The Gospel of Mark step-by-step

[patrick457]

http://www.itb.it/canaan/icdca/h3dogs.jpg
Yes, sir, but even the house dogs under the table eat from the crumbs of the children (picture: Canaan Dogs).

COMMENTARIES
1.) From the Catena Aurea:

It continues: “But He said unto her, Let the children be first filled.”

Bede: The time will come when even you who are Gentiles will obtain salvation; but it is right that first the Jews who deservedly are wont to be called by the name of children of God’s ancient election, should be refreshed with heavenly bread, and that so at length, the food of life should be ministered to the Gentiles.

There follows: “For it is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to the dogs.”

Pseudo-Chrys., Vict. Ant. e Cat. in Marc.: These words He uttered not that there is in Him a deficiency of virtue, to prevent His ministering to all, but because His benefit, if ministered to both Jews and Gentiles who had no communication with each other, might be a cause of jealousy.

Theophylact: He calls the Gentiles dogs, as being thought wicked by the Jews; and He means by bread, the benefit which the Lord promised to the children, that is, to the Jews. The sense therefore is, that it is not right for the Gentiles first to be partakers of the benefit, promised principally to the Jews. The reason, therefore, why the Lord does not immediately hear, but delays His grace, is, that He may also shew that the faith of the woman was firm, and that we may learn not at once to grow weary in prayer, but to continue earnest till we obtain.

Pseudo-Chrys., Vict. Ant. e Cat. in Marc.: In like manner also to shew the Jews that He did not confer healing on foreigners in the same degree as to them, and that by the discovery of the woman’s faith, the unfaithfulness of the Jews might be the more laid bare. For the woman did not take it ill, but with much reverence assented to what the Lord had said.

Wherefore it goes on, “And she answered and said unto Him, Truth, Lord, but the dogs under the table eat of the children’s crumbs.”

Theophylact: As if she had said, The Jews have the whole of that bread which comes down from heaven, and Thy benefits also; I ask for the crumbs, that is, a small portion of the benefit.

Pseudo-Chrys., Vict. Ant. e Cat. in Marc.: Her placing herself therefore in the rank of dogs is a mark of her reverence; as if she said, I hold it as a favour to be even in the position of a dog, and to eat not from another table, but from that of the Master himself.

Theophylact: Because therefore the woman answered with much wisdom, she obtained what she wanted; wherefore there follows, “And He said unto her, etc.” He said not, My virtue hath made thee whole, but for this saying, that is, for thy faith, which is shewn by this saying, “go thy way, the devil is gone out of thy daughter.”

It goes on: “And when she was come into her house, she found her daughter laid upon the bed, and the devil gone out.”

Bede: On account then of the humble and faithful saying of her mother, the devil left the daughter; here is given a precedent for catechising and baptizing infants, seeing that by the faith and the confession of the parents, infants are freed in baptism from the devil, though they can neither have knowledge in themselves, or do either good or evil.

Pseudo-Jerome: Mystically however the Gentile woman, who prays for her daughter, is our mother the Church of Rome. Her daughter afflicted with a devil, is the barbarian western race, which by faith hath been turned from a dog into a sheep. She desires to take the crumbs of spiritual understanding, not the unbroken bread of the letter.

Theophylact: The soul of each of us also, when he falls into sin, becomes a woman; and this soul has a daughter who is sick, that is, evil actions; this daughter again has a devil, for evil actions arise from devils. Again, sinners are called dogs, being filled with uncleanness. For which reason we are not worthy to receive the bread of God, or to be made partakers of the immaculate mysteries of God; if however in humility, knowing ourselves to be dogs, we confess our sins, then the daughter, that is, our evil life, shall be healed.

2.) Commentary by St. Ephrem the Syrian (Commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron):

She was crying out [as] she was following after Him, “Have mercy on me.” But He did not reply to her. The silence of our Lord elicited an even deeper cry from the Canaanite woman. He who was spurned by Israel spurned her by His silence, but she did not give up. Though neglected, she did not hold back. On the contrary, she again humbled herself and again magnified Israel, by [her words], “Even the dogs eat from their master’s [crumbs],” as though the Jews were masters of the Gentiles. His disciples therefore drew near and begged Him to send her away. …She was not ashamed, to her own benefit, of the name of dogs. Therefore [He said], “Great is your faith, O woman.”

 

[patrick457]

31: And again He went out from the region of Tyre and came through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee between the region of the Decapolis.

