vv.1-5: “It is from Luke that we learn how deep and determined the bitter malice of the Jews was. As we have seen, the charge at which they had arrived was one of blasphemy, of insulting God. But that was not the charge on which they brought Jesus before Pilate. They knew well that Pilate would have had nothing to do with what he would have considered a Jewish religious argument. When they brought Jesus to him they charged him with perverting the people, forbidding them to give tribute to Caesar and calling himself a king (Luke 23:1, 2). They had to evolve a political charge or Pilate would not have listened.”^[1]

v.6-15: “Barabbas and Jesus stood for two different ways.  Barabbas stood for the heart of hate, the stab of the dagger, the violence of bitterness.  Jesus stood for the way of love.  As so often has happened, hate reigned supreme in the hearts of men, and love was rejected.  Men insisted on taking their own way to conquests, and refused to see that the only true conquest was the conquest of love.”[2]

vv.16-20: “Jesus was first mocked by the members of the Sanhedrin and others at the Jewish trial (14:65), then by the Roman soldiers after Pilate passed sentence (here), and finally by the mob around the cross (15:29–32). Mark recorded these instances of mocking to show that Jesus’ prophecy in 10:34 was fulfilled and to fortify his own readers/hearers for the abuse they would soon endure. Irony continues to dominate the account. Jesus was mocked as a pretender, but he was in fact a real King. The mocking was his enthronement; the cross, his throne. Mark wanted to emphasize that Jesus’ kingship was characterized by humility and servanthood and was different from all the kingships of the world.”^[3]

vv.21-28: “The routine of crucifixion did not alter. When the cross was prepared the criminal had himself to carry it to the place of execution. He was placed in the middle of a hollow square of four soldiers. In front marched a soldier carrying a board stating the crime of which the prisoner was guilty. The board was afterwards affixed to the cross. They took not the shortest but the longest way to the place of execution. They followed every possible street and lane so that as many as possible should see and take warning. When they reached the place of crucifixion, the cross was laid flat on the ground. The prisoner was stretched upon it and his hands nailed to it. The feet were not nailed but only loosely bound. Between the prisoner’s legs projected a ledge of wood called the saddle, to take his weight when the cross was raised upright—otherwise the nails would have torn through the flesh of the hands. The cross was then lifted upright and set in its socket—and the criminal was left to die. The cross was not tall. It was shaped like the letter T, and had no top piece at all. Sometimes prisoners hung for as long as a week, slowly dying of hunger and of thirst, suffering sometimes to the point of actual madness.

“This must have been a grim day for Simon of Cyrene. Palestine was an occupied country and any man might be impressed into the Roman service for any task. The sign of impressment was a tap on the shoulder with the flat of a Roman spear. Simon was from Cyrene in Africa. No doubt he had come from that far off land for the Passover. No doubt he had scraped and saved for many years in order to come. No doubt he was gratifying the ambition of a lifetime to eat one Passover in Jerusalem. Then this happened to him.

“At the moment Simon must have bitterly resented it. He must have hated the Romans, and hated this criminal whose cross he was being forced to carry. But we may legitimately speculate what happened to Simon.

He is described as the father of Alexander and Rufus. The people for whom the gospel was written must have been meant to recognize him by this description. It is most likely that Mark’s gospel was first written for the Church at Rome. Now let us turn to Paul’s letter to Rome and read 16:13. ‘Greet Rufus, eminent in the Lord, also his mother and mine.’ Rufus was so choice a Christian that he was eminent in the Lord. The mother of Rufus was so dear to Paul that he could call her his own mother. Things must have happened to Simon on Golgotha.

“Now turn to Acts 13:1. There is a list of the men of Antioch who sent Paul and Barnabas out on that epoch-making first mission to the Gentiles. The name of one is Simeon that was called Niger. Simeon is another form of Simon. Niger was the regular name for a man of swarthy skin who came from Africa, and Cyrene is in Africa. Here it may well be that we are meeting Simon again. Maybe Simon’s experience on the way to Golgotha bound his heart forever to Jesus. Maybe it made him a Christian. Maybe in the after days he was a leader in Antioch and instrumental in the first mission to the Gentiles.”^[4]

vv.29-32: “The Jewish leaders flung one last challenge at Jesus. ‘Come down from the Cross,’ they said, ‘and we will believe in you.’ It was precisely the wrong challenge. As General Booth said long ago, ‘It is because Jesus did not come down from the Cross that we believe in him.’ The death of Jesus was absolutely necessary and the reason was this. Jesus came to tell men of the love of God; more, he was himself the incarnate love of God. If he had refused the Cross or if in the end he had come down from the Cross, it would have meant that there was a limit to God’s love, that there was something which that love was not prepared to suffer for men, that there was a line beyond which it would not go. But, Jesus went the whole way and died on the Cross and this means that there is literally no limit to God’s love, that there is nothing in all the universe which that love is not prepared to suffer for men, that there is nothing, not even death on a cross, which it will refuse to bear for men.  When we look at the Cross, Jesus is saying to us, ‘God loves you like that, with a love that is limitless, a love that will bear every suffering earth has to offer.”^[5]

v.38: “The holy of holies, which the priest could enter only once a year, was the ultimate symbol of God’s dwelling place. God’s rending the veil meant that he was now available apart from the temple system and that the old temple order stood judged and abolished.”^[6]

vv.33-41: “The ‘sixth hour’ began before noon, the ‘ninth hour’ before 3 p.m. Jesus dies around the time of the evening offering in the temple.”^[7]

“Two things Jesus said. (a) He uttered the terrible cry, ‘My God! My God! Why have you abandoned me?’ There is a mystery behind that cry which we cannot penetrate. Maybe it was like this, Jesus had taken this life of ours upon him. He had done our work and faced our temptations and borne our trials. He had suffered all that life could bring. He had known the failure of friends, the hatred of foes, the malice of enemies. He had known the most searing pain that life could offer. Up to this moment Jesus had gone through every experience of life except one—he had never known the consequence of sin. Now if there is one thing sin does, it separates us from God. It puts between us and God a barrier like an unscalable wall. That was the one human experience through which Jesus had never passed, because he was without sin.

“It may be that at this moment that experience came upon him—not because he had sinned, but because in order to be identified completely with our humanity he had to go through it. In this terrible, grim, bleak moment Jesus really and truly identified himself with the sin of man. Here we have the divine paradox—Jesus knew what it was to be a sinner. And this experience must have been doubly agonizing for Jesus, because he had never known what it was to be separated by this barrier from God.

“That is why he can understand our situation so well. That is why we need never fear to go to him when sin cuts us off from God. Because he has gone through it, he can help others who are going through it. There is no depth of human experience which Christ has not plumbed.

“(b) There was the great shout. Both Matthew (27:50) and Luke (23:46) tell of it. John does not mention the shout but he tells us that Jesus died having said, ‘It is finished.’ (John 19:30.) In the original that would be one word; and that one word was the great shout. ‘Finished!’ Jesus died with the cry of triumph on his lips, his task accomplished, his work completed, his victory won. After the terrible dark there came the light again, and he went home to God a victor triumphant.

“There is one other thing to note. ‘The curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom.’ This was the curtain which shut off the Holy of Holies, into which no man might go. Symbolically that tells us two things.

“(a) The way to God was now wide open. Into the Holy of Holies only the High Priest could go, and he only once a year on the day of Atonement. But now, the curtain was torn and the way to God was wide open to every man.

“(b) Within the Holy of Holies dwelt the very essence of God. Now with the death of Jesus the curtain which hid God was torn and men could see him face to face. No longer was God hidden. No longer need men guess and grope. Men could look at Jesus and say, ‘That is what God is like. God loves me like that.’^[8]

vv.42-47: “The historicity of the account is firm. The early church would not have invented a story about Jesus being buried by a Jewish leader, who at most was a secret disciple, rather than his family or close disciples. Nor would invention have made women the chief witnesses of the event.”^[9]

Chapter 16 Commentary

vv.1-8: “There had not been time to render the last services to the body of Jesus. The Sabbath had intervened and the women who wished to anoint the body had not been able to do so. As early as possible after the Sabbath had passed, they set out to perform this sad task.

“They were worried about one thing. Tombs had no doors. When the word door is mentioned it really means opening. In front of the opening was a groove, and in the groove ran a circular stone as big as a cart-wheel; and the women knew that it was quite beyond their strength to move a stone like that. But when they reached the tomb, the stone was rolled away, and inside was a messenger who gave them the unbelievable news that Jesus had risen from the dead.

“One thing is certain—if Jesus had not risen from the dead, we would never have heard of him. The attitude of the women was that they had come to pay the last tribute to a dead body. The attitude of the disciples was that everything had finished in tragedy. By far the best proof of the Resurrection is the existence of the Christian church. Nothing else could have changed sad and despairing men and women into people radiant with joy and flaming with courage. The Resurrection is the central fact of the whole Christian faith. Because we believe in the Resurrection certain things follow.

“(i) Jesus is not a figure in a book but a living presence. It is not enough to study the story of Jesus like the life of any other great historical figure. We may begin that way but we must end by meeting him.

“(ii) Jesus is not a memory but a presence. The dearest memory fades. The Greeks had a word to describe time meaning time which wipes all things out. Long since, time would have wiped out the memory of Jesus unless he had been a living presence forever with us.

‘And warm, sweet, tender, even yet

A present help is he;

And faith has still its Olivet,

And love its Galilee.’

“Jesus is not someone to discuss so much as someone to meet.

“(iii) The Christian life is not the life of a man who knows about Jesus, but the life of a man who knows Jesus. There is all the difference in the world between knowing about a person and knowing a person. Most people know about Queen Elizabeth or the President of the United States but not so many know them. The greatest scholar in the world who knows everything about Jesus is less than the humblest Christian who knows him.

“(iv) There is an endless quality about the Christian faith. It should never stand still. Because our Lord is a living Lord there are new wonders and new truths waiting to be discovered all the time.

“But the most precious thing in this passage is in two words which are in no other gospel. ‘Go,’ said the messenger. ‘Tell his disciples and Peter.’ How that message must have cheered Peter’s heart when he received it! He must have been tortured with the memory of his disloyalty, and suddenly there came a special message for him. It was characteristic of Jesus that he thought, not of the wrong Peter had done him but of the remorse he was undergoing. Jesus was far more eager to comfort the penitent sinner than to punish the sin. Someone has said, ‘The most precious thing about Jesus is the way in which he trusts us on the field of our defeat.”^[10]

Conclusion of the Gospel of Mark (vv.9-20)

vv. 9-20. This section is a later addition; the original ending of Mark appears to have been lost. The best and oldest manuscripts of Mark end with ch. 16:8. Two endings were added very early. The shorter reads: “But they reported briefly to those with Peter all that had been commanded them. And afterward Jesus himself sent out through them from the East even to the West the sacred and incorruptible message of eternal salvation.” The longer addition appears in English Bibles; its origin is uncertain; a medieval source ascribes it to an elder Ariston (Aristion), perhaps the man whom Papias (c. A.D. 135) calls a disciple of the Lord. It is drawn for the most part from Luke, chapter 24, and from John, chapter 20; there is a possibility that verse 15 may come from Matthew 28:18-20. It is believed that the original ending must have contained an account of the risen Christ’s meeting with the disciples in Galilee (chs. 14:28; 16:7).[11]

[2] Barclay, William.  The Daily Study Bible Series: the Gospel of Mark, p.358

[3]Brooks, J. A. (2001). Vol. 23: Mark (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (252–253). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

[4]The Gospel of Mark. 2000 (W. Barclay, lecturer in the University of Glasgow, Ed.). The Daily study Bible series, Rev. ed. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.

[5]The Gospel of Mark. 2000 (W. Barclay, lecturer in the University of Glasgow, Ed.). The Daily study Bible series, Rev. ed. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.

[6]Keener, C. S., & InterVarsity Press. (1993). The IVP Bible background commentary : New Testament (Mk 15:38). Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.

[7]Keener, C. S., & InterVarsity Press. (1993). The IVP Bible background commentary : New Testament (Mk 15:33). Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.

The Gospel of Mark. 2000 (W. Barclay, lecturer in the University of Glasgow, Ed.). The Daily study Bible series, Rev. ed. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.

[9]Brooks, J. A. (2001). Vol. 23: Mark (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (265). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

[10]The Gospel of Mark. 2000 (W. Barclay, lecturer in the University of Glasgow, Ed.). The Daily study Bible series, Rev. ed. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.

[11] The Westminster Study Edition of the Holy Bible (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1948).

Bible Passages for June 7-13, 2010

Monday                  6/7            Mark 15:1-15
Tuesday                  6/8            Mark 15:16-32
Wednesday            6/9            Mark 15:33-47
Thursday                6/10          Mark 16:1-8
Friday                     6/11            Bible Reading: Philippians 3&4, Colossians 1&2
Sat-Sun                  6/12-13      Bible Reading: Psalm 90-106

Click here to download the Inductive Bible Study Training Guide.

Click here to download the Inductive Bible Study Packet for June 7-13, 2010.

Bible Passages for May 31-June 6, 2010

Monday                  5/31         Mark 14:12-26
Tuesday                  6/1           Mark 14:27-42
Wednesday            6/2           Mark 14:43-65
Thursday                6/3           Mark 14:66-72
Friday                     6/4           Bible Reading: Ephesians 5&6, Philippians 1&2
Sat-Sun                  6/5-6        Bible Reading: Psalm 73-89

Click here to download the Inductive Bible Study Training Guide.

Click here to download the Inductive Bible Study Packet for May 31-June 6, 2010.

