babes
and sucklings thou
hast perfected praise ?
(17) And he left
them, and went forth
out of the city to
Bethany, and lodged
there.
(19) .. .And im-
mediately the fig-
tree withered away.
xix.
xxi. 37 8, xvii.
5 6,xi. 9 ,4(R-V.)
(xix. 47) . . .But
the chief priests and
the scribes and the
principal men of the
people sought to de-
stroy him :
(48) And they
could not find what
they might do; for
the people all hung
upon him, listening,
(xxi. 37) And
every day he was
teaching in the tem-
ple ; and every night
he went out, and
lodged in the mount
that is called [the
mount] of Olives.
(38) And all the
people came early in
the morning to him
in the temple, to
hear him.
(xvii. 5) And the
apostles said unto
the Lord, Increase
our faith.
220 (Mark xi. 18 25 (26))
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
eventide was come, he left all the people, and went outside
the city to Bethany, he and his twelve, and he remained there.
And all the people, because they knew the place, came to him,
and he received them ; and them that had need of healing he
healed. And on the morning of the next day, when he returned
Mk xi. 1825
(R.V.) contd.
to them, Have faith
in God.
(23) Verily I say
unto you, Whosoever
shall say unto this
mountain, Be thou
taken up and cast
into the sea; and
shall not doubt in
his heart, but shall
believe that what
he saith cometh to
pass; he shall have
it.
(24) Therefore I
say unto you, All
things whatsoever ye
pray and ask for, be-
lieve that ye have
received them, and
ye shall have them.
(25) And whenso-
ever ye stand pray-
ing, forgive, if ye
have aught against
any one; that your
Father also which is
in heaven may for-
give you your tres-
passes. [Many anc.
auth. add ver. 26 But
if ye do not forgive,
neither will your
Father which is in
heaven forgive your
trespasses.]
Mt. xxi. 15 17, 19 b,
20 22, vii. 7, vi.
14 15 (R.V.) contd.
(20) And when the
disciples saw it they
marvelled, saying,
How did the fig-tree
immediately wither
away?
(21) And Jesus
answered and said
unto them, Verily I
say unto you, If ye
have faith, and doubt
not, ye shall not only
do what is done to
the fig-tree, but even
if ye shall say unto
this mountain, Be
thou taken up and
cast into the sea, it
shall be done.
(22) Andall things,
whatsoever ye shall
ask in prayer, believ-
ing, ye shall receive.
(vii. 7) Ask, and
it shall be given you ;
seek, and ye shall
find; knock, and it
shall be opened unto
you :
(vi. 14) For if ye
forgive men their
trespasses, your hea-
venly Father will also
forgive you.
(15) But if ye for-
give not men their
trespasses, neither
will your Father for-
give your trespasses.
Lk. xix. 476 48,
xxi. 37 8, xvii.
5 6, xi. 9, 4
(R.V.) contd.
(6) And the Lord
said, If ye have faith
as a grain of mus-
tard-seed, ye would
say unto this syca-
mine-tree, Be thou
rooted up, and be
thou planted in the
sea; and it would
have obeyed you.
(xi. 9) And I say
unto you, Ask, and
it shall be given you ;
seek, and ye shall
find; knock, and it
shall be opened unto
you.
(4) And forgive us
our sins ; for we our-
selves also forgive
every one that is in-
debted to us. .
221 (Mark xi. 1825 (26))
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
to the city from Bethany, he hungered 1 ." It is difficult to
trace the sources of these confused traditions about "knowing"
the "place" and "receiving." Matthew says, much earlier,
that, when Jesus crossed the Lake to Gennesaret, "the men of
that place knew him"; John, much later, says that Judas
"knew the place" to which "Jesus oft-times resorted with his
disciples" ; and Luke, describing the concourse of the Five
Thousand, says that Jesus "received them. . .and them that had
need of healing he healed 2 ." The last of these traditions has
certainly been utilised by the Diatessaron here. And the
Diatessaron is instructive as indicating that the accounts of
Christ's sojourning near Jerusalem which the Synoptists
confine to days in the last week may have originally belonged
to days in preceding weeks, months, or even years.
Mark, after recording the words of Jesus, "Ye have made it
[i.e. the Temple] a den of robbers," says "And the chief, priests
and the scribes heard [it]* and began to seek how they might
destroy him." Luke omits "heard [it]." And it is hardly
credible that " the chief priests and the scribes " to whom Luke
adds "the chief [men] of the people" were all present and all
"heard" the words at the moment of utterance. More pro-
bably they would hear the report about the words, and about
Christ's acts in general. Matthew seems to favour this view.
At all events he substitutes "seeing" for "hearing" and
mentions "the wonderful things that he did," and "the boys
crying aloud in the temple" because of them 4 .
1 Diatess. 32. It arranges the preceding context as follows :
ist, the Purification of the Temple (mostly as Jn), 2nd, the Widow's
Mite, 3rd, the Prayers of the Pharisee and the Publican.
2 Mt. xiv. 35, Jn xviii. 2, Lk ix. n.
3 Mk xi. 18 JKovo-av without an object. Lk. xix. 47 agrees but
omits rfKovcrav.
4 Mt. xxi. 15 16. Jerome on Hab. ii. n "The stone shall cry
out of the wall" (preceded by ib. 9 "woe unto him that getteth an
evil gain for his house") combines Mt. xxi. 16 and Lk. xix. 40 as
follows " (Mt.) Have ye not read that it is written, From the mouths
of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise ? and (Lk.) If these
should hold their peace the stones will cry out." He adds that
"Although most think that this is to be understood as meaning,
222 (Mark xi. 18 25 (26))
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
John does not verbally follow either Mark and Luke in
mentioning a purpose to "destroy" Jesus, or Matthew in
describing "wonderful things" that draw forth songs of praise,
or the Synoptists generally in describing Jesus as going forth
from Jerusalem at night. But in fact he suggests all these
things. As to the "destroying," Jesus says "Loose, i.e. destroy,
this temple" and it is added "He spake of the temple of his
body 1 ." It is also added that Nicodemus, " the teacher of Israel,"
came to Jesus "by night." The reason for choosing night-time
we are supposed to guess already, and it is suggested more clearly
'If the Jews hold their peace the Gentiles will confess me/ yet
according to a truer interpretation, ' . . . the stones themselves (lapides
ipsi) . . ..will be able to sound forth my greatness.' " Jerome evidently
regards the Lucan "stones," in a literal sense, as belonging to the
Temple, although Luke regards them as lying on the road, being
mentioned by Jesus before He (xix. 41) "drew nigh and saw the
city." Space does not permit a full comparison of Mt. with Lk. ;
but the following conclusions are probable.
Matthew has here followed a tradition followed also by the Acts
of Pilate ( i) that Hosanna was uttered, not by the Jews, but
always by "the sons, or children, of the Hebrews," meaning the
common people or multitude, as distinct from the Pharisees or rulers.
This Matthew has misinterpreted as ''little children of the Hebrews,"
taking Christ's "babes and sucklings" literally, whereas it meant
"simple and illiterate" as distinct from "scribes." Luke followed
an earlier tradition that "the stones" of the Temple would "cry out"
(which, says Pesach. 57 a, they did on four occasions). But he has
placed this before Jesus "saw the city," so that he might be regarded
as meaning the stones in the road (comp. Lk. iii. 8). It has been
suggested (McNeile on Mt. xxi. 15) that there might be a confusion
between Aram, "stones" K'onN, and "children" 8*33. I have not
been able to find an instance of such a confusion nearer than Ps.
cxviii. 22 "the stone that the builders rejected," Targ. "the youth
. . .among the sons of Jesse," which appears to be merely paraphrase
(Son 3594 c) . But it is antecedently probable that there would be
at this point some playing on " stones " of the Temple, and the " stone "
of the corner, and "builders" of the people (i.e. the Sanhedrin)
(Son 3600 a). "Sons of the peoples"- (Joma 71 b) meaning "descen-
dants of Gentiles," might illustrate the interpretation (Jerome above)
"the Gentiles will confess me." Comp. Mt. iii. 9 "stones. . .children
to Abraham."
1 Jn ii. 19, 21.
223 (Mark xi. 18 25 (26))
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
later on, as being "fear of the Jews 1 ." Not a single miracle
or sign is mentioned as being wrought in or near the Temple.
Yet it is said, immediately after the purification of the Temple,
"when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, during the feast,
many believed on his name, beholding his signs, which he was
[continually] doing*." "His signs" assumes that everyone
knew Jesus to be a great worker of signs, although no sign has
been hitherto described except the one at Cana. And the
same thing is implied by the first words of Nicodemus to Jesus,
"Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God; for
no man can do these signs that thou doest except God be with
him 3 ."
We are not told what these "signs" were, or when or where
they were worked, or what impression they produced at the
time on those who witnessed them. Why does not John, like
Matthew, tell us all this, or something of it? Why does he
thus, in his own person, cursorily mention "his signs," leaving
it to Nicodemus to emphasize .their importance ? It is apparently
because he himself regards them as of very little importance.
Nicodemus, speaking in the plural for "the Pharisees" and
"rulers," implies that they are convinced by the signs ('we
know") that Jesus is "a teacher come from God." But in the
Temple the Jews have asked for a special sign ("what sign
shewest thou to us? "). And what Nicodemus "knew" did not
embolden him to come to Jesus by day. He seems to have
meant "We know but dare not confess." Such "knowing"
was not an important moral gain.
That this is John's view appears from an expression in the
context unique in the New Testament and very rare in Greek
literature in which he seems to play on the word "believe" or
"trust" so as to disparage the belief or faith of those whose
trust in Christ was based on His powers as a wonder-worker
and not on His person or character as being that of the Son of
1 Jn iii. i 2. Comp. xix. 38 9 "for fear of the Jews." This
applies directly to Joseph alone, but the reader is made to feel that
it applies to Nicodemus also.
2 Jn ii. 23. 3 Jn iii. 2.
224 (Mark xi. 18 25 (26))
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
God: "Many trusted in (lit. into) his name, but Jesus did
not trust himself to them because he knew all men." Origen
discusses the difference between "believing in the name of
Jesus" and "believing Jesus," and comes to the conclusion that
the former is a rudimentary kind of belief and the latter an
advanced one. The former is like that of the two disciples of
John the Baptist believing in Christ on the testimony of the
Baptist ; the latter is of a personal kind due to the direct
influence of Christ, like that of Andrew (after he had conversed
with Christ) and Peter and Nathanael and Philip 1 .
No instance is given in the Thesaurus of the phrase "/ trust
myself to you," but it might advantageously have given several
instances of a kindred phrase of Epictetus, who argues against
the notion that a man is bound to reciprocate a "trust" or
"confidence" that may be given him by a garrulous fool, or
perhaps (in pretence) by an artful informer; because a soldier
in disguise "trusts his own [thoughts] to you" about the
Emperor, for example it does not follow that you are to
"trust your own [thoughts'] to him 2 ." This antithesis appears,
in a homely way, to illustrate John's language and to shew how
carefully he distinguishes from one another, at the outset of
his Gospel, different kinds of faith, trust, belief, or confidence,
although he never actually uses any of these nouns.
Mark has on two occasions mentioned scribes from Jerusalem
as originating the opposition to Jesus in Galilee. The first of
them introduces the scribes as imputing Christ's signs to
Beelzebub ; the second deals with the importance attached by
1 See Joh. Voc. 1483 7 and Origen Comm. Joann. x. 28 (Lomm.
i. 372) Kru TOVTO &e TrjprjTcov, art TroXXoi TricrrevovTes (is TO ovop.a ai/Tov ov%
cos 'Av&pe'a? Kat Ilerpos Kcii 'SadavarjX (cat $>i\i7nros 7rio~Tvovo~iv, aXXa TTJ
papTvpiq 'ittavvov TTfidovTai, \eyovros 'l8oi>, 6 dpvbs TOV Qeov- 77 rco VTT'
'Ai/Spf'ou (vpfOfVTL Xpicrrcp, ^ rco (ITTOVTI 'irjcrov rco 3>iXt7r7rco 'A/coXoud9et p.oi-
r) rco <pd(T<ovTi OtXtTrTrco *Oi/ f'ypa-^f Mcovcr^s KOI oi npo(pr)Tai, evprj^apfv^
^Irjarovv vibv TOV 'icocr^ drro Naape'r. OVTOI, 8e ciriorcvo-av fls TO ovop.a
avrou, deupovvTfs avToii TO. (rrjp.fla a fnoifl' <a\ [ ?8ia] (rrjfjifla 7ricrrevoucrii>,
orK ft? aurov, aXX' els TO ovop.a (IVTOV, 6 lr)o~ovs OVK firioTCVO'CV COVTOV avTols.
The text is obscure and possibly corrupt. Perhaps did should be
inserted before o-T^ela.
2 Epictet. iv. 13. 6.
A. F. 225 (Markxi. 18 25(26)) 15
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
the Pharisees to the washing of hands. Both of these mentions
of Jerusalem are omitted by Luke 1 . Yet they give the reader
a glimpse into the possibility of an alliance between the influ-
ence of the Temple as controlled by the Chief Priests, and the
influence of the Law as interpreted by the Pharisees ; and the
incompatibility between these combined influences and the
Spirit of the Son of God. There are advantages in having this
set before the reader earlier and more fully.
The Fourth Gospel suggests the thought of this incompatibility
at the outset by recording a conversation between Jesus and
Nicodemus, a Pharisee with good disposition and tendencies,
yet with no spiritual conviction, and consequently no courage.
He comes to Jesus by night. And he himself represents his
fellow-Pharisees as "knowing" that Jesus was "a teacher come
from God." Thereby he implies that they are hypocrites in
opposing Him. Neither Nicodemus nor the other Jerusalemites
who "believe in tjie name" of Jesus are regarded as really
believing in Him. They trust only in His power to work
wonders. Therefore it is said apparently with a mystical
play on the words that Jesus would not entrust to them that
most precious of possessions which is here called 'himself 2 ."
According to this view, the Dialogue with Nicodemus, like
the Dialogue with the Woman of Samaria, even if it does
not contain a single sentence that Jesus ever uttered, con-
tains a historical record of His thoughts, and of the conflict
between His thoughts and those of the- scribes and the chief
priests. The scribes stood for the letter of the Law ; Jesus for
1 Mk iii. 22 "the scribes that came down from Jerusalem" is
parall. to Mt. xii. 24 "the Pharisees" and Lk. xi. 15 "some o/them,"
i.e. of the multitudes. Mk vii. i where Matthew also (xv. i) mentions
"Jerusalem" refers to Christ's journeying in North Palestine which
is wholly omitted by Luke. Comp. Jn i. 19 "the Jews sent. . .from
Jerusalem priests and Levites," and ib. 24 R.V. txt "and they had
been sent" R.V. marg. "and [certain] had been sent" "from
(R.V. marg. from among) the Pharisees."
2 Comp. Lk. xvi. 12 "Who will entrust to you your own," or " our
own," or as Marcion had it (see Tertull. Adv. Marc.) "that which
is mine ? " It means the treasure appointed by God for man, the Spirit
of Christ, the opposite of the Mammon mentioned in the context.
226 (Mark xi. 18 25 (26))
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
the breath of the Spirit of Love. The priests stood for the
ritual of the Temple ; Jesus stood for Man as being God's true
Temple. There was no prospect of peace or truce between
these conflicting principles, and John thinks it best to let us
know this from the beginning.
17. " Have faith in God," in Mark 1
Mark's meaning appears to be "Have faith, not in man,
nor in this visible world and the things of this world, but in
God." But Matthew omits "in God" as superfluous. Luke
draws out what he supposes to be its meaning by adding "as
a grain of mustard-seed," that is to say, "faith of vital force
able to increase what is very small so that it shall become
great."
" Have faith (or, belief) " expresses in two Greek words what
"believe" expresses in one. And the imperative "believe in
God " occurs in only one passage of the Old Testament, describing
a great danger impending on Judah from a hostile league,
when Jehoshaphat encouraged by the prophet who declared
that God would fight for them said "Hear me, O Judah. . .
believe-firmly in the Lord your God, so shall ye be firmly-es-
tablished; believe his prophets, so shall ye prosper 2 ." An
ancient Jewish comment on the- words in Exodus that follow
the drowning of the Egyptians "They [i.e. Israel] believed in
the Lord and in his servant Moses 3 ," quotes these words of
Jehoshaphat along with many other texts on "belief" or
"faith" but no other instance of the imperative. In the New
1 Mk XI. 22 f'xfTf TTia-Tiv 6(ov, Mt. XXI. 21 eav f
Lk. XVli. 6 ft f\fT TT'KTTLV coy KOKKOV (rivcnrews. Comp. Mt. XVli. 2O
f'nr e^r/Tf TT'KTTLV coy KOKKOV o-ivi'nrfats after the cure of the demoniac
boy (where the parall. Mk ix. 29 differs, and the parall. Lk. ix. 43
omits all words of Jesus).
2 2 Chr. xx. 20, on which see Ges.en. 53 a comparing Is. vii. 9
"if ye believe not firmly ye will not be confirmed," a play on 'DK
which in the passive means "confirmed" but in the causative "be-
lieve firmly."
3 Exod. xiv. 31 (see Mechilta). This is immediately followed by
the Song of Moses.
227 (Mark xi. 18 25(26)) 15 2
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
Testament we find one in the Fourth Gospel where Jesus says
to His disciples "Let not your heart be troubled. Believe in
God, believe also in me 1 ."
These words of Jesus immediately follow His saying to
Peter "The cock shall not crow till thou hast denied me thrice 2 ."
Mark also (not followed by Matthew) brings in Peter, just before
recording the precept "Have faith in God." But Mark repre-
sents Peter as speaking about the withered fig-tree. This, if
taken literally, leads us quite away from the thought in John.
But if it was originally metaphorical it leaves us free to suppose
that John is intervening to explain the thought at the bottom
of the Marcan original the thought that induced Luke here
to omit the episode of the fig-tree and to connect the uprooting
of a sycamine-tree with the forgiveness of sins 3 .
Let us assume the fig-tree to represent, in the original
tradition underlying Mark, the power of Mammon ruling in
the visible Temple, and let us suppose the abuses of the Temple
to have been suddenly, though only temporarily, suppressed
by Jesus and His followers. It would be quite natural that
such a momentary triumph really one of a startling character
as Origen says should be taken by the more sanguine among
Christ's disciples as a pledge of speedy success for all their
Master's plans and for the establishment of the Kingdom of
God on earth. Against such anticipations Jesus not being
Himself certain of the how and the when might naturally
warn them. They were too definite in their belief. They had
faith in the present, or in the morrow, or in the near future.
1 Jn xiv. i, on which see Joh. Gr. 2236 40. And to the reasons
there given for rendering the ambiguous Trto-reuere imperatively
add the paraphrase Of NonnuS, dAAa $ea> KCU e^ol -mar ever are.
2 Jn xiii. 38.
3 Lk. xvii. 6. This does not mention Peter. Nor does Lk. xvii. 5
"and the apostles said unto the Lord, Increase our faith." But if
we go back to Lk. xvii. 4 about forgiving seven times a day, we find
that it is parall. to Mt. xviii. 21 foil. "Peter said to him " This
indicates that the later Evangelists, as well as Mark, are dealing
with Petrine metaphor about the eradication of sin by forgiveness
in the narrative (in Mk-Mt.) or parable (in'Lk.) about a fig-tree.
228 (Markxi. 1825 (26))
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
Perhaps also they had faith in some miraculous intervention,
such as saved Israel under Moses at the Red Sea, and Judah
under Jehoshaphat in the wilderness of Tekoah. The sub-
Marcan tradition perhaps meant "You are not to have faith in
any such things, but only in God Himself."
If this was the meaning, it is obscurely expressed. The
deviations of Matthew and Luke from it point to a sense of its
obscurity. And Mark's context seems to contain an attempt
at explanation: "All things soever that ye pray for and ask,
believe that ye [have] received them and they shall be [done]
for you 1 ." But this might well seem to make the text more
difficult than e^er. For this promise can only be true, and
only ought to be true, with the proviso that men pray for that
which is according to the will of a righteous God. Without
such a caution, and read without attention to the curious past
tense ("believe that ye [have] received") the words encourage
superstition of the worst kind.
Luke omits these words of Mark. This he might do all the
more safely because elsewhere, when he represents Jesus as
saying "Ask, and it shall be given unto you," it is preceded, at
a short interval, by the Lord's Prayer, in which the first things
prayed for are the hallowing of God's name and the coming of
His Kingdom. This might be thought a sufficient guarantee
that importunate prayer was discouraged; yet in the interval
Luke gives a parable about a man asking a friend for three
loaves in the dead of night to entertain an unexpected guest,
and prevailing by mere persistence; and elsewhere another
parable about an unjust judge who redresses a wrong done to
a widow simply to avoid being wearied by her entreaties 2 .
These traditions about importunate prayer, peculiar to
Luke, lead us on from the thought of the Marcan "faith, or,
belief, in God" to the thought of the Marcan condition for
obtaining things prayed for ("believe that ye have received
1 Mk xi. 24.
2 Lk. xi. 9 "Ask, and it shall be given unto you"; xi. i 4 con-
tains the Lord's Prayer, xi. 5 8 describes the importunate friend.
Lk. xviii. i 8 describes the importunate widow.
229 (Mark xi. 18 25 (26))
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
them"). They make us reflect on Origen's observation that
there is "no vestige" in Mark of anything like what is meant
by the Lord's Prayer 1 . When Matthew introduces the Lord's
Prayer he prefixes to it a saying of Jesus which, according to
our English Versions, forbids "vain repetitions." Why does
Luke omit this? Did he believe that it was erroneously
expressed? And did he consequently insert his traditions
about the importunate friend and the widow to shew that all
"repetitions" in prayer were not forbidden by Jesus? It will
be convenient to touch on this point in considering the next
Marcan phrase "believe that ye [have] received."
18. "Believe that what he saith is coming to pass,"
and "Believe that ye [have] received," in Mark 2
In Mark, there are two statements of the condition for
success in prayer. The first is that a man should "believe that
what he saith is coming to pass." The second is " All things what-
soever ye pray for and ask, believe that ye [have] received [them] ,
and they shall be [done] for you." A form of the second is
reproduced in the parallel Matthew, but with a transposition
of the "receiving" that makes the s'aying easier and leaves
the object of the "believing" doubtful: " Whatsoever ye shall
ask in prayer, believing [?], ye shall receive." Both of these
are omitted by Luke. Luke has nothing of the nature of a
promise of the fulfilment of prayer except the unconditional
"Ask, and it shall be given you." This Luke has in common
with Matthew, and in a parallel to a passage in Matthew's
Sermon on the Mount, where Matthew after a warning against
the wrong kind of prayer and a statement of the right kind of
prayer returns abruptly to the subject of "asking" and
1 Orig. De Or at. Libell. l8. Zyrfjo-avTes fie KOI -rrapa ro> MdpKia
p,rj7TOTf \avBdvrj rjftds fj roiavrr) I(ro8vvap,ovo'a dvayeypap.^vr), ovd* 'i%vos
yKip.fvov Trpoo-cvxfjS evpopev.
2 Mk xi. 23 4 Mt. xxi. 22 Lk. om.
os av . . . TriarTevrj art rrcLVTa ocra av alrr]-
6 AaAet -ytWrat, eorat (rrjTf cv rfj
6Va
Km at-
230 (Mark xi. 18 25 (26))
on
eAa/3ere, KOL etrrat vp.lv.
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
" receiving" at the close of a collection of miscellaneous precepts,
mostly negative, as will be seen below :
Mt. vi. 5 foil. Lk. om.
[Against praying and fasting
amiss]
(5) And when ye pray, ye
shall not be as the hypocrites. . . .
(7) And in praying use not
vain repetitions, as the Gentiles
do ; for they think that they
shall be heard for their much
speaking. . . .
Mt. vi. 9 13 Lk. xi. i 4
[The Lord's Prayer]
(9) After this manner there- (i) And it came to pass...
fore pray ye, Our Father . . . teach us to pray, even as John
(13) ...into temptation, but alsp taught his disciples,
deliver us from the evil [one]. (2) And he said unto them,
When ye pray, say Father . . .
(4) ... into temptation.
Mt. vi. 14 15 Lk. om.
[About the duty of forgiving]
(14) For if ye forgive ' . . .
(15) But if ye forgive not. . . .
Mt. vi. 16 18 Lk. om.
[About the wrong and the right
kind of fasting]
Mt. vi. 19 34 Lk. xii. with passages from xi.
and xvi.
[Against avarice, evil desire, and worldly anxiety]
Mt. vii. i 5 Lk. vi. 37 8, 41 2
[Against fudging other s\
Mt. vii. 6 foil. Lk. xi. 8 foil.
[About asking]
(6) Give not that which is holy (After the Lord's Prayer and
unto the dogs . . . lest they ... the parable of the importunate
turn and rend you. borrower of loaves)
(7) Ask, and it shall be given (8) ... he will arise and give
you; seek, and ye shall find. ... him as many as he needeth.
(9) And I say unto you Ask,
and it shall be given you ; seek,
and ye shall find. . . .
1 Comp. Mk xi. 25 "Forgive. . .that also your Father in heaven
may forgive you. ..."
231 (Mark xi. 18 25 (26))
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
This final precept, coming in Matthew after many other
precepts addressed to Christ's disciples alone 1 , and in Luke
after the disciples have received from Him the Lord's Prayer,
clearly means "Ask thus," "Ask, as my disciples," or "Ask, in
the spirit of the prayer that I have given you" Yet, taken by
itself, it might encourage nominal Christians to ask in a spirit
of selfishness for whatever they liked; and there was some
danger that Luke's peculiar parables about the success of
importunate petitioners might have the same effect.
It might be urged that the prohibition in Matthew " Use
not vain repetitions" would prevent such an abuse of prayer 2 .
1 "Alone," that is, not to the "multitudes" below, who do not
ascend the mountain because, as Origen and Jerome concur in saying
(on Mt. v. i), " turbae ascendere non valent," (Lomm. hi. 74) els TO opos
. . . fv&a ov% oioi re ycrav ot 0^X01 yevtcrOai.
2 Mt. VI. 7 Trpoo-fvxop-fvoi Se p.r) /SarraXo-y^o-^re, D /SXarroXoy^o-j/rai,
d " vana loquimini," Latt. codd. " multum loqui " [but in Lk. xi. 2 D
has /3arroXoyeirf, d " multum loqui"] Curet. "be babbling." But SS
has "saying idle [things] battdlathd" to render QaTraXoyeiv. Battdld
or battdlathd occurs again in Curet. and SS of Mt. xii. 36 " every idle
word" to render Gk apyov, and Thes. Syr. 509 foil, gives abundant
instances of its use to represent dpyov, Korapyeco etc.
In Greek literature, /SarraXoyeco can hardly be said to exist.
No instance of it is given before Simplicius (in 6th century) (in Comm.
Epict. Ench. 37, Schweig. p. 340, where it is spelt /SarroXoye'w) . Origen
spells the word ,3u7-ToX6yea> as if from Xe'yw, and he says (De Or at. 21)
that we are guilty of battologia when we pray in a hap-hazard and
worldly fashion for worldly things. This suits neither etymology
nor Matthew's context.
If it were derived from the Hebrew and Aramaic bdtal in the
sense of "cease," "intermit," it might mean "slacken," in the sense
of slackening one's thoughts in prayer, as the Aboth iv. 14 warns us
against ''slackening, (or idling] from the Law." Also Levy i. 212 a
gives forms of bdtal as meaning "futile," "futility" etc. According
to Steph. Thes. (ii. 195 6, which perhaps a little exaggerates)
Hesych. identifies /SttrroXoyai' with ParTapifciv. Now $arrapi(fiv
is used by Cicero (ad Att. vi. 5) to mean "talk incoherently." This
suggests that two causes may have been at work in creating and
interpreting Matthew's tradition. Hebrew or Aramaic influence
would suggest the meaning "worthless stuff," Greek influence would
suggest "incoherent stammering." Jesus, before giving His disciples
a very short prayer, may have warned them against using it, or any
232 (Mark xi. 182.5 (2( ))
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
But Matthew's peculiar word forbidding the abuse (battalogein)
is of doubtful meaning according as one emphasizes "vain" or
"repetition." It may forbid (i) prayer that is idle, futile,
listless babbling, or (2) prayer that is earnest, intense, reiteration
of attempts to "weary" the Supreme ("weary" is the Horatian
word) 1 into conformity with our desires. Matthew may have
taken one view of the word, Luke another. Luke nowhere
inserts a prohibition of battalogia. Luke also joins Mark else-
where in a saying that condemns the scribes for "making long
prayers in pretence," where the parallel Matthew omits the
sentence that contains this accusation 2 . Possibly therefore
Matthew regarded Christ's precept as meaning, by implication,
"Pray not with slackness, or intermission," "Pray without
intermission."
If this was at the bottom of Christ's precept we may infer
that its essential meaning was carried on by Paul in his precept
to the Thessalonians "Pray without ceasing," about which
Origen frankly confesses that once, when he read it, he asked
how it could possibly be fulfilled; and discussing it in several
passages, he concludes that a spiritual rather than a temporal
"ceasing" is contemplated, and that the whole of the Christian's
life, even eating, drinking, and sleeping, may be regarded as a
stream of prayer, offered to God's glory 3 .
If Paul's precept "pray without ceasing (or, intermission) " is
a vernacular Greek rendering of the Aramaic Greek in Matthew
" when ye pray, do not intermit, or remit, or utter loose futilities ,"
this might be expressed positively in literary Greek by a word
prayer, as a mere string of incantations, repeated from morning till
evening like (i K. xviii. 26) "O Baal, hear us ! "
1 Hor. Odes, i. ii. 26:
2 Mk xii. 40, Lk. xx. 47, omitted by Mt. after Mt. xxiii. 7 which
is parall. to Mk xii. 38 9.
3 i Thess. v. 17, Orig. Horn. Sam. i. 9 (Lomm. xi. 304 5),
"Ego cum legerem aliquando apud Apostolum quod dixit 'sine
inter mi ssione orate,' quaerebam si praeceptum hoc possibile esset
impleri," comp. ib. 381 (on Ps. i. 2 "in his law doth he meditate
day and night") and De Oral. 12, 22 " Let the whole of our prayer-
ful life say without ceasing, 'Our Father that is in heaven.' "
233 (Mark xi. 18 25 (26))
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
that signifies "tensely" or "intensely" as opposed to "loosely,"
applied to prayer by Luke in the Acts and perhaps but the
passage is doubtful in his Gospel 1 . This last doubtful passage,
if it is genuine, corresponds to the context of one in Mark and
Matthew where Jesus "prayed saying the same words" ; and, if
it is not genuine, it leaves a blank in Luke indicating that he did
not accept any tradition at all to the effect that Jesus repeated
a prayer or uttered a prayer with new intensity. This adds one
more to many passages shewing incompleteness in Mark, and
divergence between Matthew and Luke, as to Christ's doctrine
of prayer. We have now to consider how, if at all, John inter-
venes.
19. Johannine Intervention
The Johannine intervention is in part dramatic. Jesus
Himself thrice addresses the Father in language of prayer or of
thanksgiving for answered prayer. In the first instance, Jesus
says, at the grave of Lazarus, "Father, I thank thee that thou
heardest me] and I knew that thou hearest me always 2 ." This
accords with Origen's view that Jesus regards life itself as a
stream of unceasing prayer ; for He has not prayed aloud, but
it is implied that He has prayed and that the Father heard
Him. Also it accords with the tradition peculiar to Mark
"Believe that ye [have} received." Jesus thanks God for some-
thing not future but past, "thou heardest me." In t the second
instance, after Jesus has enunciated the doctrine of the grain
of wheat and of life through death, He exclaims, "Now is my
soul troubled, and what shall I say? [Shall I say] Father, save
me from this hour? [Nay], but for this cause came I, unto this
hour. Father, glorify thy name 3 ." The previous prayer was
uttered in silence. This is uttered aloud, in one brief phrase.
The next is a very long prayer rivalling in length the Old
Testament prayers of Daniel and Nehemiah and justifying the
wise saying of R. Eliezer, who said that there was a time for long
1 Acts xii. 5 fKTevais, comp. ib. xxvi. 7 cKTcvdq, and Lk. xxii. 44
2 Jn xi. 41 2. 3 Jn xii. 278.
, 234 (Mark xi. 18 25 (26))
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
prayers as well as for short ones 1 . It is a prayer of the Son to
the Father that the disciples may be one as the Father and the
Son are one, and may be kept from evil and sanctified and per-
fected in the divine unity. There is no mention of sin, as there
is in the Synoptic traditions about prayer, but it is implied in
the words "that thou shouldest keep them from the evil [one] 2 /'
In this long prayer there is no mention of any promise of
fulfilment in reply to that asking which Mark connects with
prayer ("whatsoever ye pray for and ask"). Nor does it occur
in the earlier part of the Fourth Gospel, for the promise cannot
be given till Judas has gone out from the disciples. Then and
not till then does Jesus say to them, after predicting His own
departure, "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples
if ye have love one to another," and, a little afterwards, "He
that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also, and
greater works than these shall he do, because I go unto the
Father. And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will 1 do . . .
If ye shall ask [me] anything in my name I will do it 3 ."
The "greater works" are manifestly the works of the Gospel.
They imply the saving of souls and the forgiving of sins 4 . Mark
connects the forgiving of sins with the moral of the withering
of the fig-tree. But it is manifest that "works," in John, do
not point to such a material miracle. It is also manifest that
whatever the disciples ask in Christ's "name" is supposed to
be asked (so to speak) in His voice, or person, as is implied also
in the words, " If ye abide in me and my words abide in you,
ask whatsoever ye will and it shall be done unto you " ; and this,
in substance, is reiterated later on 5 . These passages clear away
the obscurity of the Marcan tradition about " believing " that one
1 See Mechilt. on Exod. xiv. 15, and xv. 25, Wii. pp. 93 and 148 9.
The prayers framed by ancient Rabbis for very special occasions are
called (Berach. Mishn. iv. 2 and 5) "short."
2 Jn xvii. 15. 3 Jn xiii. 35, xiv. 12 14.
4 Not that works of healing would be excluded, but they would
not be characterized as "greater works" in such a context.
5 Jn xv. 7, comp. ib. 16, and xvi. 23, 24, 26. The same doctrine
is repeated in i Jn iii. 22, v. 14. See Joh. Gr. 2536 on
2630 a I on epooraco.
235 (Mark xi. 18 25 (26))
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
" has received." It was Mark's way of expressing an intense belief
in a Supreme and Righteous Will, of whom the Jews used to'
say "He spake and it was done." The disciples of Christ were
to pray for such things alone as were in accordance with that
Will. What they prayed for in that faith would in some way
(though not perhaps in any way exactly conceived by them)
be ultimately accomplished 1 .
20. " Whensoever ye stand praying," in Mark 2
The Greek stekein here used for stand is not alleged in the
Thesaurus to occur earlier than this passage of Mark 3 . In LXX
it occurs thrice (always with various readings) to represent
severally the Hebrew "stand still," "rest firmly," and "stand 4 ."
Paul uses it in military metaphor as of soldiers on guard " Watch
ye, stand in the faith, quit you like men 5 , be strong," adding
however "Let all that ye do be done in love," as if to suggest
that "love" is the main part of the soldier's panoply. In the
Epistle to the Ephesians ("stand therefore") the Greek literary
imperative is used 6 . But in the earlier Epistles stekein occurs
several times and always probably with a suggestion of standing
fast against an enemy and for the cause of Christ 7 .
1 It is implied in 2 Cor. xii. 8 that prayer also taught the person
praying to shape his will to God's will. Comp. Mk x. 30 "with
persecutions" (not in parall. Mt.-Lk.) and Jn xvi. 33 "in the world
ye [must] have tribulation," both of which strike at the notion that
prayer could secure a reward "after the flesh"."
2 Mk xi. 25 orav or^Kere 7rpocrv^6p.vot^ d(piT f't n f'x eT *ara TLVOS.
3 See, however, H. van Herwerden's Lexicon Suppletorium
P- 759> quoting a pagan inscription os Trore. . .ecrra^ev (=m7<rev)
'Eppfjv, VVV O-TTJKO) (=(TTT]K.a).
4 Exod. xiv. 13 A o-Tr)KT (B a-TrJTe) IV hithp., Judg. xvi. 26 (of
a house resting (}13 ni.) on pillars) B <TT^K (A eVeo-r^i*), i K. viii.
ii "the priests were not able to stand (11DJJ) (B OT^KI>, A o-r^i/ot)
to minister."
5 i Cor. xvi. 13 "Quit you like men (avdpifco-Of)," comp. i S. iv. 9,
2 S. x. 12, encouragement before battle.
6 Eph. vi. 14 oTTjre ovv followed by the description of the
Christian's armour.
7 Gal. v. i rfj c\ev0piq . . . orr)KT . . . implies a conflict, and Phil,
i. 27 ort a-TrjKfTc fv <$\ Tri>vpaTi is followed by a mention of "adver-
236 (Mark xi. 1825 (26))
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
The Pauline usage points to the conclusion that the Marcan
tradition may be based on some early tradition about " standing "
not understood by Matthew and Luke. It leads us to seek some
Biblical precedent bearing on "standing" -during prayer. The
earliest is one about Abraham, "But Abraham stood yet before
the Lord 1 ." Here both Onkelos and the Jerusalem Targum
paraphrase "stood" as "ministered in prayer," and the context
implies intercessional prayer 2 . "Stand and pray," especially
when expressed by a Jew through the Greek stekein, might
mean prayers not necessarily uttered for oneself, but often for
others such prayers as Paul and (doubtless) all the Apostles
habitually used for those whom they had converted or hoped
to convert 3 .
A prayer of this kind seems indicated here, by the Marcan
context about the Temple as being a den of robbers, and about
the withering of the fig-tree and the uprooting of "this
mountain." The Apostles are being taught to pray for the
Church and for the souls of men. And the words "stand
praying" suggest not only the Jewish custom of standing for
prayer, but also the precedent of Abraham not indeed standing
at any visible altar, but interceding, with an offering of prayer
and praise, between Sodom and "the Judge of all the world"
who is not exempt from the necessity that He must "do right 4 ."
Matthew and Luke have omitted this ancient allusion.
saries"; Phil. iv. i o-r^xerf eV Kvpia> is followed by a warning against
discord, and i Thess. hi. 8 tav vpds fn^KfTf tv <vpi(o is followed at
some distance by a metaphor of the Christian's armour (v. 8). But
2. Thess. ii. 15 is of the nature of a mannerism, without any special
connection.
1 Gen. xviii. 22.
2 Gen. xviii. 22 Onk. "And Abraham yet ministered in prayer
before the Lord," Jer. Targ. "And Abraham now besought mercy
for Lot and ministered in prayer before the Lord."
3 See HOY. Heb. on Mt. vi. 5 and Gesen. 763 on *ioy meaning
standing before Jehovah for intercession Gen. xix. 27, Deut. iv. 10,
Jerem. xv. i, xviii. 20 etc. Comp. Heb. x. n "every priest...
standeth day by day. .offering the same sacrifices," Deut. x. 8
"to stand before the Lord to minister unto him" (comp. ib. xviii. 7).
4 Gen. xviii. 25 "shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? "
237 (Mark xi. 1825 (26))
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
Not that they were ignorant of the technical Jewish use of
'stand," but perhaps they wished to avoid it as unintelligible
to Gentiles or as implying a Jewish formalism. At all events
Matthew elsewhere describes formal Pharisees who love to
pray ''standing" in the synagogues 1 . Luke, too, describes
both a Publican and a Pharisee as going up to the Temple to
pray, and both as ''standing" though with a difference 2 .
Neither Matthew nor Luke, however, uses the strong Marcan
word 3 .
1 Mt. vi. 5.
2 Lk. XVlii. II 6 3>apioralos (TTadcls . . .ib. 13 6 5e Tf\a>vr]s fj.a<p60ev
CO-TCDS. . .The former participle perhaps implies more formality than
the latter. The sinner, who feels himself to be "far off," does not
" take up his stand." If so, p.a<p66fi> emphasizes the distinction.
3 It should be added that Matthew has a tradition that verbally
resembles the one in Mark, as follows (v. 23 4) : " If therefore thou
art offering thy gift at the altar, and there rememberest that thy
brother hath aught against thee (e^ei Kara o-oG), leave (0es) there thy
gift before the altar, and go thy way, first be reconciled to thy
brother, and then come and offer thy gift." 'A$iVre in Mark (xi. 25
Kara. TLVOS] means "leave," " let go," or "remit," and
means "have aught against some one." It has been
shewn (From Letter 1066 and Son 3353 (iv) g) that a^/zi is adopted
into late Hebrew and ambiguous, so that afas might be used in
Aramaic to mean "let it be," or "give it up," in more than one sense.
Jerome says about Mt. v. 23 "Non dixit, Si tu habes aliquid
ad versus fratrem tuum, sed si f rater tuus habet aliquid adversum
te ut durior reconciliationis tibi imponatur necessitas." Prof.
Burkitt says that Aphraates quotes twice "that against thy brother
thou hast aught of enmity." This raises the question of the relation
between Mt. and Mk in their several traditions about (i<pe<ris. Not
improbably Mark's was the earlier, dealing with the question "If
thou hast anything against thy brother," Matthew's a later and
supplementary one dealing with the question "If thy brother hath
anything against thee." Jesus, in His doctrine, was mainly occupied
in teaching His disciples how to forgive, not how to be forgiven.
Mark may have regarded the precept as meaning*" When you are
standing and on the point of offering up the sacrifice of prayer, give 'up
all angry thought or desire of vengeance against your neighbour." But
another Evangelist might add words to explain that the "standing"
was as it were before an altar, and that the prayer was of the nature
of a "gift" or "offering" on the altar, and that the offering must be
238 (Mark xi. 18 25 (26))
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
Possibly John thought that the word ought to have a place
in the Christian vocabulary as representing the erect, active,
and intercessory attitude of Christian prayer. At all events
the word is attributed to John the Baptist testifying about
Jesus, "In the midst of you there standeth one whom ye know
not. . .the latchet of whose shoe I am not worthy to unloose 1 ."
Now the next sentence of the Baptist's testimony is "Behold,
the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world' 2 ." The
thought is in itself not unnatural, that the Evangelist sees a
connection between this strong word for "standing" as applied
to a priest or intercessor, and the sacrificial "lamb." And this
"given up" (i.e. "desisted from") till the evil thought against one's
neighbour was banished. Then Matthew may have paraphrased
the latter part as implying a departure from the altar to the neighbour
(who is presumed to be the injured party) for the purpose of recon-
ciliation.
Hor. Heb. (on Mt. v. 24) puts the argument against the literal in-
terpretation thus : The offended brother might perhaps be absent
in the furthest parts of the land of Israel. The argument for it he
puts thus : It was the custom to defer private sacrifices to the
feast next following, and "all the Israelites were present at the
feasts, and any brother against whom one had sinned was not then
far from the altar."
But even if the brother was "not far," he would be busy with his
own sacrifices, and hardly at leisure to hear fully and satisfactorily
what the offender had to say. And besides, what if the offended
brother refused unreasonably to be reconciled ? Was the offerer still
to "leave there the gift before the altar"?
Wetstein (on Mt.) quotes Pesach. iii. 7 on' the question "What is
an Israelite to do, if he suddenly recollects, when on the point of
some important business, e.g. the circumcision of his son, that he
has not destroyed the leaven in his house?" The answer is, "Let
him return and do it, if possible. If not, let him destroy it in his
heart." In this spirit, the precept "be reconciled" might inculcate
reconciliation, at once in will and intention, and as soon as possible
in act and material compensation.
Delitzsch in Mt. v. 23 gives the Heb. as TI3...B" "there is
against." But Wetst. quotes Koheleth iv. 13, Schir R. i. 4 ty...g
and so Heb. Clem.). I can find nothing in Levy.
1 Jn i. 26 7. Two of the best MSS (BL\ have o-r^i.
2 Jn i. 29.
239 (Mark xi. 18 25 (26))
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
is confirmed by Revelation, which introduces the Lamb in this
attitude: "I saw in the midst of the throne and of the four
living creatures, and in the midst of the elders, a Lamb standing,
as though it had been slain...' 1 -." Origen, when quoting the
Johannine "there standeth," habitually uses the ordinary word
for "standing," not the Marcan one. He takes the Johannine
"standing in- the midst" as signifying the divine and stedfast
influence of the Word of Life in the midst of the Universe and
extending through the whole of it 2 . But the incorrectness of his
reading invalidates his interpretation. A fair case appears to
be made out for the conclusion that John revived the Marcan
and Pauline word, discarded by most early Christian writers 3 , in
order to represent the intercessory attitude of Jesus, revealed
as the Lamb of God to the last of the prophets of Israel 4 .
1 Rev. v. 6 "standing (eVrr/Kos-)." Sr^o) could not be expected,
as it does not occur in N.T. except in Paul, Mark, and John. In
Mk iii. 31 eo> o-r^/coires where most MSS have aravrfs Or eo-r?? /cores
or eWoorts there is perhaps a suggestion of the meaning " they [reso-
lutely] stood outside," as being outside the circle of the disciples (see
below, p. 629, n. 2).
2 Origen ad IOC. (Lomm. i. 234) 7rpoTjyovp.eva>s /uei/ ovv earrjKfv 6
Trarrip. . .eo-rrjKf Se KOI 6 Aoyos avrov del ev r<a <ra>(iv. He quotes Jn i. 26
very frequently, but I have not found him reading 0-7*77 K a i/ except
in Cels. ii. 9 (Cels. v. 12 has eo-rrjKfv).
3 Goodspeed does not contain 0-7-77* &>.
4 It must be admitted, however, that the last part of the Marcan
precept passes into the region of congregational prayer ("forgive us
our trespasses") as distinct from intercessory prayer ("forgive all
sinners their trespasses"). Compare the mixture of traditions at
the end of the Way of Light in Barnabas 19 : "Thou shalt utterly
hate the evil one. Thou shalt judge justly. Thou shalt not make
schism, but shalt make peace (elp^veva-fis) by bringing together
contending [parties] (^a-^o^vovs o-wayayav). Thou shalt make
confession over (eVi) thy sins. Thou shalt not draw near (IT poo-^eis)
to prayer with (eV) an evil conscience." The Didache, 4, in the
corresponding section on the Way of Life, after some clauses similar
to these, ends thus: "In the Church (ev e^A^o-ia) shalt thou confess
thy transgressions (TrapaTrrco^ara), and thou shalt not approach
(7rpocrf\fv(Tfi) to thy prayer with (eV) an evil conscience." Later on
the Didache has 14 "On the Lord's Day [the day] of the Lord,
being gathered together, break bread and give thanks
240 (Mark xi. 18 25 (26))
JESUS VISITS THE TEMPLE
having before confessed your sins that your sacrifice may be pure.
But as for every one that holds to his quarrel (TTOS Sf ex 40 " T *l v apfa-
@o\iav) with his neighbour (traipov) let him not come together with
you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice be not made common
(KoivatBfj). For this [sacrifice] is that which is spoken of by the
Lord : In every place and time (xpovu) to offer (irpoo-fapeiv) to me
sacrifice" (comp. Mai. i. n).
These passages shew that at an early period there might be a
transference to the Christian Eucharist, and to Christian Prayer, of
language derived from the sacrificial altar in the Jewish Temple.
A - F - 241 (Mark xi. 18 25 (26)) 16
CHAPTER VI
JESUS "WALKING" IN THE TEMPLE
[Mark xi. 27 xii. 44]
i. John on the "walking" of Jesus 1
THE "walking" of Jesus mentioned here by Mark alone is
expressed as "teaching" and as "teaching and preaching the
1 Mk xi. 27 33
(R.V.)
(27) And they
come again to Jeru-
salem: and as he
was walking in the
temple, there come to
him the chief priests,
and the scribes, and
the elders;
(28) And they
said unto him, By
what authority doest
chou these things ?
or who gave thee
Jiis authority to do
these things?
(29) And Jesus
said unto them, I
will ask of you one
question (lit. word),
and answer me, and
I will tell you by
what authority I do
these things.
(30) The baptism
of John, was it from
heaven, or from men ?
answer me.
(31) And they
reasoned with them-
Mt. xxi. 23 7
(R.V.)
(23) And when he
was come into the
temple, the chief
priests and the elders
of the people came
unto him as he was
teaching, and said,
By what authority
doest thou these
things ? and who gave
thee this authority ?-
(24) And Jesus
answered and said
unto them, I also
will ask you one
question (lit. word),
which if ye tell me,
I likewise will tell you
by what authority I
do these things.
(25) The baptism
of John, whence was
it? from heaven or
from men ? And they
reasoned with them-
selves, saying, If we
shall say, From
heaven; he will say
unto us, Why then
Lk. xx. i 8
(R.V.)
(i) And it came
to pass, on one of
the days, as he was
teaching the people
in the temple, and
preaching the gospel,
there came upon him
the chief priests and
the scribes with the
elders ;
(2) Andtheyspake,
saying unto him, Tell
us": By what author-
ity doest thou these
things ? or who is he
that gave thee this
authority ?
(3) And he an-
swered and said unto
them, I also will ask
you a question (lit.
word) ; and tell me.
(4) The baptism
of John, was it from
heaven, or from
men?
(5) And they
reasoned with them-
selves, saying, If we
242 (Mark xi. 27 33)
JESUS "WALKING" IN THE TEMPLE
gospel," severally, by the parallel Matthew and Luke 1 . It has
been shewn in Proclamation that Luke nowhere describes Jesus
as " walking," and that he may have had objections to the word
because of its Greek associations, but that John emphasizes
what Luke omits and draws out of the word mystical meanings
rooted in Hebrew thought 2 . At the same time attention was
called to a passage in Notes, discussing the Hebrew conception
of what may be called, not the "immanence," but the "in-
ambulance," of God 3 . This is based on the Promise in Leviticus
"I will set my tabernacle among you. . .and / will walk to and
fro among you, and will be your God, and ye shall be my people,"
where, as a substitute for "walk to and fro," Onkelos has
Mk xi. 27 33
(R.V.) contd.
selves, saying, If we
shall say, From
heaven ; he will say,
Why then did ye not
believe him?
(32) But should
we say, From men
(or, But shall we say,
From men?) they
feared the people :
for all verily held
John to be a prophet
(or, for all held John
to be a prophet in-
deed).
(33) And they
answered Jesus and
say, We know not.
And Jesus saith unto
them, Neither tell I
you by what author-
ity I do these things.
1 Mk xi. 27
Kai p)(OVTCU
els lepocroXvpa. Kai eV
avrov f'pxovrai Trpbs av-
TOI> o
ol ypa/JL/jLare s
ol
.Mt. xxi. 2} 7
(R.V.) contd.
did ye not believe
him?
(26) But if we
shall say, From men ;
we fear the multi-
tude; for all hold
John as a prophet.
(27) And they
answered Jesus, and
said, We know not.
He also said unto
them, Neither tell I
you by what author-
ity I do these things.
Mt. xxi. 23 a
Kai fXtiovros avrov
fh TO lepbv Trpoo-rj\6av
aVTCO 8l8do~KOVTi OL dp^lf-
pels Kcii ol 7rpecr/3urepot
rou Xaov . . .
Lk. xx. i 8
(R.V.) contd.
shall say, From
heaven ; he will say,
Why did ye not be-
lieve him?
(6) But if we
shall say, From men ;
all the people will
stone us : for they
be persuaded that
John was a prophet.
(7) And they
answered, that they
knew not whence [it
was].
(8) And Jesus said
unto them, Neither
tell I you by what
authority I do these
things.
Lk. xx. i
Kai eyevfTo ev p.iq
TO)V T)fMfpO)V O~l8do- KOVTOS
avrov TOV \abv ev r<w
iep(> KCU
7reo-Tr)o-av ol
Kal ol a.fj.aTfls o~vv
rols
2 Proclam. pp. 13 17.
3 See Origen Horn. Genes, i 13 (Lomm. viii. 122) "in hoc non solum
inhabitat Deus sed etiam inambulat."
243 (Mark xi. 27 33) 16 2
JESUS "WALKING "IN THE TEMPLE
"I will make my Shechinah to dwell" and the Jerusalem
Targum "I will make the glory of my Shechinah to dwell 1 ."
Paul briefly summarizes this promise: "We are a sanctuary
of the living God: even as God said, / will dwell in them and
walk in them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my
people 2 ." Rashi says that "set my tabernacle" refers to "the
House of the Sanctuary," and that "I will walk among you"
refers to "walking in Paradise," where Israelites will walk
not fearing and "hiding themselves" from God like Adam and
Eve 3 . But in ancient Jewish tradition the Targums indicate
that "walking" was paraphrased as little more than a repetition
of "dwelling," and the Indices to the Talmuds and Midrash
contain few or no references to the Levitical "walking 4 ."
The only reference to it that I have found is one in the
Midrash on Lamentations which adds the Levitical promise to
the long list of divine promises that will not be fulfilled if Israel
is faithless. Thus the conception of God as ceasing to "walk"
in Israel would be parallel to the conception of God's heavenly
"tabernacle," or Shechinah, as gradually withdrawing itself
from the Temple. Of this there were recognised in Jewish
tradition ten stages 5 .
In John, we find a somewhat different conception. He first
describes the Logos as making His "tabernacle" among men 6 .
Then He is described thrice as " walking " (besides walking
1 See Notes 2998 (xxviii) / foil, quoting Lev. xxvi. n 12 where
LXX has e/zTrepiTTor^a-a) v vp.lv, but ev /leVcp vp&v would be a more
literal rendering of DDSirQ.
2 2 Cor. vi. 16 "I will dwell in them," evoiKrjo-w eV avrols. LXX
has SiaOrjKrjv, for O-K^V^V (which is read by F).
3 Gen. iii. 8.
4 The ref. to Lev. xxvi. 12 in Schwab's Index to Jer. Talmud
is a misprint. There is no ref. to Lev. xxvi. 12 in the vols hitherto
publ. (1916) of Goldschmidt's Bab. Talm. Wiinsche's vols of Midrash
refer only to Echo, Introd. Wii. p. n.
5 See Schottg. ii. 470, and Wagenseil's Sota p. 938 foil. quoting
Sabb. 15 a and Rosch. Hasch. 31 a also Rashi on Ezek. ix. 3, and
Joseph. Bell. vi. 5. 3.
6 Jn i. 14 fo-Krjvuo-fv, not in N.T. elsewhere except 4 times in Rev.,
where see vii. 15, xxi. 3.
244 (Mark xi. 27 33)
JESUS "WALKING" IN THE TEMPLE
once on the sea). First, beyond Jordan 1 , the Baptist "looking-
stedfastly.on Jesus walking, saith, Behold, the Lamb of God 2 ."
Secondly, He "walks" in Galilee, where the context implies
a previous hostility in Judaea: "And after these things Jesus
was walking in Galilee; for he would not [any longer] walk in
Judaea because the Jews were seeking to kill him 3 ." Thirdly,
"Jesus was walking in the temple in Solomon's porch" ; and the
result of this is an attempt of the Jews to stone Him, after
which He "went forth out of their hand, and went away again
beyond Jordan into the place where John was at the first
baptizing 4 ." After this, Jesus does not return to Judaea till
the time comes for the raising of Lazarus. When this produces
no result on the rulers except increased desire to kill Him, the
word is used negatively thus : "Jesus therefore would no longer
walk openly among the Jews, but departed thence into the
country near to the wilderness 5 ."
Henceforth, there is no mention of Christ's ever coming to
the Temple or teaching in it. The Jews, before the last Pass-
over, "as they stood in the temple," ask one another whether
He will "come to the feast," and " when they heard that Jesus
was coming to Jerusalem " went forth to meet Him as He rode
publicly into the city 6 . John describes the riding, and a
discourse of Jesus, presumably in the Temple, but does not
mention the Temple. There is also an arrival of "certain
Greeks," who had " come up to worship at the feast," presumably
in the Temple, and a Voice from heaven, and several utterances
from Jesus all presumably in the Temple and then a final
warning and a departure: "Jesus therefore said unto them,
Yet a little while is the light among you. Walk while ye have the
light .... While ye have the light, believe on the light, that ye may
become sons of light. These things spake Jesus and departed
and was hidden from them 7 ." All this apparently takes place
while Jesus is doing what Mark describes as "walking in the
1 Jn i. 28. 2 Jn i. 36.
3 Jn vii. i. 4 Jn x. 23, 31, 3940.
5 Jn xi. 54. 6 Jn xi. 56, xii. 12 13.
7 Jn xii. 35 6, where R.V. has txt " hid himself," marg. " was
hidden," see Joh. Gr. 2538 43.
245 (Mark xi. 27 33)
JESUS "WALKING" IN THE TEMPLE
temple." Yet the Temple, throughout this narrative, is not
mentioned by John.
In the passage last quoted, "was hidden" and "hid himself"
are given as alternatives, and it is not easy to follow the
Johannine thought. Concerning the same verb applied to
Adam and Eve, when they" hid themselves " (LXX " were hidden ")
because they "heard the voice of the Lord God walking" in
paradise Origen refers to passages in the Pentateuch about
the Lord tabernacling or walking in Israel, and declares that
the "walking" is of a spiritual nature 1 . Possibly John is
alluding to the same Hebrew passages. The Word or Son of
the Lord God, the Light of the world, is "walking" as Light
before the sons of Adam in the Temple at Jerusalem, exhorting
them to walk as children of light, but they will not obey. They
constrain Him to hide Himself from them, or they hide Him
from themselves expressed in either way, the spiritual mean-
ing is the same by their love of darkness. Rejecting the
Shechinah, or divine Glory, that constitutes the true Temple,
the Jews are virtually fulfilling the words of Jesus "Destroy
this temple (or, sanctuary)"; and when Jesus "departed and
was hidden from them," He takes the last vestige of its holiness
with Him. Some feeling of this kind in John may perhaps
explain why he omits all mention of the Temple just at that
point in Christ's career at which all the Synoptists repeatedly
mention it and describe it as the scene of His continuous and
final teaching. The reason is that the Fourth Evangelist has
by this time given up (so to speak) the Temple of stone and is
fixing his gaze on the Temple of the Spirit. Hence, where the
Synoptists see Jesus leaving the visible Temple of the Jews for
the last time, John sees the invisible Temple departing from
the nation for ever.
