The Gospel of Mark step-by-step

[juliamajor]

there is a good book on Mark by Francis Moloney

 

[patrick457]

33-35: And He came to Capharnaum. And when He was in the house He asked them, “What were you arguing about (on the way)?” But they were keeping silent, for on the way they had argued among themselves who was the greatest. And He sat down, called the twelve, and says to them, “If anyone wants to be first, he must be last of all and servant of all.”

PARALLELS: Matthew 18:1-4; Luke 9:46-48; 22:25-30.

DEFINITIONS

Capharnaum: Capharnaum had served as a base for Jesus and His first disciples in the early stages of His public ministry (cf. 1:21; 2:1). Jesus’ arrival here seems surprising after v. 30; surely there of all places Jesus could not avoid being recognised. Mark appears not to have noticed the problem. But in Capharnaum there is no more public ministry, but only a private dialogue in the house (symbolic of privacy, but in narrative terms presumably we are to think again of a specific house, perhaps the house of Peter and Andrew or, as some propose, Jesus’ own - as the word carries the definite article). The disciples have been reluctant to question Jesus (v. 32). so He instead questions them, in order to bring out how little they have yet understood.

http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/1294/setsfreestuffcapernaumo.jpg

What were you arguing about? While the word dialogizesthai can have a private and neutral sense (“consider, ponder, reason”), in his gospel Mark generally gives it a public and negative sense such as “argue” (see 2:6, 8; 8:16, 17; 11:31). Its occurrences here and in 9:34 probably help to explain the embarrassment that the disciples display by their silence in 9:34. The question seems to be not an attempt to gain new information, as Jesus is clearly aware (through overhearing or supernatural insight?) of what has been going on. It is a challenge to bring into the open a debate of which they are apparently ashamed, aware that Jesus will not approve; hence their silence.

On the way: Several Greek MSS (A, D, Δ) omit this phrase, evidently because it seemed superfluous in light of its occurrence in v. 33. However, the overall textual tradition argues for its inclusion.

They were silent: The verb siōpan appears in several different contexts in Mark (see 3:4; 4:39; 10:48; 14:61). The closest parallel occurs in 3:4, where the people at Capharnaum are reduced to an embarrassed silence by Jesus’ teaching.

Who was the greatest: The comparative form of the adjective meizōn (“greater”) in the Greek has carries a superlative connotation in this context, i.e. “greatest”.

In a hierarchical society where status and honor were very important values the topic would have been both natural and worth discussing. Rabbinic writings frequently comment on the seating in Paradise, for example, and argue that the just would sit nearer to the throne of God than even the angels (since people such as the just, righteous teachers or martyrs were considered to be “the greatest”). Earthly seating orders at worship and meals, or authority within or dealings with inferiors and superiors were seen as preparation for the future order (cf. Psalm 68:24-25).

He sat down: The act of “sitting” is unusual in Mark’s narrative to introduce teaching (but cf. Matt. 5:1, and Mk. 4:1, 21; 12:41; John 8:2), but given the location inside the house and the following phrase it conveys the sense of a deliberate, even formal, piece of instruction - to “sit” is to assume the position of an authoritative teacher.

Servant of all: The content of the teaching appears at somewhat greater length in 10:43-44 (cf. Matt. 23:11 and Luke 9:48; 22:26-27).
“Servant” here is diakonos, some of the original connotations of which was ‘table waiter’ (cf. Luke 17:8; John 12:2; Acts 6:2) or ‘one who executes the commands of someone’ and looks after his needs. It refers to personal devotion in service as opposed to service as a slave or for hire or as a priest. With this teaching Jesus challenges and subverts the assumptions of the cultures of His time about rank and status - the ancient world considered menial service to be undignified and demeaning; not something that should be embraced or pursued. The mark of success was always measured by service received; not by service given. The attitudes were such that Plato once asked, “How can a man be happy when he has to serve someone?” (Gorgias 491e)

This is such a radical challenge to natural human valuation that it needs constant repetition. The preeminent status in the kingdom of God is both characterised by lowliness and service. Greatness in the Divine economy is not reserved for those gifted and privileged; rather, it presents itself to every believer in the common and simple tasks of serving others. Indeed, the more common and humble the task, the greater the deed, for humility is the essence of Him who said, “For who is greater, the one who reclines at table, or the one who serves (diakonōn) ? Is it not he who reclines at table? But I am among you as one who serves” (Luke 22:27).

 

[patrick457]

COMMENTARIES
1.) From the Catena Aurea:

It goes on: “And they came to Capernaum.”

Pseudo-Jerome: Capernaum means the city of consolation, and agrees with the former sentence, which He had spoken: “And after that He is killed, He shall arise the third day.”

There follows: “And being in the house He asked them, What was it that ye disputed among yourselves by the way? But they held their peace.”