“Passover commemorated the liberation of the nation from Egypt, when God sent a plague that took the lives of the Egyptians’ firstborn.  The Israelites were spared by dabbing their doorways with the blood of a slaughtered lamb.  Many in Jesus’ day saw this first deliverance as the model for their final liberation.  Pilgrims came to commemorate this event filled with hopes and expectations that the messiah would eventually come to deliver Israel from foreign oppression and economic misery during the night of Passover.”[1]

v.3

“The woman’s extravagant act exhorts devotion and love for Christ.  Her gesture displays the proper personal devotion of the disciple toward Jesus…  The anonymous woman is the antithesis of the disciple who will betray his master for whatever money the priests will give him and those tightfisted bystanders who mouth pious clichés about giving to the poor but take no action.”[2]

vv.6-9

“Jesus announces that this woman’s devotion will be remembered wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world.  People will understand more clearly what her act of pouring out precious perfume on Jesus’ head means when they recognize that he poured out his blood for the many.  Jesus announcement also affirms that the gospel will be preached to all the nations.”[3]

vv.10-11

“This woman’s devotion stands in stark contrast to Judas’ disloyalty.  Judas is looking for the appropriate opportunity to betray Jesus, and his treachery will never be forgotten.  He is willing to sacrifice Jesus to obtain material rewards for himself.  The woman on the other hand, seizes an opportunity to show love to Jesus and sacrifices her precious gift for him.  Her act will never be forgotten either.”[4]

“Attempts to find the reason or reasons to explain why Judas did what he did are diversions that prevent us from looking at our own potential betrayal.  If we convince ourselves that Judas acted for this or that reason, we can also convince ourselves that we would not succumb to such perfidy.  If not specific reason can be given except greed or Satan, then we all are susceptible.  We too can betray Jesus for all the temptations in life that may snare us.”[5]

vv.16-21

Jesus, knowing full well that his life’s last hours are slipping away, decides to make one last appeal of love to Judas.  Judas must have been startled at being found out by Jesus.  Jesus was surely able to stop Judas from betraying him, but chooses not to overrule Judas’ free will.  He does not force him, rather, he opens the door for Judas to speak up, then warns him of the consequences.  Jesus gives Judas every opportunity to ask for forgiveness and to be forgiven.  Called to repent by the very Son of God, Judas resists, refuses, rejects the offer.  He will recline with the rest of the disciples and take the cup and bread, then go out into the darkness to do the deed.  Judas rejects the chance to repent.

vv.24-25

Blood sealed or inaugurated a covenant. In Exodus 24:3 – 8, 11, Moses took the blood and sprinkled it over the people saying, “This is the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words” (24:8; see Zech. 9:11; Heb. 9:19 – 20). Jesus’ sacrificial death is also a covenant-making event. It marks a new act of redemption and begins a new relationship between God and the people — one that supersedes the old.[6]

vv.32-36

The cup may represent God’s wrathful judgment, the awful consequences of God’s judgment on sinful humanity (Pss. 11:6; 16:5; 23:5; 75:8 – 9; 116:13; Isa. 51:17 – 23; Jer. 16:7; 25:15 – 18; 27:46, 51; 49:12; 51:7; Ezek. 23:31 – 34; Lam. 2:13; 4:21; Hab. 2:15 – 16; Zech. 12:2; Rev. 14:10; 16:19; 17:4; 18:3, 6). On the other hand, the cup may simply refer to Jesus’ death and the suffering he must endure. Jesus uses the cup and baptism as symbols of his redemptive death (Mark 10:38, 45). He connects the cup to the hour in 14:35; and in 14:41, Jesus says that the hour has come when he is handed over to sinners. Jesus prays to be delivered from death; instead, he will be delivered through death and glorified by the resurrection.

In Gethsemane, Jesus meets the dreadful silence of heaven. There is no reassuring voice from heaven proclaiming, “This is my Son, whom I love.” No dove descends; no ministering angels come to serve him. God has already spoken, and his Son must obey. Jesus overcomes the silence, fights off the human temptation to do as he wills, and through prayer acquiesces to God’s will. He will not try to evade the cup either by slipping away in the dark or by resorting to violence. He will accept the nails of the cross as he accepted the stones of the desert.[7]

vv.43-44

This arrest had to be made quickly and quietly, with minimal disruption or publicity, in an effort to avoid an unnecessary disturbance.  This was especially since a large disturbance would force the Roman authorities to step in to halt this scheme.  Although people knew Jesus well by sight, Judas felt that in the dim light of the garden, they needed a definite indication of whom they were to arrest – so he arranged with them a signal to identify Jesus…

v.45

At the very moment of betrayal, Judas goes to Jesus, kisses Him and calls him “Rabbi”.  One commentator notes, “The sign of the kiss reflects the normal greeting one gave a respected teacher.  One kissed the hand out of deference or the cheek if one considered oneself an equal.  Judas addresses Jesus with the honorific title, “Rabbi,” and kisses him.  Judas gives Jesus no sign that their fellowship has been broken.  He wants everything to appear normal up to the last second, when guards rush to capture him.”[8]

vv.47-52

The identity of the young man is not specifically named.  “However, his anonymity may suggest that this was John Mark, writer of this Gospel.”[9]

The young man’s escape reflects the “every man for himself, save yourself if you can” mindset that swept through the followers of Jesus.  A commentator notes, “The craven fear of this young man who is seized and stripped and escapes into the darkness compares badly with the courage of Jesus, who is seized and stripped and does not escape but is crucified in the darkness.”[10]

vv.53-54

Why did Peter follow him at a distance?  Perhaps because he was torn – torn between his vows of loyalty made before Jesus and his desire to save his skin.  Unable to reject Jesus completely, Peter follows at a distance.  Before we condemn Peter’s cowardice, we ought to acknowledge that Peter follows Jesus, which is more than what many of us would do in such situations.  A commentator states, “Sometimes we tell this story in such a way as to do Peter far less than justice.  The thing we so often fail to recognize is that up to the very last Peter’s career this night had been one of fantastically reckless courage.  He had begun by drawing his sword in the garden with the reckless courage of a man prepared to take on the whole mob by himself.  In that scuffle he had wounded the servant of the high priest.  Common prudence would have urged that peter should lie very low.  The last place anyone would have dreamed that he would go to would be the courtyard of the high priest’s house – yet that is precisely where he did go.”[11]

vv.60-65

“For the first time in the Gospel, ‘The Son of God’ title appears on the lips of a human character in the story.  Only demons (3:11; 5:7) and the voice from the cloud (1:11; 9:7) have uttered it until now.  Also for the first time in the Gospel (see 1:34; 3:11-12; 8:30; 9:9, 30-31), Jesus publicly accepts that he is the Messiah, with his reply: ‘I am.’”[12]

This implication would be blasphemous if proven wrong.  A commentator sharply puts it this way: “Either the high priest is correct that Jesus is a deluded blasphemer, or Jesus is correct and the high priest is the deluded blasphemer.”[13]

v.72

Peter remembered Jesus’ words.  Upon sinning, upon the reminder that he had sinned, Peter remembered.  And when those words of Jesus were juxtaposed next to his own words of betrayal, the weight of what he has just done was laid upon him.  There is a key component to having godly sorrow in Peter’s response.  One needs to remember.  One needs to juxtapose his actions next to the word of God, the warnings of God.  Upon such a point, one can no longer maintain the lie that he is okay – all such fallacies fade away, and he can only break down and weep.  What did Peter realize upon remembering Jesus’ words?  That Jesus knew it all along – that Jesus knew how weak Peter was, how false his words were – even better than Peter knew himself.  With the self-hatred that comes with self-realization, Peter also realized that Jesus knew it all along, and yet loved him all along.

[2] David E. Garland, Mark, The NIV Application Commentary Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996) 518.

[3] David E. Garland, Mark, The NIV Application Commentary Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996) 517.

[4] David E. Garland, Mark, The NIV Application Commentary Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996) 516.

[5] David E. Garland, Mark, The NIV Application Commentary Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996) 522.

[6] Garland. “The Last Supper (14:17 – 25)” In The NIV Application Commentary: Mark. By Garland, 529. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, © 1996.

[7] Garland. “The Gethsemane of Jesus (14:32 – 36)” In The NIV Application Commentary: Mark. By Garland, 540-541. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, © 1996.

[8] Garland, David.  The NIV Application Commentary: Mark, p.545

[9] NIV Study Bible, verse notes

[10] Garland, David.  The NIV Application Commentary: Mark, p.548

[11] Barclay, William.  The Daily Study Bible Series: The Gospel of Mark, p.351-352

[12] Garland, David.  The NIV Application Commentary, p.562

[13] Garland, David.  The NIV Application Commentary, p.563

As Jesus and the disciples leave the Temple, the disciples are awestruck by the size and complexity of the Temple complex.  Josephus, a Jewish historian, described the Temple during Jesus’ time:

Now the outward face of the temple … was covered all over with plates of gold of great weight, and, at the first rising of the sun, reflected back a very fiery splendor, and made those who forced themselves to look upon it to turn away, just as they would have done at the sun’s own rays.  But this Temple appeared to strangers, when they were at a distance, like a mountain covered with snow; for, as to those parts of it that were not gilt, they were exceedingly white … Of its stones, some of them were forty-five cubits in length, five in height and six in breadth.[1]

These stones were gigantic, even by today’s standards: 40 feet long by 12 feet long by 18 feet wide.  Not only an imposing structure, the Temple was the very center of the Jewish religious system and a source of security as it represented God’s constant presence in the land.[2]

Jesus renounces all awe and admiration for the Temple and its striking features.  He knows that the temple has become corrupted and dysfunctional.  He foretells of its destruction by the Romans in AD 70 when it will be completely destroyed with such totality that archeologists have not been able to identify its location with certainty.  Jesus refers to this specific event in the near future, but his words are simply true from the perspective of our eternal God.  The temple would not stand forever, no matter how well built it may be.  Jesus “looks beyond appearance to reality.  No matter how secure buildings or institutions may appear, they can all be overthrown.”[3]

vv.9-13

Jesus reminds them of their task.  They are not to simply wait around, busy only speculating on and trying to decipher news of war, famine and earthquake, instead Jesus calls them again to be his disciples and to preach the gospel to all nations.  Jesus tells them that their days on earth are to be marked by active discipleship and faithfulness (v. 13 “he who stands firm to the end”)[4].  But in the face of such difficult and frightening times, Jesus pledges God’s own continuing faithfulness as the Holy Spirit would be present to direct their words.

vv.14-23

Jesus gives a sign here, not of the end times, but of Jerusalem’s destruction at the hands of an invading army by way of a reference to Daniel 9:27 “the abomination that causes desolation”. He is clearly not talking about the end of the world or else would not give such practical advice of fleeing to the mountains and not stopping to take any supplies.  Josephus, a Jewish historian, tells us that, tragically, Jesus’ advice and during the Roman siege of Jerusalem in AD 70, people flocked into the city where over 1 million people by his estimation died horrible deaths of slow starvation.  But judgment again gives way to mercy and the Lord will choose to “cut short those days” for the sake of God’s followers.

“Since Jesus specifically mentions Judea and uses a phrase from Daniel referring to an enemy’s desecration of the sanctuary, he is predicting some horrifying event in the temple. Therefore it applies to a time when the temple was still standing.

…

If it refers to something during the war, the heinous crimes of the Zealots who occupied the temple precincts during the last years of the war are prime candidates. Josephus writes:

For there was an ancient saying of inspired men that the city would be taken and the sanctuary burned to the ground by right of war, when it should be visited by sedition and native hands should be the first to defile God’s sacred precincts. This saying the Zealots did not disbelieve; yet they lent themselves as instruments of its accomplishments.

Jesus could also be referring to something that occurred after the destruction of the temple. Josephus reports that after the capture of Jerusalem the Roman soldiers set up their standards in the temple and sacrificed to them. The problem with this view is that when this happened, it was already too late to flee the city.

The allusion remains inside information that the original audience of the Gospel understood, but we are left only with guesses… Whatever that abomination was, Mark intended the audience to understand it as a fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy and another sign of the beginning of the birth pains.

Jesus does not lament here over the temple’s desecration, but he does express compassion for those caught in the cataclysm. During the Jewish war, many people fled to the temple fortress for refuge (cf. Jer. 4:6). Jesus counsels flight away from the temple (cf. Jer. 6:1; Rev. 18:4). Jerusalem will not be a stronghold of saving help but will become a dragon’s lair, where people find only death and divine judgment. To stay in the vicinity because of some deceived allegiance to the temple or some mistaken belief that it will offer divine protection is to court disaster.”[5]

vv.24-27

Jesus finally gives some signs of the end times, a classic picture described in many places in the Old Testament of nature and the cosmos in tumult, but does not give any definite time.  “The ambiguity is deliberate, and Jesus does not intend for us to try to unravel it.  Otherwise, he would have given more definite clues.  He expects his disciples to be ready for anything anytime.”[6] The circumstances of the final end of the world will be visible to all, discernable by all.  But these are not signs one can use to rouse oneself to prepare to meet the Lord, rather, as one commentator puts it “the elements of creation go into confusion and fear because he appears, not as a sign that he is about do so.”[7] Jesus does not give the warning the disciples want.

“In contrast to most of the trees of Palestine (the olive, oak, evergreen, terebinth), the fig loses its leaves in the winter, and in contrast to the almond, which blossoms very early in the spring, the fig tree shows signs of life only later.  Jesus’ parable appeals to this particularity: when the branches of the fig become softened by the sap flowing through them and leaves begin to appear one can be certain that winter is past and the warm season is very near.  The parable relates the sprouting of the fig tree and the summer in terms of a beginning point and its inevitable sequence.  The accent falls not on immediacy but on proximity: when the fig tree becomes green, one is not only certain that summer is coming but that it is near… By calling the disciples to observe properly what was immediately at hand Jesus reinforced his exhortation to observe what was happening in Jerusalem and Judea and to recognize its significance.”[8]

vv.32-37

Jesus concludes this chapter with a strong exhortation to “Be on guard! Be alert!”, and again ends with a solemn “Watch!”.  Jesus says that we need to be attentive and vigilant.  Asked by the disciples in 13:4 to give a sign or definitive time of the end times, he chooses not to do so.  Rather, he talks about the attitude we ought to have – watchfulness.  This was surely an unwelcome answer because this would require a continual awareness, an intimate understanding of God’s heart and careful spiritual evaluation of all times, not merely the end time.  It would require one to be always ready, rather than being lax and then getting ready at the last moment prompted by the definitive sign or time of the end.