1 Origen De Orat. 23 (Lomm. xvii. 180). He says that the
"hiding" also was of a spiritual nature: "It is not said that really
(read on oWoo? for on OVT&S) ' they desired to be hidden,' but [that] really
(oi/rws) they were hidden" (i.e. hidden by their sins from the eyes of
Him who will not look on iniquity). Origen quotes here as from
"Deuteronomy" (xxiii. 14) what in Comm. Matth. x. 15 he quotes
more correctly from "Leviticus" (xxvi. 12).
246 (Mark xi. 27 33)
JESUS "WALKING" IN THE TEMPLE
In the Synoptists, the first of the subjects of Christ's final
teaching is introduced by the question "By what authority doest
thou these things ? " This corresponds to the Johannine question
following the Purification of the Temple " What sign shewest
thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things 1 ?" In the
Synoptists, Jesus meets this question by another, "The baptism
of John, was it from heaven?" This the Synoptists have
described as a device for the purpose of silencing the questioners,
because they were afraid to say yes or no. But it may also
have a deeper meaning: "What do you mean by 'authority'?
You would believe in a Messiah on the ' authority ' of a sign in
heaven, or on the 'authority' of a prophet such as John the
Baptist, if you accepted John as ' a prophet as one of the
prophets 2 .' But it is necessary to believe in a Messiah, if at
all, on His own 'authority,' as the result of the influence from
His Spirit, a moral more than an intellectual influence, flowing
into the heart and not merely convincing the mind against
the will."
Two defects appear on the surface of the Synoptic narrative.
First, it gives us no definition, or clear suggestion, of the nature
of the " authority " of the Messiah. Secondly, it might give some
the impression that those who believed in the Messiah on the
authority of the Baptist would have had an adequate belief. To
remedy these defects is an integral part of the object of the
Fourth Gospel. At the outset it tells us that John the Baptist
was emphatically " a human being " or "man " that is to say,
" man, not God, like the Logos 3 "not "the light" but sent to
testify "concerning the light "; and that the Word, or Life, or
Light, gave to those who received Him "authority" to become
children of God 4 . Later on, Jesus says that He has testimony
greater than that of John, 'that John was a mere "lamp"
preparatory to the dawn 5 . Jesus also appeals to the testimony
of the Father and the Son (as being analogous to that of the
1 Mk xi. 28, Mt. xxi. 23, Lk. xx. 2, Jn ii. 18.
2 Mk vi. 15.
3 See Joh. Gr. 2277 " avQpaiirns is contrasted with A.6yos."
4 Jn i. 6 12. 5 Jn v. 33 6.
247 (Mark xi. 27 33)
JESUS "WALKING" IN THE TEMPLE
"two human beings" or "men," required in the Law) in such
a way as to dispel the notion that a mere sign from heaven, or
mere "authority" on earth, could produce the belief that He
desires 1 . Toward the end of the Gospel John brings his indirect
exposition dramatically to a close in a dialogue where Jesus
corrects Pilate for saying " I have authority to crucify thee and
have authority to release thee 2 ."
According to this view the transition from the question "By
what authority?" to the question "Whence came the baptism
of John ? " was not a mere counter-device of Jesus to meet the
devices of His adversaries. It meant that if they did not
recognise the moral and spiritual force of John's testimony it
followed that they would not recognise the nature of divine
testimony or the nature of the divine authority to which the
Baptist was sent to testify. The Baptist, like Isaiah, believing
in God as the Husbandman of Israel, had said to the rulers of
Israel "Bring forth fruit worthy of repentance," and he warned
them not to be content to reply, "We have Abraham for our
father 3 ." But according to the Fourth Gospel some of them
did, in effect, make this reply 4 . Those who made it had
virtually closed their eyes to spiritual light. How could they
see the incarnate Righteousness of God, if they did not know
the meaning of that true righteousness which Abraham their
ancestor had in view w'hen he said "Shall not the Judge of all
the earth do right 5 ? "
1 Jn viii. 17 18. Comp. Deut xvii. 6.
2 Jn xix. 10 1 1 . See the Index on " Authority " in Proclamation,
and especially p. 174 foil, on "Authority and the spirit of sonship,
in John."
3 Mt. iii. 9, Lk. iii. 8 "We have Abraham as our father."
4 Jn viii. 33 "We are Abraham's seed," ib. 39 "Our father is
Abraham."
5 Gen. xviii. 25.
(Mark xi. 27 33)
JESUS "WALKING" IN THE TEMPLE
2. The parable of the murderous husbandmen*
In the Synoptic narratives printed below there are very few
points that call for Johannine intervention. Isaiah, personify-
1 Mk xii. i 12
(R.V.)
(1) And he began
to speak unto them
in parables. A man
planted a vineyard,
and set a hedge about
it, and digged a pit
for the winepress, and
built a tower, and let
it out to husband-
men, and went into
another country.
(2) And at the
season he sent to
the husbandmen a
servant (lit. bond-
servant), that he
might receive from
the husbandmen of
the fruits of the vine-
yard.
(3) And they took
him, and beat him,
and sent htm away
empty.
(4) And again he
sent unto them an-
other servant (lit.
bondservant) ; and
him they wounded
in the head, and
handled shamefully.
(5) And he sent
another ; and him
they killed : and
many others ; beat-
ing some, and killing
some.
(6) He had yet
one, a beloved son :
he sent him last un-
to them, saying.They
will reverence my
son.
(7) But those hus-
bandmen said among
Mt. xxi. 33 46
(R.V.)
(33) Hear another
parable : There was
a man that was a
householder, which
planted a vineyard,
and set a hedge about
it, and digged a wine-
press in it, and built
a tower, and let it
out to husbandmen,
and went into an-
other country.
(34) And when
the season of the
fruits drew near, he
sent his servants (lit.
bondservants) to the
husbandmen, to re-
ceive his fruits (or,
the fruits of it).
(35) And the hus-
bandmen took his
servants (lit. bond-
servants) , and beat
one, and killed an-
other, and stoned an-
other.
(36) Again, he
sent other servants
(lit. bondservants)
more than the first :
and they did unto
them in like manner.
(37) But after-
ward he sent unto
them his son, saying,
They will reverence
my son.
(38) But the hus-
bandmen, when they
Lk. xx. 9 19
(R.V.)
(9) And he began
to speak unto the
people this parable:
A man planted a
vineyard, and let it
out to husbandmen,
and went into an-
other country for a
long time.
(10) And at the
season he sent unto
the husbandmen a
servant (lit. bond-
servant) , that they
should give him of
the fruit of the vine-
yard : but the hus-
bandmen beat him,
and sent him away
empty.
(n) And he sent
yet another servant
(lit. bondservant) :
and him also they
beat, and h andled him
shamefully, and sent
him away empty.
(12) And he'sent
yet a third : and him
also they wounded,
and cast him forth.
(13) And the lord
of the vineyard said,
What shall I do ? I
will send my beloved
son : it may be they
will reverence him.
(14) But when the
husbandmen saw him ,
249 (Mark xii. i 12)
JESUS "WALKING" IN THE TEMPLE
ing a tree, likened Israel to a tree that had been chosen and
planted and carefully cultivated as a good vine, but had (so to
Mk xii. i 12
(R.V.) contd.
themselves, This is
the heir; come let
us kill him, and the
inheritance shall be
ours.
(8) And they took
him, and killed him,
and cast him forth
out of the vineyard.
(9) What there-
fore will the lord of
the vineyard do ? he
will come and de-
stroy the husband-
men, and will give
the vineyard unto
others.
(10) Have ye not
read even this scrip-
ture ;
The stone which
the builders rejected,
The same was
made the head of the
corner :
(i i) This was from
the Lord,
And it is mar-
vellous in our eyes ?
Mt xxi. 33 46
(R.V.) contd.
saw the son, said
among themselves,
This is the heir;
come, let us kill him,
and take his inherit-
ance.
(39) And they took
him, and cast him
forth out of the vine-
yard, and killed him.
(40) When there-
fore the lord of the
vineyard shall come,
what will he do unto
those husbandmen?
(41) They say un-
to him, He will miser-
ably destroy those
miserable men, and
will let out the vine-
yard unto other hus-
bandmen, which shall
render him the fruits
in their seasons.
(42) Jesus saith
unto them, Did ye
never read in the
scriptures,
The stone which
the builders rejected,
The same was
made the head of the
corner :
This was from the
Lord,
And it is mar-
vellous in our eyes?
(43) Therefore say
I unto you, The king-
dom of God shall be
taken away from you,
and shall be given
to a nation bring-
ing forth the fruits
thereof.
(44) And he that
falleth on this stone
shall be broken to
pieces : but on whom-
Lk. xx. 9 19
(R.V.) contd.
they reasoned one
with another, saying,
This is the heir : let
us kill him, that the
inheritance may be
ours.
(15) And they cast
him forth out of the
vineyard, and killed
him. What therefore
will the lord of the
vineyard do unto
them?
(16) He will come
and destroy these
husbandmen, and will
give the vineyard
unto others. And
when they heard it,
they said, God forbid
(lit. Be it not so).
(17) But he look-
ed upon them, and
said, What then, is
this that is written,
The stone which
the builders rejected,
The same was
made the head of the
corner ?
(18) Every one
that falleth on that
stone shall be broken
to pieces; but on
250 (Mark xii. i 12)
JESUS "WALKING" IN THE TEMPLE
speak) rebelled both against nature and against its owner by
manifesting itself as a wild vine 1 . The Synoptic Gospels
transfer the rebellion from the vine to the vinedressers. In the
prophec}^, the Vine refuses to bear good fruit ; in the Gospels, the
husbandmen refuse to give the owner his due share of the fruit,
and kill the servants sent to receive it. Isaiah says "The vine-
yard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel . . . and he looked
for judgment, but behold, oppression; for righteousness, but
behold, a cry," and for this cause the vineyard was to be "laid
waste 2 ."
This is poetry. The Evangelists say, in prose, that the
owner "will give the vineyard to others." But they differ as
to the utterance of this last saying. For Mark writes, as words
of Jesus, "What will the lord of the vineyard do? He will
come and destroy the husbandmen." Matthew expands this
as a question of Jesus ("What. . . ? ") answered by the Pharisees
("They say, He will wretchedly destroy those wretches...").
Luke sides with Mark, and says that the Pharisees, far from
acquiescing in the verdict of destruction, replied "May it not
be so ! "
If these last words point to the destruction of Jerusalem
by the Romans, then we may say that John describes a some-
what similar situation, in language that partakes of irony, where
Mk xii. i 12
(R.V.) contd.
(12) And they
sought to lay hold
on him; and they
feared the multitude ;
for they perceived
that he spake the
parable against them;
and they left him,
and went away.
1 Is. v. i
Mt. xxi. 33 46
(R.V.) contd.
soever it shall fall, it
will scatter him as
dust (some anc. auth.
omit verse 44).
(45) And when
the chief priests and
the Pharisees heard
his parables, they
perceived that he
spake of them.
(46) And when
they sought to lay
hold on him, they
feared themultitudes,
because they took
him for a prophet.
7. 2 Is,
Lk. xx. 9 19
(R.V.) contd.
whomsoever it shall
fall, it will scatter
him as dust.
(19) And the
scribes and the chief
priests sought to lay
hands on him in that
very hour ; and they
feared the people :
for they perceived
that he spake this
parable against them.
v. 6 7.
251 (Mark xii. i 12)
JESUS "WALKING" IN THE TEMPLE
he represents the Pharisees as saying about Jesus "If we thus
let him alone, all will believe in him, and the Romans will come
and take away our [holy] place and our nation." The High
Priest replies "Ye know nothing at all, nor consider that it
is expedient for you that one man should die for the people
and not the whole nation perish." This unconscious prophecy
of the High Priest John recognises as having been actually
fulfilled 1 . But he also gives us the impression that half of
what the Pharisees said was also fulfilled: they did not "let
Jesus alone," but the Romans did "take away" their "place."
In other words the "vineyard" spoken of by Isaiah was "laid
waste and trodden down."
Elsewhere, John adds a brief supplementary parable about
the Vine, addressed to Christ's disciples as distinct from Christ's
enemies somewhat like the Pauline exhortation to Gentiles,
"engrafted" in the olive-tree of Israel, not to be "high-
minded 2 ." In this, the Vine is Christ Himself; the rebellion
(so to speak) is in some of the branches, which refuse to bear
fruit and to abide in the Vine ; the punishment is to be cast out,
withered, and burned 3 .
Another point deserves notice, apart from a certain literary
and grammatical interest, because the omission of it might
seem the omission of an instance of the failure of Johannine
Intervention. It concerns the final words of Jesus in replying
to the Pharisees. All the Synoptists agree that Jesus quoted
from the Psalms up to the words "the head of the corner."
But after that, Mark and Matthew continue the quotation
"From the Lord this (fern.) came to pass and [it] is marvellous
(fern.) in our eyes," where Luke has "Every one that falleth on
that stone shall be broken to pieces; but on whomsoever it
shall fall, it will scatter him to dust 4 ."
This has been discussed in Johannine Grammar, where
attention was called to instances of the Hebrew feminine
1 Jn xi. 48 52. 2 Rom. xi. 16 24.
15 Jn xv. i 6.
4 Mk xii. n, Mt. xxi. 42, Lk. xx. 18, W. H. bracket Mt. xxi. 44
which is parallel to Lk. xx. 18.
252 (Mark xii. i 12)
JESUS "WALKING" IN THE TEMPLE
"this" interpreted mystically 1 . To the facts there stated the
following may be added. The Latin versions, almost without
exception, take the Greek feminine "this" to mean "this
stone 2 ." The Greek "stone" is frequently feminine when it
means a precious stone 3 . But "precious stone" here seems at
first sight impossible because in the preceding .sentence ("the
stone that the builders rejected") "stone" is masculine. That
however may not have been regarded as an insuperable objection
since the context might be paraphrased thus : " The stone that
the builders rejected [as worthless] was made the head of the
corner. This [precious stone] was from the Lord 4 ."
A poetical interpretation of this kind is given in the com-
mentary on Mark attributed to Jerome: "This is the rejected
stone of the corner uniting in a pure meal the lamb [of the
Passover] with the bread [of the Eucharist], finishing the Old
Testament, beginning the New. This bringeth forth wonders
(praestat mira) in our eyes, like the topaz." The peculiarity of
the topaz, according to Strabo, was that it shone brightly in
the night but was liable to be overlooked in the day 5 . According
to the Johannine Prologue, "the light shineth in the darkness
and the darkness overcame it not 6 ." The " foundations " of the
New Jerusalem might be regarded as "looked for 7 " but invisible
in the light of this material world, though visible, after death, in
the spiritual world; and the same thing might apply to "the
head stone " of the spiritual Temple. An ancient comment on
1 Joh. Gr. 23967, 2622.
2 In Mt. xxi. 42, d has " facta est haec," Brix. " factum est istud,"
the rest masc. =lapis; in Mk xii. u, all have masc.
3 See Steph. Thes. v. 292.
4 See i Pet. ii. 4 8 on the double nature of Christ, the Living
Stone, "elect and precious" to believers, but to others "a stone of
stumbling."
5 Strabo xvi. 6 (77) sa Y s oa-ov p.& r)p.fpav p.fv ov paftiov t'5eli> eWi
(virepavyelTiu yap], Diod. Sic. iii. 38 (not 39 as L. 3. etc.) describes it
as 6avp.a(TTr)v ey^pvaov irpoao-^Lv Trapf^op-fvos, using the LXX word
6 Jni. 5-
7 Heb. xi. 10 "he looked for the city that hath the foundations,
whose builder and maker is God."
253 (Mark xii. i 12)
JESUS "WALKING" IN THE TEMPLE
"the corner stone" in Mark says that this "was a wonder from
the Lord to men of understanding, when, after death, Christ
appeared living, King over things in heaven and things on
earth 1 ." Also Zechariah, before describing the "bringing
forth " of " the head stone " of the Temple, speaks of " the stone "
"set before" the High Priest Joshua, and mentions its "seven
eyes," and "the graving thereof 2 ." And Revelation says that
"the luminary" of the New Jerusalem was "like unto a most
precious stone 3 ."
All these passages point to the conclusion that Mark's use of
the feminine "this" might be regarded by some, in very early
times, as referring to the precious corner stone, and as having
a mystical significance. The result tends to lessen the apparent
fancifulness of the hypothesis that John intervened, in an
allusion to Mark's "this," with a threefold repetition of "these
things*."
1 Mk xii. ii (Cramer). 2 Zech. iii. 9, iv. 7.
3 Rev. xxi. ii (fxoffrrip. In canon. LXX, this word occurs only in
Gen. i. 14, 16, Dan. xii. 3 (LXX). But it occurs in Ps. Ixxiv. 16, Aq.
and Sym., "luminary," Heb. "HKD, Targ. "lunam," Rashi "lumen
Legis," see also Prov. xv. 30 "light (lINO) of the eyes," Aq. <f)a>o-Ti}p
(Sym. (^orrKr/zos 1 ) o(^>$aX/xa>v, LXX 0u>pwv o(^$aA/xos. It occurs once
elsewhere in N.T. (Philipp. ii. 15). It is suggestive of a light shining
in darkness.
4 Jn xii. 16 "These things understood not his disciples ... these
things were written. . .they had done these things unto him." On this
and other instances of threefold repetition, see Joh. Gr. 2612 23.
For the elaboration of the mystical doctrine of riKt ( = avTrif) see
Schottgen ii. Index "nNT Cabbalistis denotat Messiam 45, 140,"
where p. 140 quotes Dan. ii. 35, Ps. cxviii. 2.2 etc.
Mk xii. 12 "and they left him and went their way," being omitted
bythe parall. Mt.-Lk., might seem to demand Johannine Intervention.
But in fact it is found, only transposed, in Mt. xxii. 22 "they mar-
velled, and left him and went their way," with a variation in the
parall. Lk. xx. 26 '"they marvelled at his answer and held their peace,"
where Mk xii. 17 has simply "and they marvelled greatly at him."
See also p. 256, n. i, quoting Jn vii. 32 46, which relates how
" officers," sent by the chief priests and Pharisees to arrest Jesus, did,
in effect, " leave " Him, and " go their way," and " hold their peace,"
because " they marvelled " at His teaching.
254 (Mark xii. i 12)
JESUS "WALKING" IN THE TEMPLE
3. The payment of tribute 1
In this narrative there is no difference of importance between
1 Mk xii. 13 17
(R.V.)
(13) And they
send unto him cer-
tain of the Pharisees
and of the Herodians,
that they might catch
him in talk.
(14) And. when
they were come,
they say unto him,
Master (or, Teacher),
we know that thou
art true, and carest
not for any one : for
thou regardest not
the person of men,
but of a truth
teachest the way of
God : Is it lawful to
give tribute unto
Caesar, or not ? Shall
we give, or shall we
not give?
(15) Buthe, know-
ing their hypocrisy,
said unto them, Why
tempt ye me ? bring
me a penny, that I
may see it.
(i 6) And they
brought it. And he
saith unto them,
Whose is this image
and superscription ?
And they said unto
him, Caesar's.
(17) And Jesus
said unto them,
Render unto Caesar
the things that are
Caesar's, and unto
God the things that
are God's. And they
marvelled greatly at
him.
Mt. xxii. 15 22
(R.V.)
(15) Then went
the Pharisees, and
took counsel how
they might ensnare
him in [his] talk.
(16) And they
send to him their
disciples, with the
Herodians, saying,
Master (or, Teacher),
we know that thou
art true, and teachest
the way of God in
truth, and carest not
for any one: for thou
regardest not the
person of men.
(17) Tell us there-
fore, What thinkest
thou ? Is it lawful
to give tribute unto
Caesar, or not?
(18) But Jesus
perceived their wick-
edness, and said, Why
tempt ye me, ye
hypocrites ?
(19) Shew me the
tribute money. And
they brought unto
him a penny.
(20) And he saith
unto them, Whose
is this image and
superscription ?
(21) They say
unto him, Caesar's.
Then saith he unto
them, Render there-
fore unto Caesar the
things that are
Caesar's ; and unto
God the things that
are God's.
(22) And when
they heard it, they
marvelled, and left
him, and went their
way.
Lk. xx. 20 26
(R.V.)
(20) And they
watched him, and
sent forth spies,
which feigned them-
selves to be righteous,
that they might take
hold of his speech, so
as to deliver him up
to the rule and to
the authority of the
governor.
(21) And they
asked him, saying,
Master (or, Teacher),
we know that thou
sayest and teachest
rightly, and accept-
est not the person [of
any], but of a truth
teachest the way of
God:
(22) Is it lawful
for us to give tribute
unto Caesar, or not?
(23) But he per-
ceived their crafti-
ness, and said unto
them,
(24) Shew me a
penny. Whose image
and superscription
hath it?
And they
said, Caesar's.
(25) And he said
unto them, Then
render unto Caesar
the things that are
Caesar's, and unto
God the things that
are God's.
(26) And they
were not able to take
hold of the saying
before the people :
and they marvelled
at his answer, and
held their peace.
255 (Mark xii. 13 17)
JESUS "WALKING" IN THE TEMPLE
the Synoptists till the last verse, where Mark says that "they
wondered-out-of -measure at him " ; this is amplified by Matthew
and Luke, both of whom add words indicating that Christ's
questioners were disconcerted or silenced, but that they were
not filled with the wonder that partakes of admiration 1 . The
reader is left by Mark in suspense as to the nature of the
"wonder." Luke removes the suspense by saying, in effect,
"They were not able to take hold of His saying before the
people [to His discredit] and it was this, not Jesus Himself,
but the cleverness of His answer, that caused their wonder."
This is a very reasonable paraphrase of Mark. It agrees with
an ancient comment on Mark preserved by Victor: "So they
1 Mk xii. 17 b Mt. xxii. 22 Lk. xx. 26
. . . feat ^e6avp,a^ov KOI aKovtravrfS i&av- KCU ov< 'icr^
eV aiTG>. /xaaar, Ka\d(pevTs avrov Xa/3e<r$ai TOV pharos
dirfjXdav. evavriov TOV \aov, KOL
6avp.a.(ravTfs eVi rfj diro-
Kpicrei CIVTOV criyr)(rav.
Possibly Mark's original gave rise to diverse interpretations that
influence Matthew and Luke. The Marcan f&davpa^ov, unique in
N.T., might express a Hebrew reduplication, "they were astonished
with [a great] astonishment." See Clue 137 a "For instances of
reduplication of cognate noun and verb in Mk alone, see Mk i. 26,
iii. 28, v. 42 (comp. xiii. 19, 20)." Now (Law pp. 98 9, on Mk
v. 42 "they were amazed with a great amazement"] "hearing"
and "amazement" (yD'<? and DOB') are confusable in Heb. (see
Indices to Diatessarica p. 33). Matthew may have here rendered
the Hebrew "Having been amazed they were amazed" as "Having
heard they were amazed," while adding a clause ("and letting him
alone they departed") to indicate that they were foiled in their
plot. Luke seems to have paraphrased at greater length taking
"they were amazed" as including "struck dumb with amazement,"
that is, "were silent." It should be noted that in such phrases as
Lk. XX. 26 OVK '{o'xvo'av eTriXaftecrdai TOV pr]p.aTos (v. r. O.VTOV prjp.aTos)
and Lk. xx. 20 eViAu/3a>vrai avTov \6-yov (v. r. ra>i> Aoya>i'), parall.
Mk xii. 13 A oyw, Mt. xxii. 15 eV Xoyw, confusion might easily arise
between "not able to take hold of [him] in word" and "not able to
arrest him." Also Mt. dfavres avrov might mean that officers "left"
Jesus free, though sent to arrest Him. John relates that officers
were thus sent and did thus leave Jesus unarrested (vii. 32, 44).
They said (ib. 46) "Never man so spake."
256 (Mark xii. 13 17)
JESUS "WALKING" IN THE TEMPLE
departed wondering that His reply had given them nothing to
take hold of."
But was this really all that called for admiration in Christ's
reply? Was there nothing in it except a verbal dexterity, by
which Jesus avoided giving a hold to His enemies? Did the
saying substantially mean " Since you use Caesar's coin, you must
pay him his due"? If so, the words "and to God the things
that are God's" would seem to be a mere appendix. Origen,
in his commentary on Matthew 1 , says, "Since the soul is, by
nature, stamped with (lit. according to) the image of God, we
owe other things [beside the debt to Caesar] to its [i.e. the soul's]
King, namely God, things that agree and correspond to the
nature and essence of the soul. And these are [first] the ways
that lead toward virtue, and [then] the actions according to
virtue." Ignatius, perhaps referring to the Gospel narrative,
says that there are "two coinages, the one of God and the
other of the world ; and each of them has its own stamp engraved
upon it, the unbelievers [having] the stamp of this world, but
the believers [that is to say, those who through their belief abide]
in love, [having] the stamp of God the Father through Jesus
Christ... 2 ."
If Jesus is assuming and teaching doctrine of this kind,
then we are to regard Him not as evading but as attacking,
not so much parrying a blow aimed at Him through the denarius
of the Empire, as attempting to pierce the consciences of His
people by a particular allusion to the shekels of the Temple,
and to those payments for sacrifices, through which the money-
changers in the Temple were allowed by the priests to defraud
the poor. He had already stigmatized these defrauders as
"robbers" converting the Temple into their "den." And now
He may be taking advantage of their cunning question about
Caesar's denarius to retort on them with a warning to question
themselves about God's denarius, that is, divine humanity,
"Are you paying Him His tribute, filial love toward Him and
brotherly kindness toward His children? "
1 Origen Lomm. iv. 140. See Law p. 277 on the Denarius of Fire.
2 Ign. Magn. 5, where see Lightf. on the conception of the
"coinage" of humanity in Greek literature.
A. F. 257 (Mark xii. 13 17) 17
JESUS "WALKING-' IN THE TEMPLE
How, if at all, does John deal with this subject that is to
say, the admiration or wonder extorted from Christ's enemies
by His utterances, combined as it was with an absolute blind-
ness on their part to their spiritual beauty? He represents
"the Jews 1 " as marvelling at Christ's teaching in the Temple
and saying "How knoweth this man letters [i.e., book-learning],
never having learned?" Here there may be a latent allusion
to a well-known passage in prophecy. Isaiah, while describing
Israel as blind and as "drawing near" to God "with their
mouth" but not with their "heart" words quoted by Jesus
in Mark and Matthew 2 divides them into two classes, to both
of which "all vision is become as the words of a book that is
sealed 3 ." One class is not "learned in book-learning"; the
other is "learned in book-learning" but cannot unseal the book 4 .
Both classes are content to learn the fear of God by rote, as
"a commandment of men that hath been learned by rote 5 ."
The phrase "to know book-learning" in Isaiah is unique or
rare in the Old Testament 6 . John puts it into the mouth of
the opponents of Jesus largely composed of those "book-
learned" people whom we commonly call "scribes" and they
characteristically express, in a superior and perhaps slightly
contemptuous tone, their astonishment that their enemy speaks
so like a scribe : " How knoweth this [man] book-learning, never
having learned?" There is irony in this complacency of the
i
1 Jn vii. 13 15 "No man spake openly of him for fear of the
Jews. . .(14). . .Jesus. . .went up into the temple and taught....
(15) The Jews therefore marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man
letters (ypa/^ara) . . . ?" "The Jews" are distinguished from (ib. 12)
"the multitudes."
2 Mk vii. 6, Mt. xv. 8. 3 Is. xxix. n foil.
4 Comp. Rev. v. i foil, "a book. . .sealed with seven seals."
5 Is. xxix. 13 "# commandment of men that hath been taught [them],
R.V. marg. learned [by rote]." The opposite of this is Jn vi. 45
SifiaKToi Qtov, from Is. liv. 13 "disciples of the Lord" lit. "the taught
of the Lord," i.e. not of men.
8 Gesen. 707 b gives, under a separate heading, IDD in Is. xxix.
n 12 (LXX ypupfjMTa), and Dan. i. 4 (LXX and Theod. ypappara),
17 (LXX ypap,p.ariKT) [Pre'^i/i/!, Theod. ypa/z/iariKi/) as meaning "book-
learning." The noun IQID meant a "scribe."
258 (Mark xii. 13 17)
JESUS "WALKING" IN THE TEMPLE
blind leaders of the blind. Jesus replies, in effect, that His
learning or teaching is from God Himself and not from books,
and that it goes to the root of things. Those who judge with-
out kindness according to the letter of the Law are blind to its
spirit of kindness and judge according to appearance: "Judge
not according to appearance, but judge righteous judgment 1 ."
At the same time John gives us a glimpse into the state of
mind of some of the "unlearned" Jews, who oscillate between
the scribes and Jesus. He tells us directly what we might
have indirectly but confidently inferred from the Synoptists
that the teaching of Jesus in the Temple was far more personal
and less scribal than we might have inferred from the Synoptic
texts. Mark selected especially those topics some of them
comparatively superficial which were not selected by Jesus
Himself but by His adversaries with a view to entrap Him.
The selection of these might give a false impression of the tenor
of Christ's teaching. Yet Jesus, even when dealing with
apparent superficialities, went down deep to origins and first
principles. The deepest of these was also the highest, the
doctrine that ^we must look up to the Father through the Son
in the Spirit of love: "If any man thirst let him come unto
me." Not that, in this shape, the doctrine could be understood
at present: "This spake he of the Spirit," but "the Spirit
was not yet given 2 ." Yet even those who could not under-
stand felt a touch of something like understanding. The
chief priests and the Pharisees had "sent officers" to take
Him, but they returned without a prisoner ; and to the question
"Why did ye not take him?" their reply was, "Never man so
spake 3 ."
1 Jn vii. 24. Comp. Is. v. 7 " He looked for judgment, but behold
oppression (or, shedding of blood)," and Jn vii. 19 "Why seek ye to
kill me ? "
2 Jn vii. 37 9. In the context, the words "Let him come unto
me. . . he that belie veth on me" should perhaps be read as implying
that Jesus speaks in the name of the Wisdom, or Holy Spirit, of God,
as in Mt. xxiii. 34 "/ (emph.) send. . . " parafll. to Lk. xi. 49 "The
Wisdom of God said, ' I will send. . . '. " (see Son 3583 (i)).
3 Jn vii. 32, 46.
259 (Mark xii. 13 17) 17 2
JESUS "WALKING" IN THE TEMPLE
4. The resurrection of the dead 1
In the texts printed below, Luke, while adding matter of
his own, follows Mark pretty closely except that he omits the
1 Mk xii. 1 8 27
(R.V.)
(18) And there
come unto him
Sadducees, which say
that there is no
resurrection ; and
they asked him, say-
ing,
(19) Master (or,
Teacher), Moses
wrote unto us, If a
man's brother die,
and leave a wife
behind him, and
leave no child, that
his brother should
take his wife, and
raise up seed unto
his brother.
(20) There were
seven brethren : and
the first took a wife,
and dying left no
seed;
(21) And the
second took her, and
died, leaving no seed
behind him ; and the
third likewise:
(22) And the
seven left no seed.
Last of all the woman
also died.
(23) In the resur-
rection whose wife
shall she be of them ?
for the seven had
her to wife.
(24) Jesus said
unto them, Is it not
for this cause that ye
err, that ye know not
the scriptures, nor
the power of God?
(25) For when
they shall rise from
the dead, they
Mt. xxii. 23 33
(R.V.)
(23) On that day
there came to him
Sadducees, which say
(lit. saying) that there
is no resurrection ;
and they asked him,
(24) Saying, Mas-
ter (or, Teacher),
Moses said, If a man
die, having no chil-
dren, his brother
shall marry his wife
(lit. shall perform the
duty of a husband's
brother to his wife)
and raise up seed un-
to his brother.
(25) Now there
were with us seven
brethren ; and the
first married and de-
ceased, and having
no seed left his wife
unto his brother ;
(26) In like man-
ner the second also,
and the third, unto
the seventh (lit.-
seven) .
(27) And after
them all the woman
died.
(28) In the resur-
rection therefore
whose wife shall she
be of the seven? for
they all had her.
(29) But Jesus
answered and said
unto them, Ye do
err, not knowing the
scriptures, nor the
power of God.
(30) For in the
resurrection they
neither marry, nor
Lk. xx. 27 38
(R.V.)
(27) And there
came to him certain
of the Sadducees,
they which say that
there is no resurrec-
tion ; and they asked
him, saying,
(28) Master (or,
Teacher), Moses
wrote unto us, that
if a man's brother
die, having a wife,
and he be childless,
his brother should
take the wife, and
raise up seed unto
his brother.
(29) There were
therefore seven breth-
ren: and the first
took a wife, and died
childless ;
(30) And the
second ;
(31) And the third
took her; and like-
wise the seven also
left no children, and
died.
(32) Afterward the
woman also died.
(33) In the resur-
rection therefore
whose wife of them
shall she be ? for the
seven had her to wife.
(34) And Jesus
said unto them, The
sons of this world (or,
age) marry, and are
given in marriage :
(35) But they that
are accounted worthy
to attain to that
world (or, age), and
260 (Mark xii. 18 27)
JESUS "WALKING" IN THE TEMPLE
charge brought by Jesus against the Sadducees, "Do ye not
err. . . ? ye greatly err 1 ," and also the reason alleged
by Jesus for their error " for this cause, not knowing the scriptures
nor the power of God 2 ." Luke also limits the scope of Mark's
charge. Mark has "there come Sadducees, [a class of people]
that say there is no resurrection " ; Matthew narrows this into
"[some] Sadducees, saying there is no resurrection"; Luke
narrows it still further: "some of the Sadducees, those of them
who [not only do not accept as an article of faith but even
aggressively] deny a resurrection 3 ."
Mk xii. 1 8 27
(R.V.) contd.
neither marry, nor
are given in mar-
riage ; but are as
angels in heaven.
Mt. xxii. 23 33
(R.V.) contd.
are given in marri-
age, but are as angels
(many anc. auth. add
of God) in heaven.
(26) But as touch-
ind the dead, that
they are raised ; have
ye not read in the
book of Moses, in
[the place concern-
ing] the Bush, how
God spake unto him,
saying, I [am] the
God of Abraham,
and the God of Isaac,
and the God of
Jacob?
(27) He is not the
God of the dead, but
of the living: ye do
greatly err.
1 Mk xii. 24 7 ov <
2 Mk xii. 24 ov 8id
dvvap.iv TOV dfov ; the
3 Mk xii. 1 8
<a\ cpxovTCU 2a8oi>-
Kalot npbs avrov, OLTIVCS
\4yovcriv dvdarao-iv p.r)
(31) But as touch-
ing the resurrection
of the dead, have ye
not read that which
was spoken unto you
by God, saying,
(32)- 1 am the God
of Abraham, and the
God of Isaac, and the
God of Jacob? God
is not [the God] of
the dead, but of the
living.
(33) And when the
multitudes heard it,
they were astonished
at his teaching.
Lk. xx. 27-* 38
(R.V.) contd.
the resurrection from
the dead, neither
marry, nor are given
in marriage;
(36) For neither
can they die any
more: for they are
equal unto the angels ;
and are sons of God,
being sons of the
resurrection.
(37) But that the
dead are raised, even
Moses shewed, in [the
place concerning] the
Bush, when he call-
eth the Lord the God
of Abraham, and the
God of Isaac, and the
God of Jacob.
(38) Now he is not
the God of the dead,
but of the living:
for all live unto him.
TOVTO 7r\avdo~0 p.f) eldores TO.S ypcxpas prjd
parall. Mt. xxii. 29 omits ov did TOVTO.
Mt. xxii. 23 Lk. xx. 27
V KiV7/ TT)
TTJV
Kutot, \eyovTes p.r] flvai ol \-yovTS dvdo~Tao~iv
p.r) fivai . . .
OVCUTTGUriV
261 (Mark xii. 18 27)
JESUS "WALKING" IN THE TEMPLE
The Sadducees are said to have accepted the Pentateuch
but to have rejected or subordinated the rest of the Scriptures,
and this statement about them is confirmed by the fact that
Jesus, in His controversy with them, appeals to the Pentateuch,
and not to the rest of the Scriptures where He could have
found much more cogent texts for proving the Resurrection.
This being the case, was it right to say that the Sadducees did
not "know" the Scriptures, instead of saying that they did not
"accept" a large part of them? Doubtless, Mark's tradition
meant that they did not really" know " even those Scriptures that
they accepted, that is to say, did not know their spirit, and the
revelation that they contained of the underlying "power of
God." But Luke may well have felt that Mark did not make
this meaning clear.
Accordingly Luke first gives a brief description of the
changed condition awaiting those who are "accounted worthy
to attain that aeon 1 ." These, he says, are " equal-to-angels "
1 Lk. XX. 35 ot de Karat;i(00VT(s rov alwvos <fivov rv^flv KCU TTJS
ava(TTa<Tf<t>s rfjs e* vfKpwv . . . (36) oufie yap airoOavelv eri dvvavrai, icruy-
ye\ot yap elaiv, KOI vloi fi&iv 6eov rrjs avaoracrfcoy viol ovres. Wetstein on
Lk. xx. 35, and Dalman Words p. 119, shew that the phrase "worthy
of the life, or world, to come " is frequent in the Talmud ; and
Wetstein on Lk. xvi. 8 shews the same about "sons of the world
to come," as opposed to "sons of this world." It means "worthy of
the future life" (as in Heb. "son of death," or "of scourging" (Gesen.
121 b) may mean "worthy of death, or scourging"). Luke extends
these phrases from meaning the. elect on earth to mean fruition in
heaven. He adds "they can no longer die." Perhaps he does
this in order to shew that he does not mean " sons of eternal life on
earth." John however says the same thing about the life that
springs from belief in Christ, apparently without regard to its being
on earth or in heaven (xi. 25 6), " I am the resurrection and the life.
He that believeth on me, though he die [in appearance], yet shall he
live [in truth]. And whosoever liveth and believeth on me shall
never [in truth] die."
Justin Martyr asserts (Tryph. 80) that he and all right-minded
Christians are assured that there will be first a resurrection of the
dead and a millennium in Jerusalem, which will then: be built as the
prophets predict ; and he concludes a long proof of this, from Isaiah
(Ixv. 17 25), by saying (ib. 81) that John one of the apostles of
Christ prophesied this millennium, to be followed by the general
262 (Mark xii. 18 27)
JESUS "WALKING" IN THE TEMPLE
an expression substituted by him for the Marcan "as angels
in heaven 1 ." Then he says that "even Moses" though his part
was rather that of Lawgiver than that of Prophet and Revealer
"intimated," or "indicated*," that the dead are raised, "in
[the place about] the Bush" when he calls the Lord "the God
of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." This
was not " taught " by Moses, or "proclaimed," or "revealed,"
or even "shewn," but it was "intimated" or "indicated" by
and eternal resurrection and judgment of all men, " even as our Lord
also said (Lk. xx. 36) They shall neither marry nor be given in
marriage, but shall be equal to the angels, the children of the God
of the resurrection (TZK.VU TOV dfov rfjs ai/uo-ruafcos- oi/rer)."
1 'i(niyyc\os is not alleged (Steph. Thes.) from any author before
Luke. It is analogous to uToSaipw. Luke substitutes "equal to
angels" for "like (&>$) angels," because men, having experienced
temptation, sin and redemption, can never be "like" angels, who
have not had these experiences. But they may be " equal [in rank] "
to angels. Yet the word raises difficult questions as to the nature
of the equality. The Biblical phrase rendered "a little lower than
the angels" in the LXX and Targum of Ps. viii. 5, and its adoption
in Heb. ii. 7, should be compared with Philo i. 164 "Abraham, having
quitted mortality (fK\iira>v Bv^ra) is gathered to the people of God
(TT poo-rid Tdi rca Bcov Aao>), enjoying the fruit of incorruptibility,
having become equal to angels (la-os dyye\ots yeyovws). For angels
are God's army, bodiless and blessed souls." Origjen (Cels. iv. 29)
says that angels are only superior to men "on these terms (OVT&S),"
namely, that men, when perfected, become " equal-to-angels." Else-
where he says (De Princip. iv. 29, Lomm. xxi. 406) that Christ is
in Gabriel and Michael, as also in Paul and Peter. See Mayor's note
on Clem. Alex. 866, shewing that Clem. Alex. freq. uses iVayyeAoy to
express the progress of the soul.
2 Lk. xx. 37 cprivvo-fv, not "shewed (e^Aoxre) " or "manifested
(f<f>avfpu><re)." M^I/VCD, Howrys, pqwrpor, in classical Greek, mostly
imply "giving information" (as in Jn xi. 57), an "informer," "the
price of information" ; but Steph. Thes. quotes Philo as saying ( ?ref.)
fLrjvvovros 5ia avfjifioXaiv TOV dfnv and it is used thus by Justin Martyr
Apol. 32, 35, 40, and Clem. Alex. 667, 849 (parall. to d\\rjyopflv)
etc. to mean "indication through signs or symbols." Such a "sign"
would be the burning bush. Perhaps, therefore, the indirectness of
the " indication " of the Resurrection is regarded by Luke as consisting
not only in the words ("I am the God of Abraham") but also in the
circumstances ("the bush" not consumed in the fire).
263 (Mark xii. 18 27)
JESUS "WALKING" IN THE TEMPLE
the sign of the Bush burning but not consumed when
studied as the sequel of the promise made to the faithful
Abraham and carried on through Isaac and Jacob to their
descendants in Egypt.
"The God of Abraham" could not have been revealed as
a name of God, if Abraham had been a mere creature of days,
dying for ever ; therefore Abraham and his faithful descendants
must rise from the dead. That is the line of argument. Luke
adds, "For all live unto him [i.e. God]." Apparently by "all,"
he means "all that really live, all that have spiritual life."
These, he says, "live to God." That is, they live only in corre-
spondence to Him, as the planets shine only in correspondence
to the sun. Origen is probably right in interpreting Luke thus 1 .
Perhaps Luke adds the words to make the Marcan text clear.
But the addition itself is far from clear.
John, though he nowhere mentions Sadducees, teaches,
through the acts and sayings of Jesus, a doctrine that bears on
the Synoptic narrative of Christ's controversy with them. He
concentrates himself on the positive and essential meaning of
"resurrection." Instead of protesting that it is not life in the
flesh, he insists that it is life in Christ. He represents Jesus
1 Origen ad loc. (Lonim. iv. 171) says that "All live to him" is
"no ordinary praise of the Patriarchs, namely, that such a one as our
Saviour testifies to them, not only that they live, but also that the
life that they live they live unto God." Probably he does not render
TrdvTfs "they all " which would be hardly possible about three.
He means "All that [really] live" as the three Patriarchs, for
example, did "live unto God."
Comp. 4 Mace. vii. 19 "those who believe that to God they do not
die for [they are] (coWep yap, but ?a>0-7rep oufie, with N) [even] as our
patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac [and] Jacob but live to God," xvi. 25
"They [the seven martyrs] saw (idovrcs) that, for the sake of God
having died (8ia TQV Qcov airaQavavTcs), men (or, they) live unto God
(&><rti/ ro> #eo>) [even as] Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the
patriarchs." In the second passage, the meaning may be general,
(i) men, having died for God, or particular, (2) they saw that they,
the seven brethren, having died for God, were destined to live ; but
the latter is a strained rendering of {Suriv. These passages indicate
that Luke was following some current Jewish doctrine which he
utilised to explain Christ's words.
264 (Mark xii. 18 27)
JESUS "WALKING" IN THE TEMPLE
as saying to Martha "/ am the resurrection and the life^." We
have found Luke omitting the Marcan mention of "the power of
God." John nowhere in the whole of his Gospel uses the word
"power." But he proceeds dramatically to represent Christ as
being God's incarnate power "Christ the power of God," as
Paul says 2 by raising Lazarus from the dead.
Also, whereas Luke as it were apologizes for the way in
which Moses indirectly "indicated," rather than inculcated,
the doctrine of the Resurrection, John will have no such apology.
Only, what the Synoptists say about the Resurrection and the
Life, John says about the Messiah who is "the resurrection and
the life." " If ye believed Moses," Jesus says to the Jews, "ye
would believe me, for he wrote of me 3 ." In the preceding
context He declares that the Jews are blind, and deaf, and
insensible to the meaning of the Scriptures 4 . "They search 5 "
them, but they find no real meaning in them because they are
dead to the spirit and power of them, which is their real meaning.
This is Mark over again, " Ye know not the scriptures nor the
power of God"
We have seen that Luke, besides omitting this, omits also
the Marcan condemnation "Ye do greatly err," or literally,
"are caused to err." In John, there is a condemnation far
weightier and fuller, for it implies that they erred, not through
temporary lapse but through permanent moral defects and
faults, negative and positive want of the love of God and
God's glory, excess of the love of self and their own glory 6 .
It is perhaps characteristic of Luke that he regards the Resur-
rection as proved by something like a logical weighing of evidence,
so that to reject it was a logical rather than a moral error.
That is not the Johannine view.
1 Jn xi. 25. 2 i Cor. i. 24. 3 Jn v. 46.
4 Jn v. 37 8 "ye have neither heard. . .nor seen. . .and ye have
not his word abiding in you" implies defect in (i) hearing, (2) sight,
(3) feeling or perception.
5 Jn v. 39 "Ye search," fpeware, prob. indicative, see Joh. Gr.
2439 (i) (ii).
6 Jn v. 42 "Ye have not the love of God in yourselves," ib. 44
"how can ye believe ye who receive glory from one another?"
265 (Mark xii. 18 27)
JESUS "WALKING" IN THE TEMPLE
The addition of Luke ("all live unto him") is quoted by
Justin Martyr at the end of a long demonstration of a first
resurrection a Messianic millennium, based on a long prophecy
of Isaiah. The same prophecy is alleged by Irenaeus to prove
the same things. Both writers stigmatize as heretics those
who refuse to accept the prophecy in a literal sense, and both
of them allege the Revelation of John as supporting their views
against dissentients 1 . These allegations, and their controversial
contexts, make it probable that at a very early date the nature
and circumstances of the Coming of the Lord and of the con-
sequent resurrection of the disciples would be much discussed,
and that the Fourth Evangelist would intervene as to the
Synoptic narrative under discussion ; and the Johannine texts
above quoted make it probable that he has actually done so.
5. "What commandment is the first?" in Mark 2
Luke omits the whole of this discussion. The Diatessaron
places immediately after it a combination of Mark and Luke
1 Justin (Tryph. 80 81) quotes Is. Ixv. 17 25. Irenaeus
(v. 34. 4) quotes Is. Ixv. 18 22. Justin quotes "John one of the
apostles of Christ" as prophesying this millennium. Irenaeus
(v. 35. 2) says "In the Apocalypse John saw this new Jerusalem"
and quotes Is. Ixv. 17 18.
z Mk xii. 28 34 Mt. xxii. 34 40, 46
(R.V.) (R.V.)
(28) And one of (34) But the
the scribes came,
and heard them
questioning together,
and knowing that he
had answered them
well, asked him,
What commandment
is the first of all ?
(29) Jesus an-
swered, The first is,
Hear, O Israel ; The
Lord our God, the
Lord is one (or, The
Lord [is] our God;
the Lord is one) :
(30) And thou
shalt love the Lord
thy God with (lit.
Pharisees, when they
heard that he had
put the Sadducees
to silence, gathered
themselves together.
(35) And one of
them, a lawyer, asked
him a question,
tempting him,
(36) Master (or,
Teacher) , which is
the great command-
ment in the law ?
Lk. xx. 39, x. 25
8, xx. 40 (R.V.)
(xx. 39) And cer-
tain of the scribes an-
swering said, Master
(or, Teacher) , thou
hast well said.
(x. 25) And be-
hold, a certain lawyer
stood up and tempted
him, saying, Master
(or, Teacher), what
shall I do to inherit
eternal life?
(26) And he said
unto him, What is
written in the law ?
how readest thou ?
(37) And he said
unto him, Thou shalt
love the Lord thy
266 (Mark xii. 28 34)
JESUS "WALKING" IN THE TEMPLE
thus : " [Mark] And Jesus saw him [i.e. the scribe] that he had
answered wisely; and he answered and said unto him, 'Thou
art not far from the kingdom of God.' [Luke] 'Thou hast
Mt. xxii. 34 40, 46
(R.V.) contd.
God with all thy
heart, and with ail
thy soul, and with all
thy mind.
Lk. xx. 39, x. 25-
8, xx. 40 (R.V.)
contd
(38) This is the
great and first com-
mandment.
(39) And a second
like [unto it] is this
(or, And a second is
like unto it), Thou
shalt love thy neigh-
bour as thyself.
(40) On these two
commandments hang-
eth the whole law,
and the prophets.
(27) And he an-
swering said, Thou
shalt love the Lord
thy God with (lit.
from) all thy heart,
and with all thy soul,
and with all thy
strength, and with all
thy mind; and thy
neighbour as thyself.
(28) And he said
unto him, Thou hast
answered right: this
do, and thou shalt
live.
Mk xii. 28 34
(R.V.) contd.
from) all thy heart,
and with (lit. from)
all thy soul, and with
(lit. from) all thy
mind, and with (lit.
from) all thy strength.
(31) The second is
this, Thou shalt love
thy neighbour as thy-
self. There is none
other commandment
greater than these.
(32) And the
scribe said unto him,
Of a truth, Master
(or, Teacher) , thou
hast well said that he
is one; and there is
none other but he :
(33) And to love
him with all the
heart, and with all
the understanding,
and with all the
strength, and to love
his neighbour as him-
self, is much more
than all whole burnt
offerings and sacri-
fices.
(34) And when
Jesus saw that he
answered discreetly,
he said unto him,
Thou art not far from
the kingdom of God.
And no man after
that durst ask him
any question.
The very ample Marcan traditions about the- nature of the com-
mandment to " love," and about its being " first," and " none greater,"
are summarised in Jn xiii. 34 5 "A new commandment. . .if ye have
love one to another." This implies the preeminence of a New
Commandment corresponding to the preeminence of the Old one.
It is not however regarded as preeminent, or "first," or "greater,"
but as having a new significance, and as being essential.
267 (Mark xii. 28 34)
(46) And no one
was able to answer
him a word, neither
durst any man from
that day forth ask
him any more ques-
tions.
(xx. 40) For they
durst not any more
ask him any question.
JESUS "WALKING" IN THE TEMPLE
spoken rightly; do this, and thou shalt live/ And he, as his
desire was to justify himself, said unto him, 'And who is my
neighbour?' Jesus said unto him 'A man went down from
Jerusalem' [the Parable of the Good Samaritan] 1 ." According
to this arrangement the scribe is regarded as possibly a mere
lip-believer "desiring to justify himself." In word, he had
"spoken rightly." In word, he was "not far from the kingdom
of God." But was he sincere ? Was he one of the " little ones 2 "
who, according to Mark, constituted God's Family or "King-
1 Diatess. also combines Mark and Luke at the outset thus :
(Mk xii. 28) "And one of the scribes, of those that knew the law
(Lk. x. 25 vopiKos), when he saw the excellence of his answer to
them, desired to try him (Lk. x. 25, comp. Mt. xxii. 35) and said
unto him (Lk. x. 25) ' What shall I do to inherit eternal life ? ' and
(Mk xii. 28, Mt. xxii. 36) ' Which of the commandments is greater
and has precedence in the Law?"
Mark does not represent the scribe as "tempting" or "trying"
Jesus. Matthew may have inferred it from the context. Delitzsch
renders vop.iK.6s in Mt. xxii. 35 by p3E> "making wise" (with "in the
Law") but in Lk. x. 25 by ^JOD "of the Masters" (with "of the
Law"). In Job xxxiv. 36, LXX confuses |n with fra "tempt"
(Corrections 466 (?;)). And confusion may have arisen from attempts
to describe the status of this particular "scribe" (see Levy i. 248 9
on i?yn shewing that a scribe might be called Master of Haggada,
or of Mikra (Bible text) or of Mishna or of Talmud etc.).
Victor, on Mark, says that he can be reconciled with Matthew
thus: "The man at first was 'tempting' Jesus, but having been
benefited by the reply [of Jesus] he was {afterwards] praised [by
Jesus]," implying that the reply reminded the man of the duty of love
toward one's neighbour and converted him from his loveless state
of jealousy and envy.
NO/IIKOS, "lawyer," used here alone by Matthew but freq. in
Luke, has a technical meaning in Epictetus ii. 13. 6 8, Strabo xii.
(p. 539), implying a legal adviser indispensable for a man that does
not know the laws of the country (and see Plutarch Quaest. Rom.
271 E F on the names "Caius" etc. technically used by vop.LK.oi}.
Comp. Rom. ii. 19, i Cor. i. 19 20. The use of it in Mt.-Lk., and
their insertion of TTfipdfav, make it probable that they regarded
Mark as taking too favourable a view of "the scribe" and as not
understanding the tacit warning implied in the words " not far from
the kingdom of God," that is to say, outside it, and perhaps per-
manently outside, though close to the gate. 2 Mk x. 14.
268 (Mark xii. 2834)
JESUS "WALKING" IN THE TEMPLE
dom"? " Those who are far off" is sometimes a technical term
for Gentiles. In that sense, " not far off" might mean "an
orthodox Jew" and, perhaps, one who exulted in his ortho-
doxy 1 . This possibility must not be forgotten.
The word "discreetly," employed by Mark to describe the
character of the scribe's reply, must be noted "on account of
its unusual character, not being used elsewhere in Biblical
Greek. It mostly means "sensibly," and may be applied to
those who have a reasonable sense of changed circumstances
and are open to new facts and new arguments 2 . But it might
be taken to mean "adapting oneself to circumstances," "pru-
dently cautious." In that sense, it might imply insincerity or
dishonesty meaning "wisely" in the sense in which the unjust
steward is said to have "done wisely 3 ." In the same sense the
serpent is said to have been "wiser" than all the other creatures
in Paradise; and we are told that Pharaoh proposed to "deal
wisely," i.e. cunningly, with the Israelites in Egypt 4 . Since
1 Comp. Acts ii. 39 (a Petrine speech) "to your children and to
all that are afar off," ib. xxii. 21 (a Pauline speech) "far hence unto the
Gentiles," Eph. ii. 13 17 "ye that once were far off. . .peace to you
that were far off," referring to Is. Ivii. 19. In Luke, the Prodigal
Son (who represents the Gentiles) is seen (xv. 20) "while he was still
far off," and the Publican, as contrasted with the Pharisee, (xviii. 13)
" stood far off."
2 Mk xii. 34 vowcxas, a, k "sensate," b, d, Vulg. "sapienter,"
SS (Burk.) "well," Syr. (Walton) "sapienter." Notary does not
occur anywhere in the Early Fathers (Goodspeed) but is freq. in Justin
Martyr, meaning "sensible," "open to conviction," Apol. 12, 46,
2 Apol. ii. In Tryph. 87 vawf xeWrmi . . . rjptoTTjo-as is said by
Justin to his Jewish antagonist, who has protested that he asks for
information and not merely to raise a difficulty. Wetstein (on Mk)
quotes Polyb. as frequently using the adv. with irpayp.uriKa>s, (ppovi/jnas
and f)pcpa>s. Pseudo- Jerome, on Mk, asks "Quare non est longe qui
venit callidel" which seems to imply a rendering of vowfx&s as
"cunningly."
3 Lk. xvi. 8 <f>povipa>s. Delitzsch has a form of Diy "shrewd,"
but SS Dun "wise."
4 Gen. iii. i (ppovipwraTos, Heb. Dliy, Onk. sim. i.e. (R.V.) "subtil,"
but v.r. (s. Brederek) D"On, i.e. "wise," Aq. Theod. Travovpyos. Comp.
Exod. i. 10 "let us deal wisely (DDH)," Karaa-o^KTw^eBa.
269 (Mark xii. 28 34)
JESUS "WALKING" IN THE TEMPLE
the scribe began to speak with the object of "tempting" Jesus
it is natural to suppose that, when he was foiled, he made a
discreet or artful reply to cover his defeat. Luke himself, in
a parallel but different context, represents a phrase of similar
approval as being uttered without real approval: "But certain
of the scribes answering said, 'Master, thou hast well said"
not that they really felt this, their real feeling being one of
fear "for they no longer dared to question him about anything' 1 ."
And Mark says the same thing after the scribe's "discreet"
reply and Christ's answer to it. This points to the conclusion
that the answer was felt to be a rebuke. No one "dared to
question Jesus any more 2 " and to bring upon himself a similar
rebuke. From this it follows that, among the reasons for Luke's
omission of the Marcan narrative, one may have been a doubt
as to the application of the phrase "thou hast well said," or,
"answered rightly," or, "answered discreetly" a doubt not
only as to the person answering but also as to the motive of
the answer 3 .
Luke substitutes for the Marcan theoretical question as to
what is ("What is the first commandment?") a practical one
as to what must be done, "What shall I do to inherit eternal
life?" followed by another question bearing on the doing,
"Who is the 'neighbour' whom I am commanded to love?"
No direct answer is given to this by Jesus. Indirectly, in the
parable of the Good Samaritan who shewed himself a real
"neighbour" we are taught that our "neighbour" is the man
that acts kindly to us. But if that is so, "love" becomes an
easy affair, much easier than that which is contemplated in
the Sermon on the Mount where the command is given "Love
your enemies." The moral of the parable is not a definition,
1 Lk. xx. 39 40. 2 Mk xii. 34.
3 A combination of the two great commandments of love to God
(Deut. vi. 5) and love to our neighbour (Lev. xix. 18) is found in
Test. XII Pair., Dan 5 " Love the Lord through all your life, and one
another with a true heart" (see Charles's note). It comes there as
a climax after "keep His law," "depart from wrath," "hate
lying," "speak truth each one with his neighbour," and after the
promise "So. . .shall ye be in peace, having the God of peace. ..."