DEFINITIONS
Came through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee: The word dia (translated here as “through”) is used with the genitive to speak of journeys bypassing one place on the way to the other.

At first glance, this would seem like a geographical error (since Sidon is twenty-two miles north of Tyre and is more distant than it from the Sea of Galilee), and indeed many critics complain against this. But this would only be so if the passage is interpreted to mean that Jesus and His company went through Sidon to get to the Sea of Galilee, which would obviously be the wrong way. Indeed, the passage is not wrong if interpreted as Jesus going through a round-about journey; i.e. “they also went in X before going to Y.”

Douglas R. Edwards, in his essay “The Socio-Economic and Cultural Ethos of the Lower Galilee in the First Century: Implications for the Nascent Jesus Movement,” noted that:

Indeed, even the Jesus movement’s travel from Tyre to Sidon to the Decapolis depicted in Mark, which has struck some New Testament interpreters as evidence for an ignorance of Galilean geography, is, in fact, quite plausible. Josephus notes that during the reign of Antipas, while Herod Agrippa I was in Syria, a dispute regarding boundaries arose between Sidon and Damascus, a city of the Decapolis. It is therefore conceivable that the movement headed east toward Damascus and then south through the region of the Decapolis, following major roads linking Damascus with either Caesarea Philippi or Hippos.

Decapolis: A group of ten cities on the eastern frontier of the Roman Empire. The ten cities were not an official league or political unit, but they were grouped together because of their language, culture, location, and political status. The Decapolis cities were centers of Greek and Roman culture in a region that was otherwise Semitic (Nabatean, Aramean, and Jewish). The names of the traditional Ten Cities come from the Roman historian Pliny the Elder (Naturalis Historia 5.16.74). They are:

1.) Gerasa (Jerash) in Jordan
2.) Scythopolis (Beit-She’an) in Israel, the only city on the western side of the Jordan River
3.) Hippos (Hippus or Sussita) in Israel
4.) Gadara (Umm Qais) in Jordan
5.) Pella (Tabaqat Fahl) in Jordan
6.) Philadelphia (Amman) in Jordan
7.) Dion (Capitolias) in Jordan
8.) Canatha (Qanawat) in Syria
9.) Raphana (Abila) in Jordan
10.) Damascus in Syria; Damascus was considerably north of the others and so is sometimes thought to have been an “honorary” member.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...polis-map.svg/415px-The-Decapolis-map.svg.png
A map of Roman Palestine with the Decapolis cities labeled in black.

Surviving lists of the cities do not often agree since Decapolis is more a league of cities than a defined geographical area; according to other sources, there may have been as many as eighteen or nineteen Greco-Roman cities counted as part of it.

This may show that popular language extended the term Decapolis for the largely Gentile area to the east of the Jordan inflow, around and south of Bethsaida, which was properly in the tetrarchy of Philip.

COMMENTARIES
1.) From the Catena Aurea:

Theophylact: The Lord did, not wish to stay in the parts of the Gentiles, lest He should give the Jews occasion to say, that they esteemed Him a transgressor of the law, because He held communion with the Gentiles, and therefore He immediately returns; wherefore it is said, And again departing from the coasts of Tyre, he came through Sidon, to the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the borders of Decapolis.

Bede: Decapolis is a region of ten cities, across the Jordan, to the east, over against Galilee . When therefore it is said that the Lord came to the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the borders of Decapolis, it does not mean that He entered the confines of Decapolis themselves; for He is not said to have crossed the sea, but rather to have come to the borders of the sea, and to have reached quite up to the place, which was opposite to the midst of the coasts of Decapolis, which were situated at a distance across the sea.

 

[patrick457]

32-37: And they bring to Him someone who was deaf and had trouble in talking, and they are begging Him to place His hand on him. And He took him aside from the multitude, by himself, and put His fingers into his ears, and spitting He touched his tongue. And looking up to heaven He sighed, and says to him, "Ephphatha! (that is, “Be opened!”) And [immediately] his hearing was opened, and the bond of his tongue was loosed, and he spoke correctly. And He ordered them to tell no one; but as much as He ordered them, the more they proclaimed. And they were being completely astonished, saying, “He has done everything well! He makes even the deaf hear and the mute speak.”

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/1935/resou9.png

DEFINITIONS

And they bring to Him: Mark now shifts to the historical present tense, which makes the narrative more vivid. He wants the audience to know that Jesus’ fame had spread to such an extent that ordinary people (not just the disciples) have hope in the power of Jesus.