[2] David E. Garland, Mark, The NIV Application Commentary Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996) 490.

[3] Pheme Perkins, “The Gospel of Mark,” New Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. VIII (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1995) 686.

[4] Pheme Perkins, “The Gospel of Mark,” New Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. VIII (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1995) 688.

[5] Garland. “Warnings About the Destruction of the Temple (13:5 – 23)” In The NIV Application Commentary: Mark. By Garland, 495-497. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, © 1996.

[6] David E. Garland, Mark, The NIV Application Commentary Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996) 500.

[7] David E. Garland, Mark, The NIV Application Commentary Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996) 501.

[8] William L. Lane, The Gospel of Mark, The New International Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerman’s Publishing, 1974) 479.

Bible Passages for May 24-30, 2010

Monday                  5/24           Mark 13:1-11
Tuesday                  5/25           Mark 13:12-23
Wednesday            5/26           Mark 13:24-37
Thursday                5/27           Mark 14:1-11
Friday                     5/28           Bible Reading: Ephesians 1-4
Sat-Sun                  5/29-30     Bible Reading: Psalm 51-72

Click here to download the Inductive Bible Study Training Guide.

Click here to download the Inductive Bible Study Packet for May 24-30, 2010.

Bible Passages for May 17-23, 2010

Monday                  5/17            Mark 12:13-17
Tuesday                  5/18           Mark 12:18-27
Wednesday            5/19           Mark 12:28-37
Thursday                5/20          Mark 12:38-44
Friday                     5/21           Bible Reading: Acts 25-28
Sat-Sun                  5/22-23     Bible Reading: Psalm 26-50

Click here to download the Inductive Bible Study Training Guide.

Click here to download the Inductive Bible Study Packet for May 17-23, 2010.

“The allegory reveals God’s continuous pursuit of humans, no matter how often the overtures meet with rejection. The landlord’s optimism in sending his son represents God’s endless hopefulness and constant effort to bring sinful people to their senses. God fully expects the people to produce fruit and exercises forbearance when they renege on their obligations (Rom. 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9), and what seems to be utter foolishness in sending prophet after prophet and finally a beloved Son to a pack of murderers. What may look like foolishness to worldly wisdom, however (1 Cor. 1:18 – 25; 3:18 – 20), reflects the love and wisdom of God.”[2]

“The tenants may stupidly believe that when they kill the heir the vineyard will become ownerless property that they can then commandeer. Like the rich fool, they do not take any account of God.  This aspect of the parable bridges easily into our contemporary setting. It says something about the foolish hubris of those in every age and in every walk of life who think that they can seize control of everything in their lives and push God out of the picture. Did these tenants really believe that by killing the son they could become the owners of the vineyard? Apparently so. Do humans think that by erasing God from their lives they can take control of their earthly and eternal destinies? Apparently so. The allegory reveals the utter foolishness of sinful rebellion against God. It also reminds us that we are only the servants in the vineyard, not its lords or its owners.”[3]

“At the time of Jesus, Ps. 118:22–23 was already known as a messianic psalm (cf. Acts 4:11). The opponents of Jesus can thus understand what he means: the “stone” refers to the Messiah. Builders refers to the leaders of Israel. Rejected echoes the theme of the persecution of the prophets of God (Neh. 9:9–35; Acts 7:1–53). The new Israel (or faithful Israel) will accept the Son as the rightful messenger, heir, and cornerstone of the messianic kingdom (Jer. 31:26; Zech. 4:7). Both Mark 12:9 and 12:10 speak of reversal: in v. 9 God transfers responsibility for his people to “others,” and in v. 10 the rejected messianic “stone” is divinely vindicated and established as the cornerstone of a new building (see notes on 1 Pet. 2:4–8).”[4]

v.18 “This is the only time in Mark’s gospel that the Sadducees appear, and their appearance is entirely characteristic of them. The Sadducees were not a large Jewish party. They were aristocratic and wealthy. They included most of the priests; the office of high priest was regularly held by a Sadducee. Being the wealthy and aristocratic party, they were not unnaturally collaborationist, for they wished to retain their comforts and their privileges. It was from them came those who were prepared to collaborate with the Romans in the government of the country. They differed very widely from the Pharisees in certain matters. First, they accepted only the written scriptures and attached more importance to the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Old Testament, than to all the rest. They did not accept the mass of oral law and tradition, the rules and regulations which were so dear to the Pharisees. It was on the written Mosaic Law that they took their stand. Second, they did not believe in immortality, nor in spirits and angels. They said that in the early books of the Bible there was no evidence for immortality, and they did not accept it.”[5]

vv.28-31 “This teacher is not asking which laws need to be obeyed and which can safely be ignored. He is asking, “What is the fundamental premise of the law on which all the individual commands depend?” Jesus gives an orthodox reply from the daily confession of Israel known as the Shema. The confession proclaims that God is the only God, and one is to love him with one’s whole being: heart, soul, mind, and strength. But one cannot love God in isolation from one’s other relationships in life. For this reason, Jesus couples the command to love God with the command to love one’s neighbor as oneself (Lev. 19:18; cf. Rom. 13:10; 15:1 – 2; Gal. 5:14; James 2:8).  Love is our inner commitment to God that is expressed in all our conduct and relationships. Those who do not show love to others can hardly claim to love God (see 1 John 3:14 – 18; 4:8, 10 – 12, 20 – 22).”[6]

vv.35-37 “What Jesus is doing is this—he is not denying that the Messiah is the Son of David, nor is he saying that he himself is not the Son of David. What he is saying is that he is the Son of David—and far more, not only David’s son but David’s Lord.  The trouble was that the title Son of David had got itself inextricably entangled with the idea of a conquering Messiah. It had got involved in political and nationalistic hopes and dreams, aims and ambitions. Jesus was saying that the title Son of David, as it was popularly used, is a quite inadequate description of himself. He was Lord. This word Lord (the Greek kurios) is the regular translation of Jahweh (Jehovah) in the Greek version of the Hebrew scriptures. Always its use would turn men’s thoughts to God. What Jesus was saying was that he came not to found any earthly kingdom but to bring men and women to God.”[7]

[2] David E. Garland, Mark, The NIV Application Commentary Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996) 455.

[3] David E. Garland, Mark, The NIV Application Commentary Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996) 456.

[4] ESV Study Bible, Notes for Mark (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2008) 1920.

[5] William Barclay, The Gospel of Mark, Daily Study Bible Series, Rev. ed. (Philadelphia:  Westminster Press, 1975) 336.

[6] David E. Garland, Mark, The NIV Application Commentary Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996) 476.

[7] William Barclay, The Gospel of Mark, Daily Study Bible Series, Rev. ed. (Philadelphia:  Westminster Press, 1975) 347-48.

vv.1-3 “Jesus did not leave things until the last moment. He knew what he was going to do and long ago he had made arrangements with a friend. When he sent forward his disciples, he sent them with a pass-word that had been pre-arranged—“?The Lord needs it now.?” This was not a sudden, reckless decision of Jesus. It was something to which all his life had been building up.”[2]

v.8 “But we must be careful to note just what he was doing. There was a saying of the prophet Zechariah (?Zechariah 9:9?), “?Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion. Shout aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem. Lo, your king comes to you; triumphant and victorious is he, and riding on a donkey and upon a colt the foal of a donkey.?”  The whole impact is that the King was coming in peace. In Palestine the donkey was not a despised beast, but a noble one. When a king went to war he rode on a horse, when he came in peace he rode on a donkey […] We must note what kind of a king Jesus was claiming to be.  He came meek and lowly.  He came in peace and for peace. They greeted him as the Son of David, but they did not understand […] They were looking for a king who would shatter and smash and break. Jesus knew it—and he came meek and lowly, riding upon a donkey.”[3]

“ ‘He who comes?’ was another name for the Messiah. When the Jews spoke about the Messiah, they talked of him as the One who is Coming.”[4]

vv.9-10 “In verses ?9? and ?10? there is the word Hosanna. The word is consistently misunderstood. It is quoted and used as if it meant Praise; but it is a simple transliteration of the Hebrew for Save now! It occurs in exactly the same form in ?2 Samuel 14:4? and ?2 Kings 6:26?, where it is used by people seeking for help and protection at the hands of the king. When the people shouted Hosanna it was not a cry of praise to Jesus, which it often sounds like when we quote it. It was a cry to God to break in and save his people now that the Messiah had come.  No incident so shows the sheer courage of Jesus as this does. In the circumstances one might have expected him to enter Jerusalem secretly and to keep hidden from the authorities who were out to destroy him. Instead he entered in such a way that the attention of every eye was focused upon him. One of the most dangerous things a man can do is to go to people and tell them that all their accepted ideas are wrong. Any man who tries to tear up by the roots a people’s nationalistic dreams is in for trouble. But that is what Jesus deliberately was doing. Here we see Jesus making the last appeal of love and making it with a courage that is heroic.”[5]

vv.15-16 “This incident took place in the Court of the Gentiles. Bit by bit the Court of the Gentiles had become almost entirely secularized. It had been meant to be a place of prayer and preparation, but there was in the time of Jesus a commercialized atmosphere of buying and selling which made prayer and meditation impossible. What made it worse was that the business which went on there was sheer exploitation of the pilgrims. Every Jew had to pay a temple tax of one half shekel a year. That was equivalent to nearly two days’ wages for a working man.  That tax had to be paid in one particular kind of coinage. For ordinary purposes Greek, Roman, Syrian, Egyptian, Phoenician, Tyrian coinages were all equally valid. But this tax had to be paid in shekels of the sanctuary. It was paid at the Passover time. Jews came from all over the world to the Passover and with all kinds of currencies. When they went to have their money changed they had to pay a fee and should their coin exceed the tax, they had to pay another fee before they got their change. Most pilgrims had to pay this extra commission before they could pay their tax. We must remember that that was half a day’s wage, which for most men was a great deal of money. As for the sellers of doves—doves entered largely into the sacrificial system (?Leviticus 12:8?, ?14:22?, ?15:14?). A sacrificial victim had to be without blemish. Doves could be bought cheaply enough outside, but the temple inspectors would be sure to find something wrong with them, and worshippers were advised to buy them at the temple stalls.  The price of a pair of doves inside could be as much as 15 times the price that might be paid outside.  Again it was sheer imposition, and what made matters worse was that this business of buying and selling belonged to the family of Annas who had been High Priest.”[6]

v.17 “The passage cited from Isaiah 56:7, “My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations,” means that God did not plan for the temple to become a national shrine for Israel. Isaiah 56:1 – 8 contains God’ promise of blessing for all who might think they are excluded from God’s salvation: the foreigner who has joined himself to the people (56:3), the eunuch (56:4, who was not allowed to enter the temple, according to the regulations of Deut. 23:1), and the outcasts of Israel (Isa. 56:8). Most assumed that Isaiah 56 spoke of some distant future, but Jesus expects it to be fulfilled now! […]In Jesus’ day the temple had become a nationalistic symbol that served only to divide Israel from the nations. If it were to become what God intended, “a house of prayer for all nations,” walls would have to crumble. Indeed, walls will soon collapse and barriers will be breached. When Jesus dies, the temple veil is split from top to bottom, and a Gentile confesses that he is the Son of God (15:38 – 39).”[7]

“By quoting from Jeremiah 7, Jesus reminds the people that something holy can be perverted. He claims that the same abuses that sullied the temple cult in the time of Jeremiah taint it now. The temple, God’s house, has been made into “a den of robbers.” One needs to read the context of Jeremiah 7:1 – 15 to understand the allusion […]The den is the place where robbers retreat after having committed their crimes. It is their hideout, a place of security and refuge […] Jesus indirectly attacks them for allowing the temple to degenerate into a safe hiding place where people think that they find forgiveness and fellowship with God no matter how they act on the outside. Jesus’ prophetic action and words attack a false trust in the efficacy of the temple sacrificial system. The leaders of the people think that they can rob widows’ houses (Mark 12:40) and then perform the prescribed sacrifices according to the prescribed patterns at the prescribed times in the prescribed purity in the prescribed sacred space and then be safe and secure from all alarms. They are wrong. The sacrifice of animals will not enable them to evade the doom that God purposes for those guilty of lying, stealing, violence, and adultery (7:21 – 23).  The sanctuary, supposedly sanctified by God, has become a sanctuary for bandits who think that they are protected from God’s judgment. The phrase “I have been watching” (Jer. 7:11) matches the description of Jesus’ visit to the temple on the previous day, when he “looked around at everything” (Mark 11:11), turning that visit into an inspection. Jesus shares the purview of God. He has seen what the people are doing and pronounces God’s judgment.”[8]

vv.18-20 “The fig tree incident brackets the temple action and interprets it. It reveals more clearly that Jesus does not intend to cleanse the temple. Instead, his actions visually announce its disqualification. The fig tree that has not borne fruit is cursed, not reformed or cleansed. The parable of the tenants of the vineyard (12:1 – 11) makes the same point. As Jesus seeks fruit from the fig tree, so God, the owner of the vineyard, seeks fruit from the vineyard. When no fruit is to be found or when it is withheld, destruction follows.”[9]