Pseudo-Chrys., Vict. Ant. e Cat. in Marc.: Matthew however says that the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” (Matt. 18:1) The reason is, that He did not begin the narrative from its commencement, but omitted our Saviour’s knowledge of the thoughts and words of His disciples; unless we understand Him to mean, that even what they thought and said, when away from Christ, was said unto Him, since it was as well known to Him as if it had been said to Him.

It goes on: “For by the way they had disputed among themselves, who should be the greatest.”

But Luke says (9:46) that “the thought entered into the disciples which of them should be the greatest;” for the Lord laid open their thought and intention from their private discourse according to the Gospel narrative.

Pseudo-Jerome: It was fit also that they should dispute concerning the chief place by the way; the dispute is like the place where it is held; for lofty station is only entered upon to be quitted: as long as a man keeps it, it is slippery, and it is uncertain at what stage, that is, on what day, it will end.

Bede: The reason why the dispute concerning the chief place arose amongst the disciples seems to have been, that Peter, James and John, were led apart from the rest into the mountain, and that something secret was there entrusted to them, also that the keys of the kingdom of heaven were promised to Peter, according to Matthew.

Seeing however the thoughts of the disciples, the Lord takes care to heal the desire of glory by humility; for He first, by simply commanding humility, admonishes them that a high station was not to be aimed at.

Wherefore it goes on: “And He sat down, and called the twelve and saith unto them, If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all.”

Jerome: Where it is to be observed, that the disciples disputed by the way concerning the chief place, but Christ Himself sat down to teach humility; for princes toil while the humble repose.

Pseudo-Chrys., Vict. Ant. e Cat. in Marc.: The disciples indeed wished to receive honour at the hands of the Lord; they also had a desire to be made great by Christ, for the great a man is, the more worthy of honour he becomes, for which reason He did not throw an obstacle in the way of that desire, but brought in humility.

Theophylact: For His wish is not that we should usurp for ourselves chief places, but that we should attain to lofty heights by lowliness.

2.) Commentary by St. Gregory of Nyssa (De instituto Christiano 8.1):

Let vanity be unknown among you. Let simplicity and harmony and a guileless attitude weld the community together. Let each remind himself that he is not only subordinate to the brother at his side, but to all. It he knows this, he will truly be a disciple of Christ.

2.) Commentary by St. John Chrysostom (The Gospel of St. Matthew, Homily 58):

If you are in love with precedence and the highest honor, pursue the things in last place, pursue being the least valued of all, pursue being the smallest of all, pursue placing yourselves behind others.

 

[patrick457]

36-37: And He took a little child and had him stand in their midst; and taking him in His arms, He said to them, “Whoever welcomes one little child like this in my name is welcoming me, and whoever welcomes me is welcoming not me but Him who sent me.”

http://home.halden.net/vibeke/tissot/221.jpg

PARALLELS: Matthew 18:1-4; Luke 9:46-48.

DEFINITIONS

A little child (paidion): Some note that the Aramaic word talya can mean both “servant” and “child,” and so they discern a catchword link with the diakonos of verse 35. The use of a child as a teaching aid has explicitly (in terms of its context) to do with status, not with any character traits supposedly typical of children.

Children were treated as very insignificant “non-persons” in ancient culture, in part due to high infant mortality rates and great demand for human labor in these societies. They, along with women, represent the lowest order in the social scale, one totally dependent on others for nurture and protection and who has not yet achieved the right of self-determination. Of course one could not expect to gain anything either socially or materially from kindness to a child.

To be like a child, therefore, (Matt. 18:3) is to forgo status and to accept the lowest place, to be a “little one” (Matt. 18:6, 10, 14; 10:42). In this passage there is no call, as in Matthew, become like a child (that will follow in 10:15), but rather the injunction to ‘receive’ the child, to reverse the conventional value scale by giving importance to the unimportant.

Had him stand in their midst: If the “house” is again that of Peter and Andrew the child would have been a young family member, who would have been properly staying in the background but is now suddenly placed “in their midst”. By placing the child in the midst of his circle of disciples Jesus is clearly using this symbolic action as a way of instructing His disciples.

Taking him in His arms (enagkalisamenos auto): Only Mark has here and in 10:16 this homely image of Jesus. Agkalē (from agkos, “a bend”) is the bent arm, and the verb means to take in the arms, to embrace. Jesus here sends a cue to His disciples: they should imitate His example, embracing and welcoming the insignificant and the oft-ignored (represented by the child).

Welcomes (dechomai): The Greek word is a general term for “receiving”, for example, as a guest (6:11) - and is rendered as such in some translations, but in this context it carries the nuance of “welcome”, of treating as significant rather than ignoring or suppressing.