270 (Mark xii. 28 34)
JESUS "WALKING" IN THE TEMPLE
but a precept, " Go and do like the Samaritan who made him-
self a ' neighbour ' to a Jewish stranger in distress and thereby
made the Jew his neighbour." This is a beautiful moral
appended to a beautiful story, but it does not answer the
question "Who is my neighbour?" It leaves the lawyer able
to say "If God meant 'Love every human being as thyself why
did He not say so ? If He meant ' Love a limited class of human
beings' why did He not define the limit? "
How does John intervene, if at all, on these subjects, first,
as to the nature, duty, and scope of love, and then as to the
question whether the first and highest commandment enjoins
love? As to the nature and scope of "loving" John says, in
his first mention of the word, "God so lovecl the world that he
gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him
should not perish but have eternal life 1 ." Yet in the Epistle
he says "Love not the world neither the things that are in the
world 2 ." In this contradiction there is no mere play on different
meanings of "the world." It is rather a warning about the
different meanings of "love." John never tells us to love our
enemies or even to love our neighbours. Perhaps he felt that
the attempt to love these sometimes ended in hypocrisy 3 .
When he says " He that loveth not his brother whom he hath
seen, cannot love God whom he hath not seen 4 ," he clearly
assumes that the "brother" is no enemy, or bestial or diabolic
being, but a believer in Christ, lovable for his own sake as well as
for Christ's. And in Christ's last commandments to the disciples,
as recorded by John, we are bidden to love, not enemies, nor
strangers, but "one another 5 ."
Jesus calls this a new commandment. Its newness appears
to consist in the new character of the love. They are, He says,
to love one another "even as I have loved you." What follows
later on implies that kind of love which induces a man to "lay
down his life for his friends 6 ." This takes us back to the first
1 Jn iii. 16. 2 i Jn ii. 15.
3 Rom. xii. 9 "the love [that is to be the sign of the Church,
must be] without hypocrisy."
4 i Jn iv. 20 (so W. H. without altern.).
5 Jn xiii. 345. 8 Jn xv. 13.
271 (Mark xii. 28 34)
JESUS "WALKING" IN THE TEMPLE
Johannine mention of the word, "God so loved the world"
which shews that the Father made a sacrifice of the Son, and that
the Son made a sacrifice of Himself, and all for an unloving or
even hostile world, in order that it might, if possible, be brought
into the region of love. Thus, although we are not taught in
word to love strangers or enemies, we are led by the love of
Christ to feel for them something corresponding to the love of
the Father and this was for all "the world."
Thus emphasizing the self-sacrificing love of the Father
and the Son or of the Father through the Son John
emphasizes that unity of God, and that unity of God's com-
mandments (merged as they are in one) which Luke omits.
The Marcan proclamation "the Lord our God is one" is
nowhere mentioned by Matthew or Luke. But John has
"I and the Father are one 1 ." And the Marcan promi-
nence given to the "first" Commandment is illustrated by
several Johannine passages which imply the Law of Self-
sacrifice as exemplified in the Son receiving the love and the
commandment of the Father: "Therefore doth the Father
love me because I lay down my life .... I have authority to
lay it down and I have authority to take it again. This com-
mandment received I from my Father 2 ." The last Johannine
sentence of Christ's public teaching, though it merely mentions
"speaking" and not acting, implies that the one commandment
is, in effect, Self-sacrifice, incarnate in the Son of God and
identified with eternal life: "I know that his commandment is
life eternal 3 ." The Unity of God Himself is connected (in the
1 Jn x. 30. 2 Jn x. 17 18.
3 Jn xii. 50. The Pauline occasional use of eWoX?? in a somewhat
depreciative sense (Rom. vii. 8 13, Eph. ii. 15, Tit. i. 14, comp.
Heb. vii. 16 18) may have led to such a contempt for eWoXat as
Clem. Alex, condemns in heretics (893) Svo-apeo-rou/iei'ot rms Oeims eWoXaly
TOVTf(TTL T(O OyiO) TT V fV fJiClT I . HcnCC CleiTl. AleX. 834 TCtS VTO\OS . . .
fft(i)K(v . . . f< mas (jpvT(>ij.fvos Tnjyris o Kvptos traces them all back to their
source. A similar feeling pervades John, who would have us regard
them as a gift, not as a yoke, and as incarnate in Christ. Comp.
Maccoth 24 a on Amos v. 4: Moses has 613 commandments, David
n, Isaiah 6, Micah 3, Isaiah "again (wiederum) " 2, Amos i, "Seek
272 (Mark xii. 28 34)
JESUS "WALKING" IN THE TEMPLE
Fourth Gospel) with the unity of man with man, and of Man
collectively with God, through the fulfilment of the One Com-
mandment. To some the Johannine repetition of "one"
attributed to Jesus in His Last Prayer may seem to border
on superfluity, but it is assuredly deliberate 1 .
6. "Scribes" and "the Son of David 2 "
Mark implies that the Messianic title, "Son of David," was
insisted on by "the scribes" in the course of their doctrine
ME, and ye shall live." This may be compared with Lk. x. 28 "Do
this and thou shalt live."
1 Jn xvii. ii "that they may be one, even as we [are one]," ib.
21 3 "that they may all be one. . .that they may be one, even as
we [are] one. . .that they may be perfected into one."
2 Mk xii. 358
(R.V.)
(35) And Jesus
answered and said,
as he taught in the
temple, How say the
scribes that the
Christ is the son of
David ?
(36) David him-
self said in the Holy
Spirit,
The Lord said un-
to my Lord, Sit thou
on my right hand,
till I make thine
enemies the footstool
of thy feet (some anc.
auth. underneath thy
feet).
(37) David him-
self calleth him Lord ;
and whence is he his
son ? And the com-
mon people (or, the
great multitude)
heard him gladly.
(38) And in his
teaching he said, Be-
ware of the scribes . . .
A. F.
Mt. xxii. 41 6
(R.V.)
(41) Now while
the Pharisees were
gathered together,
Jesus asked them a
question,
(42) Saying, What
think ye of the
Christ ? whose son is
he? They say unto
him, [The son] of
David.
(43) He saith unto
them, How then doth
David in the Spirit
call him Lord, say-
ing,
(44) The Lord
said unto my Lord,
Sit thou on my right
hand, till I put thine
enemies underneath
thy feet?
(45) If David
then calleth him
Lord, how is he his
son?
(46) And no one
was able to answer
him a word . .
Lk. xx. 41 6
(R.V.)
(41) And he said
unto them, How say
they that the Christ
is David's son?
(42) For David
himself saith in the
book of Psalms,
The Lord said un-
to my Lord, Sit thou
on my right hand,
(43) Till I make
thine enemies the
footstool of thy feet.
(44) David there-
fore calleth him Lord,
and how is he his
son?
(45) And in the
hearing of all the
people he said unto
his disciples,
(46) Beware of
the scribes . .
273 (Mark xii. 35 8)
18
.JESUS "WALKING" IN THE TEMPLE
generally. But his context ("answered and said") might be
taken to mean that Jesus said this in answer to some particular
and recent utterance. Accordingly Matthew inserts a state-
ment of the Pharisees that Christ is the Son of David, made in
reply to a question of Jesus "What think ye of the Christ?
Whose son is he?" Now all the Synoptists have represented
this title as being recently applied by a blind beggar, or " two
blind men," in the neighbourhood of Jericho to Jesus on His
way to Jerusalem 1 . Luke, perhaps for this reason, drops the
word "scribes" here, and describes Jesus as now putting to
His former questioners who "durst not ask him any more
questions" a question on His own account, "How say
[they]" that is, people in general "that the Christ is David's
son ? " This is quite different from the tradition in Mark.
Mark's emphasis on "the scribes" recalls Matthew's account
of Herod "gathering together all the chief priests and scribes of
the people" when "he inquired of them where the Christ should
be born; and they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea 2 ."
It recalls also a Johannine passage where those Jews who
on scriptural or scribal grounds dispute the possibility that
Jesus could be the Christ, are contrasted with "[some] of the
multitude" thus: "[Some} of the multitude therefore, when they
heard these words [of Jesus preaching in the Temple] said, This
is of a truth the prophet. Others [of the multitude] said, This is
the Christ. But some said, What, doth the Christ come out of
Galilee? Hath not the scripture said that the Christ cometh
of the seed of David, and from Bethlehem, the village where
David was 3 ?"
Here alone does John mention " David," and it is in con-
nection with Bethlehem. But, much earlier, Bethlehem is
1 Mk x. 47 8, Mt. xx. 30 31, Lk. xviii. 38 9, rep. twice.
2 Mt. ii. 45.
3 Jn vii. 40 42 ol 5e eXe-yoi/, since 01 pcv does not precede, might
mean "but they, i.e. the previous speakers, said," that is to say,
"Those who had called Jesus 'the prophet' moderated the enthusi-
asm of those who said that He was 'the Christ.'" But no version
takes it thus. We must perhaps suppose that XXot is regarded as
equiv. to ol \iiv. This is Jn's only mention of Bethlehem.
274 (Mark xii. 35 8)
JESUS "WALKING" IN THE TEMPLE
probably to be supposed as being in the mind of Nathanael when
he raises a scribal objection to Philip's acceptance of Jesus as
the Deliverer, on the ground that He cannot "come out of
Nazareth 1 ." No doubt the meaning is "He must come out of
Bethlehem." In that passage, John makes no attempt to meet
this objection of Nathanael's either through words of his own
or through words of Jesus. Nathanael overrides his own logical
and scriptural argument by sheer illogical faith.
Later on, John represents Nicodemus as being apparently
silenced by a scribal objection based on locality, "Art thou
also of Galilee? Search, and see that out of Galilee ariseth
no prophet (or, not the prophet) 2 ." This follows almost im-
mediately after the utterance in the Temple, above quoted;
about David and Bethlehem ; and it is in the Council chamber
of the Sanhedrin where the chief priests and Pharisees (no
doubt including "scribes"; are assembled. "Search and see"
implies an appeal to those learned in the Scriptures, as "the
scribes " specially professed to be ; and the passage supports
Mark in the view that "the scribes" emphasized some con-
nection between the Messiah and David. The speakers in the
Fourth Gospel mention " the seed of David " only in connection
with the identity of birthplace for Christ and David. Luke, in
his own person, emphasizes these details, "Joseph went up from
Galilee out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, to -the city
of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the
house and family of David 3 ."
The impression left on us by John is, not that he dis-
believed in Christ's birth at Bethlehem and descent from " the
house and family of David," but that he regarded the acceptance
of these details as not necessary for Christians. It was natural
for scribes to lay stress on them, but Jesus desired disciples
to accept Him for His own sake apart from "David" and
" Bethlehem " without such scribal conditions. Hence John
1 Jn i. 46.
2 Jn vii. 52. See Joh. Gr. 2492 "No one has satisfactorily ex-
plained the extraordinary statement attributed to the Pharisees ' Out
of G. ariseth no prophet.' " The sense demands the insertion of 6
before Trpo(pr,T^. 3 Lk. ii. 4.
275 (Mark xii. 35 8) 18 2
JESUS "WALKING" IN THE TEMPLE
represents no enlightenment as being given even to the guileless
Nathanael either when he seemed likely to stumble at the
mention of "Nazareth" or on any subsequent occasion. Natha-
nael, overriding the objection suggested by "Nazareth," hails
Jesus as Son of God and King of Israel; and Jesus accepts his
homage, and promises a future vision of glory, in which there
shall be revealed no Son of David, but a mediating Son of Man,
on whom the angels of God ascend and descend 1 .
While considering the Johannine attitude toward "scribal"
conditions, we should note the fact that the word "scribe,"
abundantly used by Mark and often, though less often, by
Matthew and Luke, is never used by John 2 .
Perhaps one reason for this is the technical nature of the
Synoptic word. Outside Palestine, grammateus, "clerk," or
"scribe," might mean "town-clerk," as in the Lucan narrative
of the tumult in Ephesus 3 . But of course John could not, and
1 Jn i. 51. See Joh. Gr. 2275, Son 3136 foil., 3374 foil.
On the words of Jesus "David. . .calleth him Lord" there was no
reason why John should intervene, as they are in all the Synoptists
and are fairly consonant with what we learn from Justin Martyr
(Tryph. 33, 83) about Jewish tradition concerning the noth
Psalm, namely, that in the second century they referred the Psalm to
Hezekiah. This agrees with the hypothesis that in the first century
Jews referred it to the Messiah, but in the second (when Christians
had referred it to their Messiah) to Hezekiah. Later on, the Rabbis
referred it (says Rashi) to Abraham. But Tehill. i. 163, after
mentioning Abraham and Moses as instances of God's condescension,
quotes R. Judan, in the name of R. Chama, as referring it to the
Messiah. The Synoptists clearly assume that the Jews in Christ's
time accepted the statement "David calleth him Lord," as applying
to the Messiah, so that no one ventured to contradict it.
2 Joh. Voc. 1692 gives ypu^arfvs Mk 22, Mt. 19, Lk. 14, Jn. o.
3 Acts xix. 35. It is not used (Goodspeed) in the early Fathers.
Justin, the only Apologist that has it, uses it only in his Dialogue
with the Jew, and there almost always with "Pharisees," and mostly
in quotations. Tvyph. 103 vno TWV &apicraia>v Kal ypap.p.aTe<i)v Kara
TTJV &idav KuXiav eWe/Lt$$fVre$- if not corrupt, may mean scribes (" [so
called] in respect of their teaching [of the Scripture]." But comp.
ib. 102 "the Pharisees and scribes, and, in short, the teachers in
your nation," which favours the old emendation /cm T>I>
276 (Mark xii. 35 8)
JESUS "WALKING" IN THE TEMPLE
does not, omit the fact of " scribism." Only he dramatizes it.
The basis of " scrib-ism" (morally as well as etymologically) is
" scrip-ture " ; and among the first dramatic utterances in the
Fourth Gospel are those based on some scriptural definition,
or name, of a future Saviour, or of His fore-runner, or of His
birthplace: "I am not the Christ," "Art thou Elijah!"
"Art thou the Prophet!" "We have found the Messiah," "We
have found him of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did
write," "Can any (? the) good thing come out of Nazareth 1 ?"
The earlier instances exemplify the inflexible scribism of the
" priests and Levites from Jerusalem " ; the last of all exemplifies
the flexible scribism of the open-minded Nathanael 2 . But they
are all forms of "scribism." Other forms of it follow in rapid
succession throughout the Gospel, and especially where "Jews"
or Pharisees are mentioned as distinct from "multitude."
Indeed no Synoptic Gospel is so permeated with the thing
though the word is nowhere to be found 3 .
1 Jn i. 20, 21, 41, 45, 46.
2 On Jn vii. 41 2 Chrys. remarks that the objection "Doth the
Christ come from Galilee?" uttered by hostile Jews, and "out of
Nazareth can any good come? " uttered by Nathanael, do not seem
to be regarded in the same way. He concludes that Nathanael was
"a lover of truth" and was helped accordingly, whereas the Jews
merely wished to overthrow the popular belief that Jesus was the
Christ. "Lover of truth" is probably implied in Jn i. 47 ''truly an
Israelite" (whether Israel means (Son 3140 a 6) "seeing God" or
"striving with [the aid of] God"). Nathanael was (Mt. xiii. 52)
a " scribe made a disciple to the kingdom of heaven," and consequently
he "brought forth things new" as well as "old."
"Scribe" occurs uniquely and significantly in the interpolated
Jn viii. 3.
277 (Mark xii. 35 8)
JESUS "WALKING" IN THE TEMPLE
7. "Scribes" and a poor widow, in Mark and Luke 1
Mark concludes his account of Christ's teaching in the
Temple with a condemnation of "scribes" that "devour
1 Mk xii. 37 b 44
(R.V.)
(37) ...And the
common people (or,
the great multitude)
heard him gladly.
(38) And in his
teaching he said, Be-
ware of the scribes,
which desire to walk
in long robes, and [to
have] salutations in
the marketplaces,
(39) And chief
seats in the syna-
gogues, and chief
places at feasts:
(40) They which
devour widows'
houses, and for a
pretence make (or,
even while for a pre-
tence they make)
long prayers; these
shall receive greater
condemnation.
(41) And he sat
down over against
the treasury, and be-
held how the multi-
tude cast money (lit.
Mt. xxiii. i 7
(R.V.)
(1) Then spake
Jesus to the multi-
tudes and to his dis-
ciples, saying,
(2) The scribes
and the Pharisees sit
on Moses' seat:
(3) All things
therefore whatsoever
they bid you, [these]
do and observe : but
do not ye after their
works ; for they say,
and do not.
(4) Yea, they
bind heavy burdens
and grievous to be
borne [many anc.
auth. omit and griev-
ous to be borne], and
lay them on men's
shoulders; but they
themselves will not
move them with their
finger.
(5) But all their
works they do for to
be seen of men: for
they make broad
their phylacteries,
and enlarge the
borders [of .their gar-
ments],
(6) And love the
chief place at feasts,
and the chief seats
in the synagogues,
(7) And the salu-
tations in the market-
places, and to be
called of men, Rabbi.
Lk. xx. 45 xxi. 4
(R.V.)
(45) And in the
hearing of all the
people he said unfo
his disciples,
(46) Beware of
the scribes, which
desire to walk in long
robes, and love salu-
tations in the market-
places, and chief
seats in the syna-
gogues, and chief
places at feasts;
(47) Which de-
vour widows' houses,
and for a pretence
make long prayers:
these shall receive
greater condemna-
tion.
[Comp. Lk. xi. 43
Woe unto you Phari-
sees ! for ye love the
chief seats in the
synagogues, and the
salutations in the
marketplaces.]
(xxi. i) And he
looked up, and saw
the rich men that
were casting their
gifts into the trea-
278 (Mark xii. 37 44)
JESUS "WALKING" IN THE TEMPLE
widows' houses" and a story that exalts the almsgiving of
"a poor widow." Luke closely follows Mark in both. There
is consequently no question here about the rule of Johannine
Intervention 1 .
Mk xii. 37 b 44 Lk. xx. 45 xxi. 4
(R.V.) contd. (R.V.}contd.
brass) into the trea- sury (or, and saw
sury : and many that them that . . . trea-
were rich cast in sury, and they were
much. rich).
(42) And there (2) And he saw a
came a (lit. one) poor certain poor widow,
widow, and she cast casting in thither two
in two mites, which mites.
make a farthing.
(43) And he (3) And he said,
called unto him his Of a truth I say unto
disciples, and said you, This poor widow
unto them, Verily I cast in more than
say unto you, This they all:
poor widow cast in
more than all they
which are casting in-
to the treasury :
(44) For they all (4) For all these
did cast in of their did of their super-
superfluity; but she fluity cast in unto
of her want did cast the gifts : but she of
in all that she had, her want did cast in
[even] all her living. all the living: that she
hadi
1 Mk xii. 37 "heard him gladly," omitted by Mt.-Lk., can hardly
be called an instance of the failure of Johannine Intervention. For
it is a variation of Mk xi. 18 "was astonished at his teaching,"
parall. Mt. om., parall. Lk. xix. 48 "hung upon him, listening."
John dramatizes this in vii. 46 "never man so spake," uttered by
"the officers," to their rulers, the "chief priests and Pharisees."
But, with reference to Johannine Intervention, some notice is
due here to Mk xii. 41 <a6ia-as parallel to Lk. xxi. i dvafiXe^as. Origen
(on Jn viii. 20, Lomm. ii. 150 foil.) commenting on Christ's doctrine
in the Treasury about "judging" quotes Mk and Lk. fully (Lomm.
ii. 155), but substitutes eorafc for Kadiaas in Mk, and explains dva-
ft\f\lras as referring to spiritual insight. SS agrees with Origen in
substituting "standing" for "sitting" in Mk. This is very natural,
since (see above, p. 204, n. i) "it was not lawful to sit in the Temple."
Hence, too, we may explain Lk.'s substitution of "looking up"
perhaps intended to suggest spiritual as well as literal vision. Schott-
gen (on Mk. xii. 42) quotes Bab. Bathr. 10 b "Non ponat homo Xe-rrrbv
279 (Mark xii. 37 44)
JESUS "WALKING" IN THE TEMPLE
But Matthew's deviations demand attention. For he
altogether omits the story of the widow. He also omits the
charge of "devouring widows' houses," and that of "making
long prayers for a pretence." The latter, in Mark, may corre-
spond to "make broad their phylacteries and enlarge the
fringes [of their garments] " in Matthew 1 . If it does, we are
led to ask whether "devour widows' houses," in Mark, may be
based on some Jewish metaphorical expression of a phrase in
Matthew. And this again leads us to examine the metaphor
in Matthew alone "They bind heavy burdens and grievous
to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders 2 ."
"The shoulder-Pharisee" has the first place in both the
Talmuds, where seven classes of Pharisees are distinguished.
He is (presumably) the worst, for the list ends with the best,
the Pharisee of love. The Babylonian Talmud explains "the
shoulder-Pharisee" as meaning a Pharisee like Shechem ("shoul-
der") who was circumcised for his own advantage and not for
the honour of God. But the Jerusalem Talmud says "he
carries his precepts upon his shoulder," or "he accepts the law
as a burden," perhaps meaning (as Levy suggests) that he
"stoops his shoulders" under the Law so as to make it appear
that he is a martyr 3 .
i\ in cistam eleemosynarum." One mite might be given for
alms, but not for temple-alms. Jesus may not have seen a par-
ticular widow giving her "two mites," but Mark may have drama-
tized what He said about the typical, "widow." as though He said it
about a single person. Comp. Sir. xxxii. (xxxv.) 15 "Do not the
tears run down the widow's cheeks. . . ?" Perhaps Jesus said "Be-
hold, the widow giveth her two mites and this is more than the gifts
of the rich." It would be easy to take it as meaning "this widow"
and to explain "her two mites" as meaning "all that she had."
It has been shewn above (p. 203) that Mark's "sitting" may be
explained as an allusion to Mai. iii. 3 "He shall sit as a refiner. . .
and shall purify the sons of Levi. . .and they shall offer unto the Lord
offerings in righteousness." The widow's offering was one of these.
1 ]\lt. xxiii. 5. See Son 3635 ab.
2 Mt. xxiii. 4.
3 See Hor. Heb. (on Mt. iii. 7) quoting Sota 22 b " This [Pharisee]
does as Shechem" (with the Gloss, ''who is circumcised (Gen. xxxiv.
2 26), but not for the honour of God "). It also quotes /. Berach. ix.
280 (Mark xii. 37 44)
JESUS "WALKING" IN THE TEMPLE
Now this explanation, though clear enough to a Jew when
the allusion to Shechem is pointed out, is far from clear to
Gentiles. And it would be very natural that a translator,
writing Greek in the fluent rhetorical style perceptible in
Matthew's addition, should take the clause as meaning, not
I "lade, as it were, burdens on their own shoulders," but "lade,
as it were, burdens on other people's shoulders." This Matthew
appears to have done and to have made this the first and fore-
most charge against the Pharisees. If this explanation is true
we can understand why Luke, who often follows Matthew in
rhetorical additions of this kind, has not followed him here but
has adhered to Mark.
Returning to Mark's narrative we are in -the first pi act
confirmed by its condemnation of scribes in the view
that the scribe who previously questioned Jesus about the
one commandment was really "tempting Jesus," as well as
"desiring to justify himself"; so that in fact he received
from Jesus not praise, but latent warning, in the words "thou
art not far from the kingdom of God." Mark's narrative, from
beginning to end, represents Jesus as waging two wars, one
against "the scribe" as a type, and the other for "the widow "
as a type. The scribes and their book-learning, supporting
extortionate priests, had reduced the Temple to a den of robbers
and had given dominance to an ostentatious fulfilment of the
letter of the Law and to ostentatious giving of alms by a class
5 (7) "He carrieth his precepts upon his shoulders," and adds " that is,
as the Aruch explains it, ' wood to make a booth [in the feast of Taber-
nacles] or something of that nature '." This far-fetched explanation
in the Aruch (1001 A.D.) shews nothing but the difficulty of the
allusion. /. Berach. itself adds as a further definition of the first (or,
Shechem) Pharisee " The first is like unto a man that would take the
Divine commandments upon his shoulders to take them away," i.e. get
rid of them. But the explanation given by Levy (iv. 143 a] is far
more probable, namely, that it is a play on the name of Shechem
(Gen. xxxiv. 2) and the meaning of Heb. shechem "shoulder."
Shechem was circumcised "for a pretence," and the Shechem-
Pharisee carried on his shoulders the yoke of the Law, for all men to
see it, as though it ^ere a crushing burden. In none of these explana-
tions is there a thought of laying burdens on other people's shoulders.
281 (Mark xii. 37 44)
JESUS "WALKING" IN THE TEMPLE
that oppressed the poor. With this antithesis Mark ends,
'They all [i.e. the rich] did cast into [the treasury] from their
superfluity, but she from her want did cast in all that she had."
Passing to the Fourth Gospel, and inquiring what conclusion
is assigned there to Christ's teaching in the Temple, we find
ourselves confronted first with a textual difficulty. Christ's
teaching appears at first sight to conclude with the words
"While ye have the light, believe on the light, that ye may
become sons of light," followed by a statement that Jesus
departed, "These things spake Jesus and departed and was
hidden from them 1 ." Then follows the Evangelist's comment,
namely, that the Light was hidden from them through their own
fault, "for they loved the glory of men more than the glory of
God 2 " words that seem to sum up the Synoptic particularities
about "long robes" and "salutations" and "chief seats." But
then, when we are ready as it were to pass out of the Temple
with Jesus for the last time, the Gospel adds "But Jesus cried
aloud and said," introducing a doctrine about Himself as
"light" ("I am come, light, into the world") and about a
"commandment" given to Him by the Father, and about His
knowledge that "His commandment is eternal life 3 ."
To what period and place are we to assign this crying aloud ?
Some authorities have the present or imperfect as the tenses of
the verbs "cried" and "said 4 "; and I have found no comment
on the place except in Nonnus, who says that it was "inside the
Temple 5 ." Most readers will feel that- it could hardly have
been anywhere else 6 . But they will also probably feel that
John could not expect us to assume that Jesus, the departing
Light, after He had withdrawn from the Temple and had been
"hidden" from the Jews, informally returned to it again in
a visit unmentioned by the Evangelist, in order to make these
few final remarks. The way out of the difficulty is to suppose
1 Jn xii. 36, see Joh. Gr. 2543. 2 Jn xii. 39 43.
3 Jn xii. 44 50, R.V. " a light." 4 Jn xii. 44 (Blass).
5 'ir/O'ous' (V lu^r)(T( dvcodeos evftoOi 1/7701).
6 The two other instances of xpdfa in Jn applied to Jesus are in
Jn vii. 28, 37, both denoting utterances in the Temple.
282 (Mark xii. 37 44)
JESUS "WALKING" IN THE TEMPLE
that the past tense, "cried aloud," is pluperfect, as often in
John elsewhere, and that the Evangelist, in accordance with
his habit of adding parentheses or appendices, introduces an
appendix to shew that the Light did not desert the Jews with-
out full warning, "But Jesus had cried and said 1 ."
The last sentence in this Johannine appendix to Christ's
teaching in the Temple combines the two words introduced by
the question of the scribe in Mark, "What is the first command-
ment^ " and by the parallel question of the lawyer in Luke,
"What shall I do to inherit eternal life 2 ? " In John, the "com-
mandment " of the Father to the Son is that He should die and
rise again for the redemption of mankind ; and at the conclusion
of the " crying aloud " Jesus says " I know that his commandment
is eternal life 3 ."
1 See Joh. Gr. 2459 62 on Aorist for English Pluperfect, and
2631 5 (ii) on Johannine Parentheses.
2 Mk xii. 28, Lk. x. 25.
3 Jn xii. 50.
283 (Mark xii. 37 44)
CHAPTER VII
THE LAST DAYS
[Mark xiii. i 37]
i. The casting down of the Temple^
Ix the Marcan text (" what manner of stones ") there appears
to be an allusion to the immense size and careful preparation of
the stones employed by Herod in the rebuilding of the Temple,
which was in effect the construction of a new building 2 . A pious
Jew might contrast these with the corner stone mentioned in
1 Mk xiii. i 2.
(R.V.)
(1) And as he
went forth out of the
temple, one of his
disciples saith unto
him, Master (or,
Teacher) , behold,
what manner of
stones and what
manner of buildings !
(2) And Jesus said
unto him, Seest thou
these great build-
ings ? there shall not
be left here one stone
upon another, which
shall not be thrown
down.
Mt. xxiv. i 2
(R.V.)
(i) And Jesus
went out from the
temple, and was go-
ing on his way ; and
his disciples came to
him to shew him the
buildings of the
temple.
Lk. xxi. 5 6
(R.V.)
(5) And as some
spake of the temple,
how it was adorned
with goodly stones
and offerings, he said,
(2) But he an-
swered and said unto
them, See ye not all
these things? verily
I say unto you, There
shall not be left here
one stone upon an-
other, that shall not
be thrown down.
For Mk xiii. i "one" parall. to Lk. xxi. 5
28 "one" perhaps parall. to Lk. xx. 39 "some," on which see Cor-
rections 463. In Greek, TTOI/ [ ] e* TWV paQ^T&v with an ellipsis of
rives, meaning "some of the disciples said," might easily be taken as
an error for eiVeV [n$-] ec, "one of them said."
2 Joseph. Ant. xv. n. i 7.
284 (Mark xiii. i 2)
(6) As for these
things which ye be-
hold, the days will
come, in which there
shall not be left here
one stone upon an-
other, that shall not
be thrown down.
some" comp. Mk xii.
THE LAST DAYS
the Psalms and in the prophecy of Zechariah, and a Christian
Jew would reflect that this exclamation "what manner of
stones ! " was addressed to the Messiah at the very moment
when He, the rejected Corner Stone, was going forth out of the
Temple, leaving it to become a heap of stones, a ruin.
Luke says that the Temple was "adorned with goodly
stones and dedicated-gifts," using the word " anathema,"
unique in N.T. 1 Josephus, in the passage where he describes
Herod's goodly stones, adds that "there were fixed in the
circuit of the whole temple barbaric spoils, and all these King
Herod dedicated, adding all that he had taken from the
Arabians 2 ." Now a fragment of Epictetus, using the very
phrase employed by Luke, "adorn with dedicated-gifts," says
"If it be thy purpose to adorn the city with dedicated-gifts,
dedicate first unto thyself that best of dedicatory-gifts, mildness,
and righteousness, and beneficence 3 ." These were just the
qualities that Herod did not possess. David was forbidden to
build the Temple as being a man that had shed mu,ch blood 4 .
Herod was notoriously a shedder of blood. The Greek word
anathema, said by the Grammarian Moeris to be the Attic form
of the Hellenic anathema, occurs in the latter form almost
invariably in LXX, and means "something dedicated to
Jehovah for the purpose of destruction." In this sense Paul
uses anathema**. Luke must have known all this when he
inserted (what Mark and Matthew have not inserted) this
"adornment with dedicated gifts," and he may have inserted
1 Lk. xxi. 5, Tisch. has avaBi^uTiv with (Alford) ADXX, but W.H.
<iva9^a(TLv with BQ. Oxf. Cone. LXX gives avaQcpa, di/udq/xa under
one heading, and al ways = Din "dedicated to destruction" except in
Judith (i), Mace. (3) where it means "dedicated-gift." Thayer quotes
Moeris avaBrjfjut orrucdf, a.vdd(p.a eAX^i/tKO)?.
2 Ant. XV. II. 3 TOO &' lpOV TTdVTOS T)V fV KVKXcp TTfTTT/y/xeVa <TKV\0.
/3ap/3a/ji/ca, KOI ravra rravra (3ao~i\vs 'Hpu>8r)s avfdrjKev Trpocrdels ocra KOI
ru>v 'A.pdfta>v eXa/Scp. Josephus freq. uses ava6r)p.a and avar(Bj]^L. See
Wetst. (on Lk. xxi. 5) quoting Ant. xii. 2. 7 and 5. 4, xvii. 10. 3. On
Luke, as imitating Josephus, see Introd. p. 115.
3 Epict. Fragm. Stob. 59 (Schweig. 80) rrjv iru\iv ava0rjp.a<ri KOffpelv,
COmp. Philo ii. 589 dvaBrifUUri Koo-p.rjcras. . .TO iepov.
4 i Chr. xxii. 8, xxviii. 3. 5 Rom. ix. 3, i Cor. xii. 3 etc.
285 (Mark xiii. i 2)
THE LAST DAYS
it allusively. Habakkuk said that when a man "buildeth"
with blood "the stone shall cry out of the wall 1 " against him.
Similarly the stones in the Herodian temple, built up into a
temple of ostentation by a man of blood, and used as a temple
of extortion by priests of Mammon, might be regarded as crying
out for dissolution 2 .
There is nothing here that calls for Johannine Intervention
since Luke does not omit or contradict anything in Mark. In
the Johannine narrative of the Cleansing of the Temple attention
is fixed on the spiritual corruption that is destroying the Temple
("destroy ye this temple") and on the spiritual nature of the
Temple that will take its place. The Jews, not the disciples,
emphasize the length of time "forty and six years" needed
for the construction of the present Temple, as contrasted
with the "three days" in which it is to be reconstructed 3 . The
language of the Jews represents a literal, that of Jesus a mystical
view. The passage appears to have no contact with the Mark-
Luke tradition about the admiration of the disciples for the
goodly "stones."
2. "When shall these things be*?"
The original question seems to have been simply "When
shall these things be, and what [shall be] the sign? " But this
1 Hab. ii. n 12.
2 On the other hand, Luke (xix. 40) describes Jesus, on the way
to the City, as speaking of "stones" that would "cry out" in praise
of the Messiah if the children of Israel were silent. These "stones"
ought consistently to be on the road, outside the Temple, but we
have seen (above, p. 222, n. 4) that Jerome regards them as
belonging to the Temple.
3 Jn ii. 1920. See Son 3194 b (referring to Joh. Gr. 2023 4) as
to the " forty-six years," and as to the refusal of pious Jews to regard
Herod as the builder (rather than the repairer) of the Temple.
4 Mk xiii. 3 4 Mt xxiv. 3 Lk. xxi. 7
(R.V.) (R.V.) (R.V.)
(3) And as he sat (3) And as he sat (7) And they
on the mount of on the mount of asked him, saying,
Olives over against Olives, the disciples Master (or, Teacher),
the temple, Peter and came unto him when therefore shall
James and John and privately, saying, these things be ? and
286 (Mark xiii. 3 4)
THE LAST DAYS
was felt not to go far enough. It was written in the beginning
of the prophecy of Jeremiah: "I have put my words in thy
mouth ; see, I have set thee ... to destroy and to overthrow, to
build and to plant 1 ." The same words might seem necessarily
to apply to Jesus. He had prophesied "destroying and over-
throwing." But He would assuredly also "build and plant."
When would all this take place? "What [shall be] the sign
when all these things are about to be accomplished? " So writes
Mark. Matthew follows Mark but expresses "all" in detail,
making three questions in effect : (i) When shall the Temple
be cast down? (2) What shall be the sign of Christ's Parousia
("thy coming, lit. presence")? (3) What shall be the sign of
"the accomplishment of the aeon 2 ?" Luke, on the other
hand, here rejects the Marc'an addition of "all" confining the
subject ("these things") to the mere destruction of the Temple.
Later on, he retains "all" (with Mark) in a prophecy that
" this generation shall not pass away till all things (Mark all these
things) shall have come to pass 3 "; but in the present passage,
we may say that Luke regards "these things" as limited to the
fall of the Temple included in the fall of Jerusalem which he
definitely describes as "compassed with armies."
John, too, has a Discourse on the Last Days. But it has
nothing to do with any prophecy about the Temple. It is
Mk xiii. 3 4
(R.V.) contd.
Andrew asked him
privately,
(4) Tell us, when
shall these things be ?
and what [shall be]
the sign when these
things are all about
to be accomplished ?
Mt. xxiv. ^
(R.V.) contd.
Lk. xxi. 7
(R.V.) contd.
what [shall be] the
sign when these
things are about to
come to pass ?
Tell us, when
shall these things be ?
and what [shall be]
the sign of thy com-
ing (lit. presence) ,
and of the end of the
world (or, the con-
summation of the
age)?
1 Jerem. i. 9 10.
2 Mt. xxiv. 3. (i) llapovo-ia and (ii) o-uj>rfXeia occur in no Gospel
except Mt. (i) xxiv. 3, 27, 37, 39, (ii) xiii. 39, 40, 49, xxiv. 3, xxviii.
20. Swre'Aeia occurs elsewhere in N.T. only in Heb. ix. 26 vwl 5e
a7ra erri (rwreXeia TO>I> atcoi/cDi/.
3 See Son 3583 a, quoting Mk xiii. 30, Mt. xxiv. 34, Lk. xxi. 32.
287 (Mark xiii. 3 4)
THE LAST DAYS
addressed to the disciples, terrified by Christ's predictions of
His departure from them, and it is wholly personal. Christ's
"presence" indeed is promised, but not an external parousia.
It is an "abiding" of the Son and the Father in the heart of
the believer. Or it is the gift of a Paraclete, the Son's second
Self, to be "friend in need" to the disciples, representing the
Son in their hearts. Whereas the Marcan Discourse is embodied
in Christ's answer to questions from Peter, James, John, and
Andrew, and no particular questioners are mentioned in the
parallel Matthew and Luke, John mentions as questioners
Peter, Thomas, Philip, and the "Judas" called "not Iscariot 1 ."
Mark and Matthew say that the questions were addressed
to Jesus by the disciples as He sat on the Mount of Olives
privately. Luke leaves us under the impression that they
were uttered in the Temple. John does not contradict this,
but implies that such questions as he records were uttered in
the chamber of the Last Supper 2 , and he nowhere mentions the
Mount of Olives. Luke mentions the Mount of Olives at the
conclusion of the Discourse on the Last Days as being Christ's
lodging-place by night, and (consistently) after the Last Supper 3 .
But Luke does not connect the Mount of Olives with any
utterance of Jesus about the Last Days except indirectly, and
that in the Acts, after the Resurrection: "Then returned they
unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is nigh
unto Jerusalem, a sabbath day's journey off*." This follows the
question "Lord, dost thou at this time restore the kingdom to
Israel? " to which Jesus replies " It is not for you to know times
or seasons, which the Father hath set within his own authority 5 ."
At the conclusion of this reply, Jesus "was taken up 6 ." But
the Ascension, according to Luke's Gospel, took place after
Jesus had "led them out until they were over against Bethany 1 ."
It seems to follow that the Ascension is regarded as taking place
between Bethany and Jerusalem, somewhere on the Mount of
1 Jn xiii. 37, xiv. 5 22. 2 Jn xiv. 31.
3 Lk. xxi. 37, xxii. 39. 4 Acts i. 12.
5 Acts i. 6 7. (i Acts i. 9.
7 Lk. xxiv. 50.
288 (Mark xiii. 3 4)
THE LAST DAYS
Olives, and as closely following an utterance of Jesus warning
th$ disciples not to expect to know certain "times and seasons."
These statements of Luke could not fail to turn the minds
of Christians to the thought of the precise place where Jesus,
after the Resurrection, answered the question of the disciples
as to the time of the restoration of the kingdom of Israel and
also ascended to heaven. Luke suggests that it was "over
against Bethany," and yet only "a sabbath day's journey"
(i.e. about six stadia) from Jerusalem. But John tells us that
Bethany was about fifteen stadia from Jerusalem 1 . A reader
of Luke's Gospel and Acts, ignorant of the topography of
Jerusalem and without the help of John, would naturally
suppose that the place of the Ascension was quite close to
Bethany, and that Bethany was little more than six stadia
from Jerusalem. John dissipates that impression.
Mark and the Acts, taken together, indicate that a question-
ing of Jesus about the Coming of the New Kingdom may have
taken place on the Mount of Olives both before and after Christ's.
resurrection 2 . The accounts of His replies to them on these two-
occasions may have been intermingled. This may explain in part
the very great deviations of Luke from Mark and Matthew as
to Christ's Discourse on the Last Days.
3. "Wars... the beginning of travail," in Mark
and Matthew*
In the prediction of "wars" Luke alone adds that they will
be accompanied by "pestilences" as well as by "earthquakes"
1 Jn xi. 18.
2 See Pistis Sophia 4 " Quum padrjTai sederent apud sese in monte
olivarum," following i " Quum Jesus resurgeret e mortuis et transi-
geret undecim annos loquens cum suis /ia<9/?rai? . ..."
3 Mk xiii. 5 8 Mt. xxiv. 4 8 Lk. xxi. 8 12 a
g(R.V.) (R.V.) (R.V.)
(5) And Jesus (4) And Jesus (8) And he said,
began to say unto answered and said Take heed that ye be
them, Take heed that unto them, Take heed not led astray: for
no man lead you that no man lead you many shall come in
astray. astray. my name, saying, I
(6) Many shall (5) For many am [he] ; and, The
come in my name, shall come in my time is at hand : go
A. F. 289 (Mark xiii. 5 8) 19
THE LAST DAYS
and "famines," which Mark and Matthew also mention. It is
probable that Luke, who often closely imitates Thucydides,
has borrowed from him an alliterative combination of "limoi
and loimoi," "famines and pestilences," well known in Greece
at the time of the Peloponnesian war, and connected by the
historian with a Greek oracle in such a way that the jingle would
be familiar to everyone who had even a smattering of Greek
literature 1 . By adding also "tumults" literally "unsettle-
ments" and "terrifying portents from heaven," Luke gives us
the impression that he had in view the unsettled condition within
the city of Jerusalem, and the portents in heaven above it, before
it was taken by the Romans, which Josephus has recorded 2 . At
Mk xiii. 5 8
(R.V.) contd.
saying, I am [he];
and shall lead many
astray.
(7) And when ye
shall hear of wars and
rumours of wars, be
not troubled : [these
things] must needs
come to pass; but
the end is not yet.
(8) For nation
shall rise against
nation, and kingdom
against kingdom :
there shall be earth-
quakes in divers
places ; there shall
be famines : these
things are the be-
ginning of travail.
Mt. xxiv. 4 8
(R.V.) contd.
name, saying, I am
the Christ ; and shall
lead many astray.
(6) And ye shall
hear of wars and
rumours of wars : see
that ye be not
troubled: for [these
things] must needs
come to pass ; but
the end is not yet.
(7) For nation
shall rise against
nation, and kingdom
against kingdom :
and there shall be
famines and earth-"
quakes in divers
places.
(8) But all these
things are the be-
ginning of travail.
Lk. xxi. 8 12 a
(R.V.) contd.
ye not after them.
(9) And when ye
shall hear of wars and
tumults, be not terri-
fied : for these things
must needs come to
pass first; but the
end is not immedi-
ately.
(10) Then said he
unto them, Nation
shall rise against
nation, and kingdom
against kingdom:
(n) And there
shall be great earth-
quakes, and in di-
vers places famines
and pestilences; and
there shall be terrors
and great signs from
heaven.
(12) But before
all these things ....
1 See Introd. pp. 114 20, and especially p. 119 quoting Thuc.
ii. 54 and adding "The noun \oip6s occurs in canon. LXX only in
i K. viii. 37, Ezek. xxxvi. 29, as a various reading and error for
Xi/ios. In the MSS of Lk. xxi. 1 1, the order of the two nouns varies."
2 Joseph. Bell. vi. 5. 3 " There stood over the city a star resembling
a sword, and a comet that continued a whole year (*a
err' eviavrov K o^r rjs)."
290 (Mark xiii. 5 8)
THE LAST DAYS
the same time it must be noted that in the only LXX passage
where the Lucan word " terrifying-portent" occurs, the Targum
renders it by the same word by which it elsewhere renders
"travail-pangs 1 ." The "travail-pangs," or "cords," of the
Messiah is a recognised phrase in the Talmud meaning the
terrors and miseries that precede the days of the Messiah 2 .
Luke appears to be expressing it as a Greek historian by "portents
from heaven." Also, in his next sentence, he seems to para-
phrase Mark's "beginning" ("beginning of travail") as though
it meant that the persecution of the disciples would be "before,"
i.e. would be the beginning of, the horrors that would follow
("Before all these things they will lay their hands on you 3 ").
John, although he does not use the word "travail," expresses
the Jewish thought about the "travail-pangs" of the Messiah
in Christ's Last Discourse when Jesus says " A woman when she
is in travail (lit. is bringing forth) hath sorrow because her hour
1 Is. xix. 17 "shall become for a terror (run) unto Egypt," 1*XX
faijTjTpov, Targ. N7rn, which Targ. also uses to render Is. xxi. 3
"pangs (D'W) have seized me," Targ. " timor (tibm) apprehendit
eos." Yet on the following Hebrew words, "like the pangs of (n^V)
a woman that is bringing forth," the Targ. uses the ordinary Aramaic
for "travail-pangs" p^an. The Aramaic N^m, "fear," represents
(Brederek) a great number of Hebrew words and is mostly a religious
fear, good or bad, of God, of false gods, of death etc.
2 HOY. Heb. on Mkxiii. 8 quotes Sanhedr. 986 about "the travail-
pangs of Messiah" as meaning "the terrors and sorrows" that shall
accompany His coming, and also Sabb. 118 a about "three miseries,"
namely, (i) "the travail-pangs of Messiah," (2) "the judgment of
hell," (3) "the war of Gog and Magog."
3 Mk xiii. 8 dpxn a>$u>a>i> raOra, if Se be inserted (as in the parall.
Mt.) might be taken as meaning "But the beginning of the travail-
pangs will be these things" namely, the things about which I now
warn you. This might be paraphrased as "But before all these wars
shall come the persecutions."
The metaphor of &8iv, in N.T., occurs only here and Acts ii. 24
\vo-as rds wftlvas TOV Gavdrov. It is used literally (in simile) only in
i Thess. v. 3. '{2Si'i/o> occurs only in Gal. iv. 19, 27 (metaph.) and
Rev. xii. 2 "A woman arrayed with the sun. . .crieth out travailing
in birth." It might be applied to (i) Christ's resurrection, (2) the
birth of the Church.
291 (Mark xiii 5 8) 19 2
THE LAST DAYS
is come ; but when she is delivered of the child, she remembereth
no more the anguish for the joy that a man is born into the
world 1 /' There the context ("I will see you again") shews that
the "man" is the Saviour, loosed from "the cords of death"
and born for the "woman," who is the Church 2 .
This is an instance shewing how John sometimes intervenes
to explain a brief Marcan tradition based on Hebrew prophecy
and Jewish interpretation, not readily intelligible to Greeks.
Such a tradition might be reduced by the historian Luke to
prose, partly because he thought a historian should not (in his
own person) write poetry, and partly because an Aramaic
version of the original suggested a satisfactory non-metaphorical
rendering. John does not use the Synoptic metaphorical word
"travail-pangs," but he uses the Synoptic thought and expands
the metaphor into a simile that no Greeks could fail to under-
stand.
In the same indirect way, John deals with the word "wars."
All the Synoptists use it in a literal sense and connect it with
a warning of Jesus not to be alarmed or frightened 3 . John
never mentions it. Adhering to his general custom he prefers
an admixture of a positive to a purely negative doctrine. Instead
of saying merely "Be not alarmed at the wars of the world,"
Jesus says, in the Fourth Gospel, first, "Peace I leave with you,
the peace that is my own I give unto you," and then He adds
"Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid 4 ."
And later on, in the last sentence of His- Discourse, He again
implies war by mentioning "peace" and by adding a mention
of conquest: "These things have I spoken unto you that in
me ye may have peace. In the world ye [must] have tribu-
lation: but be of good cheer; 7 have conquered the world 5 ."
Some doctrine about "peace" must have been part of the
Gospel of our Saviour, as indeed of any Jewish teacher regarded
by Jews as the Messiah. For the very name "Jerusalem"
includes "peace." Philo tells us that it means "the vision of
1 Jn xvi. 21. 2 Jn xvi. 22.
3 Mk xiii. 7, Mt. xxiv. 6 /M) Bpoelo-Qf, Lk. xxi. 9
4 Jn xiv. 27. 5 Jn xvi. 33.
292 (Mark xiii. 5 8)
THE LAST DAYS
peace 1 ." It would be impossible for any Messiah following on
the lines of Hebrew prophecy to fail to recognise that if
Jerusalem was to be cast down by war, it must also be built
up by peace the war transient and on earth, the peace
permanent and from heaven. This was foreshadowed in the
person of Melchizedek, the ancient priest of Salim that is, of
"peace" to whom Abraham paid tithes after the war against
the five kings 2 . The Messiah was to be " a priest for ever after
the order of Melchizedek." The Odes of Solomon says "Peace
was prepared for you before ever your war was." That is the
view that appears to underlie the Marcan metaphor under
consideration, as well as the Talmudic metaphor of "the
travail-pangs of the Messiah 3 ." The evil is to be a transient
phase preparing the way for the enduring good 4 .
1 Philo i. 691 2 " The city of God is called by Hebrews Jerusalem,
which name, being translated, is Vision of Peace. Wherefore seek
not the City of HIM WHO IS in this or that earthly site. . .but in
a soul that is free from war (^vxri aTroXepw)," that is, free from internal
"war." God alone is "peace," corruptible existence is "continuous
war."
2 See Heb. v. 6 quoting Ps. ex. 4, based on Gen. xiv. 18.
3 See Light 3809 b c quoting the Midrash on Gen. xiv. i " Because
the empires went to war, Redemption came to Abraham." In Jer.
Berach. ii. 4 (3) the future mother of the Messiah is described as
saying "On the day of the infant's birth, the Temple of Jerusalem
is [destined to be] destroyed." To this a stranger replies "We are
certain that if, because of his advent, the Temple is destroyed, it
will also be rebuilt by him."
HOY. Heb. (on Mk xiii. 8) quotes from Jerome (Contr. Judaeos i. 2)
the following : " R. Samuel Bar Nachaman said, Whence prove you
that in the day when the destruction of the Temple was, Messias
was born? He answered, From Isaiah (Ixvi. 7) 'Before she travailed
she brought forth....'" Jerome says "It is in the Great Genesis
[Bereshith Rabba] a very ancient book." No such passage occurs in
Wiinsche's edition of Beresh. R., which -does not quote Is. Ixvi. 7
except to say (Wii. p. 417, on Gen. xxxviii. i) that it means "Before
the first Subjugator (Pharaoh) was born the last Deliverer was already
born." Is. liii. n "the travail (^D3J) of his soul," i.e., troublesome
toil, has no connection with child-birth.
4 The following Synoptic difference occurs after the words,
common to all the Synoptists, "I am [he]," or "I am the Christ" :
293 (Mark xiii. 5 8)
THE LAST DAYS
4. Persecutions*
The next section of the Discourse on the Last Days deals
Mk xiii. 6 Mt. xxiv. 5 Lk. xxi. 8
and shall deceive and shall deceive and the season has
many. many. drawn near, go not
after them.
where "deceive" (A.V.) is retained as the rendering of 7rXai/do>, so
as to accord with the rendering of ir\uvrj "deceit," and nXdvos "de-
ceiver." Luke omits this (as also he omits Mk xiii. 22, Mt. xxiv. 24
d-n-oTrXavav, ir\ava<r6ai t later on), having only the passive, and this but
once (xxi. 8).
It must be admitted that John nowhere indicates, verbally, in
his Gospel, what Mark appears to mean, that "many" believers will
be "deceived" into unbelief. But all through the Last Discourse
John indicates something corresponding to this. The word '' many
[people]" he never assigns to Jesus. But he repeatedly uses "the
world" as a substitute for it. And "the world" is regarded as
incapable of seeing the truth because it is under the rule of (xiv. 30)
" the ruler of the world." It is said that (xvi. 1 1) " the ruler of this world
has been judged " and that (ib. 8 9) " the world " will be " convicted "
in respect of "sin." And the Epistle says (i Jn i. 8) "If we say that
we have no sin we deceive (rrXavm^fv) ourselves." In the Last Prayer
Jesus prays "not for the world," but for those whom the Father has
given Him "out of the world" (Jn xvii. 6 9), not that He should
(ib. 15) "take them out of the world," but that He should "keep
them from the evil [one]." All this implies a vast present pre-
dominance of a spirit of "deceit" or "self-deceit."
Intervention of any direct kind, however, is reserved for the
Johannine Epistles. Comp. i Jn i. 8, ii. 26, iii. 7 (which mention
"deceiving," TrXavdv), ib. iv. 6 "the spirit of deceit" 2 Jn 7 "many
deceivers (n\dvoL) have gone forth into the world.. . .This is the
Deceiver and the Antichrist." The "deceivers" are not those who
say that in a certain time or place they will work a miraculous
deliverance, but those who, while professing to teach Christ's truth,
do not teach righteousness, and do not make the love of the brethren
the basis of their teaching. ,
1 Mk xiii. 9 13 Mt. xxiv. 9 14 Lk. xxi. 12 19
(R.V.) (R.V.) (R.V.)
(9) But take ye (9) Then shall (12) But before
heed to yourselves : they deliver you up all these things, they
for they shall deliver unto tribulation, and shall lay their hands
you up to councils ; shall kill you : and on you, and shall
and in synagogues ye shall be hated of persecute you, de-
294 (Mark xiii. 9 13)
THE LAST DAYS
with persecutions. The difficulty of discussing it is increased
by the fact that Matthew omits here, but places elsewhere (in
the Precepts to the Twelve), a great deal that Mark places here.
For example, the Marcan precept "Be not anxious beforehand
what ye shall speak," to which the parallel Luke is similar, has
in Matthew nothing similar here, but something closely similar
in Matthew's Precepts to the Twelve "Be not anxious how or
Mk xiii. 9 13
(R.V.) contd.
shall ye be beaten;
and before governors
and kings shall ye
stand for my sake,
for a testimony unto
them.
(10) And the
gospel must first be
preached unto all the
nations.
(n) And when
they lead you [to
judgment], and de-
liver you up, be not
anxious beforehand
what ye shall speak :
but whatsoever shall
be given you in that
hour, that speak ye :
for it is not ye that
speak, but the Holy
Ghost.
(12) And brother
shall deliver up
brother to death, and
the father his child ;
and children shall
rise up against
parents, and cause
them to be put to
death (or, put them
to death).
(13) And ye shall
be hated of all men
for my name's sake:
but he that endureth
to the end, the same
shall be saved.
Mt. xxiv. 9 14
(R.V.) contd.
all the nations for
my name's sake.
(10) And then
shall many stumble,
and shall deliver up
one another, and
shall hate one an-
other.
(n) And many
false prophets shall
arise, and shall lead
many astray.
(12) And because
iniquity shall be
multiplied, the love
of the many shall
wax cold.
(13) But he that
endureth to the end,
the same shall be
saved.
(14) And this
gospel (or, these good
tidings) of the king-
dom shall be preach-
ed in the whole world
(lit. inhabited earth)
for a testimony unto
all the nations; and
then shall the end
come.
Lk. xxi. 12 19
(R.V.) contd.
livering you up to the
synagogues and pris-
ons, bringing you
before kings and
governors for my
name's sake.
(13) It shall turn
unto you for a testi-
mony.
(14) Settle it
therefore in your
hearts, not to medi-
tate beforehand how
to answer.
(15) For I will
give you a mouth
and wisdom, which
all your adversaries
shall not be able to
withstand or to gain-
say.
(16) But ye shall
be delivered up even
by parents, and
brethren, and kins-
folk, and friends ;
and [some] of you
shall they cause to be
put to death (or, shall
they put to death).
295
(17) And ye shall
be hated of all men
for my name's sake.
(18) And not a
hair of your head
shall perish.
(19) In your
patience ye shall win
your souls (or, lives).
(Mark xiii. 9 13)
THE LAST DAYS
what ye shall speak 1 ." It will therefore be convenient to
print the persecution-extracts from Matthew's Precepts below
and to repeat Mark and Luke along with them in parallel
columns 2 . Another version of the precept "Be not anxious"
1 Mk xiii. 1 1
KOI OTO.V (iyaxTiv vaas
i/res, /LIT) irpo-
jj-fpi/jLvaTe TL \a\r)o-T]T,
aXX' 6 eav 8o8rj vp.1v eV
KLVrj T7) &pa TOVTO X(l-
Xerre, ov yap eVre vp.fis
ot XaXovi/res 1 aXXa TO
TTVVp.a TO ayiov.
* Mk xiii. 9 13
(R.V.)
(9) But take ye
heed to yourselves :
for they shall deliver
you up to councils;
and in synagogues
shall ye be beaten;
and before governors
and kings shall ye
stand for my sake,
for a testimony unto
them.
(10) And the
gospel must first be
preached unto all the
nations.
(11) And when
they lead you [to
judgment], and de-
liver you up, be not
anxious beforehand
what ye shall speak :
but whatsoever shall
be given you in that
hour, that speak ye :
for it is not ye that
speak, but the Holy
Ghost.
(1-2) And brother
shall deliver up
brother to death, and
the father his child ;
and % children shall
rise up against par-
ents, and cause them
to be put to death
Mt. x. 19 20
(Precepts)
vp.as, p,r] p.fpip.vi](Tr)T
Trots r; rt XaXj/cr^re- do-
6r](TTai yap vplv ev
Kfivfl TTJ &pa T,L \a\rj-
O~TJT ' OV yap Vp,lS O~T
oi \a\ovvT6s aXXa TO
TO \a\ovv fv vplv.
Mt. X. 17 22
(R.V.)
(17) But beware
of men : for they will
deliver you up to
councils, and in their
synagogues they will
scourge you ;
(18) Yea and be-
fore governors and
kings shall ye be
brought for my sake,
for a testimony to
them and to the
Gentiles.
(19) But when
they deliver you up,
be not anxious how
or what ye shall
speak : for it shall be
given you in that
hour what ye shall
speak.
(20) For it is not
ye that speak, but
the Spirit of your
Father that speaketh
in you.
(21) And brother
shall deliver up
brother to death, and
the father his child :
and children shall
rise up against par-
ents and cause them
to be put to death
(or, put them to
Lk. xxi. 14 15
$T OVV V Tals K
eycb yap Saxrco vp.1v
Kal o~o(piav 17 ov
dvTio~Trjvat
dvTfirrflv arravTes oi
vplv.
Lk. xxi. 12 19
(R.V.)