“Mark alone mentions that the tree did not bear anything more than leaves “because it was not the season for figs,” and it makes Jesus’ action seem even more outlandish. Why curse a fig tree for not bearing figs out of season? Jesus surely knows it is not fig season. This detail is a clue for the reader to look beyond the surface meaning and to see its symbolic meaning. This action is not about a particular unfruitful fig tree; it has to do with the temple. The word “season” (kairos) is not the botanical term for the growing season but the religious term found in 1:14 – 15 denoting the time of the kingdom of God (see 13:33). Moreover, the tenants do not produce the fruits of the vineyard “at harvest time” (12:2; lit., “in season”). The barren fig tree represents the barrenness of temple Judaism that is unprepared to accept Jesus’ messianic reign.  As the fig tree’s time is barren (cf. Luke 13:6 – 9), so is the temple’s. […] Just as the fig tree was not pruned and manured so that it might bear fruit but cursed so that it died, so the temple was not cleansed so that it could continue in more fitting service to God; rather, it would soon come to an end. The locus of salvation now shifts from the temple to Jesus and his death and resurrection. Faith in him will become the way to God, not the sacrifice of animals in the temple. Thus when Jesus dies, the curtain of the temple is torn from top to bottom.”[10]

vv.22-25 “This text does not invite one to attempt magical miracles. We are not to test our faith by going to a mountain and saying, “Be moved!” We must also guard against treating prayer as if it were a magic wand that allows us to get whatever we want. When Christians pray with confident faith that their prayers will have power, they can, like Jesus, overcome even the greatest oppression. Nothing is impossible. Prayer is not an engine by which we overcome the unwillingness of God. Jesus taught that God is ever ready to grant what is good for us. We do not need to wheedle or to beg God in prayer. […]  Prayer is to be founded on the goodness of God as a loving parent and lays hold on God’s benevolence.  When Christians pray in Jesus’ name, they may be confident of God’s response; but what they ask must be compatible with his teaching, life, and death. […] There are some things that Christians should not ask and some things that God will not give. As a parent gives to a child from his or her wisdom what the child needs, so does God. Consequently, we may receive answers we do not want, find things we are not looking for, and have doors open we do not expect.”[11]

vv.27-33 “The whole story is a vivid example of what happens to men who will not face the truth. They have to twist and wriggle and in the end get themselves into a position in which they are so helplessly involved that they have nothing to say. The man who faces the truth may have the humiliation of saying that he was wrong, or the peril of standing by it, but at least the future for him is strong and bright. The man who will not face the truth has nothing but the prospect of deeper and deeper involvement in a situation which renders him helpless and ineffective.”[12]

[2] William Barclay, The Gospel of Mark, Daily Study Bible Series, Rev. ed. (Philadelphia:  Westminster Press, 1975) 306.

[3] William Barclay, The Gospel of Mark, Daily Study Bible Series, Rev. ed. (Philadelphia:  Westminster Press, 1975) 307-09.

[4] William Barclay, The Gospel of Mark, Daily Study Bible Series, Rev. ed. (Philadelphia:  Westminster Press, 1975) 310.

[5] William Barclay, The Gospel of Mark, Daily Study Bible Series, Rev. ed. (Philadelphia:  Westminster Press, 1975) 311-12.

[6] William Barclay, The Gospel of Mark, Daily Study Bible Series, Rev. ed. (Philadelphia:  Westminster Press, 1975) 318-19.

[7] David E. Garland, Mark, The NIV Application Commentary Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996) 437-38.

[8] David E. Garland, Mark, The NIV Application Commentary Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996) 438-39.

[9] David E. Garland, Mark, The NIV Application Commentary Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996) 439.

[10] David E. Garland, Mark, The NIV Application Commentary Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996) 440.

[11] David E. Garland, Mark, The NIV Application Commentary Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996) 448-49.

[12] William Barclay, The Gospel of Mark, Daily Study Bible Series, Rev. ed. (Philadelphia:  Westminster Press, 1975) 325-26.

Bible Passages for May 10-16, 2010

Monday                  5/10          Mark 11: 1-10
Tuesday                  5/11           Mark 11: 11-25
Wednesday            5/12          Mark 11: 27-33
Thursday                5/13          Mark 12: 1-12
Friday                     5/14          Bible Reading: Acts 21-24
Sat-Sun                  5/15-16     Bible Reading: Psalm 1-25

Click here to download the Inductive Bible Study Training Guide.

Click here to download the Inductive Bible Study Packet for May 10-16, 2010.

“Jesus typically fends off his opponents by going on the counterattack. When the Pharisees ask whether divorce is lawful, he asks them, ‘What did Moses command you?’ This rejoinder recasts the issue from a hypothetical debate about some unspecified husband to a command directed to them. It also exposes a fatal flaw in the Pharisees’ whole approach to the law. They come at the law asking, ‘What does it allow me to do?’ or, to put it more bluntly, ‘What can I get away with?’ This preoccupation with legal subtleties ultimately neglects God’s will, which is primarily concerned with love for the neighbor (12:31). They are interested in their rights, not their responsibilities, and pursue legal exoneration for a behavior no matter how it might affect another person. They ask only about the husband’s right to divorce and pay no attention to the needs of the wife — what it does to her or to children, whether she has any right to object to a divorce. Jesus’ question uncovers their sinful hearts hidden behind the mask of legal rectitude.”[1]

“The basic fact that vitiated the whole situation was that in Jewish law a woman was regarded as a thing. She had no legal rights whatever but was at the complete disposal of the male head of the family. The result was that a man could divorce his wife on almost any grounds, while there were very few on which a woman could seek divorce. At best she could only ask her husband to divorce her. ‘A woman may be divorced with or without her will, but a man only with his will.?’”[2]

vv.13-16

“In the ancient world, children had no status. They were easily ignored and barred access because no one would take the trouble to complain and fight for them. These children, who must be brought to Jesus by others, have nothing to commend an audience with him and cannot defend themselves against bullies. Jesus holds them up again as an example. Their littleness contrasts sharply with the overbearing disciples, who want to assert their power and influence. The disciples need to learn not only to minister to the little ones but also to adopt the attitude of littleness. The little ones are easily pushed aside because they are weak, but God works most powerfully in weakness. When one is appropriately little, like a child, or poor in spirit (Matt 5:3), one is more open to receiving the reign of God.”[3]

vv.17-31

“This brusque response gets to the core issue raised by this encounter. The man’s salutation assumes that one can find goodness in human resources and accomplishments. Probably, he identifies himself as ‘good’ as well and asks his question from one good man to another. He wants to know how to ensure that his goodness will pay off in eternal life. He hopes that Jesus can relieve any lingering doubts about his chances and inform him if there is anything in the fine print he needs to worry about. As the scene develops, God’s demands turn out to be far more costly than he bargained for, and Jesus’ teaching reveals another paradox: Goodness and salvation do not come from our own valiant efforts but only as a gift from God.”[4]

“His response, ‘Teacher … all these I have kept since I was a boy,’ is then either a defensive reaction or a triumphant exclamation. He has been good, and one should no more doubt his sincerity than that of the apostle Paul. Paul claimed that as a zealous Pharisee he was blameless according to the righteousness that comes from obedience to the law (Phil. 3:6).

“With an eye for poignant detail, Mark tells us that Jesus looked at the man and loved him (Mark 10:21). Jesus does not sneer at his claims to have obeyed the law. He believes what he says about his obedience; but because he loves him, he directly challenges him. He does not try to spare his feelings or avoid offending him but candidly speaks the truth. The man regards himself as respectably good, but being respectably good is not good enough. He lacks one thing. This statement implies that knowing the commandments and faithfully keeping them do not secure eternal life. Jesus does not tell the man specifically what the one thing is but gives him four directives: ‘Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor. … Then come, follow me.’ These commands stress that if one wants eternal life, everything depends on one’s response to Jesus.”

“The episode when blind Bartimaeus ‘is saved [healed]’ by his faith (10:52) answers this question more fully. Jesus only affirms here that salvation comes from a divine possibility, not from a human one. He corrects the implicit assumption in the rich man’s initial question. The man asked, ‘What must I do?’ (10:17) and asserted, ‘All these I have kept since I was a boy’ (10:20). He assumed that one could attain eternal life by doing something. Since he wanted something he could do, Jesus obliged him: Sell all that you have and give it to the poor. The disciples are to learn from this encounter that God requires something more than reverence for Jesus as a good teacher and earnest attempts to obey God’s commands (see Rom. 10:2 – 3). The man has attained conventional respectability with a genteel approach to obedience. But Jesus’ demand exposes the man’s reluctance to give himself and all he has over to God — to deny himself and all his earthly securities, works, and possessions. He falls short of the one thing the reign of God requires. To enter the kingdom of God one must submit to God’s rule so that God reigns over every aspect of life.”[5]

“Jesus’ confrontation of the rich man expresses true love. Many need to hear his disturbing demand because he casts a spotlight on our everyday values from eternity’s angle of vision. From that perspective, our covetousness looks rather silly. Those who invest only in themselves, in their security, and in their own comfort and pleasure need to know that they are making a bad investment. No amount of law observance will turn hearts set on the desire for material things to God. If Jesus advised radical surgery on hands, feet, and eyes so that one can enter life, even if maimed (9:43 – 48), how much more should we get rid of possessions that anchor the soul to this world and will only fuel the flames of judgment?”[6]

“Like so many today, this rich man wanted to serve God on his own terms. He obeyed all the commandments that suited him but resisted giving his whole life over to God. He was ‘afraid to expose himself to the uncertainties and insecurities of the future’ or to make himself vulnerable as a child. He accumulated possessions to secure his life in this world, and he accumulated obedience to the commandments to secure his life in the world to come. In a culture that has grown wary of commitment and risk, few want to bet their whole lives on Jesus. They also want to keep a material safety net and refuse to disentangle themselves from something that brings status, influence, and privilege. Few are willing to trust that there will be other brothers and sisters in the faith who will watch over them and care for them, partly because we do not watch out for them. To have life, one must trust God and give up the quest to create one’s own security.”[7]

vv.32-45

“It tells us of the courage of Jesus. Three times Jesus foretold the things that were to happen to him in Jerusalem, and as Mark tells of these warnings, each time they grow grimmer and some further detail of horror is included. At first (?Mark 8:31?) it is the bare announcement. At the second time the hint of betrayal is there (?Mark 9:31?). And now at the third time the jesting, the mocking and the scourging appear. It would seem as if the picture became ever clearer in the mind of Jesus as he became more and more aware of the cost of redemption.

“There are two kinds of courage. There is the courage which is a kind of instinctive reaction, almost a reflex action, the courage of the man confronted out of the blue with a crisis to which he instinctively reacts with gallantry, scarcely having time to think. Many a man has become a hero in the heat of the moment. There is also the courage of the man who sees the grim thing approaching far ahead, who has plenty of time to turn back, who could, if he chose, evade the issue, and who yet goes on. There is no doubt which is the higher courage—this known deliberate facing of the future. That is the courage Jesus showed. If no higher verdict was possible, it would still be true to say of Jesus that he ranks with the heroes of the world.”^[8]

vv.46-52

“Despite the shadow of the cross looming ever larger across his path, he can still hear the cries of others in distress. The crowd tries to make the man stop his clamor; Jesus stops for him. The crowd usually gets things wrong. No one is too insignificant to Jesus to command his attention. A leper, a woman with a hemorrhage, little children, and now a blind beggar all received Jesus’ care.”[9]

[2] William Barclay, The Gospel of Mark CD version, Daily Study Bible Series, Rev. ed. (Philadelphia:  Westminster Press, 1975).

[3] David E. Garland, Mark, The NIV Application Commentary Series CD version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996) .

[4] David E. Garland, Mark, The NIV Application Commentary Series CD version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996) .

[5] William Barclay, The Gospel of Mark CD version, Daily Study Bible Series, Rev. ed. (Philadelphia:  Westminster Press, 1975).

[6] David E. Garland, Mark, The NIV Application Commentary Series CD version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996) .

[7] David E. Garland, Mark, The NIV Application Commentary Series CD version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996) .

^[8]William Barclay, The Gospel of Mark CD version, Daily Study Bible Series, Rev. ed. (Philadelphia:  Westminster Press, 1975).

[9]David E. Garland, Mark, The NIV Application Commentary Series CD version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996) .

Bible Passages for May 3-9, 2010

Monday                  5/3           Mark 10:1-12
Tuesday                  5/4           Mark 10:13-31
Wednesday            5/5           Mark 10:32-45
Thursday                5/6           Mark 10:46-52
Friday                     5/7            Bible Reading: Acts 17-20
Sat-Sun                  5/8-9        Bible Reading: Job 31-42

Click here to download the Inductive Bible Study Training Guide.

Click here to download the Inductive Bible Study Packet for May 3-9, 2010.