Trouble in talking (mogilalos): The word mogilalos is a hapax legomenon that only appears once in the New Testament (it appears once in the Septuagint, in Isaiah 35:6; this pericope itself is very much an allusion to this passage, which adds a christological dimension to the narrative). While some translations may make it appear that the man is totally mute (e.g., Syriac), 7:35 suggests that the man is capable of some power of speech. In the Bible, being both deaf and mute was considered tragic (cf. Psalm 38 [37]:13 [14]).

He took him aside from the multitude: Only here and in 8:22-26 does Jesus take someone privately for healing. While some explain this as due to His desire to prevent people from discovering His healing technique, a more better explanation is that Jesus does not seem to have set out to be known as being primarily a healer in this area, and the desire to remain unnoticed (7:24) presumably still applies.

And spitting: In both the Greco-Roman and Jewish worlds (and still in many places today), saliva is considered to have therapeutic properties (cf. John 9:6; Pliny, Naturalis Historia 28.4.7; Galen, On Natural Faculties 3.7). Tacitus and Suetonius (Histories 28.4.7; Vespasian 7) record the “miracles” of the emperor Vespasian at Alexandria where a blind man begs him to anoint his eyes with spittle. Also, in the Talmud (tractate Shabbat 108b), as a part of a gemara on a law concerning the preparation of salt water on the Sabbath (either for use as a dip or as an ingredient for a stew), the rabbis discuss in passing a prohibition on using saliva to heal eyes:

…When R. Dimi came, he said: No man ever sank in the Lake of Sodom. R. Joseph observed: Sodom was overturned and the statement about it is topsy-turvy: No man sank [in it], but a plank did? Said Abaye to him, He states the more surprising thing. It is unnecessary [to mention] a plank, seeing that it does not sink in any water; but not even a man, who sinks in all [other] waters of the world, [ever] sank in the Lake of Sodom. What difference does that make? — Even as it once happened that Rabin was walking behind R. Jeremiah by the bank of the Lake of Sodom, [and] he asked him, May one wash with this water on the Sabbath? — It is well, he replied. Is it permissible to shut and open [one’s eyes]? I have not heard this, he answered, [but] I have heard something similar; for R. Zera said, at times in R. Mattenah’s name, at others in Mar 'Ukba’s name, and both [R. Mattenah and Mar 'Ukba] said it in the names of Samuel’s father and Levi: one said: [To put] wine into one’s eye is forbidden; [to put it] on the eye, is permitted. Whilst the other said: [To put] tasteless saliva, even on the eye, is forbidden. It may be proved that it was Samuel’s father who ruled, ‘[To put] wine into one’s eye is forbidden; on the eye, is permitted’: for Samuel said: One may soak bread in wine and place it on his eye on the Sabbath. Now, from whom, did he hear this, surely he heard it from his father? — But then on your reasoning, when Samuel said: [To apply] tasteless saliva even on the eye is forbidden; from whom did he hear it? Shall we say that he heard it from his father, — then Levi did not state any one [of these laws]! Hence he [must have] heard one from his father and one from Levi, but we do not know which from his father and which from Levi…

Whether this practice should be considered as magical or medical is a matter of debate; in ancient times, folk medicine and magic sometimes overlapped, making it hard to make a distinction between the two. In addition, this use of spittle is very much related to the idea that a wonderworker’s power extends to anything associated with him, such as the clothing he wears (since they touch his person). In the aforementioned story concerning Vespasian, it is not saliva by itself, but Vespasian’s spittle that is considered curative.

He sighed: We don’t know why Jesus sighed (or groaned; the word used could be translated as both) here, whether it was due to the strain of healing, heartache over the ravages of the disease, or a sign of heartfelt prayer. However, sighing was part of a technique used by ancient healers, trying to exude their life force to give power to the words spoken so they could accomplish their task (the life force being breathed into a diseased or dormant person of object was itself the heart of various ancient magical rituals). At first glance, while heretofore Jesus does gestures common to some ‘wonderworkers’, His next gesture will show otherwise.

 

[patrick457]

DEFINITIONS, continued
Ephphatha: This could be from the Aramaic “'eppataħ,” the passive imperative of the verb petaħ “to open,” since the ‘th’ could assimilate in western Aramaic. The guttural ‘ħ’ was generally softened in Galilean Aramaic. Alternatively, this could be the Hebrew niph’al imperative word eftaħ.