(12) But before
all these things, they
shall lay their hands
on you, and shall
persecute you, de-
livering you up to
the synagogues and
prisons, bringing you
before kings and
governors for my
name's sake.
(13) It shall turn
unto you for a testi-
mony.
(14) Settle it
therefore in your
. hearts, not to medi-
tate beforehand how
to answer:
(15) For I will
give you a mouth and
wisdom, which all
your adversaries shall
not be able to with-
stand or to gainsay.
(16) But ye shall
be delivered up even
by parents, and
brethren, and kins-
folk, and friends ;
and [some] of you
shall they cause to be
put to death (or,
shall they put to
death).
296 (Mark xiii. 9 13)
THE LAST DAYS
is placed by Luke on an earlier occasion and this too is printed
below in Greek 1 .
It would be linguistically and archaeologically interesting to
investigate all the Synoptic variations 2 , but space necessitates
our limitation to traditions of Mark, or Mark and Matthew,
omitted by Luke. These are (i) (Mark) "ye shall be beaten,"
(2) (Mark-Matthew) a statement that "the gospel" must be
" preached " everywhere, (3) (Mark-Matthew) " He that endureth
to the end, the same shall be saved." To these it will be con-
venient to add (4) (Mark) "It is not ye that speak but the Holy
Spirit " ; for this, though it has parallels in Matthew and Luke
elsewhere, has no parallel in Matthew's or Luke's Discourse on
the Last Days.
(i) In the parallel to Mark's prediction of "beating 3 ,"
Mk xiii. 9 13
(R.V.) contd.
(or, put them to
death).
(13) And ye shall
be hated of all men
for my name's sake:
but he that endureth
to the end, the same
shall be saved.
Mt. X. 17 22
(R.V.) contd.
death).
(22) And ye shall
be hated of all men
for my name's sake :
but he that endureth
to the end, the same
shall be saved.
Lk. xxi. 12 19
(R.V.) contd.
(17) And ye shall
be hated of all men
Mt. x. 19 20
ai/ 8e Trupadaxriv
for my name's sake.
(18) And not a
hair of your head
shall perish.
(19) In your
patience ye shall win
your souls (or, lives).
Lk. xii. ii 12
vpas
Treoy T) TL AaXr/o^re ' 80- Kal
6rjo~Tai yap vp.lv eV
tKftvjj TT) (opq TL XaX^-
(77/re ' ov yap vp.ds eVre
01 \a\ovvTfs dAXa TO
7TVfvp.a TOV iraTpos
TO \a\ovv ev vp.lv.
2 In particular Mt. xxiv. 9 7Tapa8<*>o-ovo-iv vpas eiV 6\tyiv invites
discussion. But it will be more conveniently discussed when we
come to Mk xiii. 19 #Xn//-ty and to the question why Luke never uses
1 Mk xiii. ii
K.a\ OTOV ayaxriv vp.as
7rapa8i86vTS, p.r) Trpo-
p,fpLp.Va.T ri \O\T]O~T]T,
dXX' o e'at/ 8odfj vp.lv
v enfivrj TIJ u>pa TOVTO
XaXetre, ov yap e'crre
vp.fls ol XaXoCvrey dXXa
TO 7rvfvp.a TO ayiov.
ray avvayhiyas
at ray
Trcoy [ff TL] airo\oyrjO'i]Q'6f
fj TL eiVr/re * TO yap ayiov
irvvp.a &ifidet vp.as fv
avT7] rr/ copa a 8fL eiTTflv.
Mk xiii. 9 jrop'adoxrovo'tv vp.as fls o-vv(o~pia <al ds (rvvaycoyas
-fo-0f. The Diatessaron omits this and follows Luke (xxi. J2)
who (like Mt. xxiv. 9) makes no mention of " beating " or " scourging."
Consequently the Diatessaron confines Christ's prediction of scourging
to the Precepts to the Twelve, Mt. X. 17 TrapaScocroumi/ yap vp.as
(Is OVVfdpia <ai eV raty o-vvaycayals avTO)v p-ao-Tiywo-owiv vp,as. Mark's
297 (Mark xiii. 9 1 3)
THE LAST DAYS
Luke mentions "persecuting*-." John represents Jesus, in the
Discourse on the Last Days, as saying to the disciples "If they
persecuted me they will also persecute you 2 ." This is the only
Johannine use of "persecute" in Christ's words 3 . John does
not say here that this "persecuting" was to be in "synagogues."
But a little later he represents Jesus as saying to the disciples :
"These things have I spoken unto you that ye should not be
made to stumble. . . . They shall put you out of the synagogue,
yea, the hour cometh that whosoever killeth you shall think
that he offereth service unto God 4 ." John previously mentions
tradition (lit.} "ye shall be beaten into (els) synagogues" might
be defended by Mk i. 21 (v.r.) "he [habitually] taught into (els) the
synagogue/' i.e. "he [habitually] went into the synagogue and
taught"; but it is more difficult, since the "beating" cannot so
easily be regarded as habitual. In Lk. xii. n fierce paxrw (or fepvaiv)
eVt (or els) ras <rvvayu>yas suggests "carrying into the synagogues/'
which might point to a tradition "Ye shall be carried" (comp.'
alpe (avrov) in Lk. xxiii. 18, Jn xix. 15, Acts xxi. 36, xxii. 22).
Ap0r]o-eo-0 might be a corruption of Mk daprjaea-de written (Steph.
Thes. ii. 1008) dapBrjaea-Bf. It may be suggested that Mk xiii. 9
is itself a corruption for <al els avvayvyas d' ap6i](Tf(r6f (for /cat. . . e
see Mt. x. 18 etc.). But in favour of cjaprjaeo-Oe is (i) the strangeness
of the phrase, (2) the fact that Mark might use it as a fulfilment of
a prophecy implied in his version of the Parable of the Vineyard
where Sepco is twice used (Mk xii. 3, 5). Afpto is used by Luke also
there (xx. 10, n) and in Acts v. 40 of the "beating" of the Apostles
in the presence of the Sanhedrin. This makes it all the more
remarkable that Luke nowhere describes Jesus as predicting this
kind of persecution for His disciples.
1 Lk. xxi. 12 Trpo fie TOVT<dv TTCIVTCOV eirtftaXovcriv e<p' vp.as TCIS \flpas
avTwv /cat dico^ovcnv 7rapctC)i()6vTs els TCIS (rvvayatyas KOI (pv\ctKas. AICOKOJ,
"drive," might be either a general term "persecute," or a particular
term "drive [\*ith blows]" (comp. epyofitco/cr?^). See Wetstein (on
Mt. x. 17), quoting Epiphan. Haer. Ebionit. i. 10, p. 135, TOV dc avdpa
KaL (ovT(s Ka aiKias erteovres o> ras
and
aTryovfri /j-ev (s TTJV (rvvaywyrjv, /cat p.ao'Tovo'i TOVTOV,
Evang. Petr. 3, MS evpa/jifv, edd. txt o-vpw/jifv.
z Jn xv. 20.
3 The only other instance of Stco/cco in Jn is Jn v. 16 eSt'co/coi/ TOV
'Irja-ovv followed by v. 18 "sought the more to kill him," which implies
that Sico/cco did not refer to small acts of persecution.
4 Jn xvi. i 2.
298 (Mark xiii. 9 13)
THE LAST DAYS
"putting out of the synagogue" as a punishment inflicted, or
impending, on followers of Jesus 1 . The Greek "persecute,"
meaning " drive," might also mean " drive out " or " drive away."
It is difficult to see how "drive out from synagogue" could
be confused with "persecute in synagogue" though punish-
ment inflicted in a synagogue might often terminate in expulsion
from the synagogue. But the following facts should be con-
sidered together, (i) Here, where Mark connects "synagogues"
with beating, Luke connects them with " delivering up " preceded
by "persecuting"; (2) Luke, and Luke alone, mentions an
instance where Jesus was actually cast out of a synagogue (the
one in Nazareth) with the intention of killing Him 2 ; (3) John,
and John alone, thrice uses the compound adjective "outside-
synagogue" (aposynagogos) , twice in narrative, and once in
Christ's words when He prepared His disciples to expect "casting
out from the synagogue" as a punishment. It does not seem
unreasonable to suspect some confusion between a literal and
a moral "casting out," such as might explain, in part, Luke's
extraordinary and improbable story, and also the Synoptic
omission of the Johannine prediction a prediction by no means
improbable.
Comparing Mark's tradition about "beating (lit.) into
synagogues" following "they shall deliver you up to councils
(or, synedria) " with the version given by Matthew in the
Precepts to the Twelve, we see that, in the latter, Matthew has
both the Marcan words thus: "They will deliver you up to
synedria, and in their synagogues they will scourge you."
This appears to mean " They will deliver you up to the synedrion,
or Council of Three, attached to every synagogue, and then,
after being condemned by it, you will be taken into the synagogue
to be beaten" thus explaining Mark's "beaten into the syna-
gogues*"
1 Jn ix. 22, xii. 42. 2 Lk. iv. 29.
3 See Hor. Heb. on Mt. x." 17, which also calls attention to Mt.
(ib.} Trpoo-fxfTf a? TCW av6pMTT(*v " beware of men," and asks "Of
whom else should they beware?" It suggests that *t?JN, "men of,"
might have meant "men of the great assembly," "men of the house of
judgment" etc. The Aramaic phrase for "the men of the great
299 (Mark xiii. 9 13)
THE LAST DAYS
(2) About the statement of Mark and Matthew that "the
Gospel" shall be "preached" everywhere John could not
verbally intervene. For he abstains, not only as Luke does,
from the word evangelion, "gospel," but also from the verb
evangelize, which Luke very often uses, and from the verb
"preach," which all the Synoptists use. Yet the thought of
"the preaching of the Gospel" underlies the Johannine Dis-
course, though expressed in different words. In John, the
disciples are not to "preach," but to "bear witness." And
"the Gospel" to which they bear witness is "the Son" Himself.
Or we may describe it as all that is implied by the indwelling
of the Son in the hearts of men, uniting them with the Father
through the Spirit of truth and love.
Therefore, in the Johannine Last Discourse, instead of
saying to the disciples, "Ye shall preach the Gospel," Jesus
says to them "When the Paraclete is come ... he shall bear
witness of me, and ye also bear witness 1 ." To what audience
are the Apostles to "bear" this "witness" about the Son?
It is not stated in detail (as being "kings" or "governors" or
"nations") but it is implied that the disciples bear witness to
the world at large. The Paraclete, it is said, will "convict the
world 2 ," but the Paraclete cannot do this except through the
council" is (Levy Ch. i. 3736) rm NnSJ^D 'B'JN. Perhaps the
similarity of the first two words might cause the second to be dropped.
1 Jn xv. 26 7 *cu vpeis Se /xaprvpelre, lit. "and, what is more,
ye too [are appointed to] bear witness." Comp. Is. xliii. 10, 12,
xliv. 8, "ye are my witnesses," where the context represents the
Lord as having proclaimed Himself to be the One Creator and
Redeemer, in the presence of Israel, whom He thrice declares to be
His "witnesses," that is, appointed to bear witness to the world con-
cerning this truth. It implies an imperative ("become ye my wit-
nesses") and is once mistranslated as an imperative by LXX xliii. 10
yevfcrOf. But it is indicative. So it is here, almost certainly, in Jn,
though Westcott raises a doubt. The indicative is supported by the
Johannine use of *ot. . .e in vi. 51, viii. 16, 17, and i Jn i. 3. The
Spirit, and the Spirit alone, "will be" the primary and originating
Witness, but the Apostles "are," for the time, the appointed agents
for conveying the witness of the Spirit to the world. Chrys. /cni vfjifls
Se ex fT dgidirurrov, though not perhaps exactly expressing the
meaning, accepts the indicative. 2 Jn xvi. 7 8.
300 (Mark xiii, 9 13)
THE LAST DAYS
disciples. Later on, Jesus says that the unity of the disciples
among themselves, and with God, is to cause "the world" to
believe: "That they may all be one; even, as thou, Father,
art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, that the
world may believe that thou didst send me 1 ."
(3) The Mark-Matthew tradition "He that endureth to the
end, the same shall be saved," is parallel to the Lucan " In your
endurance ye shall win your souls 2 ." John nowhere speaks of
"enduring." The verb means literally " wait-under," i.e. " wait-
under stress," and especially "under pressure of attack from an
enemy." Hence, in literary Greek, with an accusative, it means
"resist an enemy" or anything regarded as an enemy, e.g. a
temptation. But in LXX it frequently represents a Hebrew
word meaning "wait-eagerly-for," and especially for the help
of Jehovah 3 . Symmachus frequently corrects the LXX word
when thus used; and sometimes he substitutes a word com-
pounded of "wait" and "up*."
John uses the uncompounded verb "wait" or "abide*." He
does not however define it by its object as the Psalmists do
("await the Lord") but by the element, atmosphere, or region
of the waiting, "await in the Lord." Nor does he speak of
"waiting till the end" as Mark and Matthew do. "End" is
a word that John never uses except in the sentence "Jesus,
having loved his own [disciples] that were in the world, loved
them to the end 6 ." What was that "end"? According to the
letter it would mean "the end of Christ's earthly life." But
John suggests that Christ is Himself in some sense "the end,"
1 Jn xvii. 21. In emphasizing and defining this "witness" of
the disciples, John may have been influenced by the occurrence of
the Synoptic phrase is paprvpiov in very different contexts, Mk xiii.
9 fis fJMprvpiov avrols, Mt. xxiv. 14 ds fuiprvptov nacriv rols cdvf&iv,
Lk. xxi. 13 airo&r)<Tfrcu ip.lv els p-aprvpiuv.
2 Mk xiii. 13, Mt. xxiv. 13 6 ^ iirop.fivus els rcXos OVTOS ero>07<reTi,
Lk. xxi. IQ fv T7j virofiovfj vp.u>v K.Ti]<T((r6t rv ^v^as ip.a>v.
3 See Gesen. 875 b, and Oxf. Cone. LXX in ope.
4 E.g. Ps. XXV. 5, XXVli. 14, LXX iiropevto, Sym. dvapJva.
5 M<f pa, inA.V. of N.T., means abide, continue, dwell, endure, be
present, remain, stand, tarry [for] (see Strong's Concordance).
6 Jn xiii. i. See Joh. Gr. 231921.
301 (Mark xiii. 9 13)
THE LAST DAYS
the spiritual "end," and that He loved His disciples and -will
love them to an end that is without any end, a timeless per-
fection.
Hence the Johannine "waiting" is not a resistance of
temptation up to some definite point of time. Nor does it
imply (as Luke implies) that a man "win$" his own soul, or
spiritual life, by such resistance. It would be truer to say that
a man retains and develops his spiritual life by "abiding" in
Him who is the end as well as the beginning: "Abide in me,
and I in you. ... He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same
beareth much fruit. ... If ye abide in me, and my words abide
in you, ask whatsoever ye will and it shall be done unto you 1 ."
It is also implied at the end of the Gospel that the "awaiting"
or "abiding" of the disciple whom Jesus specially "loved" may
or maty not continue while some "coming" of Jesus is being
accomplished. There is to be a "coming." But as to the
question whether the disciple will " abide " during its accomplish-
ment Peter is told not to busy himself : " If I will that he abide
while I am coming, what is that to thee 2 ? "
(4) In the Discourse on the Last Days Mark alone mentions
"the Holy Spirit " as " speaking " ; Matthew- says practically the
same thing in the Precepts to the Twelve, and Luke something
similar elsewhere, but not in the Discourse 3 ; Luke, in the
Discourse, does not mention the Holy Spirit, but mentions a
promise of "a mouth" and "wisdom " where the Diatessaron,
instead of " mouth," substitutes "understanding."
All this calls for Johannine Intervention, and accordingly
a large part of the Johannine Final Discourse does intervene.
It deals with the doctrine of the Spirit, who is to be what
Greeks would -call the Paraclete, but Romans the Advocate.
The Johannine Paraclete, however, means more than Advocate.
1 Jn xv. 4 7, comp. ib. 10 16.
2 Jn xxi. 22. The R.V. "tarry" has the disadvantage of not
expressing the fact that the beloved disciple, whether he -lives or
dies, will be "abiding" in the Lord. On Zws fpxofJLcii, "while I am
coming" (not, as R.V. "till I come") see Law p. 525.
3 See the texts on pp. 296 7, quoting Mk xiii. n, Mt. x. 20
Lk. xxi. 15; and Lk. xii. 12 "the Holy Spirit shall teach you."
302 (Mark xiii. 9 13)
THE LAST DAYS
The latter represents Luke's conception. It suggests a barrister,
one possessing "a mouth and wisdom," sparing his client the
trouble of "practising beforehand" how to "make his apologia' 1 ,
or, defence." But Paraclete, though it includes that, is, in itself,
not quite so technical ; and John takes pains to make it wholly
untechnical, giving it the general meaning of "a friend called in
to aid," and, in particular, the Friend, the Other Self, whom the
Son calls in from His Father in heaven to help His brethren,
whom He is leaving behind Him on earth.
Both Luke and John agree that the Spirit will "teach" the
disciples. But in a somewhat different way. Luke writes, in
one passage, "The Holy Spirit shall teach you in that very
hour" that is, in the hour when the disciples are on their
trial "what ye ought to say"; and in another he mentions
the promise of " a mouth and wisdom " that "adversaries shall
not be able to withstand or gainsay 2 ." This negative aspect,
suggested by "adversaries" and "not able," is somewhat too
prominent to suit the Johannine conception of the Paraclete:
"The Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in
my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring to your remem-
brance all that I said unto you. Peace I leave with you, the
peace that is my own I give unto you. . A"
It may be doubted whether "the Holy Spirit," or the
tradition peculiar to Luke in the Discourse, "a mouth and
wisdom," better represents the original; and whether John, in
setting forth his doctrine of the personality of the Holy Spirit,
is departing from Christ's doctrine (accurately expressed by
Luke) or returning to and explaining Christ's doctrine set
forth by Mark in the old customary form ("Holy Spirit"),
and slightly, but not sufficiently, conformed by Matthew to
Christ's new and more emotional teaching (" the Spirit of your
Father").
On the one hand the "sin against the Holy Spirit," a
doctrine prominent in Mark, accords with the thought of Isaiah
about Israel's "grieving" God's Holy Spirit 4 . Also Haggai,
1 Lk. xxi. 14 inro\oyrj6^vm rep. Lk. xii. ii, and Acts (6 times).
2 Lk. xii. 12, xxi. 15. 3 Jn xiv. 26 7.
4 Is. Ixiii. 10 ii.
303 (Mark xiii. 9 13)
THE LAST DAYS
one of the Prophets of the New Temple that Temple which
spiritually played so large a part in Christ's doctrine represents
God as saying to Israel "My Spirit standeth in the midst of
you 1 ." And Zechariah, another of that band of Prophets,
represents Zerubbabel, the builder of the New Temple, as being
encouraged with the words "Not by an army, nor by power,
but by my Spirit, saith the Lord of hosts 2 /' But in each of
these cases the Targum departs from the original. In Isaiah,
for example, the Targum has "They grieved the Prophets
concerning His Holy Word " ; and Ibn Ezra remarks about the
Hebrew text "This is a figurative expression. Some under-
stand by 'the Holy Spirit' the angel of the Lord 3 ." Similarly
we may suppose that Jesus spoke of the Holy Spirit as a Person,
in the language of Isaiah ; and that some of His disciples might
say somewhat in the Targumistic tone "These are figurative
expressions." Then they might paraphrase "Holy Spirit," for
example, as "mouth and wisdom."
On the other hand, it may be reasonably said in favour of
Luke that "mouth and wisdom" is not likely to be a Greek
paraphrase. Jesus would probably express His promise of the
Spirit in many forms. Luke may have merely selected one of
these ("a mouth and wisdom") here and another ("the Holy
Spirit shall teach you") elsewhere. In Exodus, where the Lord
says to Moses about Aaron " He shall be to thee as a mouth,"
both the Targums have paraphrased "mouth" as "interpreter."
Mark may have paraphrased here, while Luke adhered to the
original 4 .
1 Hag. ii. 5. 2 Zech. iv. 6.
3 Ibn Ezra on Is. Ixiii. 10. Comp. Targ. on Ps. li. n Heb. (R.V.)
"thy holy spirit," lit. "the spirit of thy holiness," but Targ. "the
prophetic spirit of thy holiness."
4 Comp. Son 3622 a b, 3623 a foil., on Heb. "sword of two
mouths," i.e. "two-edged sword," applicable to the Holy Spirit.
And see Exod. iv. 16 " a mouth," Onk. and Jer. Targ. " an interpreter."
Beneath the Lucan word "mouth" there may be latent an allusion
to the Hebrew metaphor of the "mouth" or "edge" of a "sword,"
which Luke interpreted too negatively. Schottgen on Heb. iv. 12
quotes from R. Nachman "Gladius. . . (i) consumit et (2) vitam
304 (Mark xiii. 9 13)
THE LAST DAYS
The conclusion is doubtful. But whatever may have been
the original of the passages here considered, it is probable that
the personal aspect of the Holy Spirit, sometimes even expressed
so as to suggest the thought of a divine Mother, was more
prominent in Christ's doctrine than would be inferred from
the Synoptic Gospels alone. The language used by Origen and
Jerome indicates that it was current in the Gospel according
to the Hebrews. The Talmuds never favoured such expressions ;
and among Christians other views about the birth of Jesus
would first overshadow and then discredit a Gospel that de-
scribed Jesus as saying " My Mother, the Holy Spirit 1 /' Never-
theless we shall understand the original history at the bottom of
the Gospels all the better for keeping these words before us
as possibly representing one phase of Christ's thought and, on
rare occasions, of His doctrine and most emotional utterance.
5. "The Abomination of Desolation'' and its sequel,
in Mark and Matthew 2
This part of the Discourse is probably based on what
Eusebius calls " an oracle," given through revelation to those of
tribuit." The life-giving aspect of "the sword" might be put on
one side by some as being paradoxical.
1 See Son 3430 a b quoting Origen and Jerome.
- 1 Mk xiii. 14 19
(R.V.)
(14) But when ye
see the abomination
of desolation stand-
ing where he ought
not (let him that
readeth understand),
then let them that
are in Judaea flee
unto the mountains :
Mt. xxiv. 15 21
(R.V.)
(15) When there-
fore ye see the a-
bomination of deso-
lation, which was
spoken of by (or,
through) Daniel the
prophet, standing in
the (or, a) holy place
(let him that readeth
understand),
(16) Then let
them that are in
Judaea flee unto the
mountains :
Lk. xxi. 20 22, xvii.
31, xxi. 23 4 (R.V.)
(xxi. 20) But when
ye see Jerusalem com-
passed with armies,
then know that her
desolation is at hand.
(21) Then let
them that are in
Judaea flee unto the
mountains; and let
them that are in the
midst of her depart
out; and let not
them that are in the
A. F.
305 (Mark xiii. 14 19)
20
THE LAST DAYS
approved repute in Jerusalem, by which (he says) the Christians
"were commanded to remove from the city and to dwell in
a certain city of Peraea, [people] call it Pella 1 ." If the Christians
had had Luke's clear words before them, " When ye see Jerusalem
encircled by armies," they would not have needed an "oracle."
But a revelation somewhat like that given to Peter at Joppa 2 ,
but much fuller, may have been given to selected disciples
(Mark mentions Peter and Andrew and the sons of Zebedee 3 )
Mk xiii. 14 19
(R.V.) contd.
(15) And let him
that is on the house-
top not go down nor
enter in, to take any-
thing out of his
house :
(16) And let him
that is in the field not
return back to take
his cloke.
(17) But woe unto
them that are with
child and to them
that give suck in
those days !
(18) And pray ye
that it be not in the
winter.
(19) For those
days shall be tribula-
tion, such as there
hath not been the
like from the begin-
ning of the creation
which God created
until now, and never
shall be.
Mt. xxiv. 15 21
(R.V.) contd.
(17) Let him that
is on the housetop
noi> go down to take
out the things that
are in his house:
(18) And let him
that is in the field not
return back to take
his cloke.
(19) But woe unto
them that are with
child and to them
that give suck in
those days !
(20) And pray ye
that your flight be
not in the winter,
neither on a sabbath :
(21) For then
shall be great tribula-
tion, such as hath
not been from the
beginning of the
world until now, no,
nor ever shall be.
Lk. xxi. 20 22, xvii.
31. xxi. 23 4 (R.V.)
contd.
country enter there-
in.
(22) For these are
days of vengeance,
that all things which
are written may be
fulfilled.
xvii. 31
(31) In that day,
he which shall be on
the housetop, and his
goods in the house,
let him not go down
to take them away:
and let him that is in
the field likewise not
return back.
xxi. 23 4
(23) Woe unto
them that are with
child and to them
that give suck in
those days ! for there
shall be great distress
upon the land (or,
earth) , and wrath
unto this people.
(24) And they
shall fall by the edge
of the sword, and
shall be led captive
into all the nations:
and Jerusalem shall
be trodden down of
the Gentiles, until
the times of the
Gentiles be fulfilled.
1 Notes 2837 (iii) a quoting Euseb. iii. 5.3.
~ Acts x. 13 foil. 3 Mk xiii. 3.
306 (Mark xiii. 14 19)
THE LAST DAYS
and may afterwards have been incorporated in Christ's ante-
resurrectional utterances. This would explain the extra-
ordinary freedom with which Luke diverges from Mark. There
would be for some time a feeling in the Church that the words
were of the nature of an "oracle," or dark saying. They re-
quired interpretation "he that readeth let him understand 1 ."
But "he that readeth" was not a part of the words of Jesus, nor
was the context words of Jesus in the ordinary sense.
The Mark-Matthew traditions of importance omitted by Luke
at this point are two, ist, a prediction of an Abomination of
Desolation, and 2nd, a precept if it may be so called "pray
that your flight be not in winter."
(i) In place of "the abomination of desolation" Luke has
"Jerusalem surrounded by armies." This is not Luke's inven-
tion. It has been shewn elsewhere 2 that Daniel's Hebrew
meant "on the wingoi abominations one that maketh desolate 3 ,"
and that the word "wing," besides meaning part of a temple or
other building, may be applied to the "wing" of an invading
army, as it is by the Targum interpreting Isaiah's words about
the invasion of Judaea by Sennacherib : "The stretching out of
his wings shall fill the breadth of thy land, O Immanuel 4 ."
There is a great diversity of early Christian opinion as to
what this Abomination may have been. Justin Martyr, from
whom we might have expected a comment as part of a proof
of Christ's prophetic power, makes no comment at all upon it,
nor upon the context 5 . Irenaeus, after quoting the second
Epistle to the Thessalonians about "the man of sin" destined
to be "revealed" as "sitting in the temple of God 6 ," proceeds
to apply this to the Temple in Jerusalem and to quote Matthew
as referring to it in the words "the abomination of desolation. . .
1 Mk xiii. 14, Mt. xxiv. 15, om. by Luke xxi. 20.
2 Notes Pref. p. xvi foil, and 2837 (iii). 3 Dan. ix. 27.
4 Is. viii. 8, comp. Jerem. xlviii. 40 "shall fly as an eagle and
extend his wings," Targ. "as an eagle that flieth, so shall a king go
up with his army and encamp."
5 Clark's Scriptural Index to Justin contains a reference to Mt.
xxiv. n, but none to Mt. xxiv. 15 21, nor to Mk xiii. 14 19, nor
to Lk. xxi. 20 22, xvii. 31. 6 2 Thess. ii. 3 4.
307 (Mark xiii. 14 19) 20 2
THE LAST DAYS
standing in the holy place 1 ." This personification of the
Abomination is favoured by the best text in Mark, which reads
"standing" as masculine in spite of the neuter gender of
"abomination 2 ."
What course does John take? In Christ's words, he makes
no mention of anything that could be called a warning to the
disciples to flee from Jerusalem at some distant period. But
in Christ's acts, dramatically, he represents Jesus as Himself
going forth from the doomed City because the Power of Sin,
the Ruler of this world, is at hand, and as saying to the disciples
"The prince of the world cometh ... Arise, let us go hence 3 ."
Except in this possibly typical "going hence/' John passes by
all the detailed precepts that related to the special tribulation
of the siege of Jerusalem, and sums them all up in one or two
utterances by Jesus of a general nature applicable to all time,
such as "In the world ye [must] have tribulation', but be of
good cheer, I have overcome the world 4 ."
The one point in which John perhaps intervenes for Mark is,
that he helps us to understand Mark's description of the
Abomination as in some sense implying a person 5 .
(2) The precept to "pray" that the "flight be not in
winter" to which Matthew adds "neither on a sabbath 6 "-
seems at first sight to be (and perhaps is) wholly omitted by
Luke. But since we have found Luke's "Jerusalem surrounded
by Armies" to be, in reality, a parallel to "Abomination of
Desolation," it is worth noting that the Hebrew for "winter"
is very similar to, and is once actually confused with, the
1 Iren. v. 25. i 2. Jerome mentions (i) Antichrist, (2) the
image of the Emperor brought into the Holy Place by Pilate, (3) the
equestrian statue of Hadrian " quae in ipso Sancto Sanctorum loco
usque in praesentem diem stetit."
2 Mk xiii. 14 earrjKora. Inferior MSS have the neuter; a has
"stare," Corb. "stantem," k "stans."
3 Jn xiv. 30 31. See Joh. Gr. 2428 quoting Joseph. Bell. vi. 5. 3
about the Voice in the Temple saying "Let us depart hence."
4 Jn xvi. 33.
5 Comp. Mk ix. 20, 26 where irvevpa is regarded as masc., and also
2 ThesS.' ii. 6 7 T ^ <UT^X I)V '^ (IT followed by p,ovov 6 KUTf^a^v apri eus
yevrjTai,. 6 Mk xiii. 18, Mt. xxiv. 20.
308 (Mark xiii. 14 19)
THE LAST DAYS
Hebrew for "a reproach," that is, "an object of reproach 1 ."
In this sense, "reproach" is frequently used in prophecy, as
in Daniel's expostulation to the Lord: "Jerusalem and thy
people" are become a reproach [i.e. object of reproach or contempt]
to all that are round about us 2 ." Luke in his version of the last
Days avoids the name of "Daniel" and substitutes "all things
that are written 3 ." We ought not therefore to be surprised
that Luke does not use D,aniel's word for "reproach." But he
uses language (not in the parallel Mark) borrowed from Isaiah,
to express a warning against a moral drunkenness that would,
in effect, make the disciples to be a reproach. He says it would
cause the day of the Lord to come on men " as a snare*." There
is evidence enough for a prima facie hypothesis that there has
been some confusion between "winter" and "reproach"
If however there has been such a confusion, it will appear
probable that the error lies with Luke and not with Mark,
since the Marcan detail can be found in other traditions of
Jewish or Hebrew literature. There are several such traditions,
given below, about the kindness of God in arranging the going
forth of Israel on various occasions so that it might not befall
them in "winter" when women and children would suffer 5 .
1 Son 3367 foil, and 3369 a, quoting Prov. xx. 4.
2 Dan. ix. 16. 3 Lk. xxi. 22.
4 Lk. xxi. 34 MS- trayls. See Son 3368 c d comparing Is. v. 30,
xxiv. 19 20 (LXX and Theod.) with Lk. xxi. 25, 34, 36, and
noting the words in common, namely, forms of /cpntTraXr/, rraXof, and
Karurxvu. To these add irayis in Is. XXIV. 17.
5 Wetstein (on Mt.) quotes thus : " Tanchuma 52. 2 Clemen tiam
magnam exhibuit Deus Israeli, nam decima mensis Tebet oportuerat
eos migrare S.D. Ezek. xxiv. 2. Quid fecit Deus S.B. Si transmigrent
jam, inquit, hieme, morientur omnes : tempus ergo iis elongavit,
atque eos abduxit aestate. Eccha R. i. 14 Vigilavit Deus S.B.
quomodo immitteret mihi malum illud, dixitque: si illos captives
duco in solstitio Tebet, ecce percutientur frigore et morientur: sed
ecce abducam illos in aequinoctio Thamus, ut, etiamsi dormiant in
viis et plateis, nemo ex illis laedatur. Bamidbar R. in. Dixit R.
Akiba: non eduxit eum ex Aegypto nisi mense commodo ad
exeundum, non mense Thamus propter ardorem, nee in Tebet
propter frigus; sed in Nisan, qui Justus est ad exeundum ad iter,
nee frigore nee ardbre gravi." [Continued
309 (Mark xiii. 14 19)
THE LAST DAYS
Moreover the thought of "winter," if not needful, is at all
events helpful in the Mark-Matthew context, "Let him that is
in the field not return back to take his cloak 1 ." Luke's historical
sense perhaps prevents him from accepting this. At all events,
in his peculiar tradition about "the days of the Son of man,"
he omits "cloak," and is content to speak of "his goods in the
house 2 ." But both "cloak" and "winter" sound like parts of
the early "oracle."
In what follows, whereas Mark and Matthew speak of
unprecedented "tribulation," thlipsis, the parallel Luke speaks
of "necessity," ananke 3 . In LXX, both these Greek words are
used as renderings of one Hebrew word, but the Marcan word
is much more frequent than the Lucan 4 . Writing as a Greek
historian, Luke probably disliked thlipsis, "tribulation," because
These traditions may be based on the dates given, first for the
approach of Nebuchadnezzar's army, and then for the capture of Jeru-
salem, and then for the carrying away of the people, 2, K. xxv. i, 3, 8
(all omitted in parall. 2 Chr. xxxvi. n foil.) "in the tenth month, in
the tenth day of the month," "on the ninth day of the [fourth],
month," "in the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month."
In ib. 3, Rashi makes no comment on "the [fourth] month"; Syr.
has "fifth month," Arab, "fourth month" as also Josephus Ant. x.
8. 2. Ezek. xxiv. i 2, after mentioning "the tenth month, in the
tenth [day] of the month," has "Son of man, write thee the name of
the day, [even] of this selfsame day ; the king of Babylon drew close
unto Jerusalem this selfsame day." This would be in winter. But
the city was not taken (Josephus says) till eighteen months after-
wards, that is, in summer. The emphasis laid by Ezekiel on the
date of the "drawing close to Jerusalem" will explain the Jewish
traditions about the delay, or respite, from winter to summer.
See HOY. Heb. (on Mk xiii. 32) quoting Joseph. Bell. vi. 4. 5 about
the fatal "tenth day of the month" and Taanith ch. v. where R.
Jochanan Ben Zaccai says it was the ninth day, but adds " If I had
not lived in that age I had not judged it but to have happened on
the tenth day."
1 Mk xiii. 1 6, Mt. xxiv. 18.
2 Lk. xvii. 31 "his goods," rd a-Kfvr) avrov.
3 Mk xiii. 19, Mt. xxiv. 21, Lk. xxi. 23.
4 Tromm. gives m dvdyKr] (4), d\tyis (55). 'AvdyKrj is good lit-
erary Greek and occurs in the Apocrypha more frequently than in
the whole of canon. LXX.
310 (Mark xiii. 14 19)
THE LAST DAYS
it is mostly used (outside LXX) to mean medical "constriction"
or "pressure 1 ." At all events in the Parable of the Sower where
Mark and Matthew use it, Luke uses a substitute 2 . Here, in
the Last Days, Mark and Matthew repeat it later on, but Luke
again avoids it 3 .
Passing to the Fourth Gospel we find that John shews no
dislike for the word thlipsis. He does not indeed use it before
the Final Discourse. But there, like Mark and Matthew, he
uses it twice. It is not however used in exactly the Marcan
sense. In Mark, the meaning seems mainly physical, and there
is nothing hopeful in the context of the predictions of " tribu-
lation " and of the "woe" pronounced on "those with c*hikl."
But John represents Jesus as saying "The^ woman when she is
giving birth hath sorrow . . . but when she hath brought forth
the child she no longer remembereth the tribulation. . ." and
then as concluding His discourse with the words "These things
have I said unto you that in me ye may have peace. In the
world ye [must] have tribulation. But be of good cheer ; I have
overcome the world 4 ."
This is in accordance with Hebrew and Jewish views of
"tribulation." The first mention of thlipsis is in Genesis,
where Jacob says to his household "Put away the strange gods
that are among you, and purify yourselves. . .and let us. . .go
up to Bethel, and I will make there an altar unto God, who
answered me in the day of my tribulation and was with me in
the way that I went 5 ." Resh Lachish, commenting on the
1 Steph. Thes. gives 6\tyt.s as occurring (outside LXX) only in
Strabo and Galen. But it is freq. in Artemidorus (see Wetst. on
Rom. ii. 9). In Luke's time, however, Greek historians would
probably avoid it. The noun does not occur in the Indices to
Epictetus and Plutarch.
2 Mk iv. 17, Mt. xiii. 21 yei/o/ieVr/s- dXfycus rj 8ta>yp.ov dui TOV Ati-yoi/,
Lk. Vlii. 13 ev Kaipw 7Tfipa.crp.ov.
3 Mk xiii. 24 p.ra Trjv 6\fyiv (Kfivyv, Mt. XXIV. 29 p-fra rr)v 6\'i^nv
TWV i]p.(pu)v (Kfivtov, Lk. xxi. 25 om.
4 Jn xvi. 21, 33.
5 Gen. xxxv. 2 3. Deut. r. (on Deut. iii. 24, Wii. p. 23) says
"The idol [i.e. strange god] is near and far, but God is far and near."
The strange gods were "among" the household of Jacob, but not
311 (Mark xiii. 14 19)
THE LAST DAYS
saying of David to Israel "The Lord hear thee in the day of
tribulation ! " likens the utterance to that of women comforting
a woman in childbirth with the words "He who heard thy mother
will also hear thee. Even so David said to Israel, He who heard
Jacob will also hear thee 1 ." The Jewish comment on the Psalm
uses the same illustration from childbirth. It adds that, just
as a weary traveller who sees a burial place outside a city's walls
knows that the city is not far off, so those who see tribulations
must also see, not far away, redemption. And it will come
from "the God of Jacob" not from the God of Abraham or
Isaac, but "the God of Jacob," the Wrestler, who knew what
trial and tribulation meant 2 .
The Synoptists themselves recognise that after this tribula-
tion (or, in Luke, "necessity") there will come deliverance; but
John's brief tradition means more than this. It suggests that
joy will come through tribulation. This is in accordance with
the doctrine in the Acts that "through many tribulations we
must needs enter into the Kingdom of God 3 ." The Marcan
addition about the unprecedented nature of the tribulation
appears to be from Daniel 4 . The parallel Lucan addition
certainly omits, and rather discredits, the notion of unprece-
dentedness 5 . In these circumstances it would be very natural
that early discussion should arise among Christians concerning
the thlipsis that their Master was said to have predicted, and
concerning the Marcan mention of "women with child" in the
context, and the previous Marcan mention of "the beginning of
travail-pangs 6 ." The Jews were familiar, with the prophetic
really helpful. They were "near" and "[really] far." God is in
heaven, and therefore, locally, "far," but "[really] near."
1 Deut. r. on Deut. iii. 24, Wii. p. 24, quoting Fs. xx. i. Heb.
Pl3y= "hear and answer," R.V. "answer."
2 Tehill. on Ps. xx. i. 3 Acts xiv. 22.
4 Dan. xii. i "tribulation such as never was since there was
a nation," LXX 0\i\l/-cQ>s ola OVK eytvrj&f) d(f> > ov tycvfi0ij(rav t Theod.
6\i\lsis aid ov ycyovfv a<' ys yeyh'rjrai edvos fv ri] y;;, Vulg. " (tenipus)
quale non fuit ab eo ex quo gentes esse coeperunt."
5 Possibly some took LXX d$' ov eycvijdrjo-dv to mean "since
they [i.e. Israel] came into existence [as a nation]."
6 Mk xiii. 8, Mt. xxiv. 8. See above, p. 291, n. 3.
312 (Mark xiii. 14 19)
THE LAST DAYS
metaphor (reproduced in Revelation) of the Mother of whom it
is said that she "was with child, and she crieth out, travailing
in birth," and afterwards "fleeth into the wilderness 1 ." It is
a national metaphor. But it might be misunderstood by Gentiles
as applying to individuals, if for example the "oracle" above
mentioned said "Shall there not be affliction and a crying out of
woe in those days to the woman that is with child and travailing
in birth? "
Mark has perhaps thus misunderstood it. But that must
remain doubtful. It is less doubtful that John has intervened
in order to connect the Marcan traditions about "tribulation"
and "women with child" as also the previous Marcan tradition
about "the beginning of travail-pangs" in one brief prophecy
of a general kind, intelligible to Gentiles, and having for its
scope not merely the fall of Jerusalem but the destiny of the
Church and mankind as a whole. And such a doctrine it is
probable that Jesus actually taught.
6. The ''shortening" of "the days," in Mark and
Matthew 2
The word here used for "shorten " means mostlv " truncate,"
1 Rev. xii. 2, 6.
2 Mk xiii. 20 23
(R.V.)
(20) And except
the Lord had short-
ened the days, no
flesh would have
been saved : but for
the elect's sake,
whom he chose, he
shortened the days.
(21) And then if
any man shall say
unto you, Lo, here is
the Christ; or, Lo,
there ; believe [it]
(or, [him]) not:
(22) For there
shall arise false
Christs and false
prophets, and shall
shew signs and won-
ders, that they may
Mt. xxiv. 22 5 Lk. xvii. 23
(R.V.) (R.V.)
(22) And except
those days had been
shortened, no flesh
would have been
saved : but for the
elect's sake those
days shall be short-
ened.
(23) Then if any (23) And they
man shall say unto shall say to you, Lo,
you, Lo, 'here is the there! Lo, here! go
Christ, or, Here ; be- not away, nor follow
lieve [it] (or, [him]) after [them].
not.
(24) For there
false
false
shall arise
Christs, and
prophets, and shall
shew great signs and
wonders; so as to
313 (Mark xiii. 20 23)
THE LAST DAYS
"mutilate/' "chip 1 ." Also the Greek Kurios, here used for
"Lord" by Mark (but not by Matthew) without the article, to
mean "Jehovah," in words assigned to Christ, and not in a
quotation from the Old Testament, is unique in the Gospels 2 .
Concerning the words in Isaiah "Except the Lord of hosts had
left us a very small remnant," Ibn Ezra says "These are the
words of the Israelites"; and they are appropriate as a con-
gregational utterance, or as a pious ejaculation of a repre-
sentative of the congregation, as in the Psalms ("Except it
had been the Lord that was on our side let Israel now say
except it had been the Lord that was on our side 3 "). There
are other passages in the Psalms where such a phrase as "unless
Mk xiii. 20 23 Mt. xxiv. 22 5
(R.V.) contd. (R.V.) contd.
lead astray, if pos- lead astray, if pos-
sible, the elect. sible, even the elect.
(23) But take ye (25) Behold, I
heed : behold, I have have told you be-
told you all things forehand,
beforehand.
1 KoXo/3oo>, once in LXX, 3 S. iv. 12, Polyb. i. 80. 13, Diod. i. 78
is used of cutting off the hand, foot, or nose. No instance is
alleged in Steph. Thes. of its being used like (Tfj.iKpvvu, oXtyoco etc.
(in Ps. Ixxxix. 45, Prov. x. 27, comp. Ps. cii. 23) to mean "shortening"
of days in the mere sense of diminution. It is used as a prefix
(e.g. Ko\op6piv Lev. xxi. 18) to signify physical defect. In Hermas
(Sim. ix. 8. 5 etc.) it is repeatedly used about stones for building,
spoiled by being "chipped."
In Son 3353d foil, it was suggested that Mark and Matthew have
been misled by mistaking the Hebrew (see Is. x. 23) for "strictly
decide," "decree" (lit. "cut," "sharpen") as if it meant "cut short."
But it was admitted that this "would not justify Mark, whose word
.<oXo/3oco means 'curtail,' 'maim,' 'mutilate.'" Now therefore I
retract that suggestion in favour of one that endeavours to explain
KoAo/3oa) as springing, not from a mere blunder of Mark, but from an
allusion to an ancient "shortening of days" in the history of Israel.
2 See Son 3353 /, 3492.
3 Ps. cxxiv. i 2. In Is. i. 9, the prophet has said to the
Israelites, in the name of the Lord, i. 7 8 " Your country is desolate
. . .as a besieged city." They reply "Except the Lord of hosts had
left us a very small remnant we should have been as Sodom. . .."
The prophet retorts that the rulers are rulers of Sodom (i. 10) " Hear
the word of the Lord, ye rulers of Sodom "
314 (Mark xiii. 20 23)
THE LAST DAYS
the Lord" occurs in an expression of thanks, and it seems likely
to have been in the original, though inappropriate for an utter-
ance of Christ 1 .
Matthew, whether objecting or not to Mark's unique use of
an active verb with Kurios, at all events substitutes a passive
verb without Kurios. But he retains the word "truncate"
with its suggestion of something more passionate than a mere
diminution, a suggestion that the days are the enemies of Israel.
This leads us to ask whether the Old Testament ever represents
the Lord as "shortening days" for Israel's sake, and, in par-
ticular, as shortening them in order to deliver Israel from an
Adversary who might be regarded as using the "days" for the
destruction of the people. Such an instance there is, perhaps
uniquely, in the life of David where Jehovah is described, both
in Samuel and in Chronicles, as cutting short the three days
of appointed plague for Israel when there seemed a danger that
the whole nation would be destroyed 2 .
One of these narratives mentions "the anger of the Lord,"
the other mentions "Satan" or "an adversary," as bringing
this pestilence on Israel; but both relate that the Lord said
to the destroying angel "It is enough 3 ; now stay thine hand."
1 See Gesen. 5306, referring to Ps. xciv. 17, xxvii. 13. And comp.
Ps. cvi. 23 "he said that he would destroy them had not Moses, his
elect, stood before him in the breach." This passage, like that in
Mk-Mt., contemplates an intervention of the Lord for the sake of
"the elect," though in a different sense.
2 2 S. xxiv. 15 "So the Lord sent a pestilence upon Israel from
the morning even to the time appointed." The parall. i Chr. xxi. 14
omits the italicised words. They were variously and quaintly in-
terpreted, but in any case as meaning less than one day. See
Rashi ad loc. and Berach. 62 b. i Tehill. on Ps. xvii. i Wu. p. 130
says that there was a danger that the whole of Israel might perish
in the three days, since 70,000 perished in one hour. Origen says
(Horn. Numb. ix. 8, Lomm. x. 90) "intra sex horas abbreviatum
videtur."
3 2 S. xxiv. i 16, i Chr. xxi. 115, LXX (i) TTO\V (v.r. ixavw),
(2) iKavovo-Qw (TOL. The Heb. m "abundant ! " (Gesen. 913 a] may mean
"it is abundant [for me] " or "abundant [for thee~\." In Gen. xlv. 28
it is taken by Rashi and Targums as implying " it is an unexpected
and superabundant joy, or favour, to me," but in i K. xix. 4 the
315 (Mark xiii. 20 23)
THE LAST DAYS
This recalls the part played by "Satan" in the afflictions of
Job, and suggests the thought that the Destroyer might be
regarded as taking pleasure in an occasion that caused pain to
the Supreme Himself; for it is said that He "repented him of
the evil 1 "; and Isaiah says about the Lord that whenever
Israel was afflicted "in all their affliction he was afflicted 2 ."
The intercession of the sinful David for Israel after the
flesh differed manifestly in many respects from the intercession
of the sinless Son of David for Israel after the spirit; yet the
appointed " three days " for the angel of death, and the " shorten-
ing" of them, might well appeal to early Jewish Christians as
illustrating the kindness of God in shortening the three days
during which the power of darkness was allowed to appear to
triumph over the light by hiding Jesus from His disciples. And
hence might come the personification, so to speak, of the days
during which He was thus hidden. The days might seem to
be the agents of the Adversary, stretching out their hands against
the faith of the disciples ; but the hands were cut off, and the
days "maimed," by the mercy of the Lord. Thus we might
explain why Mark preferred this strong and personifying word
instead of saying in plain prose that the days would be
"shortened."
In modern times, those who believe in the Coming of the
Son of Man are apt to think of it as only a single event, a coming
on the clouds of heaven. But we can hardly deny that to the
disciples of Jesus the first fulfilment of any predictions of
Coming must have seemed to have taken place when He first
came to them after His death. The interval between death
Targ. has " thissufnces to me as the end [of my life] "a cry of weariness
(followed by "usque quo conturbabor ?"). When " to thee (or, you) " is
supplied by the Hebrew, it implies that the person addressed has gone
far enough, or too far, Deut. iii. 26, Ezek. xlv. 9 etc. In i Chr. xxi. 15,
LXX inserts "for thee" probably with justification, for the impression
left by the story is that 3 "I here means " Thou hast gone abundantly
far " (not that God says to the angel " My will is abundantly fulfilled ") .
If so, the expression implies a rebuke.
1 2 S. xxiv. 1 6, i Chr. xxi. 15.
2 Is. Ixiii. 9, on which see Son 3518 /.
316 (Mark xiii. 20 23)
THE LAST DAYS
and manifestation is predicted by the Gospels in various
phrases. Some say "on the third day," some "in three days,"
or "after three days," or "three days and three nights 1 ." But
the records of the Resurrection represent it as being little more
than two nights and a day. The records when compared with
the predictions might well suggest a " shortening " of " the days,"
and the first Christians might exult in this shortening or as
Mark calls it, "cutting short" as a sign of God's kindness in
protecting His elect from the Adversary, Satan, by lightening
the burden laid upon their expectant faith. To such a
"shortening" John may be alluding when he represents Jesus
as saying to the disciples "A little while and ye behold me no
more; and again a little while and ye shall see me 2 ." They, in
their perplexity, ask one another what is meant by this sentence.
But they also ask about another sentence "and, 'Because I go
to the Father*.'" Jesus had uttered the second sentence before
the first. But He had not connected the two. The disciples,
however, do so, and rightly. For the meaning is, as their
Master explains, that His departure and His return are of the
nature of a travail and of a birth. In a few hours He will go
away. In a few more hours He will return, born anew for them,
and henceforth never to be separated from them. And the
-reason for the non-separation is that the Son goes to the Father,
the source of all spiritual unity. The Father will be in them,
as He also, the Son, will be in them, for all eternity.
It may be urged that the Johannine "little while" implies
indeed a "short" period but still something different from a
" shortening " different at least from any artificial " shortening"
of the nature of curtailment or truncation. That is true ; but is
it not also John's deliberate purpose to make this difference?
It is in accordance with his general practice of basing the
Gospel on laws of spiritual Nature. The "shortening" that he
implies is a natural one, in accordance with that kind Providence
or Word of God which ordains shortness for a mother's travail
and duration for a mother's joy.
1 See Son 31907 (iv), 3586. 2 Jn xvi. 16.
3 Jn xvi. 17, comp. xvi. 10.
317 (Mark xiii. 20 23)
THE LAST DAYS
According to Mark, the Lord will "cut short" the days "for
the sake of the chosen ones whom he hath chosen 1 " ; and then
Mark adds that false Christs and false prophets will arise and
work signs "to lead quite astray, if it were possible, the chosen
ones 2 ." Luke omits the whole of this. It suggests difficulties
about "the chosen ones" (in Greek, "the elect") and leads us
to ask how they could possibly be "led quite astray" if it was
God who " elected them." John seems to desire to make us give
up the attempt to solve this insoluble question. He tells us
that Jesus Himself "chose" Judas whom, at an early period,
He pronounced "a devil," and yet that He chose disciples out
of the world that they might bear fruit 3 .
As regards the Marcan "false prophets," we must admit that
Luke nowhere inserts a warning against them, nor writes of them
as existent except in the past 4 . Nor does he ever use the transi-
tive "lead astray" to denote their activity 5 . John is similarly
silent in his Gospel. But this cannot be urged as an exception
to the rule of Johannine Intervention without mentioning that
the Johannine Epistle supplies both these deficiencies 6 . There
"many false prophets" are spoken of as "having gone out into
the world," and the popular anticipation of '"Antichrist" ("ye
have heard that antichrist cometh") is corrected by saying
1 Mk xiii. 20 dia TOVS eKXezrovs ovs e'eAe'aro, Mt. XXIV. 22 Sta Se
TOVS K\KTOVS.
2 Mk xiii. 22 irpbs TO OTroTrXai/ar, el dwarov, TOVS K\<TOVS, Mt. XXIV.
24 ware ir\ava.cr6ai, el 8vvaTov, KCU TOVS K\KTOVS.
3 See Law p. 142 " He uses the term ' electing ' in different senses
perhaps deliberately now including, now excluding Judas."
4 Lk. vi. 26 "Woe [unto you], when all men shall speak well of
you ! For in the same manner did their fathers to the false prophets."
This implies a danger that some of Christ's disciples might fall into
the sins of the false prophets of old.
5 - He uses the verb once passively Lk. xxi. 8 fiXerreTf ^ Tr\avr]6fjTf.
6 See i Jn iv. i " many false-prophets " and ib. ii. 26 "these things
have I written unto you concerning those who are leading you astray
(T&V irXavwvTcov v^as)," iii. 7 "let no one lead you astray," In Jn, the
verb is only used (vii. 12 7rXai/a TOV o^Xov, ib. 47 p.i] Kill I'/xfls- ireTrXavrja-Of ;)
by the enemies of Jesus.
318 (Mark xiii. 20 23)
THE LAST DAYS
"even now there have arisen many antichrists 1 ." This seems
intended to warn the readers to beware of an antichristian
spirit, instead of merely anticipating a single enemy of Christ ;
and it may reasonably be supposed to be written with allusion
to the Marcan traditions about "false-prophets and false-
christs" omitted by Luke.
A brief comment must suffice for the Marcan tradition, not
in Luke, "But [as for] you, beware. I have told you all things
beforehand 2 ." This, coming at the end of a section, may mean
"In what precedes, I have told you of all your perils. It is
for you to beware of them." But Matthew omits "all things"
and subjoins to " I have told you beforehand " the words "If
therefore they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the wilder-
ness... do not believe [it] 3 ." This seems to limit the words
to a warning against " false-christs." Luke omits this warning
in either form.
John represents Jesus, not indeed as predicting "all things,"
but as predicting much more than Matthew mentions. Jesus
says to the disciples on the night of the Last Supper, ist, about
His betrayal by Judas, " I tell you before it come to pass, that,
when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am [he] " ;
2nd, about His departure, "And now I have told you before it
come to pass, that, when if is come to pass, ye may believe";
3rd, about the persecutions awaiting the disciples themselves,
"But these things have I spoken unto you, that, when their
hour is come, ye may remember them, how that I told you 4 ."
Thus John keeps a middle course between Mark and Matthew.
1 i Jn ii. 18, comp. ib. 22, iv. 3.
2 Mk xiii. 23. W. H. omit R.V. ' behold " (after "beware,"
R.V. "take ye heed"), without alternative.
3 Mt. xxiv. 25 6.
4 Jn xiii. 19, xiv. 29, xvi. 4.
319 (Mark xiii. 20 23)
THE LAST DAYS
7. The "gathering" of "the elect," in Mark and
Matthew' 1
In what follows concerning the signs in heaven and the
coming of the Son of Man, Luke while inserting some details
of his own in Thucydidean Greek 2 does not omit anything of
1 Mk xiii. 24 7
Mt. xxiv. 29 31
Lk. xxi. 25 8
(R.V.)
(R.V.)
(R.V.)
(24) But in those
(29) But immedi-
(25) And there
days, after that tri-
ately, after the tribu-
shall be signs in sun
bulation, the sun
lation of those days,
and moon and stars;
shall be darkened,
the sun shall be dark-
and upon the earth
and the moon shall
ened, and the moon
distress of nations, in
not give her light,
(25) And the stars
shall not give her
light, and the stars
perplexity for the
roaring of the sea and
shall be falling from
shall fall from heaven,
the billows;
heaven, and the
and the powers of
(26) Men fainting
powers that are in
the heavens shall be
(or, expiring) for fear,
the heavens shall be
shaken :
and for expectation
shaken.
of the things which
are coming on the
world (lit. the in-
habited earth) : for
the powers of the
heavens shall be
shaken.
(26) And then
(30) And then
(27) And then
shall they see the Son
shall appear the sign
shall they see the Son
of man coming in
of the Son of man in
of man coming in a
clouds with great
heaven : and then
cloud with power
power and glory.
shall all the tribes of
and great glory.
the earth mourn, and
(28) But when*
they shall see the Son
these things begin to
of man coming on
come to pass, look
the clouds of heaven
up, and lift up your
with power and great
heads ; because your
glory.
redemption draweth
(27) And then
(31) And he shall
nigh.
shall he send forth
send forth his angels
the angels, and shall
with a great sound
gather together his
of a trumpet (or, a
elect from the four
trumpet of great
winds, from the
sound ; many anc.
uttermost part .of the
auth. with a great
earth to the utter-
trumpet), and they
most part of heaven.
shall gather together
his elect from the
four winds, from one
end of heaven to the
other.
2 See Introd. p. 119 on Lk. xxi. 25 6 aTropia, and dn
320 (Mark xiii. 24 7)
THE LAST DAYS
importance in Mark 1 except the account of the "gathering"
of "the elect." This omission is not surprising in view of the
difficulty of Mark's phrase "to the uttermost part of heaven,"
following "from the uttermost part of earth*." The Diatessaron
omits "of earth 3 ." Origen takes it fancifully as referring to one
of three "abiding-places (conversationes)V Victor offers an
obscure geographical explanation, which apparently implies
that the boundaries of earth and heaven are identical 5 .
Matthew substitutes "of heaven" for "of earth." He also
alters Mark's "he will gather" into "they will gather," and
"the angels" into "his angels." Thus he emphasizes the fact
that the Son of Man, like a king, acts through servants, and that
"the angels" are His servants ("his angels"). In the same
spirit, having in view a king with a great army, he adds that
the gathering shall be preceded by the sound of a great
"trumpet." Consistently, in the preceding verse, Matthew has
added to the Marcan tradition about "seeing the Son of Man"
another about the "appearing" of "the ensign, or standard,
or sign, of the Son of Man." All this gives a military aspect to
a metaphor that, in Mark, has no touch of militarism.