“To convey Mark’s message faithfully one must present the glory and suffering of Jesus in stereo and not overemphasize one at the expense of the other. The two go hand in hand. The suffering of the Messiah will be far greater than imagined, but so will his glory. The text invites the interpreter to reflect on how weakness and humiliation go with power and glory. […] It also should make us ponder how we may fail to listen to Jesus and how our received traditions from our teachers cause us to be confused about how God works in our world.”[1]

v.4 “Moses and Elijah met with him. Now Moses was the supreme law-giver of Israel. To him the nation owed the laws of God. Elijah was the first and the greatest of the prophets. Always men looked back to him as the prophet who brought to men the very voice of God. When these two great figures met with Jesus it meant that the greatest of the law-givers and the greatest of the prophets said to him, ‘?Go on!?’ It meant that they saw in Jesus the consummation of all that they had dreamed of in the past. It meant that they saw in him all that history had longed for and hoped for and looked forward to. It is as if at that moment Jesus was assured that he was on the right way because all history had been leading up to the Cross.”^[2]

v.7 “In Jewish thought the presence of God is regularly connected with the cloud. It was in the cloud that Moses met God. It was in the cloud that God came to the Tabernacle. It was the cloud which filled the Temple when it was dedicated after Solomon had built it. And it was the dream of the Jews that when the Messiah came the cloud of God’s presence would return to the Temple. (Exodus 16:10, 19:9, 33:9, 1 Kings 8:10, […]) The descent of the cloud is a way of saying that the Messiah had come, and any Jew would understand it like that.”^[3]

v.10 “The disciples obeyed Jesus’ injunction. But they were puzzled by his statement about the resurrection of the Son of Man. As Jews they were familiar with the idea of a general resurrection of the dead. But this special resurrection of the Son of Man baffled them, as their discussion of it showed.” [4]

vv.11-13 “The disciples appeal to the authority of scribal opinion (based on Mal. 4:5-6) that Elijah was to appear first, before the great and terrible Day of the Lord that they hope will launch an earthly kingdom of messianic splendor. They are confused how the Son of Man’s rising from the dead fits into this timetable. If Elijah comes before the Day of the Lord, when the Messiah is to be made manifest, how can the Messiah be dead and need to be resurrected? Their bewilderment reveals that Jesus must continue to drill into their heads that God’s plan entails that the Son of Man must suffer and die.

“It may appear that Jesus agrees with the scribal doctrine about Elijah’s coming (9:12), but he gives it a twist by announcing that Elijah has already come. Clearly, he has John the Baptizer in mind, whom Mark has described as coming in the garb of Elijah (1:6). Matthew 17:13 makes the connection explicit, but Mark leaves it ambiguous, allowing readers to reason things out for themselves. Jesus’ statement means that, contrary to received opinion, Elijah’s return does not herald the approach of messianic happy days. If Elijah has indeed come, the disciples must rethink that it means for him to ‘restore all things.’ They can no longer think in terms of eschatological triumphalism.”[5]

vv.28-29 “Why were the nine disciples powerless to act in behalf of this boy (v. 28)? Here Mark gives us the answer. In private the disciples went to Jesus and asked him why they had failed. The question expressed their deep concern. They had been given authority over evil spirits (6:7) and had successfully cast out many demons before this incident (6:13). Why their failure now? Jesus answered, ‘This kind can come out only by prayer’ (9:29). Apparently they had taken for granted the power given them or had come to believe that it was inherent in themselves. So they no longer depended prayerfully on God for it, and their failure showed their lack of prayer.”[6]

“Lane comments, ‘The disciples had been tempted to believe that the gift they had received from Jesus (6:7) was in their control and could be exercised at their disposal.’ This attitude springs from a subtle form of unbelief. When one has success, it encourages trust in oneself and one’s techniques rather than in God.”[7]

v.29 “The prayer that Jesus has in mind is ‘not merely a pious exercise,’ rather it is ‘the sense of complete dependence on God from which sincere prayer springs.’  A life of prayer goes hand in hand with effective ministry.  It makes one receptive to the action of God.  One cannot get ready for the moment by quickly uttering a special prayer; one has to be ready through a prayerful life when the moment comes.  One cannot separate professional ministry to others from one’s own spiritual condition.  ‘Ministry is not an eight-to-five job but primarily a way of life.’ That way of life must be permeated with prayerfulness.”[8]

v.49 “This is admittedly one of the most difficult verses in Mark. Over a dozen different interpretations are found in the commentaries. Of these, two commend themselves; and both take their clue from the insertion by a copyist (see Mark 9 Notes) of the words ‘and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.’ This is a reference to Leviticus 2:13: ‘Season all your grain offerings with salt. Do not leave the salt of the covenant of your God out of your grain offerings; add salt to all your offerings.’

“One interpretation sees in the sacrificial salt a symbol of the covenant relationship the children of Israel had with God. For every disciple of Jesus, the salt of the covenant is the Divine Fire (cf. Matt 3:11), ‘which purifies, preserves and consummates sacrifice—the alternative to the Fire that consumes’ (Swete, p. 213). The fire is the Holy Spirit.

“Another interpretation sees in the fire the trials and persecutions of the disciples of Jesus. The previous verses relate to the dedication of the various members of the body (hand, foot, eye) to God. These must be sacrificed, if need be, to enter into the kingdom of God. Here in v. 49 the total self is in mind. Every true disciple is to be a total sacrifice to God (cf. Rom 12:1); and as salt always accompanied the temple sacrifices, so fire—i.e., persecution, trials, and suffering—will accompany the true disciple’s sacrifices (cf. 1 Peter 1:7; 4:12).”[9]

v.50 “In this verse salt must be understood in a domestic setting and not in a religious or ritual one as in v. 49. Salt played an important role in the ancient world. The rabbis considered it necessary to life. ‘The world cannot survive without salt’ […] It was also used as a preservative to keep food from spoiling. But salt could lose its saltiness. Jesus is warning his disciples not to lose that characteristic in them that brings life to the world and prevents its decay. But what is that characteristic that, if lost, will make the disciples of Jesus worthless? It is the disciples’ spirit of devotion and self-sacrifice (cf. v. 49) to Jesus Christ and his gospel. It will only be possible for disciples to be at peace with one another where that kind of devotion instead of self-interest prevails (cf. v. 34).”[10]

“So then in this saying Jesus was challenging the Christian. ‘The world,’ he said, ‘needs the flavour and the purity that only the Christian can bring. And if the Christian himself has lost the thrill and the purity of the Christian life, where will the world ever get these things?” Unless the Christian, in the power of Christ, defeats world-weariness and world corruption, these things must flourish unchecked.”[11]

^[2]William Barclay, The Gospel of Mark CD version, Daily Study Bible Series, Rev. ed. (Philadelphia:  Westminster Press, 1975).

^[3]William Barclay, The Gospel of Mark CD version, Daily Study Bible Series, Rev. ed. (Philadelphia:  Westminster Press, 1975).

[4] Frank E. Gaebelein, Gen. Ed. Expositor’s Bible Commentary CD (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992).

[5] David E. Garland, Mark, The NIV Application Commentary Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996) 347.

[6] Frank E. Gaebelein, Gen. Ed. Expositor’s Bible Commentary CD (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992).

[7] David E. Garland, Mark, The NIV Application Commentary Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996) 359.

[8] David E. Garland, Mark, The NIV Application Commentary Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996) 361-362.

[9] Frank E. Gaebelein, Gen. Ed. Expositor’s Bible Commentary CD (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992).

[10] Frank E. Gaebelein, Gen. Ed. Expositor’s Bible Commentary CD (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992).

[11] William Barclay, The Gospel of Mark CD version, Daily Study Bible Series, Rev. ed. (Philadelphia:  Westminster Press, 1975).

Bible Passages for April 26-May 2, 2010

Monday                  4/26           Mark 9: 1-13
Tuesday                  4/27           Mark 9: 14-29
Wednesday            4/28           Mark 9: 30-41
Thursday                4/29           Mark 9: 42-50
Friday                     4/30           Bible Reading: Acts 13-16
Sat-Sun                   5/1-2          Bible Reading: Job 11-30

Click here to download the Inductive Bible Study Training Guide.

Click here to download the Inductive Bible Study Packet for April 26-May 2, 2010.

vv.1-10: “This second feeding miracle invites comparison with the first. […]   Note how this feeding occurs immediately after Mark has recorded how Jesus crossed purity boundaries and social barriers. Jewish purificatory customs comprised the chief hindrance to associations between Jews and Gentiles, and Jesus has dismissed these concerns as peripheral (7:1 – 23). The healing of a Syrophoenician woman’s daughter opened the door to the possibility that Gentiles might also be fed without filching bread from the children (7:24 – 30).

“The context, therefore, suggests that Jesus is now offering a predominantly Gentile crowd the same opportunity to be fed by his teaching and by his miraculous power that he offered to the Jewish crowd. We may think that it is only fair that Gentiles get a share in Christ’s benefits, but from Mark’s Jewish perspective the inclusion of Gentiles is a token of the end-time reign of God. The miracle signifies that Jesus is not simply ‘a redeemer, a messiah like Moses and David’; he is the Redeemer, offering redemption to more than just the people of Israel […]

“The present account brings into bold relief the arrested development of the disciples. They were in on the first miracle feeding of five thousand in a deserted place, but this does not stop them from asking Jesus, ‘But where in this remote place can anyone get enough bread to feed them?’ (8:4). The answer to their question is obvious: from Jesus. The disciples are slow on the uptake and grope for answers in the dark, expecting nothing miraculous from Jesus. Again, Jesus patiently has the disciples go through their inventory of provisions. They do not yet realize that even with their scanty supplies, they have in Jesus enough to feed the entire world.”[1]

vv.11-13: “This oath fragment does more than say that no sign will be given this generation; it conveys with some vehemence that he will prevent it from happening at all costs.

“Why does Jesus oppose giving the Pharisees a sign from heaven? […] The reason Jesus balks at giving a sign here in 8:11 – 12 revolves around two issues: the meaning of the expression ‘a sign from heaven,’ and the defiant disposition of these opponents.

“(1) ‘A sign from heaven’ does not refer to the author of the sign — a sign from God. Signs by their very nature came from God, so that the phrase ‘a sign from God’ is redundant. The Pharisees specifically ask for a sign ‘from heaven.’ They have in mind a peculiar type of sign distinct from another sign they may have requested. […] This generation, represented by the Pharisees, asks Jesus to do something that will signal Israel’s deliverance from her enemies and their crushing defeat. A sign from heaven is something that ‘is apocalyptic in tone, triumphalistic in character, and the embodiment of one of the ‘mighty deeds of deliverance’ that God had worked on Israel’s behalf in rescuing it from slavery.’

“Ironically, this request comes after the miraculous feeding, a miracle that pointed to the blessing, not the destruction, of Gentiles. Jesus refuses to give the Pharisees a sign from heaven because God has sent him to give his life on the cross for all humanity, not to smash the enemies of Israel or to give the nation political mastery of the world. He will not give in to pressure to take a course of action different from God’s purposes.

“(2) The Pharisees have already received plenty of proof in Mark 1 – 2 of the source of Jesus’ power, and they come now only as detractors who wish to tempt him. When Jesus addresses them as ‘this generation,’ this phrase recalls the stubborn, disobedient generation of the desert (Deut. 32:5, 20; Ps. 95:10 – 11).”[2]

vv.14-21: “This passage sheds a very vivid light on the minds of the disciples.  They were crossing over to the other side of the Sea of Galilee, and they had forgotten to bring bread with them.  We will best get the meaning of this passage if we connect it closely with what goes before.  Jesus was thinking of the demand of the Pharisees for a sign and also thinking of Herod’s terrified reaction to himself.  […] To the Jew leaven was the symbol of evil.  Leaven was a piece of dough kept over from a previous baking and fermented.  To the Jew fermentation was identified with putrefaction and therefore evil.  […]

“What is the point?  What possible connection is there between the Pharisees and Herod?  The Pharisees had just asked for a sign.  For a Jew—we shall see this more fully shortly—nothing was easier than to think of the Messiah in terms of wonders and conquests and miraculous happenings and nationalistic triumphs and political supremacy.  Herod had tried to build up happiness through the gaining of power and wealth and influence and prestige.  In one sense, for both the Pharisees and Herod the Kingdom of God was an earthly Kingdom; it was based on earthly power and greatness, and on the victories that force could win.  It was as if Jesus by this detached hint was already preparing the disciples for something very soon to come.  It was as if he was saying, ‘Maybe soon it will dawn on you that I am God’s Anointed One, the Messiah.  When that thought does come don’t think in terms of earthly power and glory as the Pharisees and Herod do.’

“In point of fact this hint of Jesus passed clean over the disciples’ heads.  They could think of nothing but the fact that they had forgotten to bring loaves, and that, unless something happened, they would go hungry.  Jesus saw their preoccupation with bread.  It may well be that he asked his questions, not with anger, but with a smile, like one who tries to lead a slow child to see a self-evident truth.  He reminded them that twice he had satisfied the hunger of huge crowds with food enough and to spare.  It is as if he said, ‘Why all the worry?  Don’t you remember what happened before?  Hasn’t experience taught you that you don’t need to worry about things like that if you are with me?’ ”[3]

vv:22-26: “Again we see the unique considerateness of Jesus.  He took the blind man out of the crowd and out of the village that he might be alone with him.  Why?  Think about it.  This man was blind and apparently had been born blind.  If he had been suddenly given back his sight amidst a crowd, there would have flashed upon his newly-seeing eyes hundreds of people and things, and dazzling colours, so that he would have been completely bewildered.  Jesus knew it would be far better if he could be taken to a place where the thrill of seeing would break less suddenly upon him. […] That is why Jesus was so supremely great.  He could enter into the mind and heart of the people whom he sought to help.  He had the gift of considerateness, because he could think with their thoughts and feel with their feelings.  God grant to us this Christlike gift. […]

“Jesus used methods that the man could understand.  The ancient world believed in the healing power of spittle.  The belief is not so strange when we remember that it is a first instinct to put a cut or burned finger into our mouth to ease the pain.

“In one thing this miracle is unique—it is the only miracle which can be said to have happened gradually.  Usually Jesus’ miracles happened suddenly and completely.  In this miracle the blind man’s sight came back in stages.  There is symbolic truth here.  No man sees all God’s truth all at once.  One of the dangers of a certain type of evangelism is that it encourages the idea that when a man has taken his decision for Christ he is a full-grown Christian.” [4]

“Since the man does not recover his sight immediately, the reader gets the impression that his blindness is stubborn and hard to cure. The miracle shows Jesus’ power to heal even the most difficult cases. The Markan context, which portrays Jesus’ struggle to get his disciples to see anything, gives this unusual two-stage healing added significance. The blind man’s healing occurs between two examples of the disciples’ blindness (8:14 – 21; 8:31 – 33). This physical healing of blindness serves as a paradigm for the spiritual healing of the disciples’ sight, which also comes gradually and with difficulty.