Is welcoming me: The key phrase here is “in my name”; it is picked up as a catchword in the next episode (9:38). In Jesus’ perspective even the most apparently insignificant are important because they also (and especially) carry the name of Jesus and belong to Him. Jesus is in effect saying to His disciples that they are to receive and so serve a child such as the one present for his sake. In serving the child they are in fact serving Jesus, and this of course reverses the ancient protocol where slaves and children, indeed all the subordinate members of the house, are to serve the male head.

Not me but Him who sent me: The presupposition of this saying is the practice of rulers or communities (including synagogues and churches) who sent out emissaries and expected the emissaries would be treated with the respect and dignity appropriate to the one doing the sending. This custom is at the root of the early Christian institution of apostleship. In this case there is a kind of chain of sending or mission, as frequently in the gospel of John, from God through Jesus to His emissaries (who can include “nonentities” like a child).

COMMENTARIES

1.) From the Catena Aurea:

Wherefore there follows, “And He took a child, and set him in the midst of them.”

Chrys., Vict. Ant. e Cat. in Marc. see Chrys., Hom. in Matt., 58: By the very sight, persuading them to humility and simplicity; for this little one was pure from envy and vain glory, and from a desire of superiority. But He does not only say, If ye become such, ye shall receive a great reward, but also, if ye will honour others, who are such for My sake.

Wherefore there follows: “And when He had taken him in His arms, He said unto them, Whosoever shall receive one of such children in My name, receiveth Me.”

Bede: By which, He either simply shews that those who would become greater must receive the poor of Christ in honour of Him, or He would persuade them to be in malice children, to keep simplicity without arrogance, charity without envy, devotedness without anger. Again, by taking the child into His arms, He implies that the lowly are worthy of his embrace and love.

He adds also, “In My name,” that they might, with the fixed purpose of reason, follow for His name’s sake that mould of virtue to which the child keeps, with nature for his guide. And because He taught that He Himself was received in children, lest it should be thought that there was nothing in Him but what was seen, He added, “And whosoever shall receive Me, receiveth not Me, but Him that sent Me;” thus wishing that we should believe Him to be of the same nature and of equal greatness with His Father.

Theophylact: See, how great is humility, for it wins for itself the indwelling of the Father, and of the Son, and also of the Holy Ghost.

 

[patrick457]

37-41: John answered Him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him because he was not following us.” Jesus said, “Do not stop him, for no one who does a deed of power in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me, for he who is not against us is on our side. For whoever gives you a cup of water to drink in [my] name because you are of Christ; Amen I say to you, he will not lose his reward.”

PARALLELS: Matthew 10:42; 12:30; Luke 9:49-50; 11:23.

DEFINITIONS

John: The Markan theme of “blindness” in the part of the disciples continues here. This is the only time in the gospel that John son of Zebedee acts on his own, and his solo role is not at all a creditable one. He and his brother James will feature together in an even more unfortunate episode in 10:35-45. As members of the ‘inner circle’ (1:16, 20, 29; 5:37; 9:2; 13:3; 14:33) they not only share the failure of the other disciples to embrace the values of the kingdom of God, but even lake the lead in demonstrating their unresponsiveness and in earning Jesus’ rebuke. The impulsive hostility to an outsider revealed in this incident (cf. Lk. 9:541) perhaps gives some basis for their epithet Boanerges (“Sons of Thunder”) given to them in 3:17.

Someone: There is some other evidence in the New Testament for exorcists other than Jesus and His disciples (see Matt. 12:27; 43-45, Acts 19:13-16), and there are plenty of records about exorcism in the Jewish and the Greco-Roman world in roughly contemporary sources.

Magic (exorcism was classified by some ancients as “magic-working”) is officially forbidden in Judaism as per the Mosaic Law (Lev. 19:26, 31: 20:27; Deut. 18:9-14; 2 Kings 17:17), yet evidence suggests that it was practiced in private and surreptitiously. Jewish exorcists and “magicians” were highly regarded in the Greco-Roman world.

They used and invoked various formulas and ‘words of power’ (such as the names of God, the angels, such as Michael, and other Biblical personages, say King Solomon) in their exorcisms and their incantations. Their widespread influence can be seen through the appearance of various Hebrew names of God (a few of the most common being “Iao”, “Adonai”, “Eloai” or “Sabaoth”) in magical amulets and papyri. A few examples of such formulae, found on Greek papyri, exhibits the influence that they had on international “magic”:

1.) …I am Adam the forefather; my name is Adam. Perform for me the NN deed, because I conjure you by the god Iaō, by the god Adōnai, by the god Michael, by the god Souriel, by the god Gabriel, by the god Raphael, by the god Abrasax Ablanathanalba Akrammachamari…

2.) …I adjure you, myrrh, by the three names, Anochō (an Egyptian phrase meaning “I am great”) Abrasax Trō, and by the more coercive and stronger names Iaō Sabaōth Adōnai, so that you may carry out my orders, myrrh…

3.) Hail, Helios! Hail, Helios! Hail, Gabriel! Hail, Raphael! Hail, Michael! Hail, whole universe! Give me the authority and power of Sabaōth, the strength of Iaō, and the success of Ablanathalba, and the might of Akrammachamarei…

As can be seen in the episode from Acts 19, some of these itinerant exorcists have also started to use the Name of Jesus - along with that of Paul’s - as a word of power (but not always with satisfactory results), but this is the only mention we have of a similar practice during His lifetime.