Many ‘wonderworkers’ and magicians in antiquity commonly recited strings of syllables, words, or phrases when performing their art (some of the more well-known ones are the Ephesia grammata, ablanathanalba [sisopetron], or even abracadabra); some of these formulas were even written and either worn as amulets for various purposes. Mark notably attempts to dispel any possible misconception among his audience that Jesus’ words are a spell by making His words intelligible, so that it serves as a word of power that frees a man from his infirmity (cf. Exodus 4:11) rather than as a mysterious incantation. Jesus is unique amongst healers in his day in that He does not use gibberish incantations when performing miracles, but rather makes a simple command in His own intelligible native speech. A lot of ‘wonder-workers’ and folk healers in Jesus’ time may have been in it for the fame, because being one made you a sort of celebrity in the eyes of the common man (especially since individual wonder-workers claiming to be in the tradition of Elijah and Elisha were aplenty in Jesus’ time).

Thaumaturgists (such as Honi the Circle Drawer or Hanina ben Dosa) were considered by the masses as holy and pious men who can work various deeds because they essentially had a close relationship with God. The masses would usually listen to such a person and follow his lead. In contrast to these, Jesus did not want public attention and did not go around chanting syllables or texts; He wished for privacy (athough usually to no avail) and used plain language. And He was considerably more holy than these men and had a more closer relationship with God than these men could ever attain!

Jesus may have lived in a time when religious sects, splinter groups or wonderworkers were running around in the Roman province of Judea. Doubtless, some in His time may have viewed Him as just ‘one of them healers.’ But the above, along with many other attributes, are what helped set Jesus apart from the many healers, “divine men,” or thaumaturgists in antiquity.

And He ordered them: Although Jesus performed the miracle in private, all the pronouns are in the plural. Perhaps the people who brought the deaf-mute man heard him speaking clearly and already witnessed him healed.

They proclaimed (kēryssein): This verb has a religious overtone and is associated with the message of Jesus about God as well as the message of the Church about Jesus. In Mark the following characters “proclaim:” John the Baptizer (1:4, 7), Jesus (1:14-15, 38-39), the people who have witnessed Jesus (1:45-5:20; 7:36), the disciples (3:14; 6:12), the Community under persecution (13:10) and the post-resurrection Community (14:9).

And they were being completely astonished: The astonishment of the crowd (a common feature of miracle stories in Mark) is expressed all the more dramatically. The main verb exeplēssonto is an intensive form of the verb plēssein (“to strike”) and means “to be struck out” or “to be overwhelmed,” while the hapax legomenon adverb hyperperissōs (translated here as “completely;” literally “above-beyond measure”), which intensifies the already extravagant adverb perissōs (beyond measure).

He has done everything well! (Kalōs panta pepoiēken) This echoes Genesis 1:31 in the Septuagint: “and God saw everything that He had done (epoiēsen), for behold it was exceedingly good (kala lian).” This general verdict, pronounced by a presumably gentile crowd, indicates that the Jewish Messiah is now meeting wider approbation, and paves the way for the four thousand to follow Him in the next pericope.

He makes even the deaf hear, etc.: This is yet another allusion to Isaiah 35:6: “[T]he eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall hear, then the lame shall leap like a deer, and the tongue of the stammerers shall be clear…”

COMMENTARIES
1.) From the Haydock Commentary:

Ver. 32. Dumb.[2] The Greek signifies one that speaks little, or with difficulty. (Witham)

They besought him. In the Greek it is, they beseech him, which agrees so well with they bring, that we have every reason to believe that this was the original reading.

Ver. 34. Ephphetha, a Syriac word. Jesus Christ, in the cure of this man, uses many and various actions; but as of their own nature there are no ways equal to such a cure, they shew: first, that the cure was miraculous; and secondly, the virtue, which his divinity communicated to his sacred body. (Bible de Vence)

We must not suppose that our Saviour here groaned on account of any difficulty he experienced in working this miracle, but only from commiseration for the man, whom he was about to heal; as likewise to shew, how very difficult it the cure of those who are spiritually deaf and dumb by sin. He was affected in a similar manner when he raised Lazarus to life, to shew with what difficulty a man, dead and buried in sin by evil habits, can arise from that miserable state. (Denis the Carthusian)

 

[patrick457]

COMMENTARIES, continued
2.) From Cornelius Lapide’s Commentary:

Ver. 32. And dumb: Gr. μογιλάλον, i.e., speaking with difficulty or an impediment, stammering. For when he was healed by Christ he spake right, i.e., freely, as it is in the 35th verse. He was not, therefore, entirely dumb, as they are who are born deaf. These are called in Greek άλαλοι.