Luke conveys to the Gentile reader the /neaning latent in
the Hebrew "gather." To Jews the gathering of Israel meant
the gathering of Israelites scattered in various regions as
captives, so that it implied release from captivity 6 . This
1 Mk xiii. 25 "the stars (do-rf'per) shall befalling from the heaven,"
altered to Lk. xxi. 25 "there shall be signs in. . .stars," can hardly
be called an omission of importance. It is a change from poetic
hyperbole to prose.
2 Mk xiii. 27 aw' anpov yrjs eW uKpov ovpavov.
3 Diatess. ("from the end of heaven to its [other] end") makes
no attempt (as Origen does) to add Mark's tradition to Matthew's.
1 Origen (on Mt. xxiv. 31, Lomm. iv. 3i9)'"multorum coelorum
multarum (or, multa) conversationum initia."
5 Victor on Mk xiii. 27 (apparently corrupt) TO Se OTT' axpov yrjs ecus
ovpavov, 5i5d(TK6i fjp.as TO. avra flvai rrjs yys nal ovpav&v aupa' eoore
o) 7rio~TViv Sft, Kal fir) airoTao-dai ws eXa^i'o-rov popiov TTJS yijs ovarjs ev
p.(T(f TOV OVpaVOV aTTClpOLS fJ.yf0O~LV VTTfpfiaXoVTOS a.VTT]V.
6 Gesen. 868 a pnp (pi.) "usu. of Jehovah gathering his dispersed
people," in LXX = a-vvdyo) (71), eVio-vi^uyco (3), eiVSe^o/xai (14) etc.
A. F. 321 (Mark xiii. 24 7) 21
THE LAST DAYS
might naturally be called (as Luke calls it) "redemption" or
"ransom 1 ." It did not imply a mere gathering into one place,
but a gathering into a region or city of freedom, such as is
contemplated in the "song" predicted by Isaiah, "We have
a strong city.. . .Open ye the gates, that the righteous nation
which keepeth truth may enter in 2 ." Luke regards the oppressed
Comp. Is. liv. 7 Heb. "|2pN "I will gather thee," LXX "I will pity
(eXejycroj) thee," Aq. Syrn. dflpoio-a), Theod. o-vi/ao>.
1 Lk. xxi. 28 dTroXvTpaHrts. Comp. Justin M. Tryph. 86 "Moses
with a rod was sent to the ransoming (arroKvTpGMTiv} of the people "-
the only instance of aTroAvrp&xm in Goodspeed.
2 Is. xx vi. i 2. " In that day shall this song be sung in the land
of Judah : We have a strong city, . . . Open the gates, that the righteous
nation which keepeth truth may enter in." Rashi explains "the
righteous nation" as meaning the Israelites returning from captivity,
and "keeping truth" as implying a faithful waiting for the proof of
the truth of God's promises. R.V. marg. refers to Ps. cxviii. 19 20
"Open to me the gates of righteousness" (which is preceded by "the
Lord hath chastened me sore, but he hath not given me over unto
death") where the context implies redemption. Again, R.V. marg.
in this Psalm refers to Ps. xxiv. 7 9 "Lift up your heads, O ye
gates. . .."
This and Lk. xxi. 28 are perhaps the only instances in the Bible
of the phrase "lift up your heads," and perhaps Luke had in view
this Psalm of exultation. The LXX takes "heads" as "rulers"
("lift up the gates, O rulers"). Origen (ad loc.} assumes the gates
to be those Of heaven (as yap . . . K\ivas ovpavovs, OVK avoi^as, KaTffir),
TOV ai'Tov Tponov dvaXrjQOels . . . ). Jerome (ad loc.) apparently pre-
fers to take them as the gates of Sheol (Son 3615 b c) . The
Descensus (A) 5 (21) quotes the Psalm (LXX) in describing the
shouting that welcomed the approach of Christ to the gates of Sheol.
Clement of Alexandria (762 3), writing on the Descent, after
saying that the Lord "preached the gospel to those also that were
in Hades," proceeds "At all events the Scripture says (comp. Job
xxviii. 22) Hades saith to Destruction, We have not seen His form
but we have heard His voice," which lends itself to the assumption
(see Descens. 3 8) that these two were the chief "gate-keepers"
of Hell. Now in Job xxxviii. 17 "Hast thou seen the gates of the
shadow of death?" LXX has "Have the gate-keepers of Hell seen
and crouched before thee?" The name "gate-keeper" is given to
Cerberus in Greek literature, and might be given to slaves chained
at the gate to keep off intruders (see below, p. 331, n. 5). The
322 (Mark xiii. 24 7)
THE LAST DAYS
as bowed down under fetters from which the Deliverer calls
them to "look up," as Jesus enabled a daughter of Abraham,
bowed down by Satan 1 . They had not dared before, but now
they will dare, to "lift up their heads" against the enemies
that trampled on them 2 . All these details are implied in
Mark's saying that the Lord "will gather together toward
[himself] " the elect, and Luke draws them out.
John puts first a mention of "gathering into one" not uttered
by Jesus 3 . Here, without actually mentioning the Lucan word
"ransom," John introduces the essence of it in the prediction
(as commented on by himself) that he assigns to the high priest,
Caiaphas : " It is expedient for you that one man should die for
the people, and that the whole nation perish not 4 ." But instead
of Mark's technical term "elect," John, in his own person,
substitutes "children of God," thus, "He [i.e. Caiaphas] pro-
phesied that Jesus should die for the nation ; and not for the
nation only, but that he might also gather together into one
the children of God that are scattered abroad*." Later on, in the
Last Prayer, Jesus repeatedly prays that the disciples may
be all "one" or "perfected into one" even as the Father and
the Son are "one 6 ." Thus John retains Mark's "gather to-
Heb. -iyir "gate-keeper" =LXX (6) "gate," and Heb. "gate" =
LXX (3) "gate-keeper." Luke may have followed some early
tradition, referring to the Descent, and taking the cry as "Lift
up your heads, ye keeper s-of-the-gate, i.e. ye that sit in chains, as
slaves, at the entrance of the prison-house."
1 Lk. xxi. 28 uva K v\l/aT. Philo (ii. 433) describes thus the
"emergence" of the earth, purified by fire, after being cast down
"to Tartarus itself (irpbs avrbv Tuprapov)," when ap^crai norf Stair veiv
teal avaKvirrfiv. In (genuine) N.T., dvanvrrTco occurs elsewhere only
in Lk. xiii. n about the woman who was "not able to look up"
because "Satan" had "bound" her.
2 In canon. LXX, avaKv-rrra) occurs only in Job x. 15 (Heb.) " I will
not lift up my head." The Heb. phrase elsewhere (and prob. there, too)
implies the "looking up" of one who has been cast down by enemies
(see Gesen. 670 a on Judg. viii. 28, Zech. ii. 4 (R.V. i. 21), Job x. 15,
Ps. Ixxxiii. 2).
3 J n xi- 52. 4 Jn xi. 50, rep. xviii. 14.
5 Jn xi. 52. Jn xvii. n. 21, 22, 23.
323 (Mark xiii. 24 7) 21 2
THE LAST DAYS
ler," but explains the region into which the gathering is
to tend as being a spiritual one, the unity of the Father and
the Son.
8. "The fig-tree 1 "
What follows describes the advent of a spiritual springtime.
The word "spring" does not occur in our Revised Version of the
Old Testament 2 But the Song of Songs describes its signs:
"Lo, the winter is past. . .the time of the pruning is come. . .
the fig-tree ripeneth her green figs, and the vines are in blossom 3 .'*
This seems to describe different stages of the spring ; and the
ripening (or, spicing) 4 of the green figs is placed before the
1 Mk xiii. 28 31
(R.V.)
(28) Now from
the fig-tree learn her
parable : when her
branch is now be-
come tender, and
putteth forth its
leaves, ye know that
the summer is nigh;
(29) Even so ye
also, when ye see
these things coming
to pass, know ye that
he (or, it) is nigh,
[even] at the doors.
(30) Verily I say
unto you, This gener-
ation shall not pass
away, until all these
things be accom-
plished
(31) Heaven and
earth shall pass a-
way : but my words
shall not pass away.
Mt. xxiv. 32 5
(R.V.)
(32) Now from
the fig-tree learn her
parable : when her
branch is now be-
come tender, and
putteth forth its
leaves, ye know that
the summer is nigh;
(33) Even so ye
also, when ye see
all these things, know
ye that he (or, it) is
nigh, [even] at the
doors.
(34) Verily I say
unto you, This gener-
ation shall not pass
away, till all these
things be accom-
plished.
(35) Heaven and
earth shall pass a-
way, but my words
Lk. xxi. 29 33
(R.V.)
(29) And he spake
to them a parable:
Behold the fig-tree,
and all the trees:-
(30) When they
now shoot forth, ye
see it and know of
your own selves that
the summer is now
nigh.
(31) Even so ye
also, when ye see
these things coming
to pass, know ye that
the kingdom of God
is nigh.
(32) Verily I say
unto you, This gener-
ation shall not pass
away, till all things
be accomplished.
(33) Heaven and
earth shall pass a-
way: but my words
shall not pass away.
shall not pass away.
2 When LXX has cap (Gen. viii. 22, Ps. Ixxiv. 17, Zech. xiv. 8)
as a rendering of Heb., it is fpn (Gesen. 358 a) "harvest- time,"
"autumn" (or early winter). A.V. has "spring" once (Ezek. xvii. 9).
3 Cant. ii. n 13, R.V. marg. ''the pruning," LXX TO^S, Aq. and
Sym. K\a^va-f(as, and so Gesen. (274 b "pET) but Jewish tradition
gives "the singing" (and so R.V. txt).
4 Gesen. 334 b DJn.
324 (Mark xiii. 28 31)
THE LAST DAYS
flowering of the vine because the fruit of the fig-tree comes
before its leaves 1 . Mark does not quite accord with the Song,
since he makes the fig-tree put out "leaves,'' not "figs." Luke
omits both "leaves" and "figs" ; and he uses the word used by
Aquila in his rendering of the Song ("cast forth") but without
"figs" or "leaves 2 ." Also Luke, perhaps having in view the
fact that the Song mentions the vine as well as the fig-tree,
adds "and all the trees."
But this does not appear in accordance with the earliest
traditions, which point to a contrast like that in Jeremiah
between "good figs" and "bad figs 3 ." There, the good are the
Jews carried away captive to the land of the Chaldeans. The
bad are those who remain in Jerusalem, or dwell in Egypt.
Mark has described in effect the "bad" fig-tree, the corrupt
Jerusalem and its Temple, when he described the withering of
the barren fig-tree. Now he describes the good fig-tree, the
future remnant of Israel, the Church of Christ, purified by trials
and tribulations. These have been severe for a time, but now
the disciples are called on to regard them as signs of, growth
and development. Like winter, or like the pruning-hook, they
are intended to prepare the ransomed believers to bring forth
fruit.
John intervenes to explain that the spiritual meaning of
"summer" does not depend on its being one of four seasons of
the year, but on its fruitfulness. The same Hebrew word means
both "summer" and "product of summer," whether grain or
fruit 4 . John's first mention of "fruit" is connected with an
invisible "harvest," in which "he that reapeth . . . gathereth
fruit unto life eternal 5 ." The next is connected with "death"
and a grain of wheat : " If it die it beareth much fruit 6 ." Then
follows a group of sayings about "fruit" in connection with
1 See above, p. 205 foil.
2 Lk. xxi. 30 orai/ 7rpo/3aAa>o-ii> fjdrj, Cant. ii. 13 HlMn, LXX f^
Aq. TTpoerfaXev, Sym. cc0ij\tv.
3 Jerem. xxiv. 2, 5, 8.
4 Gesen. 8846 pp, given by Tromm. as = d^ros (3), <9<fpos, -
-i(rp.6s (7), oirwpa (3), iraXddr) (2).
5 Jn iv. 35 6. 6 Jn xii. 24.
325 (Mark xiii. 28 31)
THE LAST DAYS
"the true vine," in which "the husbandman," that is the
Father, "taketh away every branch that beareth not fruit,
and cleanseth every branch that beareth fruit, that it may bear
more fruit 1 ." Here we find a suggestion of that " pruning "-
for "cleansing" means "pruning" which appears to be
mentioned in the Song of Solomon as one of the signs of spring.
This cleansing or pruning is later on expressed by the "tribula-
tion," or travail-pangs, through which the Church must pass
to the new birth 2 .
9. "About that day. . .knoweth no one. . .not even the Son,
save only the Father," in Mark and Matthew*
Luke omits this saying about the "day" here. In the Acts
he represents Jesus as saying to the disciples, after His resurrec-
1 Jn xv. i 2.
3 Mk xiii. 32 37
(R.V.)
(32) But of that
day or that hour
knoweth no one, not
even the angels in
heaven, neither the
Son, but the Father.
(33) Take ye heed,
watch and pray (some
anc. auth. om. and
pray) : for ye know
not when the time is.
(34) [It is] as
[when] a man,
sojourning in another
country, having left
his house, and given
authority to his ser-
vants (lit. bondser-
vants), to each one
his work, command-
2 Jn xvi
Mt. xxiv. 36, xxv.
13 15, xxiv. 42
46 (R.V.)
(xxiv. 36) But of
that day and hour
knoweth no one, not
even the angels of
heaven, neither the
Son (many auth., some
anc., omit neither the
Son), but the Father
only.
(xxv. 13) Watch
therefore, for ye
know not the day nor
the hour.
(14) For [it is] as
[when] a man, going
into another country,
called his own ser-
vants (lit. bondser-
vants), and delivered
unto them his goods.
(15) And unto one
he gave five talents,
to another two, to
21, 33.
Lk. xxi. 34 36, xii.
3543 (R-V.)
(xxi. 34) But take
heed to yourselves,
lest haply your hearts
be overcharged with
surfeiting, and drunk-
enness, and cares of
this life, and that
day come on you
suddenly as a snare :
(35) For [so] shall
it come upon all
them that dwell on
the face of all the
earth.
(36) But watch
ye at every season,
making supplication,
that ye may prevail
to escape all these
things that shall
come to pass, and to
stand before the Son
of man.
(xii. 35) Let your
loins be girded about,
and your lamps
burning ;
(36) And be ye
326 (Mark xiii. 32 7)
THE LAST DAYS
tion, "It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father
Mk xiii. 32 37
(R.V.) contd.
ed also the porter to
watch.
(35) Watch there-
fore : for ye know
not when the lord of
the house cometh,
whether at even, or
at midnight, or at
cockcrowing, or in
the morning;
(36) Lest coming
suddenly he find you
sleeping.
(37) And what I
say unto you I say
unto all, Watch.
Mt. xxiv. 36, xxv.
1315, xxiv. 42
46 (R.V.) contd.
another one ; to each
according to his
several ability; and
he went on his
journey.
(xxiv. 42) Watch
therefore : for ye
know not on what
day your Lord com-
eth.
(43) But know
this (or, But this ye
know), that if the
master of the house
had known in what
watch the thief was
coming, he would
have watched, and
would not have suf-
fered his house to be
broken through (lit.
digged through).
(44) Therefore be
ye also ready: for
in an hour that ye
think not the Son of
man cometh.
(45) Who then is
the faithful and wise
servant (lit. bondser-
vant), whom his lord
hath set over his
household, to give
them their food in
due season?
(46) Blessed is
that servant (lit.
bondservant), whom
his lord when he
cometh shall find so
doing.
Lk. xxi. 3436,
xii. 3543
(R.V.) contd.
yourselves like unto
men looking for their
lord, when he shall
return from the
marriage feast ; that,
when he cometh and
knocketh, they may
straightway open un-
to him.
(37) Blessed are
those servants (lit.
bondservants) 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.
(38) And if he
shall come in the
second watch, and if
in the third, and find
[them] so, blessed are
those [servants].
(39) But know
this (or, But this ye
know), that if the
master of the house
had known in what
hour the thief was
coming, he would
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.
(41) And Peter
said, Lord, speakest
thou this parable un-
to us, or even unto
all?
327 (Mark xiii. 32 7)
THE LAST DAYS
hath set within his own authority 1 ." This might imply that
the Son, now that He had risen from the dead, "knew," or was
on the point of "knowing," the "times" but that He did not
think fit to impart this knowledge to the disciples. But it
might also imply that the Father still kept this knowledge
within "his own authority," so that not even the risen Saviour
knew it, or would know it till He had ascended to the Father,
if then. Luke's silence in the Gospel, and his obscure statement
in the Acts, favour the view that he regarded the Marcan
utterance as post-resurrectional and as being though clear
likely to be misused by being wrongly dated.
John represents Jesus as saying to the disciples, "If ye
loved me, ye would have rejoiced because I go unto the Father,
for the Father is greater than I 2 ." That is to say, the perfect
unity between the Father and the Son is consistent with an
ampler inclusiveness of the Father in heaven as compared with
a narrower inclusiveness of the Son on earth. This epithet
"greater" does not appear to be intended to make a comparison
between the Father in heaven and the Son in heaven. It has
been previously introduced to shew how the Son Himself,
after ascending to the Father, will be greater than His previous
self in His power to help a believer to do greater works : "The
Lk. xxi. 34 36, xii.
3543 (R.V.) contd.
(42) And the Lord
" said, Who then is the
faithful and wise
steward, whom his
lord shall set over his
household, to give
them their portion of
food in due season ?
(43) Blessed is
that servant (lit.
bondservant) whom
his lord when he
cometh shall find so
doing.
1 Acts i. 7. Origen quotes this in his comment on Mt. xxiv. 36
(Lomm. iv. 330 i) and gives a long explanation, after which he
adds "alia expositio quae famosior est."
2 Jn xiv. 28.
328 (Mark xiii. 32 7)
THE LAST DAYS
works that I do shall he do also ; and greater works than these
shall he do, because I go unto the Father 1 ."
The Synoptic phrase "that day" is used thrice in the Johan-
nine Last Discourse. But the Synoptists mean by it a definite
day of a visible Coming at some unknown date. John means
something very different: "In that day ye shall know that
I am in my Father and ye in me and I in you," "In that day
ye shall ask me no [question]; verily, verily, I say unto you,
If ye shall ask anything of the Father he will give it you in my
name," "In that day ye shall ask in my name 2 ." "That day"
does not begin at any particular "hour." It is a permanent
spiritual state of union between man's soul and the Father
through the Spirit of the Son.
John seems to take a pleasure in detemporising (so to speak),
as well as delocalising, the coming of the Lord. When he says
"Jesus loved the disciples to the end" this is the only occasion
where he mentions "the end" as a noun 3 . And when Jesus is
said to have "known that all things had been ended" and to have
cried aloud "It is ended*," this is the only Johannine occasion
where "end" is used as a verb. " End " here implies, in fact,
an end that is a beginning an omega that is also an alpha.
When John desires to speak of the "coming" of the Son in some
special form visible to men he generally speaks of it as a mani-
festing 5 . This is in accordance with the use of the Targumists
1 Jn xiv. 12.
2 Jn xiv. 20, xvi. 23 (on^which see above, pp. 61 2), xvi. 26.
3 Jn xiii. T.
4 Jn xix. 28, 30 TT\(TTni (bis). There is an intention in repeat-
ing rfTfAfo-rai. " He said to Himself . . . and then He said aloud,
'All is ended.'" Nonnus repeats rercXfo-ro thus: 1/0770-0? 6Yri dows
T Tf\ (TTO . . ,TT\f(TTO TTtlV I) (TT LIT id) (hl'lTO fJLV0(i).
5 "Manifesting," <pai/cpoo>, a verb not used by the Synoptists
except Mark (iv. 22) on which see Law p. 28 foil. Mark alone says
that "manifestation" is the object, Mt.-Lk. say it is the invariable
sequel. It is also in Mk-App. xvi. 12, 14 (of post-resurrectional
manifestations). In Jn i. 31 Iva <pai>ep&>0;/ r<u 'I., it implies that the
Messiah is already in Israel but needs to be manifested or revealed ;
in ib. xxi. i (bis), 14, it is used of post-resurrectional manifestations.
In i Jn i. 2 (bis) it is used of the Incarnation, but ib. ii. 28 of the
(second) Parousia.
329 (Mark xiii. 32 7)
THE LAST DAYS
who habitually say "God manifested Himself," or "was
manifested/' instead of "God came 1 ." "Manifested" is the
word that he uses even on the single occasion when he uses
(in the Epistle) the technical word parousia, denoting what is
commonly called the Second Coming of the Lord: "Abide in
him, that, if he shall be manifested, we. . .may not shrink in
shame from him at his parousia 2 ." Not that he avoids the
word "come" in a spiritual sense. On the contrary he uses
it freely, but so freely as to disappoint us if we ask at once "Is
He to ' come ' ? Then when is the ' coming ' ? " The beginning
of the Prologue speaks of the Light as continually "coming
into the world 3 " ; the Last Discourse frequently speaks of the
Father and the Son and the Paraclete as "coming" to believers
and abiding in them 4 ; and Christ's final utterance, addressed
to Peter, seems to speak of the "coming" either as a continuous
process, or at all events as a matter of which the details are not
to affect Peter's conduct or to divert him from following Christ
in the path prescribed to him: "If I will that he abide while
I am coming, what is that to thee? Follow thou me 5 ."
occurs in LXX only in Jerem. xxxiii. 6 "I will reveal,"
rh). "To be revealed" in Targum corresponds to "come" in
Scripture, when the latter is ^sed about God, Son 3314 c, 3334 b etc.
2 i Jn ii. 28. Ilapoucria is not used in the Gospels except Mt. xxiv.
3. 2 7> 37. 39-
3 Jn i. 9-
4 Jn xiv. 3, 18, 23, 28, xvi. 7, 8, 13, 28.
5 Jn xxi. 22 3, see Law pp. 525 6. Here it should be noted
that "abide while I am coming" is the Johannine equivalent of the
Synoptic "watch," or "watch and pray." John never uses the
word "watch." Consequently he omits Marcan details connected
with "watching" such as Mk xiii. 35 "cock-crowing," ib. 36 "lest
coming suddenly he find you sleeping," etc. John emphasizes the
more positive precept of "abiding (pe'vw) " a word that occurs in
the Fourth Gospel more than three times as often as in the Synoptists
taken all together.
330 (Mark xiii. 32 7)
THE LAST DAYS,
10. "The porter," in Mark and John 1
Mark, alone of the Synoptists, specially mentions a "porter,"
better called "doorkeeper," among the servants of a man who
is away from home, and who has assigned to them their several
tasks. The task of the "doorkeeper" is to "keep awake," or
"watch." The duty of watching is specially emphasized by
Mark, and he concludes by emphasizing its universality, "What
I say unto you, I say unto all, 'Watch 2 .'"
What they were to "watch" for was the "coming" of "the
lord of the house," and the first "coming" was that which
followed closely on Christ's resurrection. Then He was variously
manifested to various disciples. But Mary, and the seven
fishermen, did not at first recognise Him ; nor did the two
disciples at Emmaus; nor did "some" on the "mountain"
mentioned by Matthew 3 . Long afterwards the rich and
pleasure-loving Laodiceans are warned that there is a danger
of their being deaf to the voice of the Lord at a later coming :
"Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If any man hear my
voice and open the door, I will come in to him and will sup
with him 4 ." This implies, though it does not mention, the
metaphor of a doorkeeper of souls in the Laodicean Church.
This doorkeeper ought to be ready to hear, and quick to open,
when the voice of the Lord demands entrance 5 .
[Lk. om., but comp.
1 Mk xiii. 34 Mt. xxv. 14 15 xix. 12]
'fls ai>6p(i)7ro$ O.TTO- "flcrirep yap av6p<t)- avdpanros TIS fvy vfjs
8r)fj.os (\<pf\s TTJV oiKiav TTOS a7ro8Tjp.a)v eKiiXecrfv (Tropevflr] . . . (introduc-
avrov KOI 8ovs rols 8ov- TOVS Idiovs dov^ovs Kai ing the parable of the
\oi$ avrot) TTJV eou<riai>, Trapedaxev aiirms TO. pounds),
exaoroj TO f'pyov OVTOV, VTrdp^ovra CIVTOV, KIU
KO.I T6) dvpu>p(i) VTL- <p fJLtV e8(t>KV TTfVTf
AaTo iv a ypyyopfj (see rdXavra (introducing
Son 3299 foil.). ' the parable of the
talents) .
Comp. Jn X. 3 TO^TO) 6 dvpcopos dvoiyei.
2 "Watch," dypwn-velv occurs once, and yprjyopflv thrice, in
Mk xiii. 33 7.
3 Jn xx. 14, 15, xxi. 4, Lk. xxiv. 16, Mt. xxviii. 17.
4 Rev. iii. 20.
5 Lucian (Column. 30) uses the word "doorkeeper" in an illus-
trative context, bidding us thrust back and shut out bad and
331 (Mark xiii. 32 7)
THE LAST DAYS
In the Fourth Gospel Jesus, before His death, is represented
as promising His presence after death: "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 abode with him 1 ." But no
spiritual "doorkeeper" is mentioned there, or anywhere else
except in the Parable of the Good Shepherd : "He that entereth
in through the door is a [true] shepherd of the sheep. To him
the doorkeeper openeth, and the sheep hear his voice... 2 ."
demoralising talk, and welcome, and let in, its opposite: "A man
must set Reason, [like] a strict doorkeeper, over all utterances
(fTTKTTrja-avTa. aKpiftf) Qvpwpbv TOV Aoyio-yuoi/ anaon rots Xeyo/zeVois), . . .For it
would be ridiculous to appoint doorkeepers for our house but to leave
our ears and mind (Sidvoiav) open [and unprotected]."
Socrates says to Protagoras (Phileb. 62 D) " Then do you want
me like some doorkeeper pushed and hustled by a mob to give in,
and throw the doors wide open, and let all the sciences stream in,
the less defective and the perfect in one flood ? "
In Memoriam 94, speaking of "communion with the dead,"
implies the need of some doorkeeper, different from "doubt," at the
"portal" of the soul that desires to be visited by them:
"But when the heart is full of din
And doubt beside the portal waits,
They can but listen at the gates,
And hear the household jar within."
In the passage quoted above from Lucian, the distracting
influences that are to be kept out of the soul by the "doorkeeper"
are of the nature of the voices of Sirens, stirring up in the soul
a tumult of the passions. Comp. Lk. xxi. 34 "Lest haply your hearts
be overcharged with surfeiting and drunkenness, and cares of this
life, and that day come on you suddenly as a snare."
Language that might have a very real significance on the eve of
our Lord's death preparing the disciples to await His resurrection
and first Coming, might come by degrees to have less and less
significance when the disciples began to look forward to a second
Coming on the clouds of heaven and to apply the old language to a
new anticipation.
1 Jn xiv. 23.
2 Jn x. 2 3 "a [true] shepherd" (R.V. marg. "a shepherd," R.V.
txt "the shepherd"). This prepares the way for ib. n "the good
shepherd," who is the pattern of every " [true] shepherd." " True "
is illustrated by Philo's distinction (i. 306, Law pp. 254 5) between
the "shepherd" and the cattle-feeder.
332 (Mark xiii. 32 7)
THE LAST DAYS
Here "the doorkeeper" appears to mean a guardian-conscience,
a predisposition to receive good influences and reject evil ones.
Such a guardianship may exist in a community as well as in
a single soul. But the metaphor of a "doorkeeper" is not so
natural to apply to a community as to an individual and
Chrysostom's statement that the Evangelist "abode in the
metaphor " perhaps covers Chrysostom's difficulty in expanding
the metaphor into a simile 1 . It is certain that John has followed
Mark in his application of the metaphor of a doorkeeper to the
spiritual opening of the heart to the approach of the Lord,
but the reason for it is doubtful. Probably, however, one
reason for this Johannine intervention is the fact that Matthew
and Luke have interpreted the Marcan "doorkeeper" as though
it meant a steward or controller of the household, perhaps with
special allusion to Peter 2 .
1 Chrys. on Jn x. 3 "He abode in (eW/j,eu/e) the metaphor so as
to make the saying more vivid (f^avTLK^Tfpov}. But if you please
also to test the parable by literal interpretation, nothing forbids [your]
understanding Moses here as 'doorkeeper.'" Origen (Introd. to
Comm. Joann., Lomm. i. 4) says to Gregory " Knock at that which
is closed in them [the scriptures] and it shall be opened to thee by
the doorkeeper of whom Jesus said, 'To him the doorkeeper openeth.' "
This may mean that every one of Christ's shepherds of the flock
must approach the Truth through the door, namely, Christ, and that
he will then be admitted by the "doorkeeper," the responsive Spirit
(of all Truth, and especially the Truth of divine humanity) which
answers to the Voice that demands entrance in the name of the Son.
But it is obscurely expressed as also by Clem. Alex. 698. Both
writers seem to blend, or identify, the Johannine tradition with
(Mt. vii. 7, Lk. xi. 9) "Knock, and it shall be opened unto you"
(which indeed Origen quotes in his context). [In Son 3303 b "Also
the gospel expressly says (Jn x. 3) 'To him' that is, to the Good
Shepherd 'the Porter openeth,'" the word "Good" ought perhaps
not to have been inserted.]
2 The metaphor of "opening" is applied in O.T. to the "ears"
and "eyes," but not to the heart or mind, although Wetstein on
Lk. xxiv. 45 quotes "Preces Judaeorum : Aperi cor meum in lege
tua. Ipse aperit cor nostrum in lege sua (Is. 1. 5 ' the Lord God hath
opened mine ear')." Ibn Ezra and Rashi explain Isaiah as referring
to the vision in the course of which his ears were opened so that he
heard the Lord say (Is. vi. 8) " Who will go for us ? " The metaphor
333 (Mark xiii. 32 7)
THE LAST DAYS
ii. The ''faithful servant (or, steward),'' in Matthew
and Luke 1
In a previous volume 2 , it has been shewn that the "door-
keeper" might be regarded as the "gatekeeper," and thus taken
as "he that sits in the gate" according to the Hebrew phrase
applied to one in authority or else as "he that has the keys of
the gate," that is, the controller of the king's palace. To the
facts there alleged, it should be added that "gatekeepers of
the temple," while regularly called "gatekeepers" in Ezra, are
called "doorkeepers" in Esdras 3 . And the disgrace of the
unfaithful steward in Matthew-Luke 4 has a parallel in Isaiah
(also mentioning the power of the "key" in its context), where
the Lord says "Get thee unto this treasurer (marg. steward) even
unto Shebna, who is over the house" soon to be replaced by
a worthier steward of whom it is said " The key of the house of
David will I lay upon his shoulder ; and he shall open and none
shall shut, and he shall shut and none shall open 5 ."
is in 2. Mace. i. 4 "to open your heart in His law." Luke represents
the risen Saviour as being unrecognised by the two disciples at
Emmaus till He had (xxiv. 45) "opened their mind (dirjvoigev avT&v
TOV vovv) that they should understand the scriptures," and comp.
Acts xvi. 14 Kai TIS yvvr). . . o-e/So/LieV?/ TOV 6fov rJKOvev, TJS 6 Kvpios 8ir)voie
TTJV KdpfticiV TTpOCTf^eiV Tols \O\OVfJifVOlS VTTO IIouXoV, whCF
compares Lk. xxiv. 45, and speaks of "pioneering grace (17 ir
n-oiovcra x<*P iS ) " as the cause of the success of the Apostles. The
woman had apparently passed through some preparatory training in
the Scriptures. Plutarch says (Mor. 360) that the reading of
poetry "tends to open (irpoavoiyei) and incline (irpoa-Ktvel) the mind of
the young to the words of philosophy."
1 For the texts, see above, pp. 327 8.
2 See Son 3297 305 "The Son of Man coming unexpectedly."
3 Qvpvpos, in LXX, is almost confined to I Esdr. IlvXvpos is freq.
in Chr., Ezr., and Nehemiah (=iyiB>).
4 Mt. xxiv. 48 foil., Lk. xii. 45 foil.
5 Is. xxii. 15 22. For "to this treasurer (or steward)" LXX
has et? TO irao-Tofpopiov. Comp. i Chr. ix. 26 (Heb.) "For in [a
position of] trust were they (LXX eV tria-Tfi elal), the four powerful-
[men] (i.e. chiefs) of the porters (onyBPn n33, LXX 8waToi T>V irv\ui>
i.e. having power over the gates) they (Dn), the Levites and [they]
were over the chambers (LXX Trao-Tofpopia) and over the treasuries
334 (Mark xiii. 32 7)
THE LAST DAYS
Mark's tradition represents the doorkeeper as on the watch
merely to let in the Master of the House. This appears to have
been the original, or central, conception, to which others
either interpretative or subsidiary have been added by later
Evangelists. One of these gives a picture of some one watching
(or rather failing to watch) not to let in the Master but to
keep out a housebreaker 1 . Another picture, describing the
welcome given to the Master on his return from "a wedding,"
suggests another confused interpretation of "doorkeeper" as
meaning, according^ to Hesychius, "the paranymph, he that
keeps shut the door of the wedding-chamber 2 ." Matthew's
and Luke's parables about the "talents" and "pounds 3 "
appear to be expansions of Mark's brief statement that the
Master gave to each servant his appointed exousia, i.e. "au-
thority," or "province of work," here confused with, or taken
as meaning, ousia, "resources" or "property 4 ." Lastly, Mark's
(R.V.) in the house of God." This passage shews how a chief of
porters might be confused with a common porter.
Ps. Ixxxiv. 10 C]D^non "make myself a threshold," R.V. marg.
"stand at the threshold," R.V. txt "be a doorkeeper," is unique, and
throws no light on the usage of "doorkeeper" in general.
1 See Son 3300 on the possibility of confusion between the
"steward" i.e. "master of the house[hold]," and "the lord of the
house" i.e. the steward's master.
2 See HeSVCh. Qvptupos, o naptivvfj.(j)os (sic), o rr)i/ Ovpav rov 9a\ap.ov
K\L(i)V.
3 See Son 3302 a on the Heb. "gate " as meaning also "estimation "
in Hebrew and nothing but " estimation " in Aramaic. It might be
taken as referring to the property delivered " according to estimation,"
ten talents to one, five to another.
4 'Kovo-ui could not be taken as ova- la (or vice versa] except in a
forced interpretation, but over La might be a rendering of Heb. " house "
(comp. "fob. xiv. 13 ova-iav v.r. oiKiav) and see Son 3299/ for "House
of Lysanias" which sometimes seems to mean a tetrarchy. Matthew
(in the Talents) has (xxv. 21) "over many things (TTO\\MV)" whereas
Luke (in the Pounds) has (xix. 17) "over cities (Ti-oAecoi/)." The two
(Paradosis 1397) might be confused in Greek. Also Heb. "gates"
= freq. " cities " in LXX. Luke gives us the impression that he knew
the parable to refer to egovo-ia, not to oixria, and that he did his best
to bring in the correct meaning in some form, " have thou authority
over ten cities."
335 (Mark xiii. 32 7)
THE LAST DAYS
phrase "what I say unto you I say unto all" seems to have
raised the question what was meant by "you." " Did it mean
' the apostles ' ? " Those who asked this question might go on
to speak of possible inferences : " If so, perhaps the Lord said it
in answer to one of the apostles, perhaps Peter 1 , who asked
' Sayest thou this parable to us or also to all ? ' " This view
being adopted and the word "perhaps" being dropped there
may have resulted a tradition that one of the apostles, probably
Peter, definitely asked this question 2 .
12. The disciple that "follows," and the disciple that
"waits," in John
We have now to ask whether John has anything to say that
bears upon the Matthew-Luke tradition about a special upper
In Mark (xiii. 34), SS has "his property." The Syr. of Walton
omits "his," as also do a, k, and Corb. ; and Brix. "data servis suis
potestate cuj usque operis." Perhaps Mark may mean that the Master
of the House took an unusual course. He did not appoint one servant
to whom he entrusted control of the household in his absence like
Pharaoh, who made Joseph (Ps. cv. 21) "lord of his house and ruler
of all his substance, to bind his princes at his pleasure. ..." On the
contrary, the Master imparted " the authority " to all his servants
to each one the authority over the province of work appointed for
him, from the highest to the lowest, from the most active, who
might be constantly at work, down to "the doorkeeper," whose time
might be mainly spent in watching.
1 Lk. xii. 41. See Son 3301 quoting Mk xiii. i "one of his dis-
ciples."
2 It would be natural, as the years passed on after the first
Coming or Resurrection, that the precepts about "watching" should
be regarded largely as addressed not to all Christians individually
but to the presbyters "watching" for the souls entrusted to their
charge. Comp. Acts xx. 31, Heb. xiii. 17 (referring to elders).
In concluding this study of the Precepts of Watching it is natural
to ask for O.T. precedents. None occur (as far as A.V. Concordance
indicates) except in the words of Ezra, during the return from
Babylon, delivering to their custodians the holy vessels that were to
find a home in the New Temple (Ezr. viii. 28 9) "Ye are holy unto
the Lord and the vessels are holy . . . Watch and keep [them] until ye
weigh them before the chiefs of the priests ... in the chambers of the
336 (Mark xiii. 32 7)
THE LAST DAYS
servant in the sense of steward, not a mere doorkeeper, but
a keeper of the keys of the House. Reasons will be given for
thinking that John does say something on this point, not
directly, but indirectly and dramatically, as follows.
In the narrative of Christ's manifestation after the Resur-
rection for the last time, to the disciples fishing on the sea of
Tiberias, the part played by the fishermen is twofold action
and recognition 1 . The action is originated by Peter, "I go
a-fishing." They also go with him. They all act, but they do
not recognise. "The disciples knew not that it was Jesus."
After the draught of fishes, there comes recognition. But not
to all, and not to Peter; only to an unnamed disciple: "That
disciple, therefore, whom Jesus loved, saith unto Peter ' It is
the Lord.' " It is Peter that first reaches the Lord on the shore,
and it is Peter that "went up and drew the net to the land."
We may almost say that all the action is Peter's. But the
recognition had come from some one without a name, "the
disciple whom Jesus loved."
Later on, Jesus deals indirectly with the question of "greater"
servants and "less" servants, and with the part to be played by
Peter if he claims to be superior to his companions: "Lovest
thou me more than these?" Peter is responsive to "lovest,"
but dumb to "more than these." "Thou knowest that I love
thee" is all he will now say. He will claim no superiority in
loving. And now that he has cast aside the desire to be great
as compared with others, Jesus shews him the way to be great
in reality, assigning to him, first, the work for his activity,
house of the Lord. . ." LXX aypvirvflre KOI retire etas (rrtJTe fvaniov . . .
Comp. Lk. xxi. 36 d-ypvrrvelTf . . . 1v a KOTKT \va~rjT (. . .(TTadrjvai (fj.irpno'flfv . . .
Both LXX and Luke agree in connecting "watching" with a future
"standing." The "standing" in the LXX is a mere error (a-TrJTe for
o-rqo-T/re) . Yet in view of the likelihood of a Christian application
of Isaiah's Return from Captivity (Is. lii. n "Be ye clean, ye that
bear the vessels of the Lord") it seems by no means improbable that
the Lucan tradition is based on Ezr. viii. 28 9 (LXX). The Heb.
imperative npl? "watch ye" occurs there alone in O.T. to mean
"watch," and also in Lk. xxi. 36 (Delitzsch and Clementine Heb.).
1 Jn xxi. 3 ii.
A. F. 337 (Mark xiii. 32 7) 22
THE LAST DAYS
"Feed my sheep," and secondly the work for his endurance,
which is implied in following Jesus in the way of the Cross,
"Follow thou me 1 ."
Being commanded to "follow" and seeing the unnamed
disciple also "following," without such a command, Peter says,
" Lord, what shall this man do ? " The question assumes that
"this man" will "do" something, and that the Lord, in de-
parting from His disciples, will, as Mark says, "give to each his
work," What, then, is to be the "work" of this disciple whom
Jesus specially loves? The reply of Jesus indicates that the
work of this servant may possibly be best described as abiding
or waiting : " If I will that he wait [on earth] while I am coming,
what is that to thee 2 ? "
The next sentence shews that the disciple does more than
wait. "This is the disciple that beareth witness concerning
these things, and that wrote these things, and we know that his
witness is true 3 ." This implies that as Peter by preaching, so
the unnamed disciple by writing, acted as a "doorkeeper,"
opening the gate of the Church for converts to Christ. And the
preceding context implies that whatever this disciple "wrote"
would be inspired by the same Spirit of recognition that moved
him to say to Peter "It is t*he Lord." The waiting Apostle,
moved by this Spirit, may be said in some sense to have opened
the door for the working Apostle. The Lord gave " to each one
his work."
1 Jn xxi. 15 19. 2 Jn xxi. 20 23.
3 Jn xxi. 24.
338 (Mark xiii. 32 7)
CHAPTER VIII
THE ANOINTING AT BETHANY 1
[Mark xiv. i n]
i. "After two days," in Mark and Matthew
THE sequence in Mark, "Now after two days was the passover
. . .and while he was in Bethany. . .there came a woman," gives
1 Mk xiv. i n
(R.V.)
(i) Now after two
days was [the feast
of] the passover and
the unleavened bread:
and the chief priests
and the scribes
sought how they
might take him
with subtilty, and
kill him:
(2) For they said,
Not during the feast,
lest haply there shall
be a tumult of the
people.
Mt. xxvi. i 16
(R.V.)
(1) And it came
to pass, when Jesus
had finished all these
words, he said unto
his disciples,
(2) Ye know that
after two days the
passover cometh, and
the Son of man is
delivered up to be
crucified.
(3) Then were
gathered together the
chief priests, and the
elders of the people,
unto the court of the
high priest, who was
called Caiaphas;
(4) And they took
counsel together that
they might take
Jesus by subtilty,
and kill him.
(5) But they said,
Not during the feast,
lest a tumult arise
among the people.
Lk. xxii. i 3 [vii.
36 8], xxii. 3 6
(R.V.)
(xxii. i) Now the
feast of unleavened
bread drew nigh,
which is called the
Passover.
(2) And the chief
priests and the scribes
sought how they
might put him to
death ; for they
feared the people.
(3) And Satan
entered into Judas
who was called
Iscariot. .
339 (Mark xiv. i n) 22 2
THE ANOINTING AT BETHANY
the impression that the anointing by the woman in Bethany
took place "two days" before "the passover." But the
Mk xiv. 3 9
(R.V.)
(3) And while he
was in Bethany in
the house of Simon
the leper, as he sat
at meat, there came
a woman having an
alabaster cruse (or,
a flask) of oint-
ment of spikenard
(lit. pistic nard)
very costly ; [and]
she brake the
cruse, and poured
it over his head.
(4) But there
were some that had
indignation among
themselves, [say-
ing], To what pur-
pose hath this
waste of the oint-
ment been made ?
(5) For this
ointment might
have been sold for
above three hun-
dred pence, and
given to the poor.
And they murmur-
ed against her.
(6) But Jesus
said, Let her alone ;
why trouble ye
her ? she hath
Mt. xxvi. 6 13
(R.V.)
(6) Now when
Jesus was in
Bethany, in the
house of Simon
the leper,
(7) There came
unto him a woman
having an alabaster
cruse (or, a flask)
of exceeding pre-
cious ointment, and
she poured it upon
his head as he sat
at meat.
(8) But when
the disciples saw it,
they had indigna-
tion, saying, To
what purpose is
this waste?
(9) For this
[ointment] might
have been sold for
much, and given
to the poor.
(10) But Jesus
perceiving it said
unto them, Why
trouble ye the
woman ? for she
hath wrought a
good work upon
Lk. vii. 36 8
(R.V.)
(36) And one of
the Pharisees de-
sired him that he
would eat with him.
And he entered in-
to the Pharisee's
house, and sat
down to meat.
(37) And be-
hold, a woman
which was in the
city, a sinner ; and
when she knew
that he was sitting
at meat in the
Pharisee's house,
she brought an
alabaster cruse (or,
a flask) of oint-
ment,
(38) And stand-
ing behind at his
feet, weeping, she
began to wet his
feet with her tears,
and wiped them
with the hair of
her head, and kiss-
ed (/?'. kissed much)
his feet, and a-
nointed them with
the ointment.
Lk. cm.
Jn xii. i 8
(R.V.)
(1) Jesus there-
fore six days before
the passover came
to Bethany, where
Lazarus was, whom
Jesus raised from
the dead.
(2) So they made
him a supper
there : and Martha
served; but Lazarus
was one of them
that sat at meat
with him.
(3) Mary there-
fore took a pound
of ointment of
spikenard (lit. pistic
nard ) , very precious,
and anointed the
feet of Jesus, and
wiped his feet with
her hair : and the
house was filled
with the odour of
the ointment.
(4) But Judas
Iscariot, one of his
disciples, which
should betray him,
saith,
(5) Why was not
this ointment sold
for three hundred
pence, and given to
the poor ?
(6) Now this he
said, not because he
cared for the poor;
but because he was
a thief, and having
the bag (or, box)
took away (or,
carried) what was
put therein.
(7) Jesus there-
340 (Mark xiv. i n)
THE ANOINTING AT BETHANY
Diatessaron detaches the Marcan tradition "after two days was
Mk xiv. i ii
(R.V.) contd.
wrought a good
work on me.
(7) For ye have
the poor always
with you, and
whensoever ye will
ye can do them
good : but me ye
have not always.
(8) She hath
done what she
could : she hath
anointed my body
aforehand for the
burying.
.(9) And verily
I say unto you,
Wheresoever the
gospel shall be
preached through-
out the whole
world, that also
which this woman
hath done shall be
spoken of for a
memorial of her.
Mt. xxvi. i 16
(R.V.) contd.
(n) For ye have
the poor always
with you ; but me
ye have not always.
(12) For in that
she poured (lit.
cast) this ointment
upon my body, she
did it to prepare
me for burial.
(13) Verily I
say unto you,
Wheresoever this
gospel shall be
preached in the
whole world, that
also which this
woman hath done
shall be spoken of
for a memorial of
her.
Mk xiv. 10 II
(R.V.)
(10) And Judas
Iscariot, he that was
one (lit. the one) of
the twelve, went a-
way unto the chief
priests, that he
might deliver him
unto them.
(n) And they,
when they heard it,
were glad, and pro-
mised to give him
money. And he
sought how he might
conveniently deliver
him [unto them].
Mt. xxvi. 14 16
(R.V.)
(14) Then one of
the twelve, who was
called Judas Iscariot,
went unto the chief
priests,
(15) And said,
What are ye willing
to give me, and I will
deliver him unto
you ? And they
weighed unto him
thirty pieces of silver.
(16) And from
that time he sought
opportunity to de-
liver him [unto
them].
Jn xii. i 8
(R,V.) contd.
fore said, Suffer her
to keep it (or, Let
her alone : [it was]
that she might keep
it) against the day
of my burying.
(8) For the poor
ye have always with
you ; but me ye
have not always.
Lk. xxii. 3 6
(R.V.)
(3) And Satan
entered into Judas
who was called
Iscariot, being of
the number of the
twelve.
(4) And he went
away, and commun-
ed with the chief
priests and captains,
how he might deliver
him unto them.
(5) And they
were glad, and cove-
nanted to give him
money.
(6) And he con-
sented, and sought
opportunity to de-
liver him unto them
in the absence of the
multitude (or, with-
out tumult).
341 (Mark xiv. i n)
THE ANOINTING AT BETHANY
the passover," placing it long after the Marcan verses that
describe the Anointing 1 . These it combines with John's "six
days" as follows: " ( Jn xii. I foil.) And Jesus, six days before
the passover, came to Bethany . . . and they made a feast for him
there: and Martha was serving; while Lazarus was one of
them that sat [at meat] with him. (Mk xiv. 3 a) And at the
time of Jesus' being at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper
(Jn xii. 9) great multitudes of the Jews heard that Jesus was
there ; and they came . . . that they might look also on Lazarus . . .
(Jn xii. 3 a) And Mary (Mk xiv. 3 b and Mt. xxvi. 7) took a case
of the ointment of fine nard of great price, and opened it and
poured it out on the head of Jesus as he was reclining. . .." The
Diatessaron places this before the Entry into Jerusalem ; and
it implies, though it does not assert, that the anointing took
place shortly after Christ's arrival at Bethany, that is to say,
about "six days" (not "two days") before the Passover. Thus
John appears to be regarded by the compiler of the Diatessaron
as intervening ; not, however, on this occasion explaining Mark
but correcting him.
Luke omits "after two days." Luke also omits the Marcan
words indicating a resolution of the chief priests not to take
Jesus during the Feast ("not during the feast") for fear of a
tumult of the people. Luke's reason for omitting these
clauses may be explained by the fact that he found Mark and
Matthew apparently taking different views about their meaning.
This is indicated by Mark's "for" and -Matthew's "but" in
the following parallels :
Mk xiv. 2 Mt. xxvi. 5
For they said, Not during the But they said, Not during the
feast, lest haply there shall be a feast, lest a tumult arise among
tumult of the people. the people.
Comp. Jn xiii. i 2 (R.V.) (i) Now before the feast of the passover,.
Jesus, knowing that his hour was come. . .loved them [the disciples]
unto the end (or, to the uttermost). (2) And during supper, the
devil having already put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's
[son], to betray him....
. * Mk xiv. i 2 is placed in Diatess. 41, Mk xiv. 3 foil, in Diatess.
39. Mt. xxvi. 2 "Ye know that after two days is the passover "
does not occur till Diatess. 44.
342 (Mark xiv. i u)
THE ANOINTING AT BETHANY
These words follow the resolution (in Matthew as well as in
Mark) to "take him with subtilty and kill him." Mark appears
to have meant to emphasize and to explain "with subtilty,"
as if the rulers said "We must take him with subtilty, for we
cannot resort to force during the feast, lest there be a tumult.
We must dissemble and delay." Matthew, on the other hand,
appears to have missed the force of "with subtilty"', so he
emphasizes the contrast between the desire of the rulers to
"kill" Jesus, and the fear that compelled them to delay: "We
will kill him, but we are afraid to do it during the feast."
Luke retains the Marcan "for," but in an ambiguous context,
saying in effect: "They sought how to kill Jesus [(i) at once,
or (2) quietly], for they feared [the consequences on] the
people [of (i) delay, or (2) public arrest] 1 ."
If we ask what was Mark's object in inserting the evangelistic
statement "after two days was the passover," we may find a
partial answer in the parallel Matthew, which transfers the
words to Jesus: "Ye know that after two days the passover
cometh and the Son of Man is [to be] delivered up to be crucified. "
Mark appears to be suggesting but very obscurely that the
intentions of the chief priests to defer Christ's death till after
1 See Wetstein on Mt. xxvi. 5 quoting the Mishna of Jer. Sanhedr.
x. 4 about the practice of delaying an execution till a feast-day : " Non
occiditur neque a judicibus civitatis suae, neque a Synedrio quod est
Jafne, sed ad summum Synedrium quod Hierosolymis est deducitur,
atque istic in custodia asservatur usque ad festum, et in festo inter-
ficitur (Deut. xvii. 13). Verba R. Akibae." (Comp. Acts xii. 4.)
The reason for the delay was (Deut. xvii. 13) "All the people
shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously." The
Mishna adds (Schwab) " R. Judah said that it was not right to torture
the condemned by making him suffer the long suspense of death, but
that he should be executed at once." This, however, affords ad-
ditional evidence of the old rule to delay execution till a feast-day
observed when Jerusalem was standing. Accordingly we may
suppose (with Wetstein) that Herod (Acts xii. 4) was keeping Peter
in custody with a view to his execution during the Feast of Un-
leavened Bread ("intending after the [first day of the] passover to
bring him forth to the people"). And we may suppose that Barabbas
was a prisoner reserved in the same way to be "brought forth to
the people after the [first day of the] passover."
343 (Mark xiv. i n)
THE ANOINTING AT BETHANY
the Passover were frustrated by providence. This view may
be paraphrased as follows: "God had ordained that Christ,
the Paschal Lamb, should die during the Feast. The supper
at Bethany, and the anointing there, and the consequent
rebellion of Judas Iscariot, who went out from the supper to
offer to betray his Master, were all ordained that the rulers
might take Jesus speedily, so that the sacrifice of Christ, ' our
Passover 1 / should happen at the divinely appointed time. This
was the Lord's will 2 ." Matthew also took this view. But he
followed perhaps some version of this view that regarded "the
Lord" as meaning "Jesus 3 ." At all events he says, in effect,
"This was not only the Lord's will, it was also predicted by
the Lord Jesus Himself."
Luke omits all this, as also he omits the narrative of the
Anointing in Bethany (placing another narrative of anointing
at the house of a Pharisee much earlier) . The only trace of
a suggestion in Luke's text here that he knew anything about
the supper at Bethany is contained in the following parallels :
Mk xiv. 10 Mt. xxvi. 14 Lk. xxii. 3 4
And Judas Is- Then one of the And Satan enter-
cariot, (///.) the one twelve, who was- ed into Judas who
of the twelve, went called Judas Iscariot, was called Iscariot,
away unto the chief went unto the chief being of the number
priests. . . . priests. ... of the twelve. And
he went away and
communed with the
chief priests. . . .
Here Luke perhaps follows Mark in the use of "went away."
In Mark, the word suggests that Judas "went away" from the
supper at Bethany. It is but a faint suggestion. But it is
strengthened by John, who alone names Judas Iscariot at that
supper as murmuring at the cost of the anointing, and as being
1 i Cor. v. 7 "our passover. . .Christ."
2 Comp. Jn xiii. 27 "What thou art doing do more quickly," on
which see Joh. Gr. 1918, 2439 (v) a, 2554 c -e.
3 Comp. Mt. xxiii. 34 where words said by Luke (xi. 49) to be
uttered by the " Wisdom of God" are regarded as uttered by Jesus.
344 (Mark xiv. i n)
THE ANOINTING AT BETHANY
rebuked by Jesus. There is an appropriateness in the supposi-
tion that from the table where he murmured at the waste of
three hundred pence Judas "went away" to earn thirty pieces
of silver, and that Luke repeated the Marcan expression
although he omitted the preceding Marcan context.
We have seen above that Luke, at this stage, connects
"Judas Iscariot" with "Satan." John does not do this in his
account of the supper at Bethany; but in his account of the
Last Supper he says "the devil having already put into the
heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him 1 ." This
"already" may very well refer to the supper at Bethany, and
may allude to the "entering of Satan into Judas Iscariot"
mentioned by Luke 2 . John himself places that "entering"
later on 3 . And perhaps he means the reader to say: "The
irrevocable fall of Judas took place not at the supper in Bethany
but at the Last Supper."
We may also partially explain the Johannine apparent
deviation ("six days ") from the Marcan date (" after two days ")
by 'the following hypothetical paraphrase of Mark, indicating
his method of arranging, or disarranging, events : " The Passover
and the Unleavened were now to come after two days, and the
Jews were still delaying the execution of their purpose to kill
Jesus, the Paschal Lamb. [In order to explain how their delay
was cut short I must go back a little. A few days previously,
some six days before the Passover,} when Jesus was present at
a supper in Bethany, and was anointed with precious ointment,
there had been a murmuring of disciples at the costly waste ;
and Judas Iscariot had gone away in discontent. And now,
two days before the Passover, just when the chief priests were
deciding to delay, Judas appeared before them with an offer
to betray his Master. This changed their plans. Accordingly,
they decided on an immediate arrest by night, and at once
began to make preparations for it."
This view agrees with the arrangement of the Diatessaron
which combines Matthew and Luke in order to shew how the
1 Jn xiii. 2. - Lk. xxii. 3.
3 Jn xiii. 27 "And after the sop, then entered Satan into him."
345 (Mark xiv. i n)
THE ANOINTING AT BETHANY
prophecy of Jesus "after two days. . .the Son of man is [to be]
delivered up to be crucified" came to be fulfilled; and how the
plan of the chief priests, "not during the feast/' came to be
frustrated. It was because "Satan entered into Judas," and
Judas promised the chief priests to betray Jesus, and they
"were pleased/' and Judas "from that moment was seeking
opportunity to betray him 1 /'
If Matthew transferred the words from evangelistic comment
to Christ's own lips it suggests itself that he saw in them an
allusion to the prophecy of Hosea apparently often referred
to in the Gospels the only passage in the Old Testament where
"after two days" occurs, "After two days will he [i.e. the Lord]
revive us. . . V There may have seemed to Matthew a note-
worthy coincidence between Christ's prediction of His resur-
rection "after two days" and of His redemptive sacrifice on the
Cross "after two days." . But in any case it is probable that he
has been misled by Mark, and that John has led his readers in
the right direction by rearranging events and substituting " six '"
days for "two."
Perhaps John has another object besides chronological
correctness. He may have desired to turn the minds of his
readers away from a literal reckoning of the days and hours
implied in the Synoptists about the Eucharist, the Passion, and
the Resurrection 3 , by suggesting a New Genesis of "six days"
a hexaemeron at the close of his Gospel as also at the begin-
ning 4 . The story of the first hexaemeron included a mention
1 Diatess. xliv. i 10, combining Mt. xxvi, i 5, Lk. xxii. 2 b 4 a,
Mt. xxvi. 15, Mk xiv. n a, Lk. xxii. 6. Jn xiii. 27 "do more quickly"
may perhaps imply that even at the moment of that utterance, there
was a danger, so to speak, that the crucifixion might be put off till
after the time of the Paschal sacrifice.
2 Hos. vi. 2.
3 According to John, "the Passover" would be Christ Himself
(i Cor. v. 7) on the Cross, the Paschal Lamb, and not any Paschal meal
before the crucifixion. This difference between the Three Synoptists
and John on this point might naturally influence the latter in his
description of the sequence of events, and in phrases referring to the
Passover. See above, p. 10, n. 3.
4 See Introd. p. 130, Proclam. p. 15.
346 (Mark xiv. i n)
THE ANOINTING AT BETHANY
of " the third day l " and described the first building up of Christ's
little Church at Cana, but only in the rudimentary form then
possible, before the Spirit was given. The story of the second
hexaerrieron includes a mention of "six days," during which
there is a hint of expansion in the mention of "certain Greeks,"
who are brought near to Jesus 2 . But toward the close of the
six days Christ's little Church is to be "scattered 3 ." Then
comes a "sabbath 4 ," a Jewish sabbath, a sabbath of death.