 

[patrick457]

DEFINITIONS (continued)

In your name: The strange exorcist is apparently using the name of Jesus (cf. 1:24; 5:7), to positive results.

We tried to stop him: The Greek word here, kōlyein has a wide range of meanings, such as “to hinder”, “to prevent”, or “to forbid”; the former implies a physical act, while the latter a verbal one. The issue for translators here is the means the disciples took: did they stop the man physically (‘hinder’ or ‘prevent’) or verbally (‘forbade’)? Aside from its use here, the other instance of kōlyein in Mark is in 10:14, in reference to the disciples preventing children from coming to Jesus.

Because he was not following us: This pericope, in contrast with Acts 19:13,16. assumes that the exorcisms were successful. The ground of John’s objection was not lack of success, but rather the curious charge that he is not following “us” (cf. “follow with us” in Luke 9:49-50). Mark uses the verb akoloutheō (“to follow”) quite frequently as a term for discipleship, but elsewhere the object is always Jesus. John’s expectation that the exorcist should follow “us” (presumably the group associated with Jesus) instead of “Jesus” is new and revealing. What John is seeking for is not so much personal allegiance and obedience to Jesus but membership in the ‘authorised’ circle of His followers; it underscores his failure to understand that Jesus is the real source of the disciples’ power.

Another variant reading available for Mark 9:38 followed by some Greek MSS, the Latin Vulgate, and the Harclensian Syriac is “we saw someone casting out demons in your name who does not follow us.” The underlined phrase seems to have been added from the last part of the verse, which in turn is omitted by some of these MSS and textual traditions (notably Codexes Bezae, Washingtonianus, Monacensis, and the Vulgate); in them the phrase was apparently moved to this position and the wording changed slightly.

Do not stop him: For an OT echo cf. Numbers 11:26-29. Two men named Eldad and Medad prophesied among the Israelites, despite the fact that they had remained inside the camp, while 70 elders had gone to the tabernacle outside the camp to receive the ability to prophecy from God. When Joshua asked Moses to forbid Eldad and Medad from prophecy, he replied (26:29), “Are you jealous for my sake? Would that all the LORD’s people were prophets, and that the LORD would put His Spirit on them!” We may contrast Joshua’s request to “stop them” (LXX: ‘kōlyson autous’) with our text, which puts the very same verb (kōlyō, “to hinder”, “to forbid”) on Jesus’ lips here.

A deed of power (dynamis, literally “power”) in my name: Mark has used this word as a generic term for Jesus’ own acts in 6:2, 5, and this man’s exorcisms are in the same class, carried out on Jesus’ authority. There is no suggestion that the man is personally known to Jesus: rather, he has associated himself with Him by using His Name, and his choice of that authority, coupled with his apparent success, marks him as being on the right side. Such a person who experiences Jesus’ power cannot in consistency go on to speak evil of Him, and so there is no justification for Jesus’ disciples to oppose him.

For…for…for: The three gar (“for”, “because”) clauses follow Jesus’ instruction to leave the exorcist alone, offering three grounds for a more tolerant attitude.

For whoever gives you a cup of water to drink in [my] name: A reminder (cf. verse 37) that the humblest act of kindness - even the act of giving a cup of water - does not go unrewarded by God. The Jewish concept of treating a man’s agent in the same manner as the man himself again shows in this saying: what is done to a follower of Jesus is received by Christ as done to Himself (cf. Matt. 25:40). Whereas verse 37 concerns receiving others - especially “nobodies” - in the name of Christ, this saying concerns strangers who do an act of kindness to the disciples in the name of Christ.

In [my] name: Although some MSS and the Vulgate contain the pronoun “my” (mou), the stronger MSS tradition omits it. The omission of the pronoun would result in acceptable but somewhat unconventional Greek (literally it could be rendered as “in [the] name that you are of Christ”), which would somehow explain why copyists would be motivated to add “my”.

Christ: It is only in the Septuagint and in early Judeo-Christian literature that the word chriein, which originally meant “to rub or pour on”, or in a few instances, even “to coat with color/to paint/to whitewash” (with the ointment, oil or paint as the object), started to be extended in the sense of “to anoint” or “to cover with ointment or oil” (with a person as object). The word Christos itself was originally used to refer to the oil or ointment itself; later it was extended by Judeo-Christian usage to refer to the person being anointed, as a translation of the Hebrew mashiakh.