Ver. 33. And spitting, He touched his tongue. Christ wrought harmoniously, as though by His healing saliva He would moisten and loosen the dumb mouth, which was bound through drought.

Now He spat not upon the mouth of the mute, but upon His own finger, and by means of His finger applied the saliva to the mouth of the mute, as may be gathered from the Greek. This was required by propriety and decorum. Moreover, when Christ opened the ears and unloosed the tongue of the body, He opened also the ears and tongue of the soul, that they might listen to His inspiration, and believe that He was the Messiah, and that they might ask and obtain of Him pardon of their sins.

Tropologically: Every one ought to seek the same thing, and say with the Psalmist, “O Lord, open Thou my lips, and my mouth shall show forth Thy praise” (Ps 51:17). We ought to do the same as regards our ears, that we may be able to sing aloud with Isaiah (Isa 1:4), “The Lord God hath given me the tongue of the learned, that I should know how to speak a word in season to him that is weary: He wakeneth morning by morning, He wakeneth mine ear to hear as the learned.” Now this is done when He Himself with His own Finger, that is, the Holy Ghost (for He is “the Finger of God,” Exod. viii. 19), and the spittle of Heavenly Wisdom, which is He Himself proceeding forth from the mouth of the Most High, touches the tongue of the soul.

Ver. 34. And looking up to heaven (because from thence come words to the dumb, hearing to the deaf, healing for all infirmities, says Bede), He groaned; both because He sympathised with the misery of the deaf and dumb man, as because in groaning He prayed and obtained healing for him from God.

Ephpheta, which is, Be thou opened, ie., which so signifies. “Where,” says Bede, “the two natures of the one and the same Mediator between God and man are plainly set forth. For, looking up to heaven as man, He groaned, being about to pray to God; presently by a single word, as having the power of Divine Majesty, He healed.” For we all have eyes, but the blind have theirs shut and closed, which in the Syriac idiom are elegantly said to be opened when their shutters are unclosed, as Angelus Caninius says (in Nom. Heb. c. 10). Moreover, the Heb. patach signifies to open. From whence is the imperative passive, or Niphal, hippatach, by crasis hippatach, for which the Syrians use Ephpheta, be open.

Ver. 36. He charged them that they should tell no man. This was not properly a command, involving a fault if disobeyed, but merely a token of urbanity and modesty, that, indeed, He might signify He would not make a parade of His miracles, or by their means obtain the vain glory of men. Wherefore they did not commit sin who nevertheless divulged them. Wherefore it follows, the more He charged them, so much the more a great deal did they publish it. “We are taught by this,” says Theophylact, “that when we confer benefits we should not seek for applause therefrom; but when we have received benefits we should praise our benefactors, even though they are unwilling to be praised.” And S. Augustine says, “By His prohibition the Lord wished to teach us how very fervently they ought to preach to whom He has given a command to preach, when they who were commanded to be silent could not hold their peace.”

Ver. 37. He hath done all things well: Gr. καλω̃ς, i.e., beautifully, becomingly, harmoniously. Christ did nothing which the Pharisees or such like fault-finders could justly blame. Again, the Heb. for well is heteb, i.e., beneficently, because He gave hearing to the deaf, speech to the dumb. Indeed, Christ’s whole life was one continuous beneficence.

3.) From the Catena Aurea:

It goes on, “And they bring Him one that was deaf and dumb, and they besought Him to lay hands upon him.”

Theophylact: Which is rightly placed after the deliverance of one possessed with a devil, for such an instance of suffering came from the devil.

There follows, “And He took him aside from the multitude, and put His fingers into his ears.”

Pseudo-Chrys., Vict. Ant. e Cat. in Marc.: He takes the deaf and dumb man who was brought to Him apart from the crowd, that He might not do His divine miracles openly; teaching us to cast away vain glory and swelling of heart, for no one can work miracles as he can, who loves humility and is lowly in his conduct. But He puts His fingers into his ears, when He might have cured him with a word, to shew that His body, being united to Deity, was consecrated by Divine virtue, with all that He did. For since on account of the transgression of Adam, human nature had incurred much suffering and hurt in its members and senses, Christ coming into the world shewed the perfection of human nature in Himself, and on this account opened ears, with His fingers, and gave the power of speech by His spittle.