Not till "the first day of the week 5 " that follows, will Jesus
rise from the dead, and the New Church be born.
2. Clement of Alexandria on the Anointing
We now come to an event, or events, as to which the
Evangelists themselves appear to differ, and some of the most
ancient commentators not only differ from one another but also
in some cases appear to have changed -their own minds. The
discussion of it will be extremely laborious. But to leave it
undiscussed would be to pass over one of the most important
instances of Christ's mysterious power of calling out passionate
devotion,, and to make no attempt to realise the revelation
that it contains of His divine yet human nature.
Apart from a brief allusion by Ignatius to the Anointing of
Christ as resulting in " incorruption for the Church 6 ," the earliest
1 Jn ii. i. 2 Jn xii. i, 20. :i Jn xvi. 32.
4 Jn xix. 31. 5 Jn xx. i.
6 Ign. Eph. 17 (Light!) "For this cause the Lord received
ointment (pvpov] on His head, that He " (Pit) "might breathe (irvtri)
incorruption upon the Church. Be not anointed (aXe/<fo-0e) with
the ill odour (ftwtabiav) of the teaching of the prince of this world,
lest he lead you captive...." Lightf. says "A reference to the
incident in the Gospels; Matt. xxvi. 7 sq., Mark xiv. 3 sq., [Luke
vii. 37 sq.], John xii. 3 sq." He is right in including John, who alone
says that "the house was filled with the odour of the ointment."
But where is there any reference to Luke? There is nothing here
peculiar to Luke. And Luke represents Christ's "feet," not His
"head," as being anointed. In Ignatius, there is antithesis between
"incorruption (d<j)dap<riav)" and Eph. 16 " corrupters-of -houses
(oiicocpQopoi);" as to which Lightf. quotes Orig. Cels. vii. 63 <p6eipeiv
TOV nAAou uvdputnov oiKov, Plutarch Mov. 12 B yvvaiKtov (
347 (Mark xiv. i n)
THE ANOINTING AT BETHANY
Christian reference to it is in a chapter of Clement of Alexandria
on "The Use of Ointments and Crowns." He deprecates their
use, but makes the following admission " I know that the woman
[in Luke] having brought an alabaster-cruse of ointment at the
Holy Supper anointed the feet of the Lord . . . ." After continuing
to quote from Luke as to the woman's action and reception of
forgiveness, he proceeds "But this may be a symbol of the
Lord's teaching and of His suffering (or, Passion)." The
"feet," he says, may be the apostles going forth to preach the
Lord's Gospel; the "tears" are repentance. Then, introducing
the word "oil (elaiori)" (which no Gospel mentions as used in
either anointing), he plays on its similarity to "mercy (eleos)":
"The oil,' which is the Lord Himself, whence comes the mercy
that is [poured] on us 1 ."
Then, without any interval, he adds "But the ointment
oil adulterated-with-guile is Judas, the traitor, wherewith
, and Hesych. oiKofyQopoi, /^oi^oi, to shew that the word may
refer to sexual "corruption," as well as to the "corruption" of
heresy.
A somewhat similar antithesis is found in 2 Cor. ii. 16 " savour. . .
unto death. . .savour. . .unto life," where it is copiously illustrated
by Wetstein from Jewish literature. It might also be illustrated by
the first and almost unique mention of "nard" in O.T. Cant. i. 12
"my spikenard." On this, the Targum says that, while Moses was
on Sinai, the Bride, Israel, corrupted herself, and her odour became
worse than that of absinth, and leprosy visited her. Rashi says
that in "nardus mea edit odorem suum" the word "odor" is put
for "foetor," so that the sense is "While the "divine Glory was still
on Sinai, I defiled myself with the Calf."
The only other mention of pvpov in Goodspeed's two vols., besides
that in Ignatius, is in Justin M. Tryph. 22 pupa (from Amos v. 18
VI. 7). 86 TO>v aXXa>i> TWV TTJS o~vi>60-as TOV p-vpov xpio-p.a.T(av before
quoting Ps. xlv. 7 "the oil of gladness above thy fellows."
1 Clem. Alex. 205 'AXXa KCU irdflos e'/xcpaiVei deo-TTOTiKov (
TavTfl voovrri) TO eXator, 6 avros e'rmi/ 6 Kvptos, a(p' ov TO e'Xfoy ro e(p' rjf
Oxf. Cone, gives under one heading " e'Xaioi/ (f'Xeoi/)." The two are
interchanged in the MSS (where Heb. = "oil") of Ps. xcii. 10,
cix. 24 etc. Though "oil" is not mentioned by Luke as being
used, it is mentioned in the words he assigns to Jesus, after the
anointing, (vii. 46) " My head with oil (eXoiw) thou didst not anoint,
but she hath anointed my feet with ointment (^vpn)." See p. 350.
348 (Mark xiv. i n)
THE ANOINTING AT BETHANY
[the] Lord was anointed-with-chrism as to His feet being
[thereby] released from His sojourn in the world 1 . For the
[bodies of the] dead are anointed-with-perfume 2 . And as for
'tears' [in Luke], it is we, the sinners, [we] that have repented,
[we] that have believed in Him, to whom He has 'forgiven
sins' [as to the woman in Luke]. And the 'hair' that is
dishevelled is sorrowing Jerusalem .... And the Lord Himself
teaches us that Judas is adulterated-with-guile, saying ' Whoso-
ever shall dip along with me in the dish, he shall deliver me
up 3 .' Thou seest the companion-at-table, the man-of-guile.
And this same Judas betrayed the Teacher with a kiss. For
[one and] the same man is found a hypocrite and bringing a
kiss 'adulterated-with-guile,' imitating another ancient hypo-
crite. . . 4 ."
1 Clem. Alex. 205 TO 5e p,vpov dfdoX&p-fVov eXaiov (TTtv 6 'lovoas
6 TrpodoTTjs to TOVS 7T 68as f^plfrdrj Kvpios (TTJS fv K0(rfj.<f> dvacrTpo(pr)s aTrnXXar-
To[j.fvos). yivpiovTai yap ol veKpoi. The language is forced and fanciful
but probably explicable as an allusion (see p. 350) to Ps. cxli. 5
(LXX). The renderings "anointed-with-chrism" and "anointed-
with-perfume" are intended to distinguish X/K'CO and p.vpifa from
"anoint," d\fifpu.
2 "Anointed-with-perfume (pvpifavrai)." This word does not
occur in the Gk Test, except in Mk xiv. 8 -rrpoiXaJfv p-vpio-ai (parall.
to Mt. xxvi. 12 fiuXoixra. . .TO fivpov). It is quite different from aXeiV/>co
and XP^- Artemidorus (i. 75), writing Ilf^i Mupcoi/, says Mvpifro-dat
yvvai^l rrdcrais ayatiov nXrjv fMOL^fvop-fvaiv. 'Avftpdiri 8e Trpbs alo')(yvi)S f'o~Tai
7r\r)v TWV fdos exovTtiiv p,vpi( o-Qai.. This probably means (see editor's note)
" It will be a sign of disgrace for men [as distinct from women], except
for such effeminate creatures as are men only in name." Artemidorus
also recognises p.vpa as a sign of death, if a sick man dreams of them
ib. iv. 22 voanvvri &e novrjpu TO p,vpa 8ui TO (rvvftrrtyfpecrdai vexpa).
Plutarch Mor. 142 A compares a wife that is afraid to smile on her
husband, for fear of appearing bold and unchaste, to a woman who,
"for fear of seeming to anoint her head with perfume (tva ^ 8o<fj
fj.vpi((r6aL TTJV KfcpaXi^v) does not even anoint herself (w8e aXei^o/ieVj/s-)."
Irenaeus i. 21. 3, and 4, twice uses p,vpi(ovat about heretical
anointing with "balsam," and adds TO yap p,vpov TOVTO TVTTOV TJJS virep
ra oXa evcoSt'ay dvai \eyovo-iv. 3 Mt. xxvi. 23.
4 3>i\r)iJL<i 8(vo\<ap.h>ov e^coj/. Comp. Gen. xxxiii. 4 (Field) "LXX
*ai KdT(pi\T)(T(v avTov , 'E/3/j. ovf(To-dKT]." This calls attention to a
peculiar pointing of the Heb. "and he [i.e. Esau] kissed him." Con-
349 (Mark xiv. i n)
THE ANOINTING AT BETHANY
All this, and there is more, is extremely bewildering, and
seems at first sight unlikely to repay examination. But
Clement's fancies deserve attention if they point back to earlier
fancies of the same kind, and if they were the causes (at least
in part) of Origen's (and Jerome's) early view that the
Anointing in the Four Gospels was the act of one woman. It
is therefore worth while to try to disentangle some of the knots
in this Clementine comment.
First, it appears to be based on Luke's narrative of an
anointing by a woman that was a sinner in the house of Simon
a Pharisee. There is not a phrase that comes exactly from any
other source. But, at the beginning, there is a phrase, "at the
Holy Supper*,'' quite inconsistent with the early place given
by Luke to his narrative. And later on, Clement's comment
abruptly introduces "the traitor Judas" in connection with an
"anointing" of "feet" and "ointment," and "adulterated oil"
language that seems vaguely to refer to the Anointing in
Bethany. Later still, Judas is mentioned as "dipping in the
dish," which clearly alludes to Mark's (and Matthew's) account
of the Eucharist 2 .
Now Luke alone mentions "oil" as the gift that is not
offered by Simon the Pharisee ("my head with oil thou didst
not anoint 3 "). And in a passage from the Psalms, the LXX
not only mentions the "oil (elaion)" of a sinner, but also
contrasts it (as Clement does) with "mercy (eleos)" in the
words "The righteous will chasten me with mercy... but let
not the oil of a sinner (lit.) fatten my head 4 ." Clement does
cerning this, Field prints an ancient scholium ("videtur Origenis
esse") saying that the Jews pointed the Hebrew thus in order to
indicate that the "kiss" was a treacherous one, Kara 86\ov yap
KaTe<f)i\T]o-e TOV 'la/cco/3. Some Rabbis (Rashi) took this view, but not
all. It is probable that Clement is alluding to the kiss of Esau
as the "ancient hypocrite."
1 Clem. Alex. 205 n-apa TO dflTrvov TO ayiov. The Lord's Supper
is described in Lk. xxii. 14 foil., the Anointing in Lk. vii. 36 40.
2 Mk xiv. 20, Mt. xxvi. 23. 3 Lk. vii. 46.
4 Ps. cxli. 5. R.V. "Let the righteous smite me, [it shall be]
a kindness ; and let him reprove me, [it shall be as] oil upon the head "
(quoted from LXX by Clem. Alex, elsewhere (145), but not here).
350 (Mark xiv. i n)
THE ANOINTING AT BETHANY
not here expressly quote this Psalm, but both Origen and
Jerome follow the LXX in the phrase "the oil of a sinner,"
and the hypothesis that Clement is alluding to it, and applying
it to Judas, makes his words so much clearer that we can
hardly doubt that it is true.
It remains to explain the extraordinary fancifulness of the
connection between Judas and the "oil adulterated by guile,"
contrasted with the "oil" of "mercy." "Guile" in the four
Gospels, so far as narrative is concerned, is restricted to a
passage immediately before the Anointing in Bethany where
it is said that the rulers of the Jews sought to seize Jesus "by
guile" which "guile" Judas almost immediately supplies 1 .
Now "guileless" is a Greek term applied in the Petrine Epistle
to "the milk of the word," and applied in Papyri to corn, or
wine, or anything that is unadulterated 2 . Clement, who regards
the treacherous Judas as anointing the feet of Jesus for the
path of death, calls his treachery "adulterated oil" in contrast
with the implied guilelessness of the " oil (elaion) " that is " mercy
(eleos)."
As for the "ancient hypocrite" whom Judas "imitated"
when he brought "a kiss adulterated with guile," it has been
pointed out that it probably refers to the kiss given by Esau
to Jacob. On this, a scholium attributable to Origen tells us
"In every Hebrew book 'kissed' is dotted, not that it may be
left unread, but to suggest the wickedness of Esau, for he
kissed Jacob in guile 3 ."
It will be observed that no attempt is made by Clement to
explain the differences of scene and circumstance in the Gospel
narratives, even those differences as to the "head" or "feet" of
Jesus which might affect an allegorizing interpretation. He is
absorbed in his own motive. And his motive is, first, to pro-
test against a literalistic interpretation, which would justify
1 Mk xiv. i, Mt. xxvi. 4. Elsewhere SoXos- in Gospels occurs
only in Mk vii. 22 (a list of sins), Jn. i. 47 "an Israelite in whom is
no guile."
2 i Pet. ii. 2 a8o\ov. See Berlin Urkunde 290. 13, 586. 13, Oxy.
Pap. 101. 38 etc.
3 See above, p. 349, n. 4, quoting Gen. xxxiii. 4.
351 (Mark xiv. i n)
THE ANOINTING AT BETHANY
Christians in using expensive ointments ; secondly, a desire to
draw out the contrast between two invisible anointings, that
of the false Israel, the traitor, unto death, that of the true
Israel, penitent and forgiven, unto life 1 .
3. Origen and others on the Anointing
Origen, in a passage of his Johannine Commentary, speaks
of "the woman that had done the deeds of evil and repented,"
as being "enabled by her genuine conversion from her evil deeds
to pour down a sweet-odour on Jesus"; .and then adds that
she diffused in "the whole house" the breath of the ointment 2 .
The "pouring down" is peculiar to Mark and Matthew 3 . The
1 The passage relating to ointments terminates as follows, 206
"It is not unfitting then that He should indicate (Kara/^i/wtv) on
the one hand oil [pure and simple] as a disciple that has received
mercy (eXatoi/ /zei> <$ padrj^v r)\fr)p*vov), but on the other hand [oil]
adulterated-with-guile (lit. guileful, SoXep6i> 8e) as a traitor oil drugged
(e'Attioi/ 77e$ap/my/ieVoi/). This then, you see, was what was prophesied
by the feet [of Jesus] anointed- with-perfume (01 nvp^opfv
namely, the treachery of Judas when the Lord took the path [
Kvpiov, or ? Kvpiov, providing the Lord with the path] to His passion.
And the Saviour Himself washing-clean (airoviTTT^v} the feet of the
disciples (Jn xiii. 5). . .signified in a figure (rjvigaro) their going forth
to be the benefactors of the nation. . . . And for these the ointment
breathed fragrance . . . for indeed the Passion of the Lord hath filled
[all] with fulness us on the one hand with fulness of sweet savour,
but the Hebrews with fulness of sin. This the Apostle most clearly
shewed when he said (2 Cor. ii. 14 16) 'Thanks be to God. . .for
we are to God a sweet savour of the Lord ... to the one a savour of
death unto death, to the other a savour of life unto life.' "
It is the thought of this antithesis that mainly leads Clement
away from the task of a commentator to that of an allegorizer.
But it is not likely that Clement was the first Christian writer to
allegorize the stories of the Anointing. It will be seen below that
Jewish traditions about "spikenard (vdpdos) " which in O.T. occurs
only in Cant. i. 12, iv. 13, 14 contain a similar thought of anti-
thesis between the savour of faithfulness and that of unfaithfulness.
" Treachery " is the term used to describe Israel as an unfaithful
wife in Jerem. iii. 20, comp. Hos. v. 7 (Gesen. 93 b).
2 Origen Comm. Joann. i. 12, Lomm. i. 27.
3 "Pour down," xara^eo), Mk xiv. 3, Mt. xxvi. 7, unique in N.T.
352 (Mark xiv. i n)
THE ANOINTING AT BETHANY
tradition about " the house " is peculiar to John 1 . The tradition
that the woman was "a sinner" is peculiar to Luke 2 . Here,
then, Origen assumes that the four Evangelists are speaking of
one and the same woman.
Origen's Commentary on Matthew is a later work. But
even there, in the earlier portion of it, he confuses the Lucan
"Simon the Pharisee" with the Marcan "Simon the leper" in
a highly figurative passage likening Israel to a wife that has
become adulterous, and the Gentiles to the harlot, Rahab, who
has become penitent. The latter he describes as "no longer
playing the harlot but coming to the feet of Jesus, and wetting
them with the tears of repentance" so that "on account of her
He spoke in reproach to Simon the leper, the former people,
such things as are written 3 ."
But later on in the Commentary on Matthew, when he comes
to discuss the Anointing in its place, he compares it, not now
poetically but critically, with the other three accounts. He
begins by saying "Many think that the four Evangelists have
written about one woman " ; and he admits that there is " much
similarity and a kind of family-likeness (cognatio quaedam) "
in the narratives mentioning in particular the coincidence of
name between Simon the Pharisee and Simon the leper. But
he asks how it is possible to harmonize the details of anointing
the head in some narratives and the feet in others, and to
suppose that the woman is regarded in each narrative as a
sinner. Some, he says, will infer that there were four different
women; but he himself "rather agrees" that there were three,
Mk KUTf^ffV aVTOV TTJS K(f)aX^S, Mt. KClTf^ffV 771 TTJS K(j)a\TJS O.VTUV
avaK.fLp.fvov. Origen omits "head."
1 Tlavri TO) otxo) rrjv rov p.vpov Trvofjv . . .fpircTroiTjKvias, Jn xii. 3 r) 8e
OIK to 7T\T]pd)6rj fK TT)S <)(Tp.rjS TOV UVpOV.
2 Lk. vii. 37.
3 Comm. Matth. xii. 4, Lomm. iii. 136 7. Comp. the allegorical
outburst in Pseudo-Jerome on Mk xiv. i with its reference to the
"scarlet line (Josh. ii. 18)" of Rahab: "Now let us sprinkle our
book with blood [of the Paschal Lamb] and the thresholds of our
houses and let us place the scarlet line of thread round the House of
our Prayer..
A. F. 353 (Mark xiv. i n) 23
THE ANOINTING AT BETHANY
(i) the unnamed woman in Mark and Matthew, (2) the sinner
in Luke, (3) Mary the sister of Martha in John 1 .
Jerome similarly varies. In his treatise against Jovinianus
(A.D. 393), he speaks of "a distinction indicated by the two
women in the Gospel, the penitent, and the holy woman, one
of whom held His feet, the other His head. Some authorities,
however, think there was only one woman, and that she who
began at His feet gradually advanced to His head 2 ." In a later
letter (398 A.D.) he says "A harlot washes His feet with her
tears and against His burial anoints His body with the ointment
of good works." This is followed by a confusion between
Simon the Pharisee and Simon the leper. "Simon the leper
invites the Master with His disciples"; and it is preceded by
"Martha and Mary make ready a feast and then welcome the
Lord to it" which probably refers to the Johannine account
of Martha "ministering," but might refer to the Lucan account
of Martha "cumbered with much serving 3 ."
In his Commentary on Matthew, however, Jerome shews
that he has decided against the view of "some authorities"
above mentioned: "Let no one think that one and the same
woman poured ointment on the head and on the feet. For the
latter washes [the feet] with her tears and wipes them with
her hair, and is manifestly called a harlot. But of the former
nothing of this kind is written 4 ."
Chrysostom, while giving up as superficial 5 the view that
the four Gospels speak of one woman, says-" In the Three, there
seems to me to be one and the same woman, but in John not
[the same], but a different [one], marvellous [in character], the
1 Origen on Mt. xxvi. 6 foil., Lomm. iv. 392 foil.; iv. 394 "ego
autem. magis consentio tres fuisse." So, too, on Cant. i. 12 "nardus
mea" (Cant. Horn. ii. 2, Lomm. xiv. 258) Origen says that the woman
mentioned by John was distinct from the one mentioned by Luke,
but even there he says inaccurately " Maria ... effudit super caput
(instead of pedes) Jesu."
2 Letters (Contr. Jovin. ii. 29) transl. Fremantle p. 410 a.
3 Jerome Letters Ixxi. 2 transl. Fremantle p. 152 b.
4 Jerome, on Mt. xxvi. 6 foil.
5 Chrys. on Mt. xxvi. 6 17 yvvr) avrrj ftoicei per elvai pia /cm r/ avrf] rraoa
TfHi ei'ttyyeXtoraiy anacriv, OVK eVri 6e.
354 (Mark xiv. i ii/
THE ANOINTING AT BETHANY
sister of Lazarus." Then he proceeds to assume that the woman
in Matthew was conscious of "impurity," and says "She did
not approach Jesus as a mere man, for otherwise she would not
have 'wiped [Him] with her hair'." The "wiping" with the
"hair" is nowhere mentioned by Matthew. But Chrysostom
adds "That part of the body which was the most precious of
all, namely, her head, she applied to the feet of Christ." The
"head" of the woman, and the "feet" of Christ, are mentioned
by Luke, but nowhere by Matthew on whom Chrysostom is
nominally writing a commentary.
All this looseness is very regrettable but also very instructive.
It shews that Luke's narrative, about the "woman that was
a sinner," had taken such hold of Christian thought that early
believers were disposed to read sinfulness even into such ancient
narratives of Anointing as did not mention it. And this may
help us to understand how the story of the woman taken in
adultery came to be interpolated in the Fourth Gospel. That
Gospel, mentioning Mary the sister of Lazarus by name, made
critics like Origen ask "Is it possible that this Mary whom
' Jesus loved 1 ,' could have been ' a sinner ' ? " The answer being
in the negative, the Fourth Gospel might seem to some to shew
a deficiency which the interpolation aimed at supplying. It is
in language resembling that of many passages in Luke where
the style is Hebraic.
4. Words and phrases common to Mark and John
From the facts alleged above it appears that poetic imagery
and doctrinal motive have influenced very early writers, even
the prosaic Jerome, commenting on the narratives of Anointing.
It does not follow that the same two causes influenced the
Evangelists themselves; but we ought to be prepared to find
traces of such influence especially in Mark whose Gospel often
shews signs of a poetic original. Even if we cannot find our way
back to any combination of their details so as to say confidently
1 Jn xi. i 5 "Lazarus of Bethany,. . .the village of Mary and
her sister Martha. . . .Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister, and
Lazarus." The reversal of names is curious.
355 (Mark xiv. i n) 23 2
THE ANOINTING AT BETHANY
"This represents the historical fact," we may be able to shew
in some instances probable causes of ramification, if we begin
from Mark, and inquire what Marcan details are omitted by
later Synoptists but retained by John.
Mark and John have in common (i) "nard," (2) "pistic,"
or "spikenard," (3) "three hundred denarii," (4) "let her alone."
(1) " Nard 1 " is not a Greek word. It is not alleged as
occurring before the first century except as the transliteration
in LXX of a Hebrew nerd that occurs in two passages of the
Song of Songs. In the first of these, many Rabbinical traditions
recognise an obscure reference to the "evil odour" of Israel, the
unfaithful Bride of 'Jehovah 2 . The word is common in first-
century Latin. Mark, who has many Latin-Greek words,
might retain it without perceiving any allusion to LXX.
Matthew might reject it as not Greek and not necessary. Luke
might reject the word, but retain and greatly amplify the
supposed allusion to the unfaithful and adulterous Bride,
Israel. John, rejecting Luke's view, and rejecting also the
Rabbinical view of the "nard" in the Song of Songs, might go
back to Mark's word as one that poetically expressed the
offering made by the Church to her Saviour.
(2) "Pistic" is transliterated in SS, d, and k. Pistacia is
given by Krauss as a Hebrew name in Pliny, pistacium, and
similarly in the Greek of the second century for "pistacium-
nut " ; and the word is sometimes used in Hebrew to mean
a measure (like our "barley-corn") "a nut-size" of any herbal
compound 3 . Nonnus calls it pistike, making the i long, which
indicates that he regarded it as distinct from the Greek pistike
"faithful." But Artemidorus uses the expression "a pistic
and home-keeping woman 4 ," and repeats it twice as " a faithful
(piste) and home-keeping woman 5 ," to mean a faithful wife 6 .
1 Mk xiv. 3, Jn xii. 3.
2 See above, p. 347, n. 6 ad Jin.
3 See Levy iii. 450 a, iv. 82 a. In Pliny (xiii. 51, xxiii. 150) pistacia
are mentioned merely as an antidote against a serpent's sting.
* Artemid. ii. 32 Tria-TiKrjv KOI olnovpov. 5 Ib. ii. 66, iii. 54.
6 Plutarch Vit. 2810 (friXiK&s <al TTHTTLKUS (of men) means "on
terms of faithful friendship."
356 (Mark xiv. i n)
THE ANOINTING AT BETHANY
These are sufficient reasons for not being surprised at the in-
sertion of the word in any ancient Gospel that alluded to a
contrast between a faithful and an unfaithful woman, ex-
pressed in the language of the Song of Songs, with a play on
the double meaning "pistacia" in Semitic, "faithful" in
Greek. Mark might retain this, whether he understood the
allusion or did not. Matthew might reject it because he did
not understand it. Luke might reject it because he did not regard
the sinful woman as "faithful" at first, but only after the Lord
had said "thy faith (pistis) hath saved thee 1 ." John, rejecting
Luke's view, might go back to Mark's word, placing it in a new
framework of circumstance so as to shew that she was not
"a sinner."
(3) "Three hundred denarii" is altered by Matthew into
"much 2 ." The words and their context lie outside Luke's
version. John may have retained it simply because it was the
ancient tradition and more life-like than Matthew's. But in
the Feeding of the Five Thousand we have found John retaining
a Marcan tradition about "two hundred denarii," omitted by
Matthew and Luke 3 , and there it seemed probable that John
gave the words an allegorical interpretation. Perhaps it may
be so here also. It may be one of many instances of Johannine
irony. The murmurers may be regarded as unconsciously
testifying to the special affection that prompted the gift of the
ointment, or to its spiritual value. In the Bible, "three
hundred pieces of silver" is used perhaps only once, and there
as a mark of special affection, of Joseph's gift to Benjamin 4 .
But an allusion to Joseph and Benjamin is very unlikely here.
If there is symbolism, it is more probably to be looked for in
the very early Christian identification of "three hundred" with
T, the sign of the Cross, based on a passage in Genesis mentioning
41 armed servants of Abram eighteen and three hundred 5 ."
Rabbinical tradition said that 318 corresponded to the name
1 Lk. vii. 50.
2 Mk xiv. 5, Jn xii. 5, comp. Mt. xxvi. 9.
3 Law pp. 274 82.
4 Gen. xlv. 22. Rashi and Gen. r. make no comment.
5 Gen. xiv. 14.
357 (Mark xiv. i n)
THE ANOINTING AT BETHANY
of "Eliezer" ("God is my help"); but first-century Christian
tradition said that "300" meant the Cross (T), while "10" and
"8" represented the name of "Jesus 1 ." Such an allusion
would be appropriate to the context which describes Mary on
one side, and Judas on the other, as preparing the way for the
Crucifixion : *" This could have been sold for three hundred pence '-
so spake Judas, speaking a truth beyond his knowledge; for
her offering of loving faith was so precious that it could buy
Salvation, yes, the Salvation of the Cross."
(4) "Let her alone," is addressed, in Mark, to the disciples
(plural, aphete) ; in John, to Judas (singular, aphes) 2 . The Greek
Imperative is the same as that used in the Crucifixion ("let
alone"), where Mark has the plural and Matthew the singular-
resulting in two quite different meanings 3 . It is also peculiar to
Mark's version of the story of the Syrophoenician woman, where
evidence points to its meaning originally "let alone 4 ." Now
a form of this same verb occurs in Luke's story of "the woman
that was a sinner," a form almost peculiar to Luke and to the
Johannine Epistle, meaning "remit (sins) 5 ." In Greek, "let her
1 In ancient Hebrew, as well as in Greek, tau might be represented
by a cross (T). See Barn. 9 (on Gen. xiv. 14) "' I' is 'ten' ; ' H ' is.
' eight ' ; there you have I H[COY N] , i.e. Jesus. But because the Cross
was destined to find its grace in the ' T,' he says also ' three hundred.' "
Clem. Alex. 782 adopts this ("they say") as the first instance of
"the mystical meanings of numbers" in his treatise on the subject.
2 Mk xiv. 6 R.V., Jn xii. 7 R.V. marg.
3 Mk xv. 36, Mt. xxvii. 49 a0crr (Mt. 0es) iSa^ei/. The two
meanings are quite different. See From Letter 1056 68, including
remarks on the doubtful tradition peculiar to Lk. [xxiii. 34]
4 Mk vii. 27. See Son 3353 (iv) g foil.
5 'A^con/rru in N.T. occurs only in Lk. v. 20, 23 (parall. to Mk-Mt.
<i'ei/rai), vii. 47, 48, Jn XX. 23 (v.r. d(f)Lovrai), I Jn ii. 12 a<f>a>vrai
(but Latin " remittuntur " points to ityiovrai). Lk. xi. 4 a^io^fv
uses the form in -, whereas the parall. Mt. vi. 12 dfyieapev uses
the form in -TJ/JLI.
Steph. Thes. (d$i?7/u 2662 3) quotes Suicer as saying that
dffrcaxa is "Doric" for dfalna, and this is repeated by modern com-
mentators. But not a single instance has been hitherto alleged of
the early existence of the active, dfoaxa, nor indeed of the passive
358 (Mark xiv. i n)
THE ANOINTING AT BETHANY
alone" might be almost identical with "it is remitted to her,"
that is, " she is forgiven 1 -." That there was some early ambiguity
about "let her alone" is suggested by the fact that it is supple-
mented in Mark, and supplanted in Matthew, by "why trouble
ye the woman ? " indicating that Mark added an easy paraphrase
to a difficult original and that Matthew preferred the paraphrase
by itself. It is undeniable that Luke twice alters the form of
the Marcan word in the Healing of the Paralytic (" thy sins are
forgiven "). In the Anointing, Luke may have regarded Mark as
outside N.T. Nor has anyone explained why Luke, and probably
John, should prefer a "Doric" form (Blass 23. 7 "Doric and Ionic."
Suicer adds "also Ionic"). The words "Thy sins are forgiven thee"
must surely have been most familiar and most sacred to all Greek-
speaking Christians, before Luke and John wrote their Gospels
If so, what motive could induce these two Evangelists to resort to
"Doric" or "Doric and Ionic" forms, unknown in LXX, to express
forgiving ?
Suicer may have been led into error by some MSS that wrote
afaavTai for a^fovrai (the substitution of a) for o being quite common
in many MSS). The form d<>c'o> is found in Exod. xxxii. 32 d0eir
"ihouforgivest," and Rev. ii. 20 d^ets- "thou sufferest." The former
describes the intercession of Moses that Israel may be "forgiven";
the latter describes a rebuke for "suffering," i.e. tolerating, Jezebel.
The two passages illustrate the ramifications of the use of d^x'q/u
and indicate how various forms of it might be assigned to various
phrases. It is possible that the Attic perfect d0eli/rai and the
Attic present d$iei/rai might be felt by some to lay too much
emphasis on the past ("have been but are not now") or on the
present ("are in the act of being"). The vernacular d^coirai,
more correctly d$<Wrat, may therefore have been preferred.
Sophocl. Lex. quotes Dorotheus (600 A.D.) as twice using forms of d$eo>.
Goodspeed gives no instance of d^cWa active or passive. Steph.
Thes. 2662 D gives (from "inscr. Arcad. nuper reperta") imperat.
<ic/)ed>o-0a>, and refers (803 A) to Tab. Heracl. 2, 105 di/emo-dai, and (804 A)
to Herod, ii. 165 dvewrai. The Papyri have Berl. Urkund. (39 A.D.)
1078 fTrip.\a)(Tdf iOT 7rifj.\fla-de, and Oxyr. (127 A.D.) 496. 15 atpcorcu for
aiprjrcu.
1 A^terai, or a^eirai, being written with -e for at, or vice versa
(as often in MSS, Joh. Gr. 2658 e], and avrrj being taken for avrrjv,
or vice versa (Corrections 360 a, Joh. Gr. 2687 d), might cause confusion.
D has afaavTe in Mk ii. 5, a^ioi/re in Mt. ix. 2 and a<aia>i/rcu in Lk.
v. 20.
359 (Mark xiv. i n)
THE ANOINTING AT BETHANY
erroneously taking "she is forgiven" as meaning "let her alone."
John may be intervening in favour of Mark's interpretation.
5. Words and phrases common to Luke and John
Luke and John agree in saying that the woman described in
their several narratives "wiped" the "feet" of Jesus with her
"hair" (Luke "the hairs of her head") 1 . This Greek word for
"wipe" is not used in the canonical LXX. John, however,
uses it not only in this narrative but also before, when first
mentioning Lazarus and Martha: "There was a certain [man]
[lying] sick, Lazarus (lit.) from Bethany out of the village of
Mary and Martha her sister. Now Mary was the [woman] that
(or, the [Mary] that) anointed the Lord with ointment and
wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was lying
sick 2 ."
John uses the word again to describe an act of Jesus : "He
began to wash the feet of the disciples and to wipe [them] with
the napkin with which he was girded 3 ." This "wiping" of the
feet of the disciples after they had been dipped in water presents
no difficulty, but it is not so simple in the Johannine narrative
of the Anointing. The difficulty is stated thus in Horae
Hebraicae: "Did she not wash his feet before she anointed
them? I do not ask whether she did not wash them with
her tears, as before (Luke vii) : . . . but did she not wash his feet
at all? I ask this because the custom of the country seems to
persuade she should do so." The writer supports his objection
by an instance where a maid brings first water for washing, and
then oil for anointing, and then he adds "Either therefore this
1 Lk. vii. 38, Jn xii. 3.
2 Jn xi. i 2. Contrast the first mention of Martha and Mary in
Luke (x. 38 9) : "Now as they were going on their way he entered
into a certain village. And a certain woman, by name Martha,
received him into her (lit. the) house. And this [woman] had a
sister called Mary, who also, sitting at (napKadfa-Bcla-a -rrpbs) the
Lord's feet, was listening to his word" : Martha is here placed before
Mary. There is no indication that the "village" is Bethany. Luke
has previously mentioned (vii. 38, 44) the woman that "wiped (-
, bis) " the feet of Jesus.
3 Jn xiii. 5.
360 (Mark xiv. i n)
THE ANOINTING AT BETHANY
word (she wiped) must relate to some previous washing of his
feet ; or, if it ought to refer to the ointment, it scarcely would
suppose wiping off the ointment now laid on ; but rather, that
with the hairs of her head she rubbed and chafed it 1 ."
It seems obvious that John must have had some strong
reason for twice describing Mary as not only "anointing" but
also "wiping." "Anointing" alone suffices for Mark and
Matthew; why does it not suffice for John? And if he must
add " wiping" why does he add it in such a context as to suggest
that the ointment is "wiped" off as soon as it is laid on? In
Luke, the "wiping" is intelligible tears being wiped off the
feet, and the ointment being then poured on them but it is
not so in John.
Turning to Hebrew and Jewish literature for some explana-
tion we find that the regular Hebrew for "wipe," also used in
Aramaic and Syriac, is transliterated, though very rarely, both
in Hebrew and Syriac, as the Greek word moichas, " adulteress 2 ."
Not much importance would be attached to this if we did not
find that the only mention of moicheia in John occurs in a
narrative, interpolated in his Gospel, and written in Lucan
style, about a woman taken in adultery and pardoned by Jesus 3 .
This suggests that John may have emphasized his own inter-
pretation of a doubtful word regarded by some, but not by
him, as meaning " adulteress " or " woman that was a sinner "
by twice repeating that it had quite a different meaning. If
that is so, John is here intervening, not in favour of Mark who
is silent on the point, but against Luke.
1 See HOY. Heb. on Jn xii. 2 quoting Menacoth 85 b. By " previous
washing" the writer seems to suggest a pluperf. rendering of e'e>uiei'
" Now she had previously wiped the feet dry from the water." There
are many such instances in Jn, but this does not seem likely to be
one, for (Joh. Gr. 2460 1) &', not KOI, would be the natural particle
to introduce such a clause.
2 Levy iii. 74, T1D, refers to Cant. r. (on Cant. iii. 4, Wii. p. 85)
where there is a transliteration of /xoi^a?. He adds (as prob.)
Sanhedr. 109 b, but Krauss (p. 331) and Goldschm. ad loc. render the
word "strike." Thes. Syr. 2084 gives DlflVD from poixos.
3 Jn viii. 3 ^ot^a'a, W.H. marg. o/xa/m'a.
361 (Mark xiv. i n)
THE ANOINTING AT BETHANY
Perhaps our narrative may be illustrated by a passage in
Exodus where the LXX uniquely uses the Greek word "anoint-
with-chrism " to forbid the ordinary use of the spice-compounded
sacerdotal ointment: "Upon the flesh of [common] man it
shall not be poured." The Hebrew "anointed" is rendered by
Onkelos "poured," but in the Jerusalem Targum by a word
meaning "polished," "dried," or "wiped 1 ." If the original of
our narrative had simply "poured on him," Mark may have
added "his head," with allusion to "the precious oil upon the
head" of Aaron, mentioned in the Psalms 2 . To this Matthew
may have added "as he sat at meat," to shew that it was
not (like the "precious 3 oil " in the Psalm) poured on the standing
figure. But Luke, from his point of view, would regard "on
him" as meaning "on the feet," not on the head; and John,
though from a different point of view, would agree with Luke.
The Jerusalem Targum indicates a possibility of confusing
"wiped" with "anointed," which may help to explain the
difficulty above mentioned in the Johannine text.
John does not follow Luke in mentioning the woman's
"tears." "Tears" might seem appropriate to the Johannine
mention of "preparation for burial." But in Luke they are
apparently tears of penitence for the woman's own sin, not of
sorrow for the Lord's approaching death; whereas love and
devotion and faith, rather than penitence, seem to be the
motives of the Johannine anointing. The Lucan "kissing" of
the feet is also omitted by John. Thus the study of John's
agreements and disagreements with Luke leads to no safe
conclusion except that John, while discouraging the view that
1 Exod. xxx. 32 "}D", from a unique -p* 1 if txt correct, but prob.
leg. "|DV from ~pD (Gesen. 414 b, 692 a) "anoint," LXX ^to-^o-erai,
Onk. -jD: "pour," Jer. .Targ. plQ "wipe" (Levy Ch. ii. 726).
2 Ps. cxxxiii. 2.
3 The word for "precious" in the phrase ''precious ointment"
is "good" (Gesen. 374 a, 2 K. xx. 13, Is. xxxix. 2, Ps. cxxxiii. 2,
Eccles. vii. i). LXX omits it in Is. xxxix. 2, Ps. cxxxiii. 2, perhaps
taking the two words together as pvpov, "[scented] ointment."
Luke is the only one of the four Evangelists that omits this epithet
(in some form)
362 (Mark xiv. i n)
THE ANOINTING AT BETHANY
the woman was a "sinner," desires for some reason to lay stress
on the tradition about one secondary act the "wiping" of
"feet" which Jesus requited by a similar act, Himself
"wiping" the "feet" of His disciples. Perhaps John de-
liberately omits any previous washing of Christ's feet because
he desired to suggest that the Lord did not need it. His feet
walked unspotted and undefiled through the path of life. He
accepted the anointing of His feet, not as a purification but as
an offering from Mary in the name of the disciples; but He
returned it to them as a purification for them, taking their
impurities upon Himself.
6. The single phrase common to all the Synoptists
The only phrase common to all the Synoptists is "an ala-
baster-cruse of ointment." Instead of this, John has " a pound
of ointment 1 ." The difference, at first sight, seems hardly
worth notice. But careful students of the Fourth Gospel will
not easily believe that John could depart from all the older
Gospels on a detail of this kind which, though apparently
unimportant, would strike the popular mind at once without
some very good reason.
From John's point of view such a reason would exist if the
Synoptic phrase gave the impression that the possession of the
"alabaster-cruse" suggested extravagance or dissolute luxury in
the possessor. Now such a suggestion is indicated in the early
mention of "an alabaster-cruse of ointment" by Herodotus 2 .
Plutarch, too, mentions such "alabaster-cruses," and in such
contexts as to indicate that they are held up to contempt 3 .
But, besides these, Wetstein quotes passages from Aristophanes
and Lucian shewing that the phrase meant, in effect, "scent-
1 Mk xiv. 3, Mt. xxvi. 7, Lk. vii. 37, Jn xii. 3.
2 In Herod, iii. 20, aAa/3aorpos- pvpov is one of several ostentatious
presents sent by Cambyses to the king of Aethiopia who treats them
with contempt.
3 Plut. Vit. 243 D, " like the lamentations of a woman regretting
the loss of her scent-bottles (aXaftdo-Tpovs) and purple attire," comp.
676 A describing Alexander's contempt for the luxuries that he finds
in the tent of the conquered Darius including dXa/Saorpovs.
363 (Mark xiv. i n)
THE ANOINTING AT BETHANY
bottle," and that it might often be associated with dissolute
women 1 . One of these (in Lucian) is reproached with ingratitude
by one of her many lovers who says to her " I brought you an
alabaster-cruse of ointment from Phoenicia 2 ." In Mark (as also
in Matthew) the woman is described as "having 3 " it with her,
which might mean, though it does not go so far as to say, that
she habitually carried it with her.
John's version seems at first sight studiously prosaic,
almost like a line out of a recipe, "taking a pound of so-and-so."
But, in the first place, if we examine the Johannine litra or
"pound," we find that it is very frequent in Hebrew; and there
is a Jewish tradition: "Under the term 'Shekel/ the coin
mentioned in the Pentateuch is called 'Sela'; that in the
Prophets, 'Litra'; that in the Hagiographa, 'Talent 4 .'" In
the next place, turning to the description, previously quoted,
of the compounding of "the holy ointment" in Exodus, we
find that the Recipe, so to speak, begins thus: "Take thou
also unto thee the chief spices, of flowing myrrh five hundred
[shekels] . . . and of cassia five hundred, after the shekel of the
sanctuary... 5 ." If John regarded the woman in Bethany as
"taking" ointment to the amount of the weight of a "shekel,"
according to its estimation in the Prophets, for the purpose of
anointing Jesus, he might naturally use this Hebrew-Greek
term, litra, as having a typical meaning "after the shekel of
the sanctuary." According to this view John substituted a
typical sacred "litra" for a secular term that might mean
"scent-bottle," simply for the sake of edification 6 . If that is
1 Wetst. on Mt. xxvi. 7.
2 Lucian Dial. Meretric. xiv. (Reitz iii. p. 319). Reitz's Index
(usually very accurate and complete) does not contain dXdftao-Tpos.
Nor does Steph. Thes.' quote instances from Lucian. But see
Wetstein. It is important to realise the bad impression that the
phrase aXdfiao-rpos fivpov would convey to Greeks.
3 Mk xiv. 3, Mt. xxvi. 7 e'^ovo-a, Lk. vii. 37 KO/HI'O-C/O-O "having
brought."
4 See Levy ii. 500 a ("j. Kidd. i. 60 c ") and Gen. r. on Gen.
xxiii. u, Wii. p. 276.
5 Exod. xxx. 23 4.
8 No other explanation suggests itself except some confusion
364 (Mark xiv. i 11)
THE ANOINTING AT BETHANY
the case, this Synoptic phrase, unimportant though it at first
appears to be, assumes great importance as indicating that in
Mark-Matthew, as well as in Luke, the woman was regarded as
being of dissolute character, and as favouring the view of
Ignatius and Clement of Alexandria, who assumed that the
Four Gospels in their widely different descriptions referred to
one and the same historical fact.
7. "Bethany," in Mark, Matthew, and John
The first mention of Bethany in the Synoptists is connected
with the Riding into Jerusalem, about which Origen says:
"And now let us see about (i) ' Bethphage' on the one hand
according to Matthew, but (2) 'Bethany' according to Mark,
and (3) ' Bethphage and Bethany ' according to Luke 1 ." Several
authorities insert "Bethphage" in Mark here, but D and the
old Latin versions reject it 2 . Bethany is nowhere mentioned
in Goodspeed; Bethphage is mentioned once where Justin
Martyr, referring to this narrative, describes the ass as at its
entrance 3 . SS, in Luke, has "at Beth Phagge and Beth Ania,"
but in Mark, " to Beth Phagge to Beth Ania." This might mean
between jou "litra" and Aram. DID*? (also Syr.) Levy Ch. i. 409 b
"pistachio nut," see above, p. 356, on TTIO-TIKJJ.
1 Origen on Mt. xxi. i (Lomm. iv. 52) "Ifico/zei/ fie irtpl TT/S Bijfl(payrj
pev Kara Mardaiov, Brjflavias fie KOTO, rov Mdpnov, Brjflfpayr) fie KU\ Brf flavins
Kara TOV Aovttav. TaOra fie r\v irpos TO opos TO Ku\ovp,vov e'Xaieoi/.
'EpfjLr}VfVo-flm fie' (pap.v TTJV Brjflcpayr) /iev, OLKOV viayoixav, TJTLS TWV tepeW rjv
Xwpiov ' Brj&avia fie, OIKOS inraKofjs.
2 Mk xi. i Mt. xxi. i Lk. xix. 29
*cai ore cyyiov(Tiv <al ore rjyyicrdv fls <al tyeveTo a>s fjy-
fls 'lepO(roXu/ia els Brjd- 'lepo<7oAu/za KCU fjXdov yio~v is Bijfl(payrj <al
(payr) xai Brjflavtav Trpbs fls Br)6<f>ayf) (Is TO "Opos Br)flavia trpbs TO opos
TO Opos T(i)v 'EXaiwi/ TWV 'EXatcov. ro Ka\ovp.vov '
(marg. els 'lep. <al els
Brjdaviav npos TO ""O. TO
3 Justin Martyr Tryph, 53 eV TIVL eiVofiw K<ap.rjs Beflcpayys
f. Hor. Heb. i. 82 quotes Baba Mezia 90 a on Bethphage,
and says that the Glosser takes phage as "a beaten way," but Hor.
Heb. prefers ^:D "green figs." Levy i. 227 a assumes this and refers
to Pesach. 91 a etc.
365 (Mark xiv. i n)
THE ANOINTING AT BETHANY
"belonging to Beth Ania," or it might mean that "Beth Ania"
was another name for "Beth Phagge."
Beth Phage was a well-known suburb of Jerusalem fre-
quently mentioned and much discussed by the Talmudists 1 . As
for Bethany it can only be alleged that certain names somewhat
like it, such as "Beth Hino" and "Beth Hini," are found in
Talmudic passages, but the identification of them with the
Gospel Bethany rests on conjecture. Levy assumes the identity
of the Talmudic Bethphage with the Gospel Bethphage and
mentions it as a name of frequent occurrence applied to a
suburb of Jerusalem 2 . But concerning "Beth Hini" he merely
says that it is "the name of a place," and that it is spelt in two
different ways in the two passages to which he refers 3 .
It is only fair to add that the author of Horae Hebraicae,
who appears to have originated the identification of Bethany
with Beth Hini 4 , does not conceal the variations of the spelling
of the latter, or the fact that Beth Hini itself has no meaning
assigned to it 5 ; and in his commentary on Luke he says that
" there was a certain town near Jerusalem called Magdala, of
a very ill fame, which perhaps was Bethany itself ... I am apt
to think that Bethany itself might go under the name of
Magdala 6 ." These quotations, to which others might be added
1 HOY. Heb. i. 80 83 devotes a whole section to Bethphage, and
Neubauer pp. 147 9, quotes many passages about it from the
Mishna. Though a suburb, it was yet regarded, for certain religious
purposes, as included in the City.
2 Levy i. 227 a ^KB JTO, B^ayr;, " Beth-Phage, Vorstadt Jeru-
salems, Pes. 91 a u. 6."
3 Levy i. 225 b 'OTl JV3 "Beth Hini, Name eines Ortes B. mez.
88 a (j. Pea i. 16 c un. steht dafur p:n *33)." Neubauer p. 150
prefers the former reading but adds (pp. 149 50) "On ecrit aussi ce
nom ^IN JTQ (Tosiftha, Schebiith, ch. 7)."
4 Wetstein, on Mt. xxi. 17, quotes Hor. Heb.
5 Hor. Heb. i. 90 derives -hene in "Beth-hene" from Ahene,
^riK, meaning "dates of palm-trees" not yet ripe. But Levy
i. 35 a says that ^TIN means mostly unripe figs. Wetstein also
does not mention this conjecture of Hor. Heb.
6 Hor. Heb. hi. 87, on Lk. viii. 2.
366 (Mark xiv. i n)
THE ANOINTING AT BETHANY
from the Horae, indicate the weakness of the hypothesis that
identifies Beth Hini with the Christian Bethany 1 .
We pass to the evidence of the Gospels themselves. After
mentioning Bethany in connection with the Entry into Jeru-
salem and the Temple, Mark's next mention of it is in connection
with Christ's first " coming out " from the Temple in the evening.
To this there is no Synoptic parallel:
Mk xi. n Mt. om. Lk. cm.
And ... it being
now eventide, he went
out unto Bethany
with the twelve.
But Mark subsequently mentions a second "going out 2 ,"
and to this there is a parallel, mentioning " Bethany " in Matthew
and "lodging" in Matthew and Luke:
Mk xi. 19 Mt. xxi. 17 Lk. xxi. 37
And whenever And he left them, And... every night
evening came, he and went forth out he went out and
(W.H. txt they) went of the city to Bethany lodged in the mount
1 HOY. Heb. i. 233 quotes /. Berach. fol. 16. i "the shops of the
children of Chanan" as being identical with Bab. Mez. 88 a "the shops
of Beth Heno" and says "The shop-keepers were 'the sons of Chanan'
. . .the place was 'Beth Heno trn JV2'; which I fear not to assert
to be the same with Bethany. The reason of my confidence is
twofold: i. Because the Talmudists call Bethany JM JV2, Beth
Hene, to which how near does Beth Heno come!" The second
reason is " Because in them there is open mention of shops in mount
Olivet," and then he proceeds to quote J. Taanith fol. 69. 2. about
four shops on Mount Olivet. The argument amounts to this :
"The Christian Bethany was a place on Mount Olivet; there were
some shops of Beth Heno on Mount Olivet ; Heno is very like Hene ;
therefore the Christian Bethany was identical with Beth Heno."
Hor. Heb. i. 234 quotes Cholin 53 a about " the lavatory (prno)
of Beth Hene (^Tl)." Goldschm., there, gives twice v.r. irn
"Heno" (or "Hmo"). Levy i. 466 a gives "Hini" only as the name
of a Babylonian town thrice mentioned in Talmud, and as the name
of a man, referring under the latter heading to his note in i. 225 b
on Beth Hini quoted above.
- It is of a general kind in Mk and Lk. (imperf.), but of a par-
ticular kind in Mt. (aorist).
367 (Mark xiv. i n)
THE ANOINTING AT BETHANY
Mk xi. 19 contd. Mt. xxi. 17 contd. Lk. xxi. 37 contd.
forth (lit. used to go and lodged there. that is called [the
forth) out of the city. mount] of Olives 1 .
Why does Luke omit ''Bethany" here? The omission
suggests that the tradition here followed by him regarded
" Bethany " not as the name of a village but as a noun connected
with "lodging"; and this view is favoured by the fact that
the Aramaic "lodge," beth, is identical with the Hebrew beth,
"house," which is the first part of "Bethany." This is the
first mention of Bethany in Matthew, and perhaps Matthew's
tradition originally meant: "went forth out of the city to
the place where he lodged and lodged there."
But at this point there comes appropriately the suggestion
of Horae Hebraicae, above mentioned, that Bethany may have
meant "the place of (beth) unripe figs or dates (any)." For the
following verses in Matthew describe Jesus as seeing " a fig-tree."
And it happens that both in Hebrew and in Aramaic there is
another word for fig-tree (thany) that might make up the name
1 Mk xi. 19 Mt. xxi. 17 Lk. xxi. 37 8
(marg. cri\6ev eco rfjs TroXecoy re
eco TTJS isH$r]6aviaV)Kair)v\i(rOr] 8i8do~Ka>v ev rep tepcp),
TroAeco?. <fl. rets Se VVKTCIS f^fp\6-
fJLevos r)v\i(TO cis TO
OpOS TO KO.\OVp.VOV
EAcucoi> ' Kal TTO.S 6 Xaos
a>pdpiev Trpos OVTOV ev
rco tepco ditovfiv avrov.
AvXt'^o/zai, "pass the night," occurs nowhere else in N.T. In Heb.,
outside Job, it almost always = pb or p^>. This in Aram. (Brederek
p. 60) is nu. The Talmud relates that a Rabbi (Pesach. 42 a) was
obliged to avoid the Heb. word "lodge, or, remain for the night,"
pb, because it was mistaken for the pronominal dative " [belonging]
to us" (Levy i. 228) so that he had to substitute the Aram. beth.
Now this pronominal dative is employed in Jewish Aramaic in such
a phrase as "they went away" (Dalm. Words p. 22), Aram, "they
went away for themselves (p 1 ?)." But this, in effect, is what Mark
(W. H. txt) has here, having the pi. where Mt.-Lk. have the sing. This
indicates that the original tradition here mentioned no such place as
Bethany, but merely something about a place for " passing the night,"
which Luke inferentially described as "the mount called Olivet," and
Matthew alone, by error, "Bethany."
368 (Mark xiv. i n)
THE ANOINTING AT BETHANY
"beth-thany" or " bethany 1 ." It would be very natural that
a great number of early Christian traditions should gather
round the place on the Mount of Olives where Jesus, in danger
of arrest by the Jewish rulers, and riot able to "lay his head 2 "
in Jerusalem, spent the nights in converse with His disciples
during the week before the Crucifixion: "He left the un-
believers," says Jerome, " and going forth from the City of the
gainsayers, He went to Bethany, which, being interpreted, is
House of Obedience, prefiguring already the calling of the
Gentiles, and there He remained (mansit), because He could
not continue-to-remain (permanere) in Israel 3 ."
This is an early Christian view of the name Beth-any
"house of obedience." And it is possible to trace this meaning,
though but faintly, back to a Hebrew word corresponding to
the second part of the name "Bethania 4 ." But another
meaning (much more prominent in Hebrew) is "afflicted" or
"poor 5 ," and perhaps Jerome assumes this in his next words:
"This also is to be understood that He was of such extreme
poverty (paupertatis) and so averse from flattering anyone that
in that vast City He found no host, no abiding-place, but
dwelt on a small farm (agro) with (apud) Lazarus and his
1 See Levy iv. 623 nJKn, Aram. Nn;\S % n. Instead of Heb. beth-,
"place of," Aram. freq. has (Levy Ch. i. 92, 96) be-, ^.
2 Mt. viii. 20, Lk. ix. 58.
3 Jerome on Mt. xxi. 17.
4 Heb. my (Gesen. 7726) "respond," may mean (i) "respond"
(with* docility) to command, (2) "respond" (with graciousness) to
supplication. But there is only one instance in LXX where a form
of this word is rendered UTTOKO^ (2 S. xxii. 36) "Thy responsiveness
hath multiplied me." Here (Field) some copies Have "humiliations
(Tcnreiixaarfis) " or "chastening (Traiftda)," and it is not surprising;
for the LXX fj v-rraKorj aov, if found in N.T., would naturally mean
"Thy [i.e. God's] obedience."
The same Heb. occurs in Ps. xviii. 35. Here LXX has r) rraidia
(i.e. Traidfia) o-ou, perhaps meaning "thy chastening," but Aq. "thy
gentleness (-rrpaoTrjs)," Sym. "my responding [obediently] [to thee],"
TO VTTdKOVflV.
5 See the previous note and Gesen. 776 on n:y "be afflicted,"
and Son 3242 (i) (iv) on "The 'meek' king," and esp. 3242 (i) b g.
A. F. 369 (Mark xiv. i n) 24
THE ANOINTING AT BETHANY
sisters those whose village is [in the Gospel, Jn xi. i]
Bethany 1 ."
This last sentence from Jerome indicates the Johannine
view of Bethany. It is introduced in the phrase "Lazarus
from Bethany" as a place connected with " the village of Mary
and Martha," all of whom Jesus "loves 2 ." Then it is said to
be "near Jerusalem 3 " which distinguishes it from "Bethany
beyond Jordan" where Jesus had been baptized. Jesus goes
to it at the peril of His life, since the Jews had been recently
"seeking to stone" Him 4 ., After the raising of Lazarus, Jesus
for a time "walked no longer openly among the Jews 5 ." Then
comes the third and last mention of the name : " Jesus, therefore,
six days before the Passover, came to Bethany, where Lazarus
was, whom Jesus [had] raised from the dead. They made,
therefore, a feast for him there, and Martha was ministering,
1 "In agro parvulo apud Lazarum sororesque ejus habitaret,
eorum quippe vicus Bethania est." This refers to Jn xi. i yv 8<l TIS
dfrBzvtov, A.dapo$ OTTO BrjQavLas e'x TTJS KWftrjs Mapias <al Mdpdas Trjs d8e\(pr)s
avrrjs. But what is the meaning of "agro parvulo" ? Does it mean
that the small field or orchard attached to the house of the family
of Lazarus was the "garden" of which John says (xviii. 2) TroXXaxi?
(rvvrjxOr) 'ir/crovs e<el /*era ran' na6rjTa>v avrov ? "Svvdyeiv here OUght perhaps
to be rendered, as in Mt. xxv. 35, 38, 43, and also in LXX with els T^V
OIKLO.V etc. (Steph. Thes. vii. 1178 D) "hospitably receive." If the
meaning had been "Jesus and his disciples were gathered together"
the natural Gk would have been awi]x&w av '! KC " ' 1 /* wroC.
Westcott says, "The exact force of the original is rather 'Jesus
and (with) His disciples assembled (ovvrixfy) there.' The idea appears
to be that of a place of gathering, where the Lord's followers* met
Him for instruction, and not simply of a restingplace during the
night. But it is possible that the spot was used for this latter purpos'e
also during the present visit (Luke xxi. 37 ipvXifero), and that Judas
expected to find all sleeping at the time of his arrival."
Nonnus seems against this interpretation ("assembled") and
rather in favour of "hospitable reception," or "lodging": KfWi Kal
avrutv 0-vvvoiJ.os dypofj-evcov auXi^ero \ctos fTCttpuv.