This saying preserves a rare occurrence of Jesus referring to Himself as the “Anointed”. This is only conceivable in the wake of the events in Caesarea Philippi, where Peter confessed Jesus thus (8:29). The concept is not elaborated further, except to emphasize that the disciples “belong to” Him. Given the disciples’ behavior and misunderstanding, Jesus’ assurance is not inconsequential.

Amen I say to you: For other Markan uses of this formula with “Amen” see 3:28; 8:12; 9:1; 12:15, 29; 11:23; 12:43; 13:30; 14:9, 18, 25, 30.

 

[patrick457]

COMMENTARIES

1.) From the Haydock Commentary:

Ver. 37. Who followeth not us, in that special manner, as Christ’s apostles did. (Witham)

Ver. 40. Here we may find that no one, however poor, can be excused from good works; since there is no one who is not able to give at least a cup of cold water; and we are assured that he will not lose his reward. (Nicholas of Lyra)

2.) From Cornelius A Lapide’s Commentary:

Ver. 37. John answered Him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in Thy name, who followeth not us, and we forbade him. It is as though he said, “Have we done well or ill?” John asks this question not out of envy, as Calvin would have it, but out of love and zeal for the honour of Christ. And it was occasioned by what He had said in the preceding verse, Whosoever shall receive one such little child in My name receiveth Me. As though he said, If he who receives a little one in Thy name receiveth Thy Father and Thyself, what must we think concerning him who works miracles in Thy name, and yet followeth not us, that is, is not Thy attendant and disciple, as we are? “Because,” says Cyril (in Catena in Luke 11:49), “the Saviour had given power to His Apostles to cast out unclean spirits, they thought that it had been conceded to none others save themselves to enjoy such dignity.” So Theophylact and Victor.

Here observe that those who thus cast out devils in the name of Christ, and yet did not follow Him, were believers, but imperfect ones, forasmuch as they shrank from the rugged poverty and renunciation of their goods, such as was the lot of the Apostles. They shrank from following Christ in His evangelical labours and His persecutions. Still they have some faith in Christ, by virtue of which they cast out devils. So St. Ambrose (in Luke 11:49). And in so doing Christ wrought and co-operated with them, that His power and glory might be the more made manifest, which wrought such great things by means of those who were so imperfect, and, as it were, aliens.

Observe, in the next place, that the Apostles did not forbid such people through hatred, but out of zeal for Christ, as though they were detracting from the glory of Christ and His ordinance, according to chap. iii. 15, where Christ gives to His Apostles only the power of casting out devils. But this zeal of theirs was indiscreet, especially because they had rashly, without consulting Christ, forbidden them. And Christ showed them that this was so for a double reason. The first is what He brings forward in the next verse. In a similar manner, when Joshua saw Eldad and Medad prophesying, he wished to forbid them, as if they were detracting from the glory of Moses, in that they had not received the spirit of prophecy from Moses. But Moses checked him by saying, “Enviest thou for my sake? Would that all the people were prophets, and that the Lord would put His Spirit upon them!” (Numbers 11:29). This is the Spirit of Christ, the spirit of love and of the Holy Ghost, which makes large the heart, and envieth none, but rejoices in all good things, by whomsoever and in what way soever they are wrought (see 1 Corinthians 13).

Ver. 38. But Jesus said, Do not forbid him, for there is no man that doth a miracle in My name, and can soon (Gr.τάχα, i.e., easily) speak ill of Me. Do not hinder him in a good work, and one that honours Me; because even if he does not follow Me, yet he is doing the selfsame thing which you do, that is to say, he is celebrating My name, and he is making it known to men by casting out devils. Wherefore he does nothing that is against My name, but rather propagates and glorifies it.

Ver. 39. For he that is not against you is for you. This man, therefore, is not your adversary, in that he does the same that you do. He stands on your side. He helps you; he does not oppose you.

Ver. 40. For whosoever shall give you to drink a cup of water in My name, because you belong to Christ: Amen I say to you, he shall not lose his reward. This is Christ’s further reason to show why the man must not be forbidden to cast out devils. It is as though Christ said, “If he who gives you a drink of water in My name, and for My sake, does well, and shall receive a reward from God, so likewise shall he who drives out devils in My name. For both the one and the other do a good work, and are profitable to their neighbours in regard and respect of Me. But the one confers so much the greater benefit than the other, by as much as the devil whom he drives out is more hurtful than the thirst which the other alleviates by a draught of water.” So Theophylact.

3.) From the Catena Aurea:

Bede: John, loving the Lord with eminent devotion, thought that He who performed an office to which He had no right was to be excluded from the benefit of it.

Wherefore it is said, “And John answered Him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in Thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.”