“As we near the midway point of this Gospel, the first half has drawn attention to the disciples’ inability to recognize that Jesus is the Messiah empowered by God. When it finally dawns on Peter, the spokesman for the group, that Jesus is the Christ, the disciples encounter a new hurdle to their understanding. The second half of the book will reveal their inability to understand that this Messiah must suffer and die and be vindicated in his resurrection.

“As Jesus asked the blind man, ‘Do you see anything?’ so he will ask the disciples, ‘Who do you say I am?’ Peter does see something. After all of Jesus’ mighty works and deeds, he has a flash of insight: ‘You are the Christ’ (8:29). The first stage of healing is complete. But he only has partial sight, as Jesus’ stern rebuke in the next sentence makes clear (8:33). Peter sees, but he sees the equivalent of walking trees. Both Peter and the disciples require a second touch before they will see all things clearly — that the Messiah must suffer and die.” [5]

vv.27-33: “THE FIRST COURSE of instruction takes place in the unlikely location of Caesarea Philippi, which lay on the border between the Holy Land and Gentile territory and was famed for its cultic associations with the nature god, Pan. Herod the Great built a grand marble temple here to revere the Roman emperor; and his son Herod Philip enlarged the city and renamed it in honor of Caesar. A Roman governor exercising Caesar’s power will execute this Christ, but the resurrection will begin to topple the very foundations of the empire and reveal the power of God. Peter’s recognition that Jesus is the Christ occurs in a pagan outpost — as far away from Jerusalem as one can get and still be in Israel. Jesus will push from here to Jerusalem, the Holy City, where they will only mock him as the Christ as he suffers on a cross (15:32).

“Jesus teaches his disciples by asking them probing questions. The first one is (8:27): ‘Who do people say I am?’ The disciples report his favorable ratings in the polls. The man in the street holds a good opinion of Jesus. Their views offset the slander of his bitter opponents, who regard him as a pawn of Beelzebub; the worries of his kinsmen, who think that he is out of his mind; and the bias of his fellow citizens in Nazareth, who dismiss him as just one of them. Most put Jesus in the pigeonhole of prophet figure, maybe even John the Baptizer or Elijah. These opinions remind the reader of Herod’s top-level speculation about Jesus — that he was John the Baptizer, Elijah, or one of the prophets (6:14 – 15). Whether the people believed that God sent him to announce doom and gloom or doom and dawn, they at least believe God sent him.

“These people have not hit on the truth, however. Jesus is more than just another in a long line of messengers God has dispatched to the people. Thus, Jesus probes further, ‘Who do you say I am?’ So far, the disciples have only called him ‘Teacher’ (4:38), but they have asked themselves the same question, ‘Who is this?’ (4:41). Peter moves to the head of the class by giving the answer that makes sense of all that they have witnessed: ‘You are the Christ’ (8:29). His confession occurs in the very center of the Gospel. This passage serves as a hinge between the first half of the Gospel, where Jesus’ power is so prominent, and the second half, where his weakness becomes predominant.

“This confession represents a significant leap of faith, given the current expectations associated with the Messiah. It was by no means obvious that Jesus was the Messiah. A few people were healed, many were fed, but Israel was not yet free from pagan domination. In the first century most Jews believed the Messiah would be a royal figure, the offspring of David, whom God would empower to deliver Israel from her foes. […]

“The reader knows that Peter’s answer is correct from the title of the Gospel (1:1). It seems a major breakthrough. He has finally caught on, and the reader might expect that the disciples have finally begun to shake off their persistent stupor. The secret will soon be out. But Jesus does not confirm Peter’s confession or praise him for his insight. Instead, he rebukes him to tell no one (8:30). […] Jesus does not want Peter’s faulty opinions proliferating among the crowds, whose ability to grasp Jesus’ identity is even more limited than the disciples.

“The latter option is supported from what follows. After rebuking Peter, Jesus explains that it is necessary for the Son of Man to suffer (8:31); and this announcement, spoken to them ‘plainly’ (8:32), plunges them back into an uncomprehending daze. Jesus undermines Peter’s new-found faith to lead him to a higher level of faith. The Son of Man’s suffering, rejection, and death all have to do with God’s hidden way of salvation. The secret is not that Jesus is the Christ but has to do with what he will do as Messiah — or, rather, what will be done to him. […]

“Peter displays astonishing nerve by trying to set Jesus straight on what is and what is not necessary. He calls Jesus aside and ‘rebukes’ him for being so mistaken as to think that the Messiah will ever have to suffer. His counter-rebuke reveals his ignorance about the nature of Jesus’ messiahship and his deep offense at Jesus’ teaching. Paul said that the cross was foolishness to Greeks and a stumbling block to Jews (1 Cor. 1:23), and Peter is the first to stumble over the offense of a suffering Messiah. Like the blind man from Bethsaida, the scales have partially, and only partially, fallen from his eyes. Preconceived notions about the Messiah blur his vision, and he only appraises things from a human perspective. He has begun to understand that Jesus’ great manifestation of power means that he must be the Messiah, but he does not have any understanding how Jesus’ passion ties into his identity.

“Peter’s concept of the ‘Christ’ is too narrow, too laden with selfish, human fantasies. He thinks that the Christ will establish a reign of peace and righteousness by overthrowing the powers who hold God’s people Israel in a vise of oppression. The Christ is, by definition, a winner, destined for honor and glory. Anyone with Jesus’ amazing powers to silence the sea and unclean spirits, to heal the sick with a word or a touch, and to feed thousands from a few scraps is headed for glory and universal veneration. Anyone who has heavenly authority to forgive sins on earth (2:10) and to determine what is permissible on the Sabbath (2:28) need not suffer on earth. How can such a Messiah be rejected and become a victim of violence? For Peter, a suffering Messiah is impossible. The Messiah will come as a triumphant hero, dishing out punishment to those who oppose him.’ [6]

vv.34-9:1: “Three demands. (1) Jesus insists that if the disciples want to follow him, they must deny themselves. He does not ask disciples to deny something to themselves but to deny the self and all self-promoting ambitions. Discipleship is not part-time volunteer work that one does as an extracurricular activity. God refuses to accept a minor role in one’s life; he requires a controlling place. Those who deny themselves have learned to say, ‘Not my will but thine be done.’

“(2) Jesus demands that his disciples take up a cross. This vivid imagery must have sounded strange before Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection but would have communicated danger and sacrifice. Public executions were a prominent feature of life. Cicero described crucifixion as a cruel, disgusting penalty, the worst of extreme tortures inflicted on slaves and something to be dreaded. The Romans made the condemned carry the transverse beam of the cross to the place of execution, where they affixed it to the execution stake. By requiring disciples to carry their cross, Jesus expects them to be willing to join the ranks of the despised and doomed. They must be ready to deny themselves even to the point of giving their lives.

“(3) Jesus tells his disciples to follow the way he has chosen, not the way they would choose for themselves. Jesus does not want a convoy of followers who marvel at his deeds but fail to follow his example. The procession he envisages is a rare sight: disciples following after their Master, each carrying a cross. The imagery means that disciples must obey his teaching, including what he says about giving their lives.

“The rationale. Jesus appeals to the basic human desire to secure one’s life as the rationale for making such a sacrifice. Humans seek to guarantee their lives but usually choose ways destined to fail. Jesus offers a paradoxical principle for successfully saving one’s soul: To save one’s life, one has to lose it. Human beings make futile attempts to safeguard their lives by storing up goods in bigger barns, but nothing that one acquires in this life can ransom one’s soul from God. If we give up our lives for his sake and the gospel, we will be given the only life that counts, life from God.

“A solemn warning. Jesus next warns his disciples about the judgment, when each one will have to give an account before the Judge. The warning implies that when the Son of Man comes in the glory of his Father, he will come as the Judge (see Matt. 25:31 – 32). He warns disciples not to retreat from his present shame in the eyes of this world as the crucified Messiah. They must side with him now in his suffering and humiliation, or they will not be at his side in the glorious age to come. The individual’s stance toward Jesus will determine the final verdict.

“Jesus uses the threat of judgment to induce his followers to be faithful. To be put to shame is the opposite of divine vindication (Pss. 25:3; 119:6; Isa. 41:10 – 11; Jer. 17:18). Those who may be frightened by the edicts of earthly courts (represented in this Gospel by Herod Antipas, the high priest’s Sanhedrin, and the Roman governor, Pilate) should fear even more the decision of the heavenly tribunal, which determines their eternal destiny. The petty tyrants, who for a fleeting moment hold the whip hand, can inflict fearful punishment. But one cannot appease them or straddle the fence. To win the favor of the world and its despots means to lose the favor of heaven. To win the favor of heaven means to lose the favor of the world.

“In the judgment, the utter powerlessness of God’s hostile adversaries will be manifest as they are brought to the bar to answer to God. Those who have thrown in their lot with them will find that they have made a fatal choice. They have bartered a few more years of life on earth with this wicked and adulterous generation for an eternity with them in hell. Giving one’s life in service to God may mean losing a few years on earth, but the result will be spending eternity with the glorified Son of Man. Jesus does not say that confessing him will make us happier but that it will save us from God’s judgment. The better part of wisdom is to follow Jesus’ way, even if it leads to earthly humiliation; the only other choice leads to divine condemnation. This warning hits home when Peter cannot make the same bold confession in a hate-filled courtyard (14:66 – 72; see also 13:9).

“A confident promise. Jesus concludes this first lesson on discipleship requirements with a solemn promise that some of them will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God coming in power (9:1). The suffering will not go on forever. The resurrection of the Son of Man (8:31) and his coming in glory with the holy angels (8:38) removes the sting from the humiliation of a cross.” [7]

[2] David E. Garland, Mark (NIVAC; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing, 1996), Electronic Ed.

[3] The Gospel of Mark. 2000 (W. Barclay, lecturer in the University of Glasgow, Ed.). The Daily study Bible series, Rev. ed. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.

[4] The Gospel of Mark. 2000 (W. Barclay, lecturer in the University of Glasgow, Ed.). The Daily study Bible series, Rev. ed. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.

[5] David E. Garland, Mark (NIVAC; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing, 1996), Electronic Ed.

[6] David E. Garland, Mark (NIVAC; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing, 1996), Electronic Ed.

[7] David E. Garland, Mark (NIVAC; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing, 1996), Electronic Ed.

Bible Passages for April 19-25, 2010

Monday                  4/19           Mark 8:1-13
Tuesday                  4/20          Mark 8:14-21
Wednesday            4/21           Mark 8:22-30
Thursday                4/22          Mark 8: 31-38
Friday                      4/23          Bible Reading: Acts 9-12
Sat-Sun                   4/24-25    Bible Reading: Esther, Job 1-10

Click here to download the Inductive Bible Study Training Guide.

Click here to download the Inductive Bible Study Packet for April 19-25, 2010.

Another fact finding delegation was sent by the Pharisees in Jerusalem to observe Jesus, and to their surprise they discover that Jesus’ disciples did not observe the ceremonial tradition of washing one’s hands before eating a meal. To the Pharisaic and Scribal Jew, it was ritual, ceremonial, and regulations like washing of the hands which they considered to be essence of the service of God.  Ethical religion was buried under a mass of taboos and rules.[1] William Barclay notes that his ceremony is arduous and failure to perform this ritual made one unclean in the sight of God.  According to Barclay, “[t]he man who ate with unclean hands was subject to the attacks of a demon called Shibta. To omit so to wash the hands was to become liable to poverty and destruction.”[2]

vv.9-13

In verse 9, Jesus sarcastically says, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your traditions.”  Jesus gave an example in verses 10 to 13.  One of the commandments is to honor your father and mother.  But by tradition, one could circumvent his duty to support his parents by declaring as “Corban” what he intended to give his parents.  Then when his father or mother in dire need comes to him for help, he can say, “I am sorry that I cannot help because nothing that I have is available for you because it is dedicated to God.”  And then the son could discharge his part of the matter by making a quite small symbolic payment to the Temple, and then keeping the rest for himself.[3] Through the tradition of the Corban, one had a readily-accessible method to spiritualize his/her selfish motivations.

vv.14-19

From Jesus’ strong condemnation of the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, one can infer that he rejects the Pharisees’ opinion that unclean hands defile food.  He now goes much further by explicitly rejecting the proposition that contact with anything profane defiles a person.  Jesus does not differ with the Pharisees only over details such as washing hands; he rejects their whole approach to God’s law.  They are concerned about surface impurity and piety; Jesus is concerned about internal impurity that one cannot wash away by washing the hands.[4]

That one cannot be holy before God through ritualistic acts seems quite obvious and intuitive to us now; however, we must realize that we see through the lens which has been shaped by the full revelation of God that has come through Christ.  The years of tradition laid on top of other preceding traditions has stripped Israel’s worship of God and the concept of holiness of their ethical core and replaced it with ritualistic acts.  To the Jew, along with other peoples during those times, the essence of service to God (as toward any deity in shamanistic / pantheistic culture) was in ritual cleanliness, in obedience to the Sabbath laws and food laws.  That’s what set them apart.  One needs to be clear here that the obedience to those laws is not what Jesus is criticizing and rejecting here.  Jesus is rejecting the system which has made those acts themselves as an end in itself – the system which equates such ritualistic acts with holiness and cleanliness before God.

vv.20-23

“It is a truly terrible list which Jesus cites of the things that come from the human heart.  When we examine it a shudder surely passes over us.  Nonetheless it is a summons, not to a fastidious shrinking from such things, but to an honest self-examination of our own hearts.”[5]

vv.24-26

This passage contains difficulties and surprises that need to be seen in the context of Jesus’ movement toward a Gentile ministry as well as the socio-political context.  First, Jesus is found in a predominantly Gentile region when this incident happens.  Second, the woman is a Gentile pagan; not only that, she hails from a city that the Old Testament deemed to be a wealthy and godless oppressor of Israel (ref. Isa 23; Jer 47:4; Ezek 26-28; Joel 3:4; Amos 1:9; Zech 9:2).[6] Furthermore, there existed socio-economic tension between Tyre and Galilee.  “The city of Tyre was well stocked with produce from the hinterland of Galilee (see Acts 12:20), while those who grew the food frequently went hungry.  Economically, Tyre took break away from Galilee.  Galileans perceived Tyre politically as posing a permanent threat with expansionist policies since there were no natural boundaries to mark off the two regions.  The hostility between Tyrians and Jews is reflected in Josephus’ statement that the people from Tyre are ‘our bitterest enemies’.  This woman is, therefore, not just a Gentile but a member of a resented class of privileged foes.  It would be analogous to a rich Brahmin coming to a shelter run by Mother Teresa and insisting that she leave her untouchable charges to pray over his sick child.”[7]

Also, most Jews in the first century shared without question the prejudice that Gentiles defiled by touch.  “The humble request of this Gentile woman, therefore, creates dramatic tension.  Will Jesus be as gracious to this lady from Tyre as he was to the unclean outcasts within Israel?”[8]

v.27

Jesus’ reply to the woman can be somewhat surprising, although one might think that if she is indeed from the domineering high society of Tyre, Jesus’ provocative response is arguably not all that surprising.  Nevertheless, it is difficult to determine the tone with which Jesus spoke those words.  However, we do have some clues.