Jerome's statement (on Mt. xxi. 17) that Jesus found "no host"
in Jerusalem appears to ignore the evidence of Mk xiv. 13 15,
Mt.' xx vi. 1 8.
2 Jn xi. i, 5. 3 Jn xi. 18.
4 Jn xi. 8 16. 5 Jn xi. 54.
370 (Mark xiv. i n)
THE ANOINTING AT BETHANY
but Lazarus was one of those that sat at meat with him. Mary
therefore. . . V
All this gives us the impression that Bethany was Christ's
usual lodging-place at all times when He was in the neighbour-
hood of Jerusalem, and especially during the dangerous nights
of His last week there. And John like Luke though in a
different way might emphasize the anxious painstaking ser-
vice of the hostess Martha. This being the case, it is not
beside the mark to point out that, in the Johannine account of
the Anointing in Bethany, ania is the word used in the version
of SS to describe the action of the hospitable Martha, so that
we read continuously "Jesus came to the village Beth Ania
unto Lazar, him that was dead and lived. And he made for
him a supper there... but Martha was-occupied (ania) in
serving." Luke describes Martha as " torn-in-pieces 2 " with
serving, and SS again has ania there. Ecclesiastes twice or
thrice uses ania, LXX "torn-in-pieces," to describe worry 3 .
This curious coincidence between the Syriac descriptions of
Martha's action in Luke and John indicates a possibility of an
early half-playful tradition about her as "the afflicted (or,
anxious)" hostess, the Ania, and of her house as being " Beth-
Ania."
We now come to the Mark-Matthew tradition that the house
belonged to "Simon the leper." Ancient commentators
attempt variously and unsatisfactorily to answer the natural
questions that arise out of this phrase. Jerome quotes the
appellation of "Matthew [once] the publican" as analogous to
"Simon [once] the leper 4 "; but he omits to tell us that the
1 Jn xii. i foil. 2 Lk. x. 40 TTf^cnraro,
3 Eccles. i. 13, iii. 10, v. 19, see Gesen. 775 b, 773 a, comp. 776 a,
4 Jerome on Mt. xxvi. 6. He adds that Jesus, before His Passion,
" stays (moratur) in Bethany, the House of Obedience, which formerly
was [the house] of Simon the leper (quae quondam fuit Simonis
leprosi)." Does this mean "the house formerly [known as] the house
of Simon the leper" and continuing to bear that name after the
owner had been healed ? He goes on to say " Not that he remained
a leper also at that time, but as one who, being a leper before, was
afterwards healed by the Saviour the old name being retained
371 (Mark xiv. i n) 24 2
THE ANOINTING AT BETHANY
Gospel that mentions "Matthew [once] the publican," has
previously mentioned him as "a man called Matthew, sitting at
the publican' s-office 1 ." If Matthew intended to identify Christ's
host at Bethany with the leper described as healed early in the
Gospel 2 he should have introduced that leper as "a man called
Simon, a leper." It is possible that Mark and Matthew assumed
this. If they did, there would be something to be said for the
view that the appellation exalts the Saviour : "Jesus had healed
a man called Simon of leprosy in one of His first acts of healing,
and now it is in the house of this same Simon the leper that He
receives the homage of the Anointing a few days or hours
before His death 3 ."
Origen, however, regards the man as still leprous. Playing
on the meaning of "Simon," i.e. obedience, he remarks on the
fact that "'Simon,' too, is a mysterious sign of obedience"-
meaning "Simon", as well as Bethany "the House of Obedience "
Then he adds that the obedience was that of the letter, not that
of the spirit: "Jesus therefore was in the house of one [rightly]
(permanente) in order that the power of the Healer should be mani-
fested (ut virtus curantis appareat)." This view he supports by the
analogy of "Matthew the publican."
Then he comes to allegory: "Quidam Simonis leprosi domum
earn volunt intelligi partem populi quae crediderit Domino et ab eo
curata sit. Simon quoque ipse obediens dicitur, qui juxta aliam
intelligentiam mundus interpretari potest in cujus domo curata est
Ecclesia." In interpreting "Simon" as "obe'dience" Jerome follows
Origen.
1 Mt. ix. 9, x. 3. 2 Mt. viii. 2.
3 Chrysostom, on Mt. xxvi. 6, says that the woman saw (flfav)
that Jesus had healed (QepaTrevo-avTa) Simon the leper and hence was
emboldened to seek from Him the purification of her soul. He adds
that the leprosy must have been healed, ov yap av etXero (v.r. fytvcro)
pelvai napa TW \frrpu. Ephrem Syrus (p. 205) argues at great length
that the leprosy must have been healed and assumes that Simon
was present at the table: "Quomodo enim lepra in corpore Simonis
permanere poterat, qui purificatorem leprae in domo sua recubantem
vidit?" He adds finally "Perhaps the same thing happened as to
Zacchaeus. . .to whom the Lord said (Lk. xix. 9) ' To-day is salvation
come to this house ' ; as a reward for his hospitality he received
purification."
372 (Mark xiv. i n)
THE ANOINTING AT BETHANY
indeed called 'Simon' [as] being obedient, yet leprous, and still
having need of purification from Jesus 1 ."
It is significant that the author of Horae Hebraicae and
Wetstein, to both of whom one can mostly turn with confidence
for illustrations of fact, give no illustrations of " Simon the leper "
as an appellation,' and make no attempt to answer the questions
raised by ancient commentaries. Their silence justifies the
inference that something is wrong, and that the appellation is
not a "fact." But it does not justify our treating the title as
an invention. Its very difficulty shews that it was not invented.
Perhaps the best hypothesis is that it was originated as a
paraphrase of Beth-Ania, The House of the Meek, or The
House of the Afflicted. Christians would be led to think of
this appellation in connection with Isaiah's prophecy, "We did
esteem him stricken, smitten of God, afflicted 2 ." In that
passage the Vulgate renders "stricken" by "leprous" and so
does Aquila 3 . "Leper" is also specified in the Talmud as one
of many names of the Messiah 4 .
As regards the introduction of the name Simon I am unable
to offer any satisfactory explanation, or even suggestion, except
that it is a name sometimes apparently confused with "those
that were with Him," meaning Christ's companions 5 . We have
seen that it is interpreted both by Origen and by Jerome as
" Obedient " or " Obedience," and this is also their interpretation
of Beth Ania, so that, according to their allegorizing views,
Beth Simon and Beth Ania might be interchanged.
1 Origen on Mt. xxvi. 6, Lomm. iv. 397 " Factus est ergo Jesus in
domo Simonis quidem alicujus obedientis, tamen leprosi, et adhuc
opus habentis mundatione ab Jesu."
2 Is. liii. 4.
3 Is. liii. 4 yuj, "stricken," Gesen. 619 a in particular, of leprosy,
Aq. ctyrjiju'vov (so Field), of which Jerome says "id est, leprosum."
4 Sanhedr. 98 b. I have found nothing like this in any very early
Christian writer except a saying of Justin Martyr (Try ph. 41) that
the Levitical offering, of fine flour on behalf of purified lepers was
"a type of the bread of the Eucharist the celebration of which our
Lord Jesus Christ prescribed, in remembrance of the suffering that
He endured. . .."
6 Notes 2999 (xvii) g foil.
373 (Mark xiv. i n)
THE ANOINTING AT BETHANY
The Lucan addition of "Pharisee" might perhaps be ex-
plained from a confusion of paras, "break [bread]" (applied to
the host at a meal), with par ash, or pharash, in "Pharisee 1 ."
On the supposition that Simon of Bethany was present at the
Anointing, it might be asked what he did as host. SS, in John,
prefixes to the words "Lazarus was one of the guests" the
statement that Jesus "came. . . to Lazarus. . .and he [i.e. Lazarus'}
made for Him a supper." " Was it not Simon," some might ask,
"that really did what is here attributed to Lazarus? And, if
so, was this Simon one of 'certain persons' (Mark) that
murmured at the anointing? " Luke may have answered both
these questions in the affirmative. Finding that Simon was
not described by Mark as doing anything in his own house,
and rejecting as absurd the notion that he was a "leper," he
may have availed himself gladly of any tradition that suggested
that he was a disapproving and murmuring Pharisee.
8. " (R.V.) Burying," or " burial," in Mark,
Matthew, and John 21
If we put aside, as doubtful, the saying about "the poor" in
John 3 , the verb or verbal noun rendered by R.V. "burying " or
"burial," is the only one that Mark, Matthew, and John agree
in assigning to Jesus in this narrative. The Thesaurus quotes
authorities shewing that the word means, not "burying," but
" embalming 4 ." The Hebrew word for " embalm," chdnat, is quite
1 Law p. 323.
2 Mk xiv. 8 Mt. xxvi. 12 Jn xii. 7
6 <rx fv eiroujO-fV) /SaAoCcra yap avTij . . /A^es- CIVTTJV, Iva
irpo4\aftv /xuptVai TO TO p.vpov roOro C'JTI TOV els rrjv fj/j-epav TOV eVr-
(ra>fj.d p.ov (is TOV eVra- (rco/nards pov Trpbs TO (piao'/jLOv p.ov Tr)pi]o~r)
(piao~ fjtov . VTa(f)ido~aL p.f eTroirjo-ev. airo.
3 Jn xii. 8 is omitted by SS as well as by D, and is placed at the
end of the narrative (instead of before the end as in Mk-Mt.) where
an editor might naturally interpolate it as a suitable climax.
4 See Steph. Thes. iii. 1154 ( on cvrafaafa) where the editors refer
to authorities, quoted by Suicer, as contradicting the assertion of
H. S. that the verb means "bury," and as shewing that it means
"prepare for burying."
374 (Mark xiv. i n)
THE ANOINTING AT BETHANY
different from the Hebrew for "bury 1 ." The former, chdnat,
occurs toward the end of Genesis about the embalming of Jacob
and of Joseph 2 . As to the embalming of Jacob, the Hebrew is
rendered in LXX by the word here used in the Gospels, which
means literally "make arrangements for entombing" (as
distinguished from "burying 3 "). But, as to the embalming of
Joseph, LXX renders the Hebrew "embalm" by the Greek
"bury" thus: "They embalmed (LXX buried) him, and he was
put in a coffin in Egypt 4 ."
About Joseph, Aquila renders the word "they aromatized,
or spiced, him." This gives exactly the meaning of the Hebrew
verb. It occurs nowhere else in the Old Testament except
about a fig-tree "putting forth" its spicy fruit-buds, literally
"spicing its buds 5 ." "Embalming" was an Egyptian not a
Hebrew custom. But when a corpse had to be carried a long
way for burial, as in Jacob's case, or when the burial had to be
deferred for many years, as in Joseph's case, it was naturally
practised even by Hebrews. Jewish traditions are remarkably
silent about the embalming of Jacob and Joseph 6 . The Midrash
on the embalming of Jacob quotes a tradition condemning, as
well as one defending, the act 7 . In the Testaments of the
Twelve Patriarchs, Judah says "Let no one embalm me 8 ."
1 Heb. for "embalm," eWa0tv, is BJPI (sim. Onk.) ; Heb. for
" bury," ed-n-Tfiv, is -Qp. Delitzsch has B3ri for 6Wa0ii/.
2 Gen. 1. 2 (bis], 26 (Gesen. 3^4 b by error 1. 22, 26). Comp.
Gen. 1. 3, D^n pi. abstr. "embalming" LXX T^S raffis, Aq. TWV
ap(0paTL(;op.va>v, i.e. of the spicers or embalmers.
3 Gen. 1. 2, but the noun ib. 3 in LXX is rendered rac^r/.
4 Gen. 1. 26.
5 Cant. ii. 13 "the fig-tree (roxnn) spiceth (riD^n) (R.V. ripeneth)
its figs" (so Gesen. 334 b, but R.V. "green Jigs," and sim. Gesen.
803 a rV3B "early figs").
6 No reference to the passages mentioning the embalming is
given in the Index to Jer. Talmud transl. Schwab, nor in Bab.
Talmud ed. Goldschmidt (at present, 1916).
7 See Gen. r. on Gen. 1. i 2 (Wii. p. 501) "Why did Joseph die
before his brethren? Rabbi said 'Because he had embalmed
(einbalsamirt hatte) his father.'. . .According to the Rabbis, Jacob
commanded them [i.e. his sons] to embalm him."
8 Test. XII Pair. Jud. 26. " Let none embalm me with costly
375 (Mark xiv. i u)
THE ANOINTING AT BETHANY
These facts shew that Jewish tradition distinguished "em-
balming" from "burying," and that, if Jesus used the former
term, he used it distinctively.
If so, with what distinction or allusion did He use it?
It might possibly mean, nearly as in the Testaments quoted
above, but with a tender allusiveness, not reproachful or
ironical: "She is anointing my body as though she were
embalming a royal personage previous to burial." But it
might also allude to the ancient precedents of the two Patri-
archs, whose embalming was a symbol of deliverance from
immediate corruption, as well as from a grave in Egypt. If
Jesus said anything to this effect, it would be received by
Christians of the first century in the spirit of Ignatius, who
says "For this cause the Lord received ointment on His
head that it might breathe incorruptibility to the Church 1 ."
In the Acts, Peter quotes the words "Neither wilt thou give
thy holy one to see corruption" as referring to Christ, who,
he says, "was not left in Hades, nor did his flesh see
corruption 2 ." The ointment poured on Christ in Bethany and
raiment or tear open my belly," ^deis p* evracpido-r)
77 TTJV KoiXiav p-ov dvapprj^fL. . .KOI dvaydytre /ze. A second version has
p.rj8fis p. evTa(pid(Ti ev 7ro\vT\fl ecrdfjTi, d\\ci dvaydyere ywe, apparently
taking evrcxpidfa as "carry to the tomb in [burial clothes]." But the
first version in which cvTafadfa seems to be explained by the parallel
dvapprj%i as meaning "embalm"* is supported by precedent and
Jewish feeling, according to which, "embalming" was quite ex-
ceptional, reserved for Jacob and Joseph alone, and requiring some
kind of explanation.
1 Ign. Eph. 17.
2 Acts ii. 27 31, quoting Ps. xvi. 8 10 and then commenting
on it. On Ps. xvi. 9 "my flesh," Tehillim (on Ps. cxix. 9, Wii. ii. 173)
says "David said, I know that the worm will have no power over
my flesh." Derek Eretz, ch. i. says that immunity from the worm
extends to seven, viz. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aaron, Amram,
"and, according to others ( ? some), also David (because of Ps. xvi. 9)."
Baba Bathr. 17 a, with more probability, has " Miriam " for " Amram "
in this list, and adds "Benjamin." It proceeds "Many say also
'David,' because of Ps. xvi. 9, but it was only a prayer uttered by
him." These traditions take " worm " as meaning the literal " worm "
of the grave. But Joma 87 a takes the Psalm as applying to pious
376 (Mark xiv. i ii)
THE ANOINTING AT BETHANY
ascending from His body to fill the house with its odour, might
seem to be a symbol, not of burial followed by immediate cor-
ruption, but of an embalming or preservation from corruption,
preparatory to a rising again.
Now passing to the contexts of Mark and Matthew about
embalming we find that Mark's extraordinary language appears
to allude to the double meaning of the Hebrew or Aramaic
word "to spice," or "to put forth," mentioned above as refer-
ring both to "embalming" and also to the "spicing" of the buds
of the fig-tree. At all events he ventures to use a word
"murize 1 " like Aquila's aromatize as to which it has been
pointed out that it represents a "perfuming" tolerable only
in women during life, but applicable to men as well as women
when their bodies are being prepared for interment 2 . The word
is nowhere else used in the Old or New Greek Testament nor in
the earliest Christian writers 3 , but we have seen that Clement
of Alexandria uses it, in connection with the Lord's Anointing,
as conveying an allusion to the practice of "perfuming the
dead 4 ."
Matthew avoids the Greek verb murize perhaps because of
its Greek associations with pleasure and luxury and sub-
stitutes "cast perfume (muron)." But both Matthew and
Mark say that it was (Mark) "[with a view] to" or (Matthew)
"toward," embalming. Mark, however, laying stress on
"before," says "she undertook beforehand"', Matthew, laying
no such stress on "before," says "having cast (i.e. put) this
teachers in general, in which case the "worm" (comp. Is. Ixvi. 24
"their worm shall not die") would mean the "worm" of "hell";
and that is the interpretation apparently adopted by Rashi ad loc.
where see Breithaupt's note. Peter, who implies (Acts ii. 29) that
the Psalm did not apply to David and did apply to Christ, seems to
have followed the literalist interpretation.
1 Mk xiv. 8 Mt. xxvi. 12 Jn xii. 7
IT po\a@v pvpio-ai ftaXoixra yap avrrj "A(pcs avrrjv , Iva fls
TO O-Q)fJ,a. p.OV fls TOV TO p.VpOV TOVTO fTT\ TOV TVjV f]fJ.paV TOV VTa<f)l-
VTa(piao~fj.6v. (rco/xardf /JLOV irpos TO cur/noC p.ov Trjprjcri) OVTO.
evTa(f)ido~ai pie firoirfcrfv.
2 See above, p. 349, n. 2, quoting Artemidorus.
3 It is not in Goodspeed.
4 Clem. Alex. 205 6, quoted above, p. 349.
377 (Mark xiv. i n)
THE ANOINTING AT BETHANY
ointment 1 ." This might mean that the woman knowingly did
this " with a view to " embalming. But it might mean that
she did it out of pure affection, and with no such view, but
that the Lord Himself discerned that the act was providentially
directed "with a view to" an embalming.
The parallel in John, though obscure and possibly corrupt,
appears to adopt the latter interpretation in a sentence that
uses the word "reserve" in a peculiar way 2 . One difficulty
consists in the use of "in order that," which (consequently
perhaps) many authorities have cancelled. Some take "reserve
it" as meaning "reserve the rest of the ointment." The text/
as it stands in W. H., is hardly intelligible, but may mean
"Let her alone, that she may [find herself to] have kept this
stored up proof of her affection for the day of my embalming 3 ."
1 npo\aftev fjivpia-ai, in Mk, lit. "undertook beforehand to per-
fume," may have been corrupted to rrpotftakfv fivpio-at, (?) "proposed
to perfume," and this again corrupted to Matthew's commonplace
$a\v nvpov. npoXap-ftdva) with inf. is rare (though it occurs in
Ign. Eph. 3 TTpoeXafBov rrapciKaXelv vp,as). Hpo/^aXXo) OCCurs in
Cant. ii. 13 (Aq.) about the, fig-tree "spicing" its buds, as a rendering
of t^n, "embalm," -and it is used in Lk. xxi. 30 about "the fig-
tree and all the trees" (without an object).
2 Trjpdv, "keep," in LXX, freq. refers to "keeping" the law,
commandments etc., "watching" one's soul, mouth, ways etc., but
is not used of "reserving" a gift for anyone exc. in Cant. vii. 13
Heb. JDV, "all manner of precious fruits new and old, which
I have reserved for thee, O my beloved." There, R.V. marg. refers
to Mt. xiii. 52 " every scribe that is made a "disciple to the kingdom
of the heavens is like unto a man a master of a house who bringeth
out (eiejSaXXtt) from his treasury things new and old." Also the Targum
on Cant, paraphrases the new fruits as "the words of the scribes"
and the old as "the words of the Law." But the Midrash, besides
understanding the old fruits as the earlier Rabbis, and the new fruits
as the later ones, prefixes a parable of a good house-wife, who, in
her husband's absence, increases, instead of diminishing, the property
he has left with her. Trjpelv is used of "reserving" the good wine in
Jn ii. 10. Comp. i Pet. i. 4 "an inheritance. . .reserved in the
heavens for (eiy) you."
3 Nonnus has :
XtVe 8a>o
T)fJ,fTpO)V KTfp<0V
378 (Mark xiv. i n)
THE ANOINTING AT BETHANY
John perhaps intends us to contrast this anticipatory embalming
with that performed, after death, by Joseph of Arimathea and
Nicodemus 1 . This mentions "one pound" of ointment; that
mentions a hundred pounds 2 . This was too soon ; that was
in due time. This fulfilled no prophecy ; that fulfilled the
saying of Isaiah "with the rich in his death 3 ." Mark and Luke,
where perhaps 6'0pa $uAu|// means "that she may reserve the rest
of it."
1 Jn xix. 38 40.
2 Jn xix. 40 "bound it in linen cloths with the spices, as the
custom of the Jews is to embalm (evrafadgftv) " is not commented
on by HOY. Heb. or Schottgen. Wetstein is hardly to the point when
he quotes Tacitus Hist. v. 3 [error for v. 5] as saying " de Judaeis "
that it was their custom "corpora condere quam cremare, more
.-K.^yptio " that is, the Jews followed the Egyptian practice of
burying rather than burning. For the question here is about
"embalming" or " preparing for burial" not about "burying."
Westcott says that the manner of the Jews is "contrasted with
that (e.g.) of the Egyptians, who removed parts of the body before
embalming (Herod, ii. 86 ff.). The phrase may, however, only mark
the Jewish custom of embalming as contrasted with burning : comp.
Tac. 'Hist/ v. 3." Hastings Diet. Index contains no reference to Jn
xix. 40. Enc. Bib. 1285 says that "embalming" was "specifically
Egyptian," that "the Hebrews did not practise it," and that the
embalming of the body of Aristobulus in honey (Joseph. Ant. xiv.
7. 4) "stands by itself." Edersheim says (ii. 617) "He [i.e. Nico-
demus] now came bringing a ' roll ' of myrrh and aloes, in the fragrant
mixture well known to the Jews for purposes of anointing or burying."
This is vague, and no authority is given for it. The writer adds " It
was in ' the court ' of the tomb that the hasty embalmment if such
it may be called took place."
Perhaps John meant his readers to contrast with the "em-
balming" given by Mary the "binding in linen cloths. . .as the custom
of the Jews is to embalm " a contemptuous expression for a quasi-
embalming, that was neither the real Egyptian embalming, nor the
Greek and Roman burning. This quasi-embalming was a kind of
fettering in the tomb, and served no purpose except to make the
resurrection all the more wonderful by reason of the breaking of the
fetters.
3 Is. liii. 9 "th'ey made his grave. . .and with the rich in his death''
seems to be alluded to in Mt. xxvii. 57 "rich," and ib. 60 "his new
tomb" (as R.V. marg. references indicate in both passages). "Rich'"
379 (Mark xiv. i ii)
THE ANOINTING AT BETHANY
later on, mention "spices" as being brought by the women
to Christ's grave after the entombment; John does not.
John, and John alone, says, later on, that there was an actual
and material embalming of the dead body, but only at the
hands of Joseph and Nicodemus. Here he tells us, in effect,
that there was, before this, an anticipatory and spiritual
embalming of the living body at the hands of Mary.
According to this view, John's obscure tradition implies
a kind of comment on the phrase in Mark "undertook before-
hand," as if he said "It was indeed 'beforehand,' but it was
ordained by God that it should be 'beforehand,' as the spicy
fruit buds of the fig-tree come beforehand to be the sign of the
spring." It is impossible to deny that if this is John's meaning,
it is expressed with an almost ostentatious harshness as well
as brevity and obscurity. But that makes it all the more
probable that in using the rare word "embalming" John
believes himself to be using a Synoptic word, rejected by Luke,
but conveying a special meaning of great importance and used
by Jesus Himself.
To us it may seem fanciful to connect the "embalming"
mentioned by Jesus with the prospect of a higher life. We
associate it with Egyptian mummies. But we must dissociate
ourselves from the thought of Egypt and try to merge our-
selves in that of Israel. To a Jew, the law that the old must
give place to the new might connect itself with the promise in
Leviticus that Israel should "bring forth the old [stores] because
of (literally, from before, i.e. to make way for) the new 1 ." There
is only one other Scriptural passage that uses "new" of the
products of the earth 2 . It is in the Song of Songs, where the
Bride speaks of "precious fruits new and old" reserved for the
and "his" are pec. to Mt. The LXX "give the rich for (dvr\) his
death" seems to lead Justin (Apol. 51 "rules His enemies") away
from the Hebrew (and see an interpretation given by Jerome " scribas
. . . qui nimiis opibus amuebant Romanis tradiderit Deus ") . John,
describing the lavish gift of " myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pound
weight" may have intended to suggest a less vindictive aspect of the
true text of Isaiah.
1 Lev. xxvi. 10. 2 Gesen. 294 a.
380 (Mark xiv. i n)
THE ANOINTING AT BETHANY
Beloved 1 . Now Philo applies the Levitical promise to the
development of the knowledge of God 2 . Origen connects it
with the saying of Christ to His disciples about the duty of
"every scribe" in His kingdom to "bring forth from his
treasury things new and old"; Jerome connects the same
saying of Christ with the "precious fruits new and old" in the
Song of Songs 3 ; and the Sermon on the Mount is pervaded
with the thought that the New is to be developed out of the
Old as the fruit from a tree.
Modern criticism gives hardly sufficient prominence to the
Marcan "parable of the fig-tree" in Christ's Discourse on the
Last Days where Luke has completely missed the meaning:
"Now from the fig-tree learn its parable. When its branch is
now become tender and putteth forth its leaves, ye know that
summer is nigh 4 ." The parable seems to have referred to the
fig-tree alone, and to point to the Hebrew "spicing," used
about the buds of a fig-tree. It seems to take us bade to the
description of spring in the Song of Songs, mentioning the "fig-
tree" as "spicing" (or "embalming") its "green figs." Christ's
doctrine about "the fig-tree," and about "the new and old,"
together with the two passages from the Song, shew how
"embalming" might be connected, in the mind of a Jewish
Teacher, with the thought of a spiritual spring, a spontaneous
budding into life, breaking through the bonds of the winter of
death 5 .
1 Cant. vii. 13, quoted above, p. 378, n. 2.
- Philo i. 178, 513.
3 See Origen on Mt. xiii. 52 (Lomm. iii. 41) and Jerome.
4 Mk xiii. 28, Mt. xxiv. 32 eVc^uj/; Lk. xxi. 29 foil. Trpo/SuAoxn v ,
applied to "the fig-tree and all the trees"; see p. 325, n. 2, and
p. 378, n. i, quoting Cant. ii. 13.
5 See p. 308 foil, on Mk xiii. 18 "pray ye that your flight be not
in winter."
381 (Mark xiv. i u)
THE ANOINTING AT BETHANY
9. " Verily. . .for a memorial of her," in Mark and Matthew 1 -
The emphatic utterance here attributed to Christ by Mark
and Matthew has nothing corresponding to it in Luke's narrative
of Anointing. Nor does it seem at first sight to have anything
corresponding to it in John. Many will find it difficult to believe
that Jesus actually uttered such words 2 , but it is perhaps even
more difficult to believe that they were invented. They may
have sprung from some metaphorical tradition the record of
which contained the word "said" in the sense of "meant."
A confusion between "now this meant'' and "now he said this,"
either in Hebrew or in Greek, would explain Mark's insertion 3 .
It would also explain John's omission, if we could shew
that the Johannine parallel here inserts some detail that might
be paraphrased so as to give the Mark-Matthew tradition.
John has nothing except "The house was filled with the savour
of the ointment." But might not "the house" be a way of
expressing "the whole world," to which the Gospel was to be
preached so that it might become " the house " of God? We
have seen that Ignatius speaks of the ointment as breathing
incorruptibility on "the Church*." Origen also, in his com-
mentary on John, says that the woman "infused the odour of
the ointment into the whole house, [passing] into the perception of
all that were in it, wherefore also it is written ' Wheresoever this
Gospel shall be preached, in all the nations, there shall be
mentioned also that which this woman has done. . .. 5 " Here
[Jn om., but see
1 Mk xiv. 9 Mt. xxvi. 13 xii. 3]
dp.rjv de Xeyco vfuv, dfjiT]v\ya> vplv, OTTOV TJ Se oiKia 7r\r)pd)0r}
OTTOV eai/ KT)pv%6ii TO eav <rjpv^6fj TO evay- e'/c TTJS 6o~p,f)S TOV fjivpov.
fiiayyeXiov els o\ov TOV yeXiov TOVTO ev oXa> TU>
KO(J-fJiOV, KOl O (TToir)O~V KOOTjMCO, \Cl\T]6r)O'TaL Kill
XaXr)dr)o~Tai els o (iroir)(TfV CIVTT) els
2 Comp. McNeile on Mt. xxvi. 13 "It is difficult to believe that
the words came from the lips of Jesus," and on the other side, Swete
on Mk xiv. 9 " That the saying has not been reported by Lc. and Jo.
is an interesting indication of the independence of those Evangelists."
3 See Son 3165, 3204 etc. 4 See above, p. 347.
5 Comm. Joann. i. 12, where Lomm. i. 27 wrongly omits a reference
to Jn xii. 3.
382 (Mark xiv. i n)
THE ANOINTING AT BETHANY
he alludes to the past fact in John as corresponding to a future
metaphorical fulfilment mentioned in Mark and Matthew. Else
where, quoting fully from John, and then alluding to Mark and
Matthew so as to explain John by the allusion, he says: "This
'indicates that the odour of the doctrine that proceeds from
Christ and from the fragrance of the Holy Spirit, filled the whole
House of this world and the House of the universal Church^-."
This view of the sweet smell of the ointment, namely, that
it was the type of something spiritual, agrees with the first
mention of the word in our English Bible, in connection with
Noah's sacrifice, "And the Lord smelled the sweet savour 2 "',
and it suggests that the action of the woman might be regarded
as of the nature of a sacrifice, or of a preparation for sacrifice,
preparing the Lord's body (so to speak) for the Sacrifice on the
Cross. In this connection, there are some very early traditions
instructive though apocryphal about the sweet-smelling
sacrifice of the heart: "He speaks to us thus," says Barnabas,
'' ' A sacrifice to God is a broken heart ; a savour of sweet odour
to the Lord is a heart that glorifies Him that has shaped it*.'"
Irenaeus also, shortly after repeating fully and correctly what
"David says in the fiftieth [LXX] Psalm," adds, apparently
from a different source, "As it is said elsewhere, 'Sacrifice to
God is a broken heart, a savour of sweet odour to God, a heart
that glorifies Him that has shaped it*.'" The same apocryphal
saying is quoted by Clement of Alexandria "'A sacrifice to the
Lord is a broken spirit.' How then shall I use crowns, or
ointments, or what shall I offer as incense to the Lord? 'A
savour (it is said) of sweet-odour to God is a heart that glorifies
Him that has shaped it 5 .' '
It should be added that an Aramaic past tense "and there
was filled" might be read in Hebrew fashion as "and there
shall be filled 6 ." There are many instances of the interchange
of past and future in the transition from Hebrew to the Greek
1 Origen on Cant. i. 12 (Lomm. xiv. 429).
2 Gen. viii. 21. 3 Barn. 2. . 4 Iren. iv. 17. i 2.
5 Clem. Alex. 306 is almost identical with Barnabas '007*77 evvdias
TO) dew (Barn, rw Kvpiw) Kapdia 8o(iovcra rov TreTrAa/cora avryv.
6 Pamrfoszs'l290, 1411 a b.
383 (Mark xiv. i n)
THE ANOINTING AT BETHANY
of the LXX 1 . Our conclusion is that the omission by John of
the Mark-Matthew tradition concerning a solemn prediction of
Jesus is to be explained much more probably by the hypothesis
that John substituted the true tradition for the misinterpreta-
tion of it, than by the hypothesis that John rejected the Mark-
Matthew tradition as false, and substituted for it a new one
that had no connection with the old.
10. Mark's narrative as a whole
The last section has brought before us the very widespread
early Christian tradition about the " sweet savour" of "a sacrifice"
that consists in " a broken heart." Jewish tradition comments on
the anomaly in the Psalms : God will not have as a sacrifice the
body of a beast that is rent, or an offering of wine in a broken
vessel; but He welcomes the sacrifice of "a broken heart"-
a metaphor for repentance, expressed in another metaphor as
a passionate "turning away" from one's sinful self to find
one's true self in the Father in heaven 2 . According to Isaiah,
the Lord sent the Anointed, that is the Christ, to "bind
up the broken in heart 3 ." Luke strangely omits this clause
when he represents Jesus as reading the Lesson from Isaiah in
the Synagogue; but he expresses the fulfilment of it in his
description of Jesus as dismissing the weeping woman that had
been "a sinner" with the words, "Thy sins are forgiven 4 ."
In Mark, there is nothing that on the surface signifies a
breaking of the heart. But we ought to look below the surface.
We have already found that the "pistic" ointment probably
contains an allusion to faith or trust 5 . The "embalming" was
also found to allude to a life beyond death 6 . And a similar
allusion appeared in the exceptional Marcan verb expressing
"perfume." In a context so full of allusive metaphor, there
ought not to be ignored the phrase peculiar to Mark describing
the woman as "breaking" the cruse of ointment 7 . The word
1 See Clue 19, 84, 87, 240.
2 See Lev. r. (on Lev. vi. 9) (Wii. p. 47), rep. Pesikt. Wii. p. 227.
Pseudo-Jerome says (on Mk xiv. 3) "fractum alabastrum carnale est
desiderium." See pp. 387, 721, n. i. 3 Is. Ixi. i a-wrfrpi^fjifvovs.
4 Lk. iv. 18 19, vii. 48. 5 See above, pp. 356 7.
6 See above, p. 380. 7 Mk xiv. 3
384 (Mark xiv. i u)
THE ANOINTING AT BETHANY
is a strong one, meaning "break in pieces" so that the contents
might issue in a stream and not in drops. Matthew omits it,
perhaps because he thought the action so unusual and incon-
venient that this word must be corrupt. But it may be
expressive of an intense emotion that disregarded convention;
and Mark's original may have used the word allusively to
describe the woman as " broken in heart " while breaking the
cruse 1 . In Luke, the woman's sorrow was for her own sake,
because of her past estrangement from the Father in heaven.
But in Mark it appears to have been sorrow also for the sake
of her Saviour on earth who had often predicted that He
would be "delivered over" to smiting or death, and whose
prediction seemed now in danger of being speedily fulfilled 2 .
In a somewhat similar manner we ought perhaps to explain
the remarkable phrase peculiar to Mark, "That which she had
she did 3 ." Matthew avoids this. It seems to mean "That
which she had [in her power to do] she did " but why did not
Mark say this if he meant it? Delitzsch suggests an answer
by his Hebrew rendering : " That which was in the power of her
hand [to do] she did." Such a phrase is connected in the Law
with sacrifices and vows and offerings from the " hand " of the
poor which were necessarily of little value as compared with
those of the rich 4 . So taken, and applied literally, the phrase
might be regarded by Matthew as absurd: "The offering was
of great value. Some say, three hundred denars. How then
could Jesus say, that which she 'had it in her power,' or, that
which she ' could afford,' to do ? " But Jesus might be speaking,
not of the money value, but of the spiritual value: "All that
1 See Clem. Rom. 18, and 52 quoting Ps. li. 17.
2 From a different point of view, Phaedo (117 c) weeps for himself
rather than for Socrates who is on the point of departing: dn-6K\aoi/
epavTov' ov yap 8rj exelvov yf, dXXa TTJV ep-avrov TV^TJV, oiov dvdpbs eraipov
fOTfprjpfvog f'irjv.
3 Mk xiv. 8 6 f<r X cv eVot'^crei/, Delitzsch nJTO HT b*6 iTH 1B>N n.
SS has "This, which she hath done, lo, as if for my burial she hath
done it," k "quod habuit haec," followed by "praesumpsit et un-
guentauit. ..."
4 See Gesen. 390 a quoting Lev. v. 7, n etc.
A. F. 385 (Mark xiv. i n) 25
THE ANOINTING AT BETHANY
she could possibly do, all that she could possibly give, a broken
heart this she gave 1 ."
In view of all the facts we may regard it as probable that
Mark even if he did not definitely allude in the "breaking"
of the cruse to the "broken heart" assumed that the woman
was heart-broken with sorrow. In the Phaedo, when Socrates
drinks off the hemlock, even the gravest of his philosophic
friends cannot forbear from tears. Crito goes out for a moment
to hide them, Phaedo weeps silently with covered head, another
weeps openly, another bursts into weeping and wailing unre-
strainedly. In Mark, then, why is not the woman represented
as weeping? May it not be because Mark assumes the tears?
May he not follow some tradition that subordinated tears as
interfering with the emphasis laid on "embalming," which
signified resurrection?
It is unsatisfactory to conclude with an interrogation. But
we cannot ignore the atmosphere of doubt that encompasses
these traditions about anointing. Later on, we shall find Mark
and Luke implying or mentioning a proposed anointing of
the body of Jesus; but the parallel Matthew mentions only
a "beholding"; and the Gospel of Peter will be found to add
"weeping and lamenting 2 ." This will be discussed in its place.
Meantime, we may safely conclude that Mark's difficult ex-
pressions are probably earlier than the easy paraphrases that
Matthew substituted for them, and that Mark contains, in an
obscure and possibly truncated form, the closest approximation
to the historical fact.
ii. A review of the evidence
On a matter on which Origen changed his mind, and departed
from the view formerly held by himself and "many 3 " older
commentators, it is natural to doubt whether it is possible to
arrive at a safe conclusion. But the facilities possessed by
1 On Lk. ii. 24, describing the offering of Mary, the Lord's mother
("a pair of turtle-doves"), Origen refers to Lev. xii. 8 (A.V. marg.)
"if her hand find not sufficiency of a lamb."
2 Mk xvi. i, Mt. xxviii. i, comp. Lk. xxiv. i and xxiii. 56.
3 "Many," see above, p. 353.
386 (Mark xiv. I n)
THE ANOINTING AT BETHANY
modern students for the purpose of linguistic analysis 1 have
enabled us to see that there is more to be said than Origen
supposed for i.1: older view, apparently assumed by Ignatius
and Clement of Alexandria, that there was only one act of
anointing and that the anointing woman had been "a sinner."
If there had been more than one, would there not probably
have been many? Would not such an act have provoked
imitation especially among the devoted women described by
Luke as following Jesus? But Mark, Matthew, and John all
appear to regard it as unique. So apparently do Ignatius and
Clement of Alexandria. If indeed it had come early in Christ's
life, where Luke places it, it would have probably been imitated.
But it appears to have come but a few days before the close of
His life. It seems to sum up the action of the Messiah, or Christ,
or Anointed, in preaching the Gospel to sinners and "binding
up the broken in heart," who, in the person of one woman,
make Him a return in the form of an anointing, or chrism, that
prepares the Christ for His grave and resurrection. If the
woman was in some special way a "sinner," and was now a
repentant sinner, that would make her a fit type of the Gentile
Church which was to receive, through repentance, remission
of sins. Hence the emphasis on the act in all the Gospels.
As to the place where the Anointing happened, and the
house in that place, the Evangelists diverge. Bethany, say all
but Luke ; Luke is silent a . The house of Simon the Pharisee,
says Luke ; the house of Martha and her family (in effect) says
John ; the house of Simon the Leper, say Mark and Matthew
all, perhaps, going back to some original Beth Ania, as above
indicated.
These convergences and divergences illustrate what we
have found Origen calling "a kind of family relationship (cog-
natio quaedam) ' ' between the Gospel narratives. Some of the
1 I mean not only the Concordances to Scripture in English,
Greek, and Hebrew, but the Indices to early Christian writers,
including Goodspeed's Concordance to those of the first century and
a half, and the Indices to Greek writers in general.
2 Lk. vii. 36. The places mentioned in the previous context are
vii. n "Nain," vii. 17 "Judaea and the region round about."
387 (Mark xiv. i n) 25 2
THE ANOINTING AT BETHANY
similarities and dissimilarities illustrate the different aspects in
which the act might present itself to the narrators. In Mark
and Matthew the woman simply anoints the Saviour as an
"embalming" for the grave and resurrection; but in Luke and
John the woman "wipes off" from Jesus something ("tears,"
or "ointment/' or both) that becomes to her, in Luke, a kind
of cleansing for the remission of sins. In John this "wiping" is
only an addition to the "embalming." But Luke mentions no
"embalming" at all. He is solely concerned with the woman
whose sins are forgiven, not with the "embalming" of the
Forgiver.
It is not surprising if Luke has missed the meaning of the
"embalming." It would perhaps be as perplexing to him as
the last words of the dying Socrates would be to some modern
readers: "Crito, we owe a cock to ^Esculapius 1 ." Not every
modern reader of Plato realises that this means "We owe a
sacrifice to the God of Healing who is- on the point of raising me
up from the disease of mortal life to the health of life immortal."
But, on the hypothesis that only one woman anointed Jesus,
what are we to say about the omission, by Mark, Matthew, and
John, of the fact if it was a fact that the woman had been
"a sinner"? In behalf of Mark it may perhaps be said that
he assumed it in introducing the phrase " alabaster cruse of
ointment." But we have seen that John alters this into
"pound of ointment." Is it possible that John knew the
woman to have been a sinner this woman whom he calls the
sister of Lazarus and whom he has expressly described as "loved"
by Jesus knew it, and yet refrained from mentioning it ?
It would be venturesome to assert this positively, but it
would perhaps be still more venturesome to deny the possibility.
Consider John's representation of Mary Magdalene. He gives
to her the first place among those privileged to see the risen
Saviour. He makes her the Lord's own messenger to the
Apostles concerning His resurrection. Yet he nowhere tells us
that she had once been possessed by "seven devils."
Consider also John's treatment of the term "sinner." He
1 Plato Phaedo 118 A.
388 (Markxiv. i n)
THE ANOINTING AT BETHANY
never uses the word except technically in the story of the
healing of the man born blind. There some of the Pharisees
declare that Jesus "is not from God," but some venture to ask
"How can a man that is a sinner do such signs? " Then they
pronounce authoritatively " We know that this man is a sinner."
The man born blind replies, in effect, that he knows nothing
about these Pharisaean technicalities, "Sinner or not, He was
the man that healed me! Is that what you call 'sinner'? 1 "
Similarly, perhaps, as regards the woman that anointed Jesus,
John may have intended his readers to say, "Sinner or not, she
was one whom Jesus 'loved/ She was one whose tears moved
Jesus to raise Lazarus from the dead. She was one from whose
hand He willingly received a preparation for the temporary tomb
through which He passed in order that He might ascend to
the Father in heaven."
1 Jn ix. 16, 24, 25, 31.
389 (Mark xiv. I TI)
CHAPTER IX
THE LAST SUPPER
[Mark xiv. 12 25]
I. Judas Iscariot's agreement with the chief priests*
THE account of Judas' agreement comes, in Mark-Matthew,
as a connecting link between the narrative of the Supper at
1 Mk xiv. 10 ii
(10) Km 'lovdas
'lo-Kapio>$ 6 els TU>V
da>5e/ca dnf/XBev irpbs
TOVS dpxifpfls Iva avTov
irapaftol avTols.
(11) ot 8e O.KOV-
(ravTS exdprjo~av KCL\
eirrjyycfXavTO avTw dp-
yvpiov dovvai. KOL er)Tei
TTWS avTov evKaipots TTO-
padol.
Mt. xxvi. 14 16
(14) Tort rropevOels
els TWV SwSejca, 6 Xeyo-
p,vos '
TTJS, Trpos
(15)
poi ftovvai Kayo) VJMV
Trapafidxrco avrov; 01 8e
Lk. xxii. 3 6
(3) ElatjXQfv 8e
Sarai/as- els lovdav TOV
KaXovpevov 'itrKapicorTyv,
oi/ra etc TOV dpiQ/Jiov rcoz/
(4) /cat
o~vve\d\r)o~fv Tols dp^ie-
pevcriv teal orpaTijyols TO
Trots avTols Trapadw av-
TOV.
(5) Ka
apyvpia.
(l6) <al OTTO Tore
er)Tei evK.ai.piav iva av-
TOV TTCipadto.
- dpyvpiov dovvai.
(6) ,
o~ev, <ai e^rjTei ev<aipiav
TOV Trapadovvai avT.ov
aTep o%\ov avTols.
In Mk xiv. n, eir^yye'CkavTo dovvai perhaps represented an
original "said to pay," as in Esth. iv. 7 (the only instance of e. in
canon. LXX with a Heb. original, R.V. "promised to pay," Heb.
"said to pay (lit. to weigh}," LXX eir-qyyeiXaTO, al. ex. +7rapacrTrjo-ai).
Mt, xxvi. 15 is influenced by Zech. xi. 12 "weighed (eo-Trjaav] [for]
my hire thirty pieces of silver." Lk., like Mk, paraphrases.
In Lk. xxii. 6, the active eg(0po\oyr]o-ev is noteworthy. The
middle, e^op.o\oyovpcn, abounds, meaning "give acknowledgment,"
"confess" etc., in a good sense. The active, 'op>Aoye'a>, does not
exist though o/ioXoye'u is existent in O.T. or N.T., or in the early
Christian writers (Goodspeed) or in Gk literature (Steph. Thes.}. If
390 (Mark xiv. 10 n)
THE LAST SUPPER
Bethany and that of the Last Supper ; and it has been touched
on above in the discussion of the former. Here the text is
repeated in Greek in order to illustrate some differences between
Luke and Mark.
Mark has the difficult expression "Judas Iscariot the one of
the Twelve." Matthew's cancelling of "the" is condemned by
its obviousness. If we accept John's view that in the Supper
at Bethany Judas was rebuked as the real offender, then
"the one of the Twelve" might have meant, in the original,
"that one of the Twelve just mentioned who was specially
rebuked by Jesus 1 ." Another explanation would be that Mark
has already mentioned a Judas as brother of Jesus, who was
not one of the Twelve 2 ; and now he mentions that Judas who
was "the one of the Twelve" destined to be a traitor. Neither
of these explanations is quite satisfactory.
Luke has mentioned no Judas as brother of the Lord, but he
has mentioned a "Judas of James" as one of the Twelve 3 .
Here he says "Judas that is called Iscariot"; but he adds
"being [still] of the number of the Twelve." This suggests a
reproach, "still nominally an Apostle," and that was probably
Luke's meaning.
John, having recently mentioned Judas Iscariot as the
murmurer at the Supper in Bethany, adds in the preface to the
Last Supper, "Now before the feast of the passover, Jesus. . .
loved them [i.e. the disciples] unto the end. And during
supper the devil having already put into the heart of Judas
Iscariot, Simon's [son], to betray him. . .[Jesus]. . .riseth from
supper. . . V Neither here nor later on does he describe Judas
it is genuine here, it is perhaps emphatic, "he at once agreed," "he
pledged himself." It is omitted by many authorities, including SS.
D reads copoXiiyi/rrci'. If e ov were used in N.T., we might suppose
the original to have been e' ov vnoXoyrjo-ev " from which time, or, in
consequence of which, he agreed " (comp. Jn vi. 66, xix. 12 ex TOVTOV).
This would be parall. to Mt. xxvi. 16 dirb r6re.
1 In that case, Mark must be regarded as combining two incon-
sistent traditions. For Mk xiv. 4 has "some."
2 Mk vi. 3, Mt. xiii. 55. 3 Lk. vi. 16.
4 Jn xiii. i 4.
391 (Mark xiv. 10 n)
THE LAST SUPPER
as making an agreement with the chief priests. He assumes
that we know this 1 , but leaves us free to believe that it was
made either on the evening of the Supper at Bethany, or on the
evening of the Last Supper, or between the two. John else-
where recognises the ambiguity of the name "Judas" by
calling one of the disciples "Judas not Iscariot 2 ." But, in
calling Iscariot "Simon's [son] " here, the object is probably not
to distinguish him from others of the name of Judas but-
strange though it may appear to us to indicate that he was
no true disciple, but still unregenerate 3 . Also, whereas Luke
places the expression "Satan entered into Judas" before his
narrative of the Last Supper, John, after the preliminary
phrase just quoted ("the devil having already put..."),
defers "Satan entered into Judas" till the conclusion of the
Johannine Supper 4 . This seems an intervention, not in behalf
of Mark, but rather against Luke.
2. The "man bearing a pitcher," in Mark and Luke 5
We can explain Matthew's omission of a large part of this
narrative as follows. The wealthy Nicodemus who according
to the Fourth Gospel was present at this time in Jerusalem
1 Jn xviii. 3 "having received from the chief priests. ..."
2 Jn xiv. 22.
3 See Proclamation, pp. 127 8 on Jn xxi. 15 17 "Simon, son of
John."
5 Mk xiv. 12 1 6
(R:V.)
(12) And on the
first day of unleaven-
ed bread, when they
sacrificed the pass-
over, his disciples say
unto him, Where
wilt thou that we go
and make ready that
thou mayest eat the
passover ?
(13) And he send-
eth two of his dis-
ciples, and saith unto
them, Go into the
city, and there shall
Lk. xxii. 3, Jn xiii. 2^ 27.
Mt. xxvi. 17 19 Lk. xxii. 7 13
(R.V.)
(7) And the day
of unleavened bread
came, on which the
passover must be
sacrificed.
(8) And he sent
Peter and John, say-
ing, Go and make
ready for us the pass-
over, that we may
eat.
(9) And they said
unto him, Where
wilt thou that we
make ready?
(10) And he said
(R.V.
(17) Now on the
first [day] of un-
leavened bread the
disciples came to
Jesus, saying, Where
wilt thou that we
make ready for thee
to eat the passover?
(18) And he said,
Go into the city to
such a man, and say
unto him,
392 (Mark xiv. 12 16)
THE LAST SUPPER
would hardly be unwilling to lend Jesus a chamber in the City
for Himself and His disciples. But he would probably be
unwilling to let his kind act be known 1 . Jesus also might be
unwilling that the Jews should know the whereabouts of this
chamber. Now Nicodemus, according to Jewish tradition, was
connected with the supply of water to the Jerusalemites 2 . He
Mk xiv. 12 1 6
(R.V.) contd.
meet you a man
bearing a pitcher of
water : follow him ;
(14) And whereso-
ever he shall enter in,
say to the goodman
of the house, The
Master (or, Teacher)
saith, Where is my
guest-chamber, where
I shall eat the pass-
over with my dis-
ciples ?
(15) And he will
himself shew you a
large upper room
furnished [and]
ready : and there
make ready for us.
(16) And the dis-
ciples went forth,
and came into the
city, and found as he
had said unto them :
and they made ready
the passover.
Mt. xxvi. 17 19
(R.V.) contd.
The
Master (or, Teacher)
saith, My time is at
hand; I keep the
passover at thy house
with my disciples.
(19) And the dis-
ciples did as Jesus
appointed them ; and
they made ready the
passover.
Lk. xxii. 7 13
(R.V.) contd.
unto them, Behold,
when ye are entered
into the city, there
shall meet you a man
bearing a pitcher of
water ; follow him
into the house where-
into he goeth.
(u) And ye shall
say unto the goodman
of the house, The
Master (or, Teacher)
saith unto thee,
Where is the guest-
chamber, where I
shall eat the passover
with my disciples ?
(12) And he will
shew you a large
upper room fur-
nished: there make
ready.
(13) And they
went, and found as
he had said unto
them : and they made
ready the passover.
1 Jn xii. 42, xix. 38 9.
- See Hor. Heb. on Jn iii. i, quoting Taanith 20 a, and Aboth R.
Nathan ch. 7, for a fabulous account of the origin of his name Nico-
demus (as if it were Hebrew), and adding " It should seem Nicodemus
was a priest, and that kind of officer whose title was prPS' ISin
a digger of wells ; under whose peculiar care and charge was the pro-
vision of water for those that should come up to the feast." See
also a story, probably of anti-christian tendency, in Chetub. 66 b
(quoted in Hor. Heb. on Mk xiv. 5) about a daughter of Nicodemus
" to whom the wise men appointed four hundred crowns of gold for
a chest of spices for one day." This daughter, afterwards, was
"reduced to that extreme poverty, that she picked up barley-corns
for her food out of the cattle's dung." Comp. Wetstein on Jn iii. i.
393 (Mark xiv. 12 16)
THE LAST SUPPER
might therefore instruct one of his numerous water-carriers to
stand with his pitcher at the gate near the "entering of the
city 1 " from the road to Bethany, and to make himself the
guide to two disciples of Jesus who might approach him as if
desiring guidance. The disciples were to be guided to a place
selected by Nicodemus where Jesus would be safe. The
question was there to be addressed as a password to the master
of the house, "Rabbi saith, 'Where is my guest-chamber 2 ? "
The chamber would then be shewn to them.
Now all these details would be of great interest for the
first generation of Christians in Jerusalem. T'hey certainly
must have known the "guest-chamber." Perhaps, too, some
identified it with the "upper chamber" where Christians for the
first time united in prayer and praise after the Ascension 3 .
Before a generation had passed they might begin, in their songs
and discourses, to allegorize "the water," and possibly "the
upper chamber" too 4 . But it will be observed that Matthew
1 Mkxiv. 13 virdyfTf els rrjv TroXii/ KOL diravT^afi.. . . is not SO definite
as Lk. xxii. IO i(re\66vT(ov vp,wv els TI]V TTO\IV (rvvavrrjo'ei vp.lv, which
suggests that as soon as they had passed through the gate the water-
carrier would meet them.
2 Mk xiv. 14 TTOV ftrriv TO KardXvfjid JJLOV ; Lk. xxii. II om. p.ov.
3 Acts i. 13 inrfpwov, also used ib. ix. 37 9, xx. 8 and freq. in
LXX (always some form of rv^V). Here (Mk xiv. 15, Lk. xxii. 12)
the word is dvdyaiov. This does not occur in LXX. HOY. Heb., on
Acts i. 13, quotes Juchasin 23 b "When the feast was done, Rabban
Johanan and his disciples went up r\"h*J7 into an upper room,
and read and expounded till the fire shone round about them as
when the law was given at Mount Sinai." It adds, "Take notice
that iT^y an upper room is distinct from a dining room, where they
dined and supped." It also quotes Juchasin 45 b "the sons of the
upper room" and Jer. Sabb. fol. 3. 3 "These are the traditions which
they delivered in the upper room of Hananiah" and adds " [there are]
many instances of that kind" (comparing Acts xx. 8). In Steph.
Thes. (which does not give avdyiuov except under the head of a^coye (i)ov)
dvdyiuov seems to mean "above the ground [floor]." See Levy iii. 653 a
quoting Ned. 56 a which refers fancifully to Lev. xiv. 34 "a house
of the land of your possession," as meaning the "ground floor"
distinguished from the attic, or loft and shewing that the derived
word KlT^y means (i) "attic (Seller)," (2) "height," "heaven."
4 Comp. Origen on Mt. xxvi. 17 18 quoting the parall. Mk and
394 (Mark xiv. 12 16)
THE LAST SUPPER
does not mention any "guest-chamber" in any part of his
narrative. In Matthew, the password corresponding to "my
guest-chamber" is "my time," which can hardly mean anything
except (as Chrysostom takes it) the time of the Passion 1 . This
is explicable if Matthew confused cataluma with catalusis.
Both of these occur in LXX meaning "lodging-place 2 /' But
the latter, in literary Greek, mostly means "dissolution 3 ."
, It would not therefore be difficult for a Greek writer to mistake
some such expression as "Is there not my lodging [ready]?"
for "There is [at hand] my dissolution*." This Matthew might
paraphrase as "My time is at hand 5 ."
saying "Et adscendimus . . .ad locum superiorem in quo diversorium
est quod demonstratur ab intellectu, qui est in unoquoque nomine
paterfamilias [i.e. oiKo8fo-7rt'rrr)s] discipulis Christi." He takes (ib.
Lomm. iv. 408) the man with the pitcher to be Moses, and the water
to be "mundatoria," or also ("aut certe") "potabilis." In Horn.
Jerem. xviii. 13 (Lomm. xv. 341 3) he says that he will "shew by
Scripture" the meaning of the Biblical vircpaov and quotes O.T. as
well as Acts i. 13 and Mk xiv. 12 foil. : "If anyone keeps the feast
with Jesus, he is above, in a great upper chamber, in a swept upper
chamber, in an upper chamber adorned and [made] ready."
1 Mt. XXVI. 1 8 o Kaipos P.OV eyyvs eVru'. The phrase o Katpus pov
does not occur elsewhere in the Synoptists. But it resembles Jn vii. 6
n Kuip<i<f o f/jLas ninra) iriipta-Tiv (and sim. vii. 8) apparently meaning "the
season appointed for my Passion."
2 KardXvfui, in LXX = Heb. "habitation," "lodging" etc. (about 8)
including Exod. xv. 13 "unto thy [i.e. God's] holy habitation (nu) " ;
KUTu\v<ris, in LXX, = " habitation "Jer. xlix. 20 niJ, Dan. ii. 22 (Aram.)
NX".
3 Steph. Thes. KartiXva-is (i) dissolutio, (2) dimissio, (3) exitus
[ex hac vita], (4) deversatio hospitalis, or deversorium.
4 ricipeoTi, "there is at hand," or "there is ready," would be
appropriate here as in Jn vii. 6, and Troueo-rti/ might be corrupted
into irapetTTiv. For instances of interrog. in Gk confused with
affirm, see Joh. Gr. 2236 44. In Heb., confusion would be more
easy. Comp. Levy i. 463 b &nn (i) "diese," (2) "als Frageprtkl.
'quaenam?" on which see Dalman Aram. Gr. p. 89.
5 There remains Matthew's use of n delva (unique in N.T. and
non-occurrent in LXX) in words ascribed to Jesus xxvi. 18 virdyere
els TT]V TroXii/ rrpos rov dflvu. On this Jerome says "Morem veteris
Testamenti nova Scriptura conservat. Frequenter legimus 'Dixit
ille illi (? illi et illi)' et 'in loco illo et illo,' quod Hebraice dicitur
395 (Mark xiv. 12 16)
THE LAST SUPPER
Passing to the Fourth Gospel we note that, as Luke closely
follows Mark, no question arises about Johannine intervention.
But in view of the early Christian allegorizing of "the pitcher"
as signifying rudimentary purification 1 , it is noteworthy that
John represents Jesus as Himself "pouring water into the
bason" and washing the feet of the disciples, not before the
Last Supper but during it 2 . That action is so original that
few, if any, will suspect that the narrative sprang from anything
but fact. Yet, if so, the omission of it by the Synoptists shews
that if they knew it they were not alive to the importance of
*31D^N et 'OlSs, et tamen personarum locorumque non ponitur
nomen. Et invenietis ibi quendam portantem lagenam aquae. Quorum
idcirco vocabula praetermissa sunt ut omnibus qui Pascha facturi sunt,
libera festivitatis occasio panderetur." The last two sentences, which
I have italicised, seem to me obscure; but Jerome is justified in the
hypothesis that TOV 8f1va may be a translation of the Heb. original
mentioned by him. The Heb. phrase occurs in Ruth iv. i of a person,
and i S. xxi. 2, 2 K. vi. 8 of a place (where see Field).