Pseudo-Chrys., Vict. Ant. e Cat. in Marc.: For many believers received gifts, and yet were not with Christ, such was this man who cast out devils; for there were many of them deficient in some way; some were pure in life, but were not so perfect in faith; others again, contrariwise.

Theophylact: Or again, some unbelievers, seeing that the name of Jesus was full of virtue, themselves used it, and performed signs, though they were unworthy of Divine grace; for the Lord wished to extend His name even by the unworthy.

 

[patrick457]

COMMENTARIES, continued

http://www.hoax-slayer.com/images/cold-water.jpg
“Whoever gives you a cup of water to drink in [my] name because you are of Christ; Amen I say to you, he will not lose his reward.”

3.) From the Catena Aurea, continued:

Pseudo-Chrys., Vict. Ant. e Cat. in Marc.: It was not from jealousy or envy, however, that John wished to forbid him who cast out devils, but because he wished that all who called on the name of the Lord should follow Christ and be one body with His disciples. But the Lord, however unworthy they who perform the miracles may be, incites others by their means to believe on Him, and induces themselves by this unspeakable grace to become better.

Wherefore there follows: “But Jesus said, Forbid him not.”

Bede: By which He shews that no one is to be driven away from that partial goodness which he possesses already, but rather to be stirred up to that which he has not as yet obtained.

Pseudo-Chrys., Vict. Ant. e Cat. in Marc.: In conformity to this, He shews that he is not to be forbidden, adding immediately after, “For there is no man which shall do a miracle in My name, that can lightly speak evil of Me.” He says “lightly” to meet the case of those who fell into heresy, such as were Simon and Menander, and Cerinthus [ed. note: Irenaeus, *cont. Haer

. 2, 31, seems to imply that the early heretics actually worked wonders, but that these differed from Christian miracles in that they were done by magic through the aid of the devil, and were not works of mercy; he contrasts with these the ecclesiastical miracles of his day.]; not that they did miracles in the name of Christ, but by their deceptions had the appearance of doing them.

But these others, though they do not follow us, cannot however set themselves to say any thing against us, because they honour My name by working miracles.

Theophylact: For how can he speak evil of Me, who draws glory from My name, and works miracles by the invocation of this very name.

There follows, “For he that is not against you is on your part.”

Augustine, de Con. Evan., 4, 5: We must take care that this saying of the Lord appear not to be contrary to that where He says, “He who is not with Me is against Me.” (Luke 11:23) Or will any one say that the difference lies in that here He says to His disciples, “For he that is not against you is on your part," but in the other He speaks of Himself, "He who is not with Me is against Me?” As if indeed it were possible [ed. note: St. Augustine has here *quasi vero, instead of quasi non, which hardly makes sense; the latter reading has also been found in an old edition of the Catena Aurea, A.D. 1417] that he who is joined to Christ’s disciples, who are as His members, should not be with Him.

How if it were so, could it be true that “he that receiveth you receiveth Me?” (Matt. 10:40) Or how is he not against Him who is against His disciples? Where then will be that saying, “He who despiseth you, despiseth Me?” (Luke 10:16) But surely what is implied is that a man is not with Him in as far as he is against Him, and is not against Him in as far as he is with Him.

For instance, he who worked miracles in the name of Christ, and yet did not join himself to the body of His disciples, in as far as he worked the miracles in His name, was with them, and was not against them; again, in that he did not join their society, he was not with them, and was against them.

Be because they forbade his doing that in which he was with them, the Lord said unto them, “Forbid him not:” for they ought to have forbidden his being without their society, and thus to have persuaded him of the unity of the Church, but they should not have forbidden that in which he was with them, that is, his commendation of the name of their Lord and Master by the expulsion of devils.

Thus the Church Catholic does not disapprove in heretics the sacraments, which are common, but she blames their division, or some opinion of theirs adverse to peace and to truth; for in this they are against us.

Pseudo-Chrys., Vict. Ant. e Cat. in Marc.: Or else, this is said of those who believe on Him, but nevertheless do not follow Him from the looseness of their lives. Again, it is said of devils, who try to separate all from God, and to disperse His congregation.

 

[patrick457]

COMMENTARIES, continued

3.) From the Catena Aurea, continued:

There follows, “For whosoever shall give you a cup of cold water to drink in My name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.”

Theophylact: Not only will I not forbid him who works miracles in My name, but also whosoever shall give you the smallest thing for My name’s sake, and shall receive you, not on account of human and worldly favour, but from love to Me, shall not lose his reward.

Augustine, de Con. Evan., 4, 6: By which He shews, that he of whom John had spoken was not so far separated from the fellowship of the disciples, as to reject it, as a heretic, but as men are wont to hang back from receiving the Sacraments of Christ, and yet favour the Christian name, so as even to succour Christians, and do them service only because they are Christians. Of these He says they shall not lose their reward; not that they ought already to think themselves secure on account of this good will which they have towards Christians, without being washed with His baptism, and incorporated in His unity, but that they are already so guided by the mercy of God, as also to attain to these, and thus to go away from this life in security.