First, Jesus did not use the usual word for “dog” – he used a diminutive word which described, not the wild dogs that roamed the streets, but the little pet dogs of the house.  In Greek, diminutives are characteristically affectionate.  Jesus took the sting out of the word.

Second, we can see that Jesus did not shut the door.  “First, he said, let the children eat; but only first; there is meat left for the household pets.  True, Israel had the first offer of the gospel, but only the first; there were others still to come.”[9]

Also, along with v.29 which shows the gladness of Jesus to receive her reply, Matthew records that Jesus praised her faith afterwards (Matt 15:28), which tips us off to the possibility that Jesus’ words were not simply cold rejections, but a test to elicit greater faith and dependence from the woman.

Having said all that, however, we ought not to try to defang the provocative statement completely.  A dog is a dog, whether it is a pampered household pet or a street pest.  Even if said softly and tenderly, most would not understand the term “dog” as a term of honor.  However, Mark is apparently oblivious to the problem in the story that bothers us so much.  The reason that it bothers us is this: “We assume that Jesus is obligated to respond to every request and to heal everyone.”[10]

“We should not try to relieve Jesus’ supposed want of chivalry.  Jesus is deliberately scandalous – throwing stumbling blocks in people’s way.  He affronts the Pharisees by calling them hypocrites to their face and scoffing at their beloved tradition, and he insults this Gentile woman by hinting she is a dog.  One should allow the scandal to stand and emphasize that one must overcome the scandal before one can open the door for Jesus to help.”[11]

“No one likes being called hypocrites, an evil generation, brood of vipers, whitewashed tombs, foxes, or dogs.  Our pride kicks in and keeps us from ever asking for help again.  We will turn to gods of our own making who will not offend us, because we convince ourselves that we are special and truly worthy of God’s grace and help.”[12] We feel that God owes us to help; we have a hold on God, a ticket that we can flash before Him that will obligate him pay attention to us.  It is this false belief and our pride that takes offense at Jesus’ response, which prevents us from receiving God’s help and asking for mercy.

vv.28-30

The beauty of this woman’s faith is exemplified by her response to Jesus’ apparent rejection.  The woman accepts that she is unacceptable.  “Yet she does not cut herself off from the miraculous power of Jesus by thinking that she is too unworthy to receive anything at all.  She accepts his judgment and bows down as a beggar for grace.”[13]

vv.31-37

Jesus took the man aside away from the crowd.  He likely did this because he did wished to keep the deaf man from becoming a public spectacle.  For the deaf, it can be quite disorienting to be in a large crowd that is excited, since his disability is accentuated in the midst of such a crowd.  So Jesus takes him away from the crowd.  In this simple act, we can see Jesus’ most tender considerateness.

Why did Jesus use his spit to heal the man?  In those days people believed that spittle had a curative quality, and Jesus uses the means that was understandable to the deaf man.  Since the deaf man could not understand spoken language, Jesus uses another medium of communication.  By the deliberate action of putting his fingers into the man’s ears and spitting and touching the man’s tongue, there can be no doubt in the deaf man’s mind what Jesus’ intentions were.

“When it was completed the people declared that he had done all things well.  That is none other than the verdict of God upon his own creation in the very beginning.  When Jesus came, bringing healing to men’s bodies and salvation to their souls, he had begun the work of creation all over again.  In the beginning everything had been good; man’s sin had spoiled it all; and now Jesus was bringing back the beauty of God to the world which man’s sin had rendered ugly.”[14]

[2] Daily Bible Study Series: The Book of Mark, Barclay, William

[3] Daily Bible Study Series: The Book of Mark, Barclay, William

[4] Garland, David.  The NIV Application Commentary: Mark, p.275

[5] Barclay, William.  The Daily Study Bible Series: The Gospel of Mark, p.175

[6] Garland, David.  The NIV Application Commentary: Mark, p.288

[7] Garland, David.  The NIV Application Commentary: Mark, p.293

[8] Garland, David.  The NIV Application Commentary: Mark, p.288

[9] Barclay, William.  The Daily Study Bible Series: the Gospel of Mark, p.179

[10] Garland, David.  The NIV Application Commentary: Mark, p.293

[11] Garland, David.  The NIV Application Commentary: Mark, p.293

[12] Garland, David.  The NIV Application Commentary: Mark, p.294

[13] Garland, David.  The NIV Application Commentary: Mark, p.294

[14] Barclay, William.  The Daily Study Bible Series: the Gospel of Mark, p.182

Bible Passages for April 12-18, 2010

Monday                  4/12           Mark 7:1-13
Tuesday                  4/13           Mark 7:14-23
Wednesday            4/14           Mark 7:24-30
Thursday                4/15           Mark 7:31-37
Friday                      4/16          Bible Reading: Acts 5-8
Sat-Sun                   4/17-18     Bible Reading: Nehemiah

Click here to download the Inductive Bible Study Training Guide.

Click here to download the Inductive Bible Study Packet for April 12-18, 2010.

“Their reservations about Jesus and his failure to do any “miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them” suggest that Jesus is powerless to work miracles apart from people’s faith. The text prompts us to ask why. The people of Nazareth already knew of Jesus’ miracles (6:2) but refused to believe. Their cynicism prevented most from bringing their sick to him for healing. Only a handful did so, and he healed them. Doubt has trouble believing; unbelief obstinately refuses to believe. Mark portrays Jesus’ hometown as mired in an obstinate unbelief that deprived them of the gracious benefits of God’s reign.”[2]

vv.8-10, “The disciples’ mission is an extension of Christ’s work in the world. They go as the voice and action of Christ. Jesus will not do it all. He sends out disciples to help make ministry happen. They go in his name, preach what he taught, and work by his power. He does not send them out hat-in-hand to beg for a positive response but with divine authority to call others to repentance. They are to be so dedicated to the task of their mission that personal comforts become inconsequential. […] Devotion to the task rather than devotion to oneself is therefore an absolute requirement for those who serve God.”[3]

v.11, “Later rabbinic sources note that Jews who returned from Gentile regions were to shake off the dust that is on their feet as a form of cleansing. Here it also serves as a sign against them. But there is no human militancy in the proclamation of Jesus’ message. God is the sole judge. The act of shaking off the dust is an illustration of the fact that their rejection of God’s message leaves the town accountable to God.”[4]

“Hospitality was a sacred duty in the East. When a stranger entered a village, it was not his duty to search for hospitality; it was the duty of the village to offer it. Jesus told his disciples that if hospitality was refused, and if doors and ears were shut, they must shake off the dust of that place from their feet when they left. The Rabbinic law said that the dust of a Gentile country was defiled, and that when a man entered Palestine from another country he must shake off every particle of dust of the unclean land. It was a pictorial formal denial that a Jew could have any fellowship even with the dust of a heathen land. It is as if Jesus said, “?If they refuse to listen to you, the only thing you can do is to treat them as a rigid Jew would treat a Gentile house. There can be no fellowship between them and you.?”^[5]

v.14 “Herod Antipas, seventh son of Herod the Great, was tetrarch of Galilee and Perea (4 b.c.–a.d. 39), serving as an administrator under Rome. Antipas was not technically a King, although his contemporaries may have referred to him as such (cf. his statement in Mark 6:23: “half of my kingdom”). He lost his position in a.d. 39 after trying to gain complete sovereignty.”[6]

v.17 “John the Baptist had publicly charged Herod Antipas with breaking the law (Lev. 18:16; 20:21) by marrying Herodias, the former wife of his (still living) half brother Herod Philip I (son of Mariamne II and Herod the Great), in a.d. 27; as a result, Herod had put John in prison.”[7]

vv.14-20 “Herod is said to have listened to John the Baptizer with fascination. John elicited both gladness and perplexity in the ruler (see Paul and Felix in Acts). How often God’s message exerts a strange power that makes people want to listen to things that disturb them greatly. Apparently, Herod could listen to sermons all day long; but like so many, he had a rock-hard resistance to repentance and was too weak to obey. The cost would have been enormous for him. He would have had to give up his wife, his dancing parties, and his abuse of power. Hearing John’s message and acknowledging that he was a righteous man, however, only served to compound the enormity of Herod’s guilt. The theme of hearing reemerges in 6:14 and 20, which brackets the first section 6:14 – 20. According to the criteria of Jesus’ parable of the sower, Herod qualifies as bad ground. He hears gladly, but does nothing. He reveres John as a prophet but cannot muster enough courage to admit he made a rash oath and should not submit to his wife’s wicked request. A fearless prophet is undone by a cowardly king, who saved his face but lost his soul.[8]

vv.35-37 “The disciples again function as straight men whose alarm accentuates the magnitude of the miracle (see 4:41; 5:31). They stress that they are in a deserted place (cf. 1:3 – 4, 12 – 13), and they ask incredulously how they can possibly feed such a number. It would require at least two-hundred denarii, the equivalent of two hundred days’ pay for a day laborer (Matt. 20:2). […] Their squawking also reveals that they still have no inkling that Jesus has divine power to supply whatever they need. […] The feeding in the desert evokes several biblical themes.  It recalls God’s miraculous provision of food. The disciples begin with hardly anything and end up with enough to satisfy five thousand. The fragments collected into twelve baskets reveal both the great abundance and the magnitude of the miracle; they end with far more than they began.”[9]

“The need can be overwhelming, and we are tempted to send the suffering and needy away empty-handed. We may have heard or even voiced the same protest the disciples made: It will cost too much for us to do anything about their need. Let them take care of themselves. They are not our responsibility. What we may really be saying is that we will not have enough money for ourselves if we have to take care of “them” as well. […] Everywhere we turn, we find the need of a hungry crowd and little or no food. Jesus instructs us to feed them.”[10]

v.48  “The fourth watch is the time between 3:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. The Sea of Galilee is 696 feet (212 m) below sea level, resulting in violent downdrafts and sudden windstorms (cf. 4:37).”[11]

“The verb parerchomai (“to pass by”) [...] This verb occurs in two key passages in the Old Testament. In Exodus 33:19 – 34:7, Moses asks God to show him his glory, and God responds by passing before him and proclaiming his identity […] And in 1 Kings 19:11 – 12, the Lord tells Elijah to stand on the mountain, “for the LORD is about to pass by.”[12]

vv.51-52 “Mark offers a surprising explanation for the disciples’ terror and amazement: “For they had not understood about the loaves; their hearts were hardened” (6:52). The two incidents are somehow connected. What is it that they do not understand about the loaves? What does it have to do with walking on the water? Minear is on target when he comments that the disciples are “blind to the presence of God and his care for men … to the full glory of the revelation of God ‘in the face of Christ.”[13]

“We not only meet God in Jesus Christ, we also learn about ourselves through him. The disciples’ fear and lack of comprehension in response to this miracle says something about the human condition when it comes in contact with the divine. The disciples thought they were seeing a ghost. They did not understand the loaves, and their hearts were hardened. We rarely see God walking past or recognize his blessing, bounty, or presence in our lives. In bridging the contexts we ought to reflect on similar experiences from our past where God met us but we were too dense to see it at the time.”[14]

[2] David E. Garland, Mark, The NIV Application Commentary Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996) 238.

[3] David E. Garland, Mark, The NIV Application Commentary Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996) 248-49.

[4] ESV Study Bible, Notes for Mark (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2008) 1904.

^[5] William Barclay, The Gospel of Mark, Daily Study Bible Series, Rev. ed. (Philadelphia:  Westminster Press, 1975) 166.

[6] ESV Study Bible, Notes for Mark (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2008) 1904.

[7] ESV Study Bible, Notes for Mark (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2008) 1905.

[8] David E. Garland, Mark, The NIV Application Commentary Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996) 250-52.

[9] David E. Garland, Mark, The NIV Application Commentary Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996) 253-54.

[10] David E. Garland, Mark, The NIV Application Commentary Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996) 259.

[11] ESV Study Bible, Notes for Mark (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2008) 1906.

[12] David E. Garland, Mark, The NIV Application Commentary Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996) 263-64.

[13] David E. Garland, Mark, The NIV Application Commentary Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996) 264.

[14] David E. Garland, Mark, The NIV Application Commentary Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996) 267.