In Ruth iv. i "he [i.e. Boaz] said, Sit here, (lit.) a certain defined
person (^*?2) unnamed ('OE^N) " LXX xpu^ie, Aq. 6 delva we are
not to suppose that Boaz addressed the man thus, but that the
writer substituted "such-and-such a one" for the name, because, as
Rashi says, "he would not take on himself the right of redemption"
("non scriptum (hie) est nomen ejus quia ille noluerat redimere").
Similarly here, Matthew may have substituted 6 eti>a for some name
of a person, or some description of a person, actually uttered by Jesus.
If Nicodemus was that person, the fact that he never openly joined
the Church of Christ, and that his daughter was held up by the Jews
as an example of divine retribution, may have influenced some
earlier Evangelists, though not John, in suppressing all mention of
his relations with Jesus.
On the other hand Cramer on Lk. xxii. 7 foil, prints a comment
alleged to be from Titus of Bostra, suggesting that TOV deli/ a was not
a casual expression ov yap ?0?/ Trpbs TOV 8dva TVXOV and that Jesus
would not mention the name of the host to Peter and John in the presence
of Judas," in order that he [i.e. Judas] might not learn the [name of
the] man and run away and report it to those who had hired him."
1 See above (p. 394, n. 4) and add. Tertull. De Bapt. 19 quoting
Mk xiv. 13, Lk. xxii. 10 about the "man bearing water" (to shew
that the Passover is a suitable time for baptism) and saying that
the expression may be interpreted figuratively.
2 Jn xiii. 2 12.
396 (Mark xiv. 12 16)
THE LAST SUPPER
it. And yet two of them could find room for so much detail
about the man bearing a pitcher!
It is not improbable that a superfluity of Christian discus-
sions about "the pitcher," supposed to be the type of Mosaic
purification, led John to relate fully and to emphasize the
Christian sacrament of "the bason." This indeed instituted
a purification of an entirely new nature differing from any
mentioned in the Pentateuch one in which a man does not
aim in the first instance at purifying himself, but as it were
stoops down to the feet of his neighbours in order to wash away
that which defiles them, and then finds that in following thus
the example of his Master he has cleansed and washed away
the defilements of his own soul.
3. The designation of Judas as the betrayer*
All the Synoptists agree that Jesus knew that the betrayer
was among the Twelve, partaking, or having partaken, of the
1 Mk xiv. 17 21
(R.V.)
(17) And when it
was evening he com-
eth with the twelve.
(18) And as they
sat (lit. reclined) and
were eating, Jesus
said, Verily I say
unto you, One of you
shall betray me,
[even] he that eateth
with me.
(19) They began
to be sorrowful, and
to say unto him one
by one, Is it I ?
(20) And he said
unto them, [It is] one
of the twelve, he that
dippeth with me in
the dish.
(21) For the Son
Mt. xxvi. 20 25
(R.V.)
(20) Now when
even was come, he
was sitting at meat
with the twelve dis-
ciples (many auth.,
some anc., om. dis-
ciples) ;
(21) And as they
were eating, he said,
Verily I say unto
you, that one of you
shall betray me.
(22) And they
were exceeding sor-
rowful, and began to
say unto him every
one, Is it I, Lord?
(23) And he an-
swered and said, He
that dipped his hand
with me in the dish,
the same shall betray
me.
(24) The Son of
Lk. xxii. 14, 15, 21
23 (R.V.)
(14) And when
the hour was come,
he sat down, and the
apostles with him.
(15) And he said
unto them, With de-
sire. . .
(21) But behold,
the hand of him that
betrayeth me is with
me on the table.
(22) For the Son
397 (Mark xiv. 17 21)
THE LAST SUPPER
bread and wine on the table. But Luke differs from Mark-
Matthew as to the position of the words indicating Christ's
knowledge 1 . And not one of them describes the betrayer as
going out before the rest to take steps for the betrayal. As far
as Mark and Matthew are concerned, we are led to suppose that
all present went out together ("they went out") to the Mount
of Olives ; and Luke hardly appears to differ from them, though
he leaves us a loophole for discerning a possible difference 2 .
Mk xiv. 17 21
(R.V.) contd.
of man goeth, even
as it is written of
him: but woe unto
that man through
whom the Son of man
is betrayed ! good
were it for that man
if he (lit. for him if
that man) had not
been born.
Lk. xxii. 14, 15, 21
23 (R.V.) contd.
of man indeed goeth,
as it hath been deter-
mined: but woe unto
that man through
whom he is betrayed !
(23) And they
began to question
among themselves,
which of them it was
that should do this
thing.
Mt. xxvi. 20 25
(R.V.) contd.
man goeth, even as
it is written of him:
but woe unto that
man through whom
the Son of man is be-
trayed ! good were it
for that man if he
(lit. for him if that
man) had not been
born.
(25) And Judas,
which betrayed him,
answered and said,
Is it I, Rabbi? He
saith unto him, Thou
hast said.
Comp. Jn xiii. 21 8 (R.V.) When Jesus had thus said, he was
troubled in the spirit, and testified, . . . Verily, verily, I say unto you,
that one of you shall betray me. (22) The disciples looked one on
another, doubting of whom he spake. (23) There was at the table
reclining in Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.
(24) Simon Peter therefore beckoneth to him, and saith unto him,
Tell [us] who it is of whom he speaketh. (25) He leaning back, as
he was, on Jesus' breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it ? (26) Jesus
therefore answereth, He it is, for whom I shall dip the sop, and give
it him. So when he had dipped the sop, he taketh and giveth it to
Judas, [the son] of Simon Iscariot. (27) And after the sop, then
entered Satan into him. Jesus therefore saith unto him, That thou
doest, do quickly. (28) Now no man at the table knew for what
intent he spake this unto him.
1 Luke places the words after the institution of the Eucharist.
Hence the verses in Luke parallel to Mk xiv. 18 21, taken con-
secutively, are Lk. xxii. 15 a, 21, 23, 22.
2 Mk xiv. 26, Mt. xxvi. 30 "they went out," Lk. xxii. 39 "And
398 (Mark xiv. 17 21)
THE LAST SUPPER
The Apostolical Constitutions says "And when He had
delivered to us the representative mysteries of His precious
body and blood, Judas not being present with us 1 ." These words
indicate that at a very early period the question of the duration
of the presence of Judas would be discussed. This being the
case, small Lucan deviations from Mark acquire importance.
For example, while Matthew agrees with Mark in the first half
of the sentence "One of you will betray me he that is [now]
eating with me" (placed before the Eucharist), Matthew omits
the second half, "he that is [now} eating with me" ; and Luke's
he came out and went as his custom was. . ., and the disciples also
followed him."
1 Const. Apost. v. 14 represents the Jewish rulers as making plans
against Jesus as early as the second and the third day of the week
(Monday and Tuesday), and as determining "on the fourth day"
(Wednesday) to crucify Him: "And Judas knowing this, ... and
being smitten by the devil himself with the love of money. . .was
nevertheless not cast off by the Lord . . . .Nay, and when we were
once feasting with Him.... He said 'One of you will betray me.'
And when every one of us said 'Is it I ? ' and the Lord was silent,
I, [who was] ? the one of the twelve more beloved by Him than the
rest. . .besought Him to tell us. . ..Yet not even then did bur good
Lord declare his name, but gave two signs of the betrayer : one by
saying 'He that dippeth with me in the dish,' a second, 'to whom
I shall give the sop when I have dipped it.' Nay, although he
himself said ' Master, is it I ? ' the Lord did not say ' Yes ' but ' Thou
hast said ' and . . . ' Woe to that man ....'" Hereupon, Judas departs
and bargains with the priests for thirty pieces of silver
After this follows : " And on the fifth day of the week (Thursday),
when we had eaten the passover with Him, and when Judas had
dipped his hand into the dish, and received the sop and was gone
out by night, the Lord said to us 'The hour is come that ye shall be
scattered and shall leave me alone (Jn xvi. 32)....'" This gives
the impression that the prediction about "dipping in the dish" and
" giving the sop " was made on Wednesday and fulfilled on Thursday.
Or else we must suppose that the action was repeated. Then follows
Peter's protestation, and the prediction of Peter's denial, and then
the above-quoted brief reference to the Eucharist as being "the
representative mysteries" at which Judas was "not present"
followed by a form of Luke's version of the going forth (" Judas not
being present with us He [i.e. Jesus] went forth").
399 (Mark xiv. 17 21)
THE LAST SUPPER
parallel (placed after the Eucharist) is still less definite: "The
hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table 1 ."
Again, Mark, repeating the present tense, says "It is one
of the twelve, he that is [now] dipping with me into the dish" \
but the parallel Matthew omits "one of the twelve" and has
the past tense, "He that dipped his hand with me in the dish,
the same shall betray me 2 . Luke has no parallel to these
sayings.
There follows a questioning among the disciples, in which,
according to Mark-Matthew, they "one by one" (as Mark
says), or "one [at a time] each one" (as Matthew says)
questioned the Lord, saying "Is it I?" but according to Luke
they merely "questioned among themselves" ; and they asked,
not "Is it I? " but "which of them was it that should do this
deed 3 ."
Here, then, are two points as to which unless the rule of
Johannine Intervention is to be broken John must be found
to say something: ist, the "eating" and "dipping"; 2nd,
the "questioning" of the Lord by the disciples. On both,
John does apparently intervene.
As to the first, John represents Jesus as quoting from the
Psalms "he that eateth my bread*"; and he adds that Jesus
Mk xiv. 1 8
\eya) vfuv OTI
Mt. xxvi. 21
Xeyeo vjiiv on
Lk. xxii. 21
T1\T]V IdoV T) X fL P T V
6 fo~6ia>v (marg. T&V /ie.
6l6l>Tf0v) /A6T 5 e/J,Ot).
On Lk. xxii. 21, see Son 3371 (i) m.
Trapaiovros
p.ov etrl TJJS
Mk xiv. 20
Mt. xxvi. 23
Els
Lk. om.
TT)V X L P a V T< ?
OVTOS p.f Trap
Mt. xxvi. 22 Lk. xxii. 23
K.OL \V7TOVp.VOl O~(p6~ KO.I dVTol fjp^dVTO
dpa fjpf-avTO \cyetv avrco owfyreiv irpbs eavTovs
MrjTi cya> TO TIS apa fir) e' avTO)v
6 TOVTO
cs TO f
3 Mk xiv. 19
rjp^avTO \vTrtla-6ai
nai Xeyetv aura) els Kara
fls MTJTI eyd>;
4 Jn Xlii. 1 8 6 Tpwywv p.ov TUV apTov eTrrjpev eV e'/ze TTJV TTTfpvav UVTOV,
quoting Ps. xli. 9 "Mine own familiar friend. . .that did eat [of] my
bread, hath lifted up his heel against me," LXX 6 e'o-tfiW apTovs pov
400 (Mark xiv. 17 21)
THE LAST SUPPER
"when he had dipped the sop, taketh and giveth it to Judas 1 ."
"This was' a very unusual thing," says the Horae Hebraicae,
"to dip a sop and reach it to anyone 2 "; and Wetstein and
Schottgen offer no explanation of the act. Moreover John
represents Jesus as speaking, not about "a sop" but about
"the sop," saying " He it is for whom I shall dip the sop and give
it him." This leads us to ask "Could it be called 'sop' before
it was 'dipped'? And are we to infer from 'the' that it was
some customary food, as we speak of 'the meat/ 'the vegetables,'
' the soup ' ? And what are we to say about the reading of B in
the subsequent words 'When he had dipped a sop'?" 3 It is
tempting to explain 'the sop' as referring to "the Charoseth," or
Passover sauce, which many connect with the "dipping" in
Mark and Matthew 4 . But we cannot legitimately thus explain
"the" in John, for he regards the Passover as still to come.
Explanation must therefore be sought elsewhere.
Turning to the LXX, we find that, although it never uses
the diminutive psdmion, it has psdmos several times, and
almost always to mean a "fragment" or "crumb" of bread,
especially in courteous and self-depreciatory offers of hospitality
as in "Comfort thy heart with a crumb (where A has fragment)
of bread 5 ." It occurs also, along with "dipping," in the promise
cp.(yd\vvev eV eVe TTTepi/io'fuii', Aq. Theod. K(iTp.yci\vv0T) fj.ov
Sym. (rvvfo'diatv /zoi aprov c^ioi/, KciTep.fya\vv6r) pov UKoXovdwv. Euseb.
(Field) said that Aq. has Trrfpvav, for 7TTcpi>i(rp.6v, "being a slave to
the Hebrew." The Targ. renders "magnificavit (^Hjn) super me
COy) calcaneum (3pXJ) " by "has magnified himself above me by craft,"
and Rashi explains 3py as "ambush" both here and in Josh. viii. 13
(R.V. "Hers in wait," Gesen. 784 a "rear"}. Tehill. ad loc. seems to
render 2py as "at the end" and gives a quaint explanation of it.
1 Jn xiii. 26 ftifyas ouv [TO] v/x-oo/ztW Aa/x/3ai>et KCU didaxrtv 'loi'Sa
2 Hor. Heb. also asks (on Jn xiii. 26) "What could the rest of
the disciples think of it?" and suggests that they would suppose
Jesus to mean, in effect, "Take your supper quickly and go."
3 Blass approves of the omission of r6, W. H. bracket it.
4 As to the Charoseth see Hor. Heb. on Mt. xxvi. 26, and also
M c Neile, on Mt. xxvi. 23.
5 Judg. XIX. 5 ^otyiG) (A K\dap,aTi) aprov.
A. F. 401 (Mark xiv. 17 21) 26
THE LAST SUPPER
of Boaz to Ruth "Thou shalt dip thy crumb in the vinegar 1 ."
The Hebrew noun (path from pdthath, "crumble")- occurs for
the first time in Abraham's offer of hospitality to the three
Persons "I will fetch a crumb of bread," but there LXX has
simply "bread" (as also have the Syriac and most of the Latin
versions of John here) 2 . Also, LXX uses the verb "feed-on-
crumbs " (psom-izeiri) where the Hebrew has the vague and
general " cause-to-eat " to describe the Lord as feeding the
children of Israel in the wilderness, or as feeding the weak and
erring (sometimes medicinally) 3 . In this use of the verb, the
LXX appears to be influenced by literary Greek, which uses
forms of psomos for the most part to mean food for invalids, or
for children 4 .
If that is the meaning here, and if there is also an allusion
to the use of the word in LXX, Judas is to be regarded (i) as
sick unto death, and Jesus as making a final effort to keep him
alive; (2) as wandering away from the home-circle, and Jesus
as making a final effort to recall him. Boaz invites Ruth to
dip her "crumb" in the wine of his household 5 , but Jesus Him-
self dips the "crumb" of hospitality and offers it to Judas as
if to say, "Come back, come back even now, to the brotherhood
from which thou art going forth 6 ."
1 Ruth ii. 14, comp. i S. xxviii. 22.
2 Gen. xviii. 5.
3 ^co/ii^Q) occurs, as causative of ^DN* "eat," in Numb. xi. 4, 18 of
Israel crying to the Lord to be fed with " morsels of flesh," and in
Deut. viii. 3, 16 of the Lord as feeding Israel with "manna." Comp.
Ps. ixxx. 5 "with the bread of tears," Ixxxi. 16 "with the finest of
the wheat," Is. Iviii. 14 etc.
4 Comp. Epictet. i. 26. 16, about invalids, who " cannot swallow
down their spoon-food (TOV v/x-oo/^oi' KararrLVfiv)." Lightfoot says, on
Clem. Rom. 55 e\|/-d>/Lu<rai>, that the word is "especially appropriate
of feeding the poor and helpless, the sick man or the child." ^co/zds
and TJratpiov sometimes mean the bread used as a spoon to take up
soup or porridge. See Diog. Laert. Vit, Diog. vi. 37 and Xen.
Mem. iii. 14. 5.
6 See the Midrash ad loc. on Ruth ii. 14, and also Lev. r., Wii.
p. 239, and Pesikt., Wii. p. 170.
6 A word of comment is due to the emphatic "I" in Jn xiii. 26
<u eycb pd\lf<0 TO ^a>p.iov Nonnus does not try to express it. It
402 (Mark xiv. 17 21)
THE LAST SUPPER
As to the second point, the questioning of the Lord by the
disciples, John says that "one of the disciples" was lying in
Christ's bosom, and that Peter "made signs" to him; upon
which that disciple said to Jesus "Lord, who is it 1 ?" The
suggests perhaps (i) "I, the host, doing for the guest what the guest
usually does for himself," (2) "I, the betrayed, making a last effort
to convert the betrayer." The Physician seems represented by John
as failing. But perhaps we should say "Not 'failing/ but learning
the Father's will by filial action." Comp. Jn xii. 40 "He hath
hardened their heart. . .lest. . . I should heal them," and ib. v. 19 (R.V.)
"The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father
doing," on which (andonMk vi. 5 " was not able ") see Law pp. 137 42.
L Jn xiii. 25 avaircfrfav fKflvos OVT&S Vi TO o~Trj6os TOV 'irjo-ov \eyfi avru>
(i) The difficult dvtnrfo-av "falling back" or "throwing himself
back " (like a rower, Steph. Thes. 499) has been altered by D into
eTrnren-wv (d " incumbens "). It is rendered "falling" in Syr., but
"recumbens" in Lat. versions. Nonnus has oci TraX/xoi <rri]0f<rtv . . .
7rf<ra>i> which expresses the impulsiveness of the action, but not the
backward direction. Const. Apost. has v. 14 "And, as the Lord was
silent, I having stood up, [ ? the] one of the Twelve beloved bv Him
more than the others, having enclosed Him in my embrace (dvao-Tas
*yci>, fis TGDV 8a>d(Ka, (piXovpevos UTT' avrov TrXelov TCOV n'XAcoi', e V crre/j i' ura -
p.vn<; avrbv] began to beseech Him to say...." This appears to
be an attempt to express the motion implied by the ava- in avairearuv
as if it were "up" not "back." Origen, who even in his loftiest
mysticism seldom despises the laws of the Greek language and
literature, writes (ad loc. Lomm. ii. 450) as if the "lying [up] in
the bosom" implied a lower stage of revelation than that implied
by "falling [up] on the breast" "John, who before was lying [up]
(avaKfijjkcvos) in the bosom (eV r<y KU\TTU>) of Jesus, has [now] gone
further up (f-rrava^f^Kf] and fell [up] (ai/eVeo-*) on the breast (f'nl TO
O-TTJ&OS). And perhaps if he [i.e. John] had not fallen [up] on the
breast, but had remained in the state of lying [up] in the bosom,
He would not have delivered (TraptdwKev) that utterance (Xoyoi^)
which John, or [rather] Peter, was longing to learn (pavOdveLv)."
In Const. Apost. v. 14 Clark translates eWrepi/to-a/iei'os- CIVTOV "from
lying in His bosom." But see Clem. Alex. 123, commenting on
" Eat ye my flesh " and saying " It commands us . . .partaking of a new
and different diet, that of Christ, receiving Him if possible in ourselves,
to store Him up and to enclose the Saviour in our breasts (Kaivijs 8e
aXXrjs TTJS XpiaTov 8iaiTr)s fJ.Ta\a/j.^dvovTas, enelvov, ei Sui/aroi/, dvaXap.-
v eaurols d-rroTiBfcrOai, <a\ TOV croorr/pa evo~Tfpvio-ao-dai)..."
403 (Mark xiv. 17 21) 26 2
THE LAST SUPPER
Johannine words that come between these|two statements are
uncertain. The Revised Version inserts a saying of Peter thus
"and saith unto him, Tell [us] who it is of whom he speaketh."
This is probably wrong. It should be "and saith unto him, Say [to
the Lord] ' Who is it ? ' [that is to say,] of whom he speaketh 1 ."
Here Clem. Alex, has in view the sacramental food. And that
leads us to reflect that dvaniirTO) elsewhere in all the Gospels means
" lie down to eat " and that it is so used by Luke and John in describing
the Last Supper (Lk. xxii. 14, Jn xiii. 12). It is therefore possible
that John is using the word in a double sense, meaning primarily
and literally "falling back," but, secondarily and allusively, reclining
so as to partake of the Saviour's body and blood.
(2) Origen's mystical suggestion about a higher stage of revela-
tion though it cannot be accepted as indicating that dva-n-co-tov
means "ascending" is favoured by the Johannine mention of
"breast," a-T^Bos, immediately after "bosom," KoXnos. The former
is rendered by Delitzsch lh, "heart." Srr/tfos is very rare in LXX
but occurs thrice (Exod. xxviii. 29 30) about Aaron as bearing " the
names," or "the judgment," of the children of Israel "upon his
heart (l^>)" when he "goeth in before the Lord." It is here typical
of the intercessory love of the High Priest, the Son of God, upon
which the believer casts himself. 2rr)0os, in literary Greek, has no
such sense. It would require <ap8ia. But <ap8ia would be impossible
here in describing an external action. Sr^os- (in the light of the
LXX but not without it) describes an external act but also suggests
a spiritual one.
1 On Jn xiii. 24 etVe TLS eWti/ rrepl ov \e-yei see Joh. Gr. 2249 and
add Origen ad IOC. " veveiv Se . . . ne'rpov epy&v r)v, <al aKO\ov6d)s ro>
roiovro) Vivian \eyeiv rp (rvp.(poiTr)Tfj, &$ 7rappr)(riav rrXeiova %OVTI irpbs
TOV 6i8a<TKaAov, EITTC ' Tt'y eVriv Trepi ov Ae'yt i ; ' ' That is to Say,
since "the fellow-disciple" had "more freedom of speech [than the
rest had] with the Master," Peter said, in effect, "Say to him, in our
behalf, since you can venture to say what we cannot, 'Who is it?'"
The words "about whom he speaketh'-' may be Peter's, but they are
more probably an evangelistic addition. If the writer had meant
"Tell us about whom he speaketh" he would probably have inserted
"us," rjp.lv, in accordance with general usage. Without "us," V
naturally means "say" imperat. and introduces the exact words
that are said. At the same time it must be admitted that fitrf
might mean " said," and cine rtv eanv . . . might have been part of
a tradition that " a man said to his neighbour Who is it about whom
he speaks?" (comp. Lk. xxii. 23). There are few Johannine passages
404 (Mark xiv. 17 21)
THE LAST SUPPER
But the uncertainty of the 'text makes further inferences
doubtful.
The study of these variations is laborious. But a glance at
them may be of value as shewing how naturally they may have
arisen and how consistently with honesty in the narrators.
Mark, for example, finding the betrayer described in the LXX
of the Psalms as "he that is eating my bread," inserts the same
present participle of the same verb here, although (as usual)
he does not quote the prophecy 1 . Matthew omits this. Luke
paraphrases it. "My bread" might imply that Jesus spoke in
the character of a host or patron, but Mark adds another
phrase, "dipping in the [same] bowl or dish," more suggestive
of guest-fellowship such as is indicated by the Psalmist's "mine
own familiar friend." A similar phrase mentioning "bowl" is
found in Ben Sira 2 . We have seen how Matthew retains but
of which the text is more doubtful than this. Blass limits the verse
to i/ei'ei roirra> Si'pcov m'rpoff, but the variations indicate that the original
contained more than this, and that it is to be found in the most
difficult and irregular of the ancient readings.
1 Ps. xli. 9, see above, p. 400, n. 4. On Mark's allusions to pro-
phecy see Son 3518 d, Beginning p. 207 etc.
2 Sir. xxxiv. (xxxi.) 14/^7 <rvv6\ifiov aura* eV rpv#Xt<u. Steph. Thes.
vii. 2530 gives no instance of this phrase as meaning close companion-
ship. The context in Ben Sira speaks of greediness and self-assertion,
and Origen quotes Ben Sira's rule as being violated by Judas who
wished to thrust himself into close companionship and equality with
his Master, while the others refrained: (Comm. Joann. xxxii. 14,
Lomm. ii. 454) AtoTrep fK.fi.vwv pei; ovdeis evffSairrt TI]V ^etpa f ^ s
per' avTov- OVTOS 8e, OVK CL^LWV per' avr&v e'p/3a7rreti>, per' avrov e
TTJV tcroTTjra 6f\a)v fX fiV "^P^s avrov, 8eov avr<u Trapa^^pelv TTJS
Ta^a ovv TOV avrov e^erai <al TO, " TrX^i/ t'Sou, 17 ^etp rou TrapadtdovTos fie per'
ep-oO eVi rr)S rpaTre'^y." Kni ^apttvn^Oftevos 5e Trore els TrporpoTrr/v veois rrfp\
TT)? fv f(TTid<Tfi TLfJLijs r>v TT pfo-fivTfpwv, arvyxpwi) T(O pr)Ta), ti/a p.rj arvvffX.i&GWl
TTJV x f ~ l P a T ** )V ""P^o'/^uTepa)!/. Tcypanrai yap KOI TOVTO' "p^ arw6\iftov per'
avrov ev TGI rpv/3Xtep."
Jerome (on Mt. xxvi. 23) takes the same view : " Judas, caeteris
contristatis, et retrahentibus manum, et interdicentibus cibos ori
suo, temeritate et impudentia, qua proditurus erat, etiam manum
cum Magistro mittit in paropsidem, ut audacia bonam conscientiam
mentiretur."
If that was the meaning commonly attached to Ben Sira's phrase
405 (Mark xiv. 17 21)
THE LAST SUPPER
modifies this, and how Luke includes it in his paraphrase ("the
hand... with me at the table").
John by making the present participle not part of a
statement of his own but part of a prophecy of the Psalmist
("he that is eating 1 my bread. . . ") whose words have to be
considered as a whole throws a doubt over the exact moment
of the action. For it might mean the present as contemplated
by the Psalmist, or the present as contemplated by Jesus,
John's version seems to mediate between the present in Mark
("dippeth") and the past in Matthew ("dipped") by saying, in
effect, "It was, in a sense, present, meaning 'my habitual
table-companion up to this time ' ; it was, in a sense, past,
meaning ' my faithful table-companion in old days ' ; but it
was also, in a sense, future, as I shall shew you in what I shall
now describe namely, the last act of table-companionship."
As regards the questioning, ambiguity might arise from two
causes, partly from the Hebrew and Aramaic difficulty of
expressing "they said, each 2 ," or "they said, one to another 3 " ;
partly from the fact that, in Greek (and still more in Latin)
"this man" sometimes means "I 4 "; and partly from the
Hebrew use of "speak to anyone" in the sense of "speak
concerning anyone 5 ." Thus "They said this man to this
namely that it implied, not close companionship, but an obtrusive
and greedy self-assertion we can understand (i) why Luke omitted
it, (2) why John intervened as if to say : " The circumstances of the
'dipping' were peculiar. In this case, there was no 'pushing' on
the part of Judas. The Lord Himself dipped the bread and offered
it to Judas."
1 See Law pp. 345 7 on Jn's substitution of rpd>yy for fo-dieiv.
2 See Oxf. Cone, on the use of eKao-ros = (a) "man (DIN),"
(b) "one," (c) "one man (nnN* KN) " etc. Sometimes BN "man""
is rendered els exao-ro?, or dvrjp CKCUTTOS.
3 See Gesen. 260 b on the use of nt "this [man]" to mean "an-
other," and comp. i K. xxii. 20, 2 Chr. xviii. 19, Job i. 16, 17, 18,
xxi.-25, Ps. Ixxv. 7 etc.
4 Liddell and Scott under ovros quotes Od. ii. 40 OVTOS dvrfp, but
o8e is much more freq. thus used. In vernacular Latin (such as might
influence Mark) "hie homo "freq. = "I" (Lewis and Short "hie" I. G.).
5 On Heb. "speak to" = "speak about," see Paradosis 11625,
Son 3371 e, Proclam. p. 458.
406 (Mark xiv. 17 21)
THE LAST SUPPER
man Is it this man?" might mean "Is it so-and-so?" but
might be wrongly interpreted as meaning "Is it I 1 ?" Again,
"they said to each other" in Hebrew, "they said, a man to
his companion" might be taken, but erroneously, to mean
"one man said to his [special] friend," e.g. Peter to John 2 .
Also what appears to be probably the correct rendering of
the Johannine text, namely "Soy [to the Lord] Who is it?"
might easily be confused with " They said [to the Lord] Who
is it 3 ?"
The result is unsatisfactory, since it leaves us uncertain as
to the exact historical details. But it is of use in revealing to
us the antiquity of this uncertainty, and the pains taken by
the Evangelists to work out their several interpretations of an
obscure tradition. It may be urged that Matthew goes beyond
the limits of honest interpretation when he makes Judas say
separately "Is it I?" and Jesus reply "Thou hast said." But
this may be regarded as Matthew's inference from his own
previous statement that they all, "each one singly," said "Is
it IP" Matthew adds, in effect, "If this was so, Judas also
must have asked the question. And the Lord must have
assented perhaps in a whisper or by a gesture. This ought
to have been stated by Mark. I will add it in my narrative."
Such an addition though it would not represent fact would
not be dishonest.
4. Christ's last words about, or to, Judas*
According to Matthew, as just quoted, Christ's final words
at the conclusion of the Supper are addressed to Judas, and
1 Mk xiv. 19, Mt. xxvi. 22, 25.
2 Jn xiii. 24.
3 See Joh. Gr. on Jn i. 15 cnrw v.r. CITTOV. No alteration would
be needed to make fine ambiguous in an unaccented MS.
4 Mk xiv. 21 Mt. xxvi. 24 5 Lk. xxii. 22
ort 6 fiev vlos TOV 6 fj,ev vlos TOV dv- on 6 vlos p-fv TOV
dvdpu>7Tov VTrdyei Ka6a>s dpwTrov VTrdyet Kadws dvOptmrov KOTO. TO a>pi-
yeypaTTTcu Trep\ (IVTOV, yeyparrrat Trepl oirov, ap.evov TropfveraL, -rr\r)v
ovai of TOD avdpd)TT(d ovai oe TO) dv0pa)7T(0 ovdi TO) dv^punrdi
Kciv(a di ov 6 vlos TOV Kfivu> dt' ov 6 vlos TOV Si' ov Trapadio'oTai.
407 (Mark xiv. 1721
THE LAST SUPPER
they are of the nature of an assent "thou art, as thou sayest,
a betrayer. " According to John also, they are addressed to
Judas, and they are, though in a very different way, of the
nature of an assent, "That which thou art doing, [since thou
wilt needs do it], do more quickly 1 ." But according to Mark
and Luke, Christ's final words are uttered not to Judas, but
about him, and they are an utterance of "woe" to the betrayer,
to which Mark and Matthew add that "it were better if he had
not been born."
The word "woe," very frequent in Matthew and Luke, and
twice used by Mark, is never used at all by John 2 . Conse-
Mk xiv. 21 contd. Mt. xxvi. 24 5 contd.
dv6pd>7rov Trapadidoraf avdpwTrov Trapadidorai'
KO\OV avTW el OVK yfv~ KaXbv rjv aura) i OVK
vr\6r]o avdptoTros fKelvos. eyevvrjOr] 6 av0p<a7ros
'lov&as 6 7rapai&ovs
dvrbv eiTTCv MrjTi eyco
et/xi, paftftci; Xe'yfi avra>
2v LTTCIS.
Luke apparently takes "even as it is written concerning him" to
refer to such scriptural prophecies as- that of Isaiah (liii. 6) "The
Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all"; so that Jesus was
(Acts ii. 23, comp. xvii. 31) "delivered up by the determinate (<wpi-
0-p.fvrj) counsel and foreknowledge of God." God was not thwarted
by the treachery of Judas. It mysteriously fulfilled a divine decree.
Hence Luke substitutes "determined" for "written."
But "even as it is written" may have been used by Mark as
referring to the peculiar nature of the "delivering up," namely, by
the hand of one called by the Psalmist a "familiar friend." John
perhaps assumes that Mark did mean this. At all events John
implies "written" in the term "scripture (ypa^}" thus (xiii. 18)
"that the scripture may be fulfilled." John avoids emphasizing
the "determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God" with regard
to the treachery of Judas.
1 Jn xiii. 27 6 Troim- Troirjarov ra^aoi/, on which see Joh. Gr. 1918,
2554 be.
2 Ovai, Mk (2), Mt. (13), Lk. (14), Jn (o). Origen supplies us
with a reason that might induce John to avoid the word, Cels. ii. 76
"He [i.e. Celsus in the character of a ' Jew '] censures Jesus in such
words as the following ' He makes use of threats, and reviles men on
light grounds, when he says, Woe unto you, and 7 warn you before-
hand.' " To this Origen replies that no "Jew" could raise such an
408 (Mark xiv. 17 21)
THE LAST SUPPER
quently we must expect John to differ verbally here from all the
Synoptists. Yet of course there must be some Johannine equi-
valent of the Synoptic word ; for every one would admit that
in the Fourth Gospel, as in the Three Gospels, Jesus is con-
stantly warning His hearers that retribution (in other words,
"woe") awaits them if they persist in evil ways 1 .
Take the following passage from Epictetus. It contains
a warning addressed to a worldly-minded sensualist, who sees
"no good" in reverence, faithfulness, and temperance: "If
thou art seeking some other prizes better than these, go-on-
doing what thou art doing, Not even a god can any longer save
thee 2 ." This somewhat resembles the Johannine expression.
And both of them really imply "Woe!" In the context,
Epictetus says that our "destruction" (as well as our "help")
lies within us 3 ; and the Fourth Gospel elsewhere, using the
same word, calls Judas "the son of destruction 4 ."
Yet we are not to suppose that John here deviates entirely
from Hebrew thought and merges himself in the thought of the
Stoical lecture-rooms. There is in Proverbs a warning about
the man "laden with blood" (like Judas), the destroyer of
others who destroys himself: "A man that is laden with the
objection, since O.T. abounds in these expressions, but he also adds
that the Prophets and Jesus (ib. ad fin.) use them to turn men from
evil "as a healing drug."
1 The word otm in Steph. Thes. Is not alleged to occur before the
first century except in LXX. The earliest non-christian writer
at present alleged is Epictetus, who uses it in two passages, (i) He
(iii. 22. 32) holds up Agamemnon to ridicule for saying "woe unto
me, for the Greeks are in peril"; (2) he says (iii. 19. i) "[Here is]
the first difference between a non-philosopher (iSicorou) and a
philosopher: The former says 'Woe unto me because of (8ia) [the
death of] my boy, or my brother, or my father ! ' But the latter, if
ever constrained to say ' Woe unto me ! ' checks [himself] and says
'because of (5ia) myself.'"
2 Epict. iv. 9. l8, fi Tiva aXXa TOVTU>V p.fi^ova (^ret?, Troi'ei a Trotel?
OL'fie dfUIV (T TIS CTL (TOMTai fiui/OTai. Jn Xiii. 27 7TOLTJ(TOV IS "do," not
"go-on-doing (iroifi)." But still the resemblance is close.
3 Epict. iv. 9. l6 e(T(odfv yap fern Kill dira>\(ia /cat $or]Q(ia.
4 Jn xvii. 12 o vibs TTJS arrcoXfias 1 , R.V. "the son of perdition."
409 (Mark xiv. 17 21)
THE LAST SUPPER
blood 'of any person shall flee unto the pit : let no man stay
him 1 ." The Talmud applies this to those who lead others into
error and cause their souls to perish 2 ; and Jesus, in His
doctrine of stumbling-blocks, has previously pronounced a
condemnation on those who cause others to stumble 3 . But
there Mark omitted the words "Woe to him, through whom it
cometh 4 ." Here, in view of "the stumbling-block of the cross,"
of which Judas was the causer, Mark sets down this utterance
of Christ, denned by the approaching event, " Woe to him through
whom the Son of man is [to be] delivered up."
Besides the "woe" pronounced on the betrayer, Mark and
Matthew add " It were better for him if he had never been born."
Luke omits this. The expression was frequent in Talmud and
Midrash 5 . But the TaJmud testifies to a contest on this use of
"better" between Hillel and Shammai 6 . And Jerome (on
Matthew) thinks it necessary to say that the words do not
necessitate antenatal existence. If Luke omits the words
because they seemed to encourage the doctrine of an antenatal
predestination to evil, we may say that John elsewhere intervenes
on this point: "Neither did this man sin nor his parents, but
that the works of God should be made manifest in him 7 ."
Yet undoubtedly predestination to evil appears at first sight
to be implied later on in the Fourth Gospel where Jesus says
concerning the disciples "Not one of them was destroyed
except the son of destruction [and this] in order that the
scripture might be fulfilled 8 ." It does, not matter greatly
whether "except" is here used in its ordinary sense so that the
meaning is "Not one of the Twelve except Judas/' or "not
one of the Eleven now present with me, but only Judas." In
either case, such a phrase as "the son of destruction" might
1 Prov. xxviii. 17, Ge'sen. 92 b.
2 Joma 87 a.
3 Mk ix. 42, where the parall. Mt. xviii. 6 foil, inserts oval twice,
and the parall. Lk. xvii. i 2 inserts ovai once.
4 Mt. xviii. 7 (parall. Lk. xvii. i) is ins. between Mt. xviii. 6 and 8,
parall. to Mk ix. 42 3.
6 See Wetstein on Mt. xxvi. 24.
6 See Erubin 13 b. 1 Jn ix. 3. 8 Jn xvii. 12.
410 (Mar^c xiv. 17 21)
THE LAST SUPPER
seem to mean that a personified Destruction or Destroyer both
generated, and claimed as its offspring, the soul of Judas.
But this is not the meaning in Hebrew of such phrases
as "son of death," or "son of Gehenna," or "people of
destruction." "Son of death" in the Bible far from
meaning that a man was from the beginning linked to
death as a child to its parent means that a man, by his own
crime, has (in the judgment of the speaker) brought himself
under a just condemnation to die 1 . The same thing applies to
the phrase "the people of [my] destruction" in Isaiah and Ben
Sira 2 . In the single instance where "son of Gehenna" occurs
in the Bible it is used in the phrase "ye make him a son of
Gehenna," i.e. ye bring him under the condemnation to the
penalty of Gehenna, by associating him with your sins 3 . This
certainly does not imply predestination. Also, in the only
instance of "sons of Gehenna" alleged from the Talmud, the
term is applied to the inhabitants of a city where the citizens,
mostly proselytes, are noted for the drunkenness of the men
and the extravagance of the women 4 .
1 i S. xx. 31, xxvi. 1 6, 2 S. xii. 5 ; also 2 S. xix. 28 "men of death"
in sim. sense.
2 Is. xxxiv. 5 ("Din), LXX TOV AacW T^ dnuXdas (om. fjiov),
Aq. etc. TOV dvaQfpaTos pov, Sir. xvi. 9 "he spared not the people of
(1J) destruction (Din)," Mvos diru>\fias, comp. ib. xlvi. 6c Din u ^D,
LXX (dvrj Travo7r\iav ( ? corr. for f6vr) 7ravr(i7ra>\eias) where the
editors have "every banned nation/' and add "For the idea, see
Deut. vii. 2, Josh. x. 40 etc.. . . ; for the expression, cf. Is. xxxiv. 5.''
The "nations" are "banned" because they have corrupted their
ways before the Lord.
3 Mt. xxiii. 15 "a son of hell (-yt(wr)s)," where R.V. marg. refers
only to Mt. v. 29, but it might well have added, or substituted, v. 22
"liable to [the punishment of] the Gehenna of fire," so as to shew the
legal meaning of "son of." For the original Heb. of yctwa, namely,
"valley-of-the-son-of-Hinnom," shortened to " valley-of-Hinnom,"
see Gesen. 244 5.
4 See Levy i. 238 40. He gives no instance of "sons of
Abaddon," or "sons of Sheol," but refers to R. Hasch. 17 a for "sons
of Gehinnom" as destined to eternal punishment. The context says
the name was given to " the sons of Machouza " a city on the Tigris,
on which, and on their faults, see Neubauer (La Gtogr. du Talmud
411 (Mark xiv. 17 21)
THE LAST SUPPER
The Fourth Gospel, in which the doctrine of spiritual genera-
tion and regeneration is far more prominent than in the Three,
tells us, in one startling passage, that Jesus said to certain Jews
"that had believed him" that if they abode in His word they
would be truly His disciples, and the truth would make them free ;
and yet, when they protest that they are free and are Abraham's
seed, He turns upon them with the words "Ye seek to kill me"
and "Ye are of your father, the devil 1 ." It is to be supposed
that "believed him" is here used of a very rudimentary belief.
But even then the passage is noteworthy as shewing that such
an appellation as "sons of the devil" and "son of destruction"
might not imply, in this Gospel, an unalterable doom.
Predestination, or choosing in the sense of absolute election,
seems to be expressly disclaimed by John in the passage where
Jesus, after finding that some of His disciples are in danger of
"being made to stumble," says to the chosen Twelve: "Was
it not I that chose you the Twelve, and one of you is a devil 2 ? "
Does not this imply of course illogically and inconsistently,
but still as the deliberate view of the Fourth Evangelist that
the Son of God Himself (as Epictetus says) was "not able to
save" Judas from the "destruction" that he brought upon
himself? This is consistent with John's view, expressed else-
where, that the Son "is not able to do" anything that He does
not " see the Father do 3 ." The Father Himself appears to be
regarded as not able to save a soul that deliberately "destroys"
itself ; but the self-destruction of the sinner, in the case of Judas,
is regarded as being overruled to a creative or regenerative end
"in order that the scripture might be fulfilled" by the Sacrifice
of Jesus 4 . This is not a doctrine of predestination to evil, but
rather a doctrine of the subordination of evil to good.
PP- 35 6 7) "La plupart des families juives de Mahouza descendait
de proselytes (Kiddouschin 73 a}."
1 Jn viii. 30 44, on which see Joh. Gr. 2506. ;
2 Jn vi. 70. . 3 Jn v. 19.
4 Luke's use of wpivpevov, instead of KnOws yeypaTrrai (see above,
p. 407, n. 4), has the advantage of meeting by anticipation the
objection that the Crucifixion implied a failure. It says, in effect,
"The Crucifixion was decreed." The disadvantage is that in LXX
412 (Mark xiv. 17 21)
THE LAST SUPPER
5. The Institution of the Eucharist 1
No Institution of the Eucharist is recorded in the Fourth
Gospel. Our study of the subject must therefore be confined
to a few points in the Synoptic narratives that appear to be
the word, when meaning " decreed," is used (Dan. vi. 12) of Nebuchad-
nezzar's decree. Thus it is associated with the thought of a despotic and
non-moral, or immoral, fiat. The Pauline use of the word in Rom. i. 4
(and comp. Acts x. 42, xvii. 26, 31) "set apart" is altogether different.
1 Mk xiv. 22 5
(R.V.)
(22) And as they
were eating, he took
bread (or, a loaf), and
when he had blessed,
he brake it, and gave
to them, and said,
Take ye: this is my
body.
(23) And he took
a cup, and when he
had given thanks, he
gave to them : and
they all drank of it.
(24) And he said
unto them, This is
my blood of the
[some anc. auth. in-
sert new] covenant
(or, testament) , which
is shed for many.
(25) Verily I say
unto you, I will no
more drink of the
fruit of the vine, until
that day when I
drink it new in the
kingdom of God.
Mt. xxvi. 26 9
(R.V.)
(26) And as they
were eating, Jesus
took bread (or, a
loaf), and blessed,
and brake it ; and he
gave to the disciples,
and said, Take, eat;
this is my body.
(27) And he took
a (some anc. auth.
the) cup, and gave
thanks, and gave to
them, saying, Drink
ye all of it;
(28) For this is
my blood of the
[many anc. auth. in-
sert new] covenant
(or, testament), which
is shed for many unto
remission of sins.
(29) But I say un-
to you, I will not
drink henceforth of
this fruit of the vine,
until that day when
I drink it new with
you in my Father's
kingdom.
Lk. xxii. 15 20
(R.V.)
(15) And he said
unto them, With de-
sire I have desired to
eat this passover with
you before I suffer:
(16) For I say un-
to you, I will not eat
it, until it be fulfilled
in the kingdom of
God.
(17) And he re-
ceived a cup, and
when he had given
thanks, he said, Take
this, and divide it
among yourselves :
(18) For I say un-
to you, I will not
drink from hence-
forth of the fruit of
the vine, until the
kingdom of God shall
come.
(19) And he took
bread (or , a loaf) , and
when he had given
thanks, he brake it,
and gave to them,
saying, This is my
body which is given
for you : this do in
remembrance of me.
(20) And the cup
in like manner after
supper, saying, This
cup is the new cove-
nant (or, testament)
in my blood, [even]
that which is poured
out for you. [Some
413 (Mark xiv. 22 5)
THE LAST SUPPER
illustrated by Johannine correspondences. . These may be
looked for either in that earlier part of the Fourth Gospel which
teaches Christ's disciples that they must feed on His flesh and
blood, or else in incidental utterances of Jesus on the night of
the Last Supper.
But the subject is complicated by the following facts. The
MSS of Luke so vary that they give us, in effect, two accounts
of the Institution, a short and a long one. The long one
introduces matter closely resembling the account of the
Institution given by Paul to the Corinthians. In all the
accounts, the texts in the MSS vary considerably; and early
writers, with the exception of Justin Martyr, do not quote
freely those passages that present most difficulty. It will be
convenient to dwell mainly on three questions: (i) What did
Jesus do? (2) What did He bid His disciples do? (3) What,
in addition, did He say?
(i) As to the bread, what Jesus did, is stated below,
whence it is seen that He "took," "brake," "blest" (or,
according to Luke, "eucharistized," i.e. "gave thanks") and
"gave" to the disciples 1 . What He bade the disciples do was,
Lk. xxii. 15 20
(R.V.) contd.
anc. auth. omit verses
19 b and 20, which is
given for you . . .
which is poured out
for you.]
Comp. i Cor. xi. 23 5 (R.V.) For I received of the Lord that which
also I delivered unto you, how that the Lord Jesus in the night in
which he was betrayed took bread; (24) and when he had given
thanks, he brake it, and said, This is my body, which is (many anc.
auth. is broken) for you : this do in remembrance of me. (25) In
like manner also the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new
covenant (or, testament) in my blood: this do, as oft as ye drink
[it], in remembrance of me.
1 Mk xiv. 22 Mt. xxvi. 26 Lk. xxii. 19 a [19 6]
KCU fff6i6vra>v avTwv f<r0l6vT(DV de avrajv <al Aa/3o>i> aprov
Xa/^a)i/ aprov evXoyfjaras Xaftwv 6 'irjcrovs apTov cvfopurrr\<ras ^K.\aarfv
K\atTfv Kai edaxfv /cat rvXoyqcraf fK\aa-ev KOI eftaxev avTols Xe'ycoi/
avTols /cat fLTTfv Aa/3ere, KCU 8ovs rots p.adr)T(ils TOVTO CTTIV TO (reo/zu /JLOV
TOVTO f(TTlV TO (7CD/LIU fJ-OV. flTTfV A/3eTf (frdyfTf, (jYo VTTpVp,(ii)v8l8ufJI.(l>OV'
TOVTO (TTIV TO (T(t)fJ.a. [JLOV. TOVTO TTOtftre flS TT)1'
414 (Mark xiv. 22 5)
THE LAST SUPPER
according to Mark, "take"; according to Matthew, "take,
eat"; but according to Luke's shorter version, nothing. That
is to say, this version contains no expressed bidding, only one
that is implied so far as "he gave," folio wed by "saying, This
is so-and-so," may be said to imply an imperative " Take so-
and-so."
All accounts agree that Jesus added after the bidding
(expressed or implied) "This is my body." It will be seen,
then, that concerning the "body" of the Lord, the only precept
in Mark is "take " which might well have been expressed by a
gesture or " for you " accompanying the gift of the bread (" [see],
for you, this is my body 1 "). Luke, who in his short version has
nothing to correspond to "take," adds in his longer version a
different "for you" coming immediately after "my body"
thus: "that is being given for (lit. in behalf of) you," and
adds, as an imperative, not "take," but "Do this with a view
to my memorial 2 ." This closely resembles the Pauline form of
Institution 3 . Neither Luke nor Paul contains the imperative
"take 4 ."
1 See Paradosis 1321 quoting Gen. xlvii. 23 "Behold, [here is]
seed for you," LXX "Take (\dp(T() for yourselves seed," and
1321 a quoting Gen. xx. 16 (Heb.) "Behold, [let] this [be] to thee
a veil," Targ. Jer. II "behold, that silver is given to thee for
a present."
2 Lk. xxii. 19 b TO vnep vp.u>v didopevov roOro Troierre els TTJV
I Cor. XI. 24 TOITO JJ.UV ecrrti' TD (rw/za TO inrff) vp.wv ' roCro Troiftre is
4 On avupvr)<ris, see Paradosis 1398 1419. The only instance of
the word in N.T. (besides Lk. xxii. 19, i Cor. xi. 24 5) is Heb. x. 3
eV ui'ruis ava^i'iffTis ufjuipriwv KUT' evuwrov, as to which COmp. Numb.
v. 15 "a meal-offering of memorial, bringing to remembrance
iniquity." Here the Midrash explains the first clause thus, "This
is for good, if the woman is pure," and the second, "This is for evil,
if the woman is impure." The thought appears to be that the
woman's conduct is, as it were, brought up before God to be re-
membered by Him for good or for evil. TJ)I> e^v is (Joh. Gr. 1989,
2559) more emphatic than pov and may mean "that which is mine"
as distinct from that which belongs to other occasions.
415 (JVJark xiv. 22 5)
THE LAST SUPPER
Yet we may see in this imperative "take" a spiritual
meaning if we may interpret it as including "receive," and as
implying " welcome." This is a frequent meaning of the Greek
word when applied to "receiving" the Word, or to "receiving"
the Holy Spirit, or a messenger or gift of God, or "receiving"
Jesus, not indeed in Mark 1 , but frequently in John, as for
example "But as many as received him [the Word] to them gave
he authority to become children of God 2 /' It has been shewn, in
a previous volume of this series, that Jesus, bequeathing Himself
to His disciples in the form of bread, may have said, "Receive"
meaning grammatically both "receive [this] " and "receive [me],"
and meaning spiritually "receive me into your hearts, my true
self, to be with you after I have departed 3 ."
1 Aayu/3ai>a> does not occur in this sense in Mk except Mk iv. 16
(and sim. Mt. xiii. 20) "they receive it (avrov) with joy" where "it"
is "the word" regarded as the seed parall. Lk. viii. 13 de^oi/rat.
2 Jn i. 12 ooroi 5e e'Xa/3oi> avrov . . . (comp. i. l6 CK rov TrXrjpo) fiaros
avrov . . .e\dlBop.(v ), v. 43 ov XajijSavere fie . . .fKflvov Xr^p-^ecrde, vi. 21
ijdfXov ovv Xa/3flv avrov els TO TrXolov . . ., Vli. 39 ^ \i-&- the Spirit]
fj.fXXov Xap.jBdvLv, xiii. 2O 6 \a/j,(3dva)v av riva irefiijra) e/ze Xap,(3dvei,
xiv. 17 6 [the Spirit] 6 Koarpos ov dvvarai Xa/3eti/, xix. 27 eXafifv avrrjv
(the mother of Jesus), xx. 22 Xa/3ere nvtvua ayiov. This last is the
only Johannine instance of the imperative "receive" in Christ's
sayings.
The Johannine Xa/*/3ai/a> corresponds to the Synoptic &xo/i<u.
This is used by John only in iv. 45 ede^avro avrov ol FaXiXaToi, which
implies a superficial though friendly reception.
One result of John's preference of this ambiguous word Xa/i/Sapa
(instead of the Synoptic dc'xopai "I welcome") is that if we translate
it mechanically we find ourselves using phrases that would sound
profane or shocking from the Eucharistic point of view. Thus
Pilate would say to the Jews (xix. 6) "Receive him [i.e. Jesus] and
crucify him," and Joseph and Nicodemus would be found to have
(xix. 40) "received the body of Jesus." Such language forces us to
think about the context and about the difference between " receiving "
Jesus materially and "receiving" Him spiritually.
3 In Paradosis 1319 31, and 1398 a b, it has been shewn that
the Semitic nephesh, " soul," might have been used by Jesus to denote
"self," the real "self," and that this word very frequently indeed
means "memorial" in the Talmud. It has also been said (ib. 1332)
" If our Lord had really used any Aramaic word that literally signified
416 (Mark xiv. 22 5)
THE LAST SUPPER
But this "receive," without the accompanying presence of
the Giver and without His gift and gesture, might well be
'body' in the Institution of the Eucharist, it would not have been
possible to bring the formula 'This is my body' into any direct
verbal connexion with His life and work as described by the Synop-
tists." This is true, and it is also true that the Johannine doctrine
about Christ's "flesh and blood" (instead of "body and blood")
might seem to accord with the view that Jesus did not use the word
"body" in the Eucharistic Institution.
But it is possible that John's avoidance of "body" in this sense
was caused by his desire to reserve it for another sense namely
(ii. 21) "the temple of his body," the Church. And uncertainty is
produced by the doubt whether the Last Supper was Paschal or
Antepaschal. For example, the Talmudic treatise on the Passover
mentions (Pesach. 114 a) "the body of the Passover (HOD PBMDU) "
(Goldschmidt "Pesahlamm"). And it adds (114 b) "There must be
two flesh dishes, one a memorial for the Passover (riDS? "OT) and the
other a memorial for the Feast (rWJrfr "12 T)."
Even if we had on record the exact words used by Jesus in giving
the bread, we should still miss the tone and action and gesture of
the Giver. Yet an increasing uncertainty as to Christ's exact words
is compatible with an increasing confidence that John has rightly
interpreted the motive of the words. We may also feel safe in at-
tributing to the words a passionate tenderness similar to that of
Paul (i Thess. ii. 7 8) "we were [as] babes (v^un, s. VV. H. notes)
in the midst of you as when a nurse cherisheth her own children . . .
even so in our yearning for you we were well pleased to impart unto
you not only the Gospel of God but also our own souls." Clement
of Alexandria (318 9) quotes "we were [as] babes (leg. vrjnun, not
T) TT LO i) ... children " after quoting Paul on "the body and blood of
the Lord," and elsewhere he says (123) "The Word is all things to
the babe, both Father and Mother and Tutor and Nurse, 'Eat ye
my flesh,' He says, and ' drink ye my blood '" ; and he represents the
Word as saying to mankind (93) "Come unto me. . .1 bestow on you
my complete self,"
There is mixed metaphor in describing Christ, who is Himself the
Little One or Babe, as the Nurse of the little ones ; but it is character-
istic of the poetry of the Gospels and of early Christian thought.
In Revelation, the Son is represented as (i. 13) "girt about at the
breasts (/zao-rols-) with a golden girdle." The usage of LXX, and
Jewish tradition, oblige us to suppose that this means "breasts" in
the usual sense, and not a man's "breast." Arethas interprets it as
meaning either " the two Diathekai" or " the breasts of our Lord and
A. F. 417 (Mark xiv. 22 5) 27
THE LAST SUPPER
obscure when set down in a written Gospel. It would need
to be explained. In explaining it, some might say that the
gift was not to be like a pearl or other inanimate precious
thing, given once for all and remaining always the same; it
was to be a living presence in the heart, continually renewing
the thought and influence of the Saviour, so that, even when
He had passed away, He still spoke and counselled and guided
His disciples, being part of themselves, the food of their
spiritual being 1 . Others might add that this continual renewal
was intended to be expressed not only invisibly in the con-
tinuous feeding on the spiritual bread, but also in the visible,
weekly, and commemorative meal wherein the earliest Christians
commemorated the resurrection of their crucified Saviour.
We perceive then that the words "Do this with a view to
my memorial" explain the Marcan "Receive" as meaning
something more than passive reception: "'Receive,' yes, but
'receive' with welcome. 'Receive' me into your hearts and
affections so as to make your whole lives one continuous
service of loving loyalty to my will not merely into your
external selves so as to do this or that act of formal obedience
to my commands. And, further, 'receive' me not into your
Master (rovs dea-rroriKovs pafrvs) . . . through which also the faithful are
nourished." Commentators, writing in prose, naturally pass over
this anthropomorphism, or gunaikomorphism, applied to the Son
in glory. But the Odes of Solomon abounds in it (see Light 3645 d,
3814 i, wfoll.). It is also worth noting that on Numb. xi. 8 1^6,
describing the "manna," where LXX has "cake," Aquila has
"breast (/zaard?)." Rashi declares this to be impossible, but says
"our Rabbis explain it thus." Such an explanation led to poetic
inferences that manna came to the children of Israel as milk from the
breasts of the Lord. Comp. Odes of Sol. xix. 4 "the milk of the two
breasts of the Father" (Light 3645 d).
1 See Law pp. 384 402, on "Testament" or "Covenant," and
especially p. 393 : " Using the language habitual in Palestine, Jesus
said to His disciples, 'This is the blood that signifies my death and
yet not my severance from you. This is the blood of my last will
and testament, in which, though dying, I bequeath to you my life
and presence in perpetuity.' " This, though expressly applied to the
cup alone, implies also an application to the bread. Both are
bequeathed in the one Testament or Diatheke.
418 (Mark xiv. 22 5)
THE LAST SUPPER
contemplative selves for purposes of solitary contemplation,
but into your active and social selves for brotherly action.
* Receive' me, as I, the Son, continually 'receive' the Father
that I may help His children. 'Receive,' but also do. Do as
I do."
If we turn to the Fourth Gospel, we shall find an illustration
of the appropriateness (at this point) of a precept about
"doing." For there Jesus says, after the Washing of Feet:
"Know ye what I have done to you? Ye call me Master and
Lord, and ye say well, for so I am. If I then, the Lord and the
Master, have washed your feet, ye also owe it as a debt [to
me] to wash 