Pseudo-Chrys., Vict. Ant. e Cat. in Marc.: And that no man may allege poverty, He mentions that of which none can be destitute, that is, a cup of cold water, for which also he will obtain a reward; for it is not the value of the gift, but the dignity of those who receive it, and the feelings of the giver, which makes a work worthy of reward.

His words shew that His disciples are to be received, not only on account of the reward, which he who receives them obtains, but also, because he thus saves himself from punishment.

 

[patrick457]

42: “And whoever trips one of the little ones - of these who believe [in me], it would be better for him if a millstone of a donkey were laid around his neck and he were thrown into the sea!”

http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/5364/nazarethvillagemananddo.jpg
It would be better for him if a millstone of a donkey were tied around his neck… (from Nazareth Village)

Parallels: Matthew 18:6; Luke 17:2.

DEFINITIONS
Trips (skandalizē): This verb has already occurred in the passive in 4:17 for those who under pressure cease to be effective disciples, and a similar passive use in 14:27, 29 will refer to the apostasy of the disciples after Jesus is arrested. How this may be done is not spelled out; it is the result rather than the means which the verb describes. Therefore, the “cause to sin” rendering followed by some translations is a bit too narrow (as there are many other ways in which one’s faith and discipleship may be ruined), while the “is/causes the downfall of” by the New Jerusalem Bible and the Revised English Bible may better capture this metaphor. The Good News Bible’s “cause to lose his faith in me”, meanwhile, spells out its likely reference rather prosaically.

Little ones (mikrōn): This is the only instance in Mark where Jesus denotes His disciples using this word - in contrast to Matthew’s more developed use of it (Matthew 10:42; 18:6, 10, 14; cf. 25:40, 45).

These who believe [in me]: A number of manuscripts (Sinaiticus, Sangallensis, Bezae, and some Vetus Latina versions) omit the words in brackets. The lack of a clear narrative hear makes the precise identification of the immediate referent of the “little ones who believe” rather difficult. Should we think of the exorcist of verses 38-41, or are we to think of the child of verse 36 and those represented by him? As the text stands the question cannot be confidently answered, but the context shows that it is unlikely that the ‘little ones’ refer only to children; disciples of any age are vulnerable to such a “tripping”. In light of the disciples’ argument about who was the ‘greatest’ in verse 34, it is very appropriate - and ironic - that they are denoted here ‘little’. It is the “little ones” who matter so much to Jesus that even ‘to trip’ or ‘to offend’ or ‘to scandalize’ them is a capital offense.

A millstone of a donkey: The two most primitive methods of grinding grain were (1) by pounding it in a mortar, and (2) by rubbing it between two stones. In Numbers 11:8 both methods are mentioned as used for rendering the manna more fit for cooking. Numerous examples of both mill and mortar have been found in ancient excavations.

One common type of mill during OT times was the hand-mill, consisting of two carved stones - usually of basalt. Although sizes varied, the bottom stone was rectangular in shape and had a flat or slightly concave surface. The miller knelt at one end of this stone, which sloped downward about 15 degrees away from the miller. The upper stone was smaller in size and fits into the hand. After placing the grain on the lower stone, the miller would rub the upper stone in a back-and-forth motion on the lower, applying downward pressure on the upper stone. The ground grain fell off the other end of the mill, forming a small heap (statues showing examples of a similar grinding process from Ancient Egypt: here and here). Another type of handmill found in archeological digs were small rotary hand-mills which may indicate their use in the Levant around 1200 BC, but their use may have been very limited, primarily used to ground pigments. Rotary hand-mills were not in common use until about the Hellenistic period (ca. 330 BC-63 BC).

Grinding grain was usually performed by women or their female slaves - or even male prisoners - as a daily task, indicating the humble status of this job (cf. Exodus 11:5; Judges 16:21; Isaiah 47:2; Lamentations 5:3). For poor families the mill is a very valuable equipment: to lose it - even just the upper millstone - would be to deprive the already-penniless family the means of making its bread, which formed their basic diet. This is why the Israelites are forbidden to take a mill as a pledge against a loan (Deuteronomy 4:6). The sound of millstones grinding in the villages is actually common, almost expected; its absence is a bad sign, signifying catastrophe has befallen the community (Jeremiah 25:10; Revelation 18:22).

Some time around the 2nd or 1st century BC the so-called “donkey mills”, such as the one pictured at the top of this post, were introduced. These were also composed of two parts but were much larger than those from OT times, requiring the use of the donkey to turn what is called in Latin, the catillus (“hopper” or “skipper”). As the donkey walked in a circle, the grain was ground between this upper millstone and the lower, stationary stone - called meta. In this way large amounts of grain could be produced for commercial purposes. Many such mills were discovered in Roman areas such as in Pompeii and Ostia (where the catillus took the shape of a hollowed-out hourglass and the meta a bell shape with elongated sides), and a few in Israel also. It was the upper stone of this type of mill Jesus was referring to.