Bible Passages for April 5-11, 2010

Monday                  4/5           Mark 6:1-13
Tuesday                  4/6           Mark 6:14-29
Wednesday            4/7           Mark 6:30-44
Thursday                4/8           Mark 6:45-56
Friday                      4/9           Acts 1-4
Sat-Sun                   4/10-11    Ezra

Click here to download the Inductive Bible Study Training Guide.

Click here to download the Inductive Bible Study Packet for April 5-11, 2010.

Bible Passages for March 22-28, 2010

Monday                     3/22             Mark 5:1-10
Tuesday                     3/23             Mark 5:11-20
Wednesday               3/24            Mark 5:21-34
Thursday                   3/25            Mark 5:35-43
Friday                         3/26            Luke 17-20
Sat-Sun                      3/27-28      2 Chronicles 6-20

Click here to download the Inductive Bible Study Training Guide.

Click here to download the Inductive Bible Study Packet for March 22-28, 2010.

vv.1-5 “The eastern side of the Sea of Galilee (‘across the lake’) was largely inhabited by Gentiles.  Jesus and his disciples embarked on their journey during the evening, so it was during the night when Jesus encountered this eerie, demoniac.  During that time period, people were often buried in natural caves or tombs carved out of limestone rock.  Thus it was a natural place for the Garasene demonic to reside there because of the popular belief that tombs were the favorite place of demons.”[2]

v.9 “A legion was the number in a Roman regiment consisting of 6000 foot soldiers and 120 horsemen.”[4]

v.13 “What must be seen above all else is that the fate of the swine demonstrates the ultimate intention of the demons with respect to the man they had possessed. It is their purpose to destroy the creation of God, and halted in their destruction of a man, they fulfilled their purpose in the swine.”[5]

vv.15-19 “The spotlight shifts back to the man, whose fear of Jesus is vanquished with the expulsion of the demons. He is seated, the position of the disciple (Luke 10:39; Acts 22:3), and requests to ‘to be with Jesus,’ the role of the disciple (3:14).”[6]

v. 19 “A Christological subtlety in 5:19 – 20 should not be overlooked. Jesus tells the man, ‘Go home to your family and tell them how much the Lord has done for you, and how he has had mercy on you.’ (5:19). The man is not simply to tell people about the miracle that happened to him but what that miracle signifies: The Lord has been at work. Yet Jesus is the one who healed him, and the man announces the things that Jesus has done for him (5:20). For Jesus, all that he does is designed to bring glory to God. For Mark, Jesus is synonymous with the Lord (1:3; 12:36 – 7). Where Jesus acts, God acts.”[7]

vv.21-43 “Consider what polar opposites Jairus and this un-named woman were in terms of their economic, social and religious background.  Jairus was well recognized, important, and as the synagogue ruler a very prominent person in the community.  The bleeding woman was a female in a male dominated society, physically ill, ritually unclean, destitute,  and is not even named in the text signifying her status as a nobody in the community.  In fact she was worse than a nobody, since she was considered to be unclean due to her bleeding (Leviticus 15:25-33).” [8]

“The two however do share significant similarities.  Both of them have run out of alternative solutions and come desperately to Jesus seeking His help.  And they both believe that touching Jesus is all that is required to bring about healing (5:23, ‘put your hands on her’; 5:28 ‘If I just touch his clothes’).”[9]

“By reading the accounts of these two people together, we learn that being important, ritual cleanliness, or having a religious title does not entitle one to special favor when approaching Jesus.  On the other hand, being a nobody, unclean, or impoverished are not liabilities from receiving help from Jesus.  Having faith and trust in Christ is all that matters.”[10]

v.29 “The hemorrhaging woman might have been ‘trembling with fear’ for a number of reasons.  Perhaps she feared that Jesus would be angry that she had caused him to become unclean by her contact with Him.  Perhaps she was afraid that she had received healing without asking so that He might be upset.  Or it could have been the same type of fear that the disciples experienced after Jesus calmed the storm, as she realized the immense power that Jesus had.”[11]

“He forces the issue so that when she leaves healed, she will leave knowing that the one who healed her knows her and cares for her.  She is a person who is worth taking time with and addressing.”[12]

[2] William Barclay, The Gospel of Mark, Daily Study Bible Series, Rev. ed. (Philadelphia:  Westminster Press, 1975) 118.

[4] David E. Garland, Mark, The NIV Application Commentary Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996) 204.

[5] William L. Lane, The Gospel of Mark, The New International Commentary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1974) 186.

[6] David E. Garland, Mark, The NIV Application Commentary Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996) 206.

[7] David E. Garland, Mark, The NIV Application Commentary Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996) 207.

[8] David E. Garland, Mark, The NIV Application Commentary Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996) 220.

[9] David E. Garland, Mark, The NIV Application Commentary Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996) 224 – 225.

[10] David E. Garland, Mark, The NIV Application Commentary Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996) 225.

[11] David E. Garland, Mark, The NIV Application Commentary Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996) 221.

[12] David E. Garland, Mark, The NIV Application Commentary Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996) 221.

Bible Passages for March 15-21, 2010

Monday                  3/15          Mark 4:1-20
Tuesday                  3/16          Mark 4:21-25
Wednesday            3/17          Mark 4:26-34
Thursday                3/18          Mark 4:35-41
Friday                      3/19          Luke 13-16
Sat-Sun                   3/20-21   1 Chron 21-29, 2 Chron 1-5

Click here to download the Inductive Bible Study Training Guide.

Click here to download the Inductive Bible Study Packet for March 15-21, 2010.

v.2: “The parable was the most common and distinctive form of teaching employed by Jesus. He used parables not simply to illustrate spiritual truth but to provoke reflection and decision. His parables confronted his hearers with a challenge to submit themselves to the reign of God. In fact, the parables in Mark 4 tell what the kingdom of God is like (vv. 11, 26, 30).”^[2]

v.4–8: “The parable is true to what is known about ancient Palestinian agriculture. Unlike the modern method, the seed was sown first and then plowed under. The sower held it in an apron with one hand and broadcast it with the other. It was inevitable that some would fall upon the hardened path through the field, some where the soil was too shallow, and some among thorns as well as on good ground. The stones and thistles that to this day infest Palestinian fields are legendary. Only one element in the parable is unusual, the superabundant harvest in v. 8. Because of the primitive agricultural methods, an average harvest in ancient Palestine was probably no more than seven or eight times the amount of seed sown, and a good harvest probably was about ten.”^[3]

v.11–12: “Did Jesus really speak in parables to hide the kingdom from ‘those outside’? According to the context here, yes and no. Proper listening is the theme that connects the parables in chapter 4, and Jesus spoke in parables to distinguish between ‘anyone who has ears to hear’ (v. 9; that is, those with responsive hearts) and those who do not. He knew His parables would have opposite effects on those ready to listen and those not ready. He therefore implied an element of culpability in the audience (see Mt 13:14). To those who have ears to hear, more revelation of the kingdom will be given, but to those who do not have ears to hear, even what revelation they have been given will be taken away, or will prove ineffective (Mk 4:25).

“The quote in verse 12 is from Is 6. Concealing the message came in response to the people’s repeated, prolonged hardening, but the end of Is 6 nevertheless promises that a remnant would repent and return.”^[4]

vv.14-20: “In Mark, the challenge to ‘listen’ or ‘hear’ begins and ends the parable (4:3, 9). The interpretation stresses that all of the soils have heard the word (4:15, 16, 18, 20). The sower has been successful in getting the seed sown; what happens next depends on the soil. The verb ‘to sow’ is used in two senses: to sow in the sense of scattering seed, and to be sown in the sense of the ground being implanted with seed. The interpretation raises the question of whether the listener is going to produce any harvest, thus turning the parable of the sower into the parable of the soils. The parable shows that the productivity of the seed depends entirely on whether it lands in good or bad soil. Moving from the world of farming to spiritual realities, the parable suggests that the reception of the word (the seed) is directly related to the preexisting spiritual state of the hearers’ hearts, and the interpretation draws out the special differences among them.

“The soil along the path (hodos) serves as a warning that Satan, though bound, is still a danger to those who hear indifferently. Two kingdoms are in deadly combat for the souls of humans, and Satan feasts off the types represented in the story by the teachers of the law from Jerusalem, the Herodians, and the chief priests. They hear Jesus and immediately want to destroy him (3:22; 11:18). For some listeners it will be of no avail, no matter what Jesus says or does. They observe his deeds, such as his healing the sick and casting out demons, and conclude that he works by black magic or Beelzebub, or that he is crazy. The explanation for their failure to hear is that Satan has caused them to oppose the kingdom. Satan controls them, not Jesus (3:22). Significantly, Mark tells us that the disciples were on the road (hodos) when they demonstrated their failure to understand the mystery that Jesus revealed to them about his death and resurrection by quarreling about who was the greatest (9:33 – 34) and who would get to sit on his right and left in his glory (10:32 – 41).

“The seed in the rocky ground springs up immediately and receives the word joyfully. But the impenetrable stratum of rock does not allow the root of the plant to sink deep into nourishing soil. When the good times of joy are over and the time of tribulation and persecution arrives, the plant shrivels. The faith of such people is ‘like the morning mist, like the early dew that disappears’ (Hos. 6:4). These listeners fall away (lit., ‘are scandalized’) when threatened by the slightest challenge to their faith.

“In the story, we find crowds who are like flares, glowing with astonishment at Jesus’ teaching and miracles and rejoicing at his arrival in Jerusalem (12:37); but they do not have a deeply rooted faith, and when suffering looms on the horizon, they quickly fizzle out. Even the disciples, who have been so quick to respond, will also be quick to fall away when the pressure mounts. Jesus warns them about this danger at the Last Supper (14:27, 29), and his prediction is fulfilled when they run for their lives after his arrest. They are obsessed with their own safety and the preservation of life as they know it. Peter (Rock) discredits himself further. He follows Jesus from a safe distance into the courtyard of the high priest but withers in the face of a gentle accusation from a slave girl. He cannot withstand the heat of opposition and denies his Lord three times. The rocky ground serves as a warning that one’s faith must run deep if one hopes to endure the coming trials and tribulations.

“The third soil is not infertile but so weed-ridden that the good seed is ultimately suffocated. Jesus frequently warns in his teaching against the things identified with the choking thorns: the cares of the world, the delight in riches, and the desire for other things. Herod’s story provides an example of one who hears the word gladly (6:20), but whose greater concern to preserve his honor and power extinguishes any chance that his hearing will bear fruit for God (6:21 – 29). The rich ruler is the most obvious example of how concern for material wealth blocks one from responding to Jesus’ call to discipleship (10:17 – 22). Judas’s story offers another warning of how money, not even riches, can entice even one of the Twelve to make the wrong choice. He sells out his master for the promise of some silver (14:10 – 11).

“Jesus’ preaching reveals the good earth as well as the bad. One knows something is good earth simply because it bears fruit. In contrast to the bad soil, good soil hears rightly. Gundry draws out the vital differences. The good hearer welcomes the word immediately so that it cannot be snatched away by Satan. The good hearer welcomes it deeply so that it is not withered by persecution. The good hearer welcomes it exclusively so that other concerns do not strangle it. As the seed fails in three different ways in the bad soils, it succeeds in three different ways in good soil; but the parable and interpretation do not expand on the reasons for this varying success.”[5]

v.21: A lamp is meant to be seen and to make men able to see; and it is put in a place where it will be visible to all. From this saying we may learn two things. (i) Truth is meant to be seen; it is not meant to be concealed. There may be times when it is dangerous to tell the truth; there may be times when to tell the truth is the quickest way to persecution and to trouble. But the true man and the true Christian will stand by the truth in face of all. (ii) Our Christianity is meant to be seen. […] It is often easier to keep quiet the fact that we belong to Christ and his Church; but our Christianity should always be like the lamp that can be seen of all men.”^[6]

v.21–23: “Jesus is a master of the graphic illustrations in which Jewish teachers sought to excel: invisible light is pointless, and God wants the light of his word to be received. The lamps were small clay lamps that had to be set on a stand to shed much light in a room; a bushel basket placed over the lamp would no doubt extinguish it.”^[7]

v.25: “This verse is both a promise and a warning about understanding the parables. Whoever acquires some understanding and wants more will receive more. Proper understanding will lead to accepting Jesus and entering the kingdom and to more and more blessings from God. Those who have no interest in parables and the kingdom about which they teach will soon find themselves further from it than before they ever heard about it.”^[8]

^[2] Brooks, J. A. (2001). Vol. 23: Mark (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (78). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

^[3] Brooks, J. A. (2001). Vol. 23: Mark (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (79). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

^[4] Cabal, T., Brand, C. O., Clendenen, E. R., Copan, P., Moreland, J., & Powell, D. (2007). The Apologetics Study Bible: Real Questions, Straight Answers, Stronger Faith (1473). Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers.

[5] David E. Garland, Mark (NIVAC; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing, 1996), Electronic Ed..

^[6] The Gospel of Mark. 2000 (W. Barclay, lecturer in the University of Glasgow, Ed.). The Daily study Bible series, Rev. ed. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.

^[7] Keener, C. S., & InterVarsity Press. (1993). The IVP Bible background commentary : New Testament (Mk 4:21). Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.

^[8] Brooks, J. A. (2001). Vol. 23: Mark (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (84). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

Bible Passages for March 8-14, 2010

Monday         3/8           Mark 2:23–3:6
Tuesday         3/9           Mark 3:7–19
Wednesday   3/10         Mark 3:20–30
Thursday       3/11          Mark 3:31–35
Friday             3/12         Luke 9-12
Sat-Sun          3/13-14    1 Chronicles 6–20

Click here to download the Inductive Bible Study Training Guide.

Click here to download the Inductive Bible Study Packet for March 8-14, 2010.