 

[patrick457]

DEFINITIONS, continued

Thrown into the sea: Jews, as a rule, feared the sea (cf. Revelation 21:1, where heaven is described as a place where there would be no more sea) and regarded drowning as a horrible form of death - a symbol of utter destruction. When the rabbis taught that pagan and gentile objects were to be destroyed utterly, they say that it must be cast “into the salt sea”. Josephus mentions a revolt in which Galilean supporters of Herod were drowned in the depths of the Sea of Galilee (Antiquities of the Jews 14.15.10 [14.450]; Jewish War 1.326):

So when Antigonus had got possession of the dead bodies, he cut off Joseph’s head, although Pheroras his brother would have redeemed it at the price of fifty talents. After which defeat, the Galileans revolted from their commanders, and took those of Herod’s party, and drowned them in the lake, and a great part of Judea was become seditious; but Macheras fortified the place Gitta [in Samaria]…

-Antiquities, 14.450

And now the affairs of Galilee were put in such disorder after this victory of Antigonus’s, that those of Antigonus’s party brought the principal men that were on Herod’s side to the lake, and there drowned them. There was a great change made also in Idumea, where Macheras was building a wall about one of the fortresses, which was called Gittha…

-Jewish War 1.326

Also, some see here in the man being weighed with the millstone a subtle reference to the Jewish method of execution: stoning. The formal method of ‘stoning’ in the Jewish sense, as shown in the Mishnah, is not confined to hurling rocks at victims: in practice, the witnesses who testified against the criminal are to push the victim from the edge of a high place and then drop a large boulder onto him. If the victim did not die from the fall or the boulder, the people would then quickly cause him to die by stoning with whatever rocks they can find. In Jewish law, it was the prescribed method for idolaters, false prophets, and seducers.

Our culprit therefore is condemned to a severe fate: he is pushed down while being weighed by a rock (“stoned”) into the sea to drown, punished by God’s penalty, who ‘gives to each according to his deeds’ (cf. 1 Samuel 25:39; Proverbs 26:27; Jeremiah 32:19; Romans 2:6; Psalms of Solomon 17:8; Mishnah, tractate Abot II.7), and deprived of burial - a big no-no for the ancients.

COMMENTARIES

1.) From Cornelius a Lapide’s commentary:

Ver. 41. And whosoever shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in Me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were east into the sea. This is antithetical to the 36th verse. For Christ returns after the question interposed by John to what He had said concerning those who should receive a little child in His name. For as he who receives and cherishes the little ones who believe in Me, receives Myself, and shall be rewarded by Me with eternal glory in heaven; so, on the other hand, whoso shall cause one of these little ones to offend, offendeth Me, and shall be by Me condemned to Gehenna.

2.) From the Catena Aurea:

There follows: “And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in Me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea:” as though He would say [ed. note: see *Chrys., Hom. in Matt.

58], All who honour you for My sake have their reward, so also those who dishonour you, that is, offend you, shall receive the worst of vengeance.

Further, from things which are palpable to us, He describes an intolerable torment, making mention of a millstone, and of being drowned; and He says not, let a millstone be hanged about his neck, but, it is better for him to suffer this, shewing by this that some more heavy evil awaits him. But He means by “little ones that believe on Me,” not only those who follow Him, but those who call upon His name, those also who offer a cup of cold water, though they do not any greater works. Now He will have none of these offended or plucked away; for this is what is meant by forbidding them to call upon His name.

Bede: And fitly the man who if offended is called a little one, for he who is great, whatever he may suffer, departs not from the faith; but he who is little and weak in mind looks out for occasions of stumbling. For this reason we must most of all look to those who are little ones in the faith, lest by our fault they should be offended, and go back from the faith, and fall away from salvation.

Greg., in Faeceh., 1, Hom. 7: We must observe, however, that in our good works we must sometimes avoid the offence of our neighbour, sometimes look down upon it as of no moment. For in as far as we can do it without sin, we ought to avoid the offence of our neighbour; but if a stumblingblock is laid before men in what concerns the truth, it is better to allow the offence to arise, than that the truth should be abandoned.

Greg, de eura, past. p.i.v.2: Mystically by a millstone is expressed the tedious round and toil of a secular life, and by the depths of the sea, the worst damnation is pointed out. He who therefore, after having been brought to a profession of sanctity, destroys others, either by word or example, it had been indeed better for him that his worldly deeds should render him liable to death, under a secular garb, than that his holy office should hole him out as an example for others in his faults, because doubtless if he had fallen alone, his pain in hell would have been of a more endurable kind.