Wherefore it goes on, “And spit, and touched his tongue.”

Theophylact: That He might shew that all the members of His sacred body are divine and holy, even the spittle which loosed the string of the tongue. For the spittle is only the superflous moisture of the body, but in the Lord, all things are divine.

 

[patrick457]

COMMENTARIES, continued
3. From the Catena Aurea, continued:

It goes on, “And looking up to heaven, He groaned, and saith unto him, Ephphatha, that is, Be opened.”

Bede: He looked up to heaven, that He might teach us that thence is to be procured speech for the dumb, hearing for the deaf, health for all who are sick. And He sighed, not that it was necessary for Him to be any thing from His Father with groaning, for He, together with the Father, gives all things to them who ask, but that He might give us an example of sighing, when for our own errors and those of our neighbours, we invoke the guardianship of the Divine mercy.

Pseudo-Chrys., Vict. Ant. e Cat. in Marc.: He at the same time also groaned, as taking our cause upon Himself and pitying human nature, seeing the misery into which it had fallen.

Bede: But that which He says, “Ephphatha, that is, Be opened,” belong properly to the ears, for the ears are to be opened for hearing, but the tongue to be loosed from the bonds of its impediment, that is may be able to speak.

Wherefore it goes on, “And straightway his ears were opened, and the string of his tongue was loosed, and he spake plain.”

Where each nature of one and the same Christ is manifestly distinct, looking up indeed into Heaven as man, praying unto God, He groaned, but presently with one word, as being strong in the Divine Majesty, He healed.

It goes on, “And He charged them that they should tell no man.”

Pseudo-Chrys., Vict. Ant. e Cat. in Marc.: By which He has taught us not to boast in our powers, but in the cross and humiliation. He also bade them conceal the miracle, lest He should excite the Jews by envy to kill Him before the time.

Pseudo-Jerome: A city, however, placed on a hill cannot be hid, and lowliness always comes before glory.

Wherefore it goes on, “but the more He charged them, so much the more a great deal they published it.”

Theophylact: By this we are taught, when we confer benefits on any, by no means to seek for applause and praise; but when we have received benefits, to proclaim and praise our benefactors, even though they be unwilling.

Augustine: If however He, as one Who knew the present and the future wills of men, knew that they would proclaim Him the more in proportion as He forbade them, why did He give them this command? If it were not that He wished to prove to men who are idle, how much more joyfully, with how much greater obedience, they whom He commands to proclaim Him should preach, when they who were forbidden could not hold their peace.

Gloss: From the preaching however of those who were healed by Christ, the wonder of the multitude, and their praise of the benefits of Christ, increased.

Wherefore it goes on, “And they were beyond measure astonished, saying, He hath done all things well; he maketh the deaf to hear, and the dumb to speak.”

Pseudo-Jerome: Mystically, Tyre is interpreted, narrowness, and signifies Judaea, to which the Lord said, “For the bed is grown too narrow,” [Isa 28:20] and from which He turns Himself to the Gentiles. Sidon means, hunting, for our race is like an untamed beast, and “sea,” which means a wavering inconstancy. Again, the Saviour comes to save the Gentiles in the midst of the coasts of Decapolis, which may be interpreted, as the commands of the Decalogue.

Further, the human race throughout its many members is reckoned as one man, eaten up by varying pestilence, in the first created man; it is blinded, that is, its eye is evil; it becomes deaf, when it listens to, and dumb when it speaks, evil. And they prayed Him to lay His hand upon him, because many just men, and patriarchs, wished and longed for the time when the Lord should come in the flesh.

Bede: Or he is deaf and dumb, who neither has ears to hear the words of God, nor opens his mouth to speak them, and such must be presented to the Lord for healing, by men who have already learned to hear and speak the divine oracles.

Pseudo-Jerome: Further, he who obtains healing is always drawn aside from turbulent thoughts, disorderly actions, and incoherent speeches. And the fingers which are put into the ears are the words and the gifts of the Holy Ghost, of whom it is said, “This is the finger of God.” [Ex 8:19; Luke 11:20]

The spittle is heavenly wisdom, which loosens the sealed lips of the human race, so that it can say, I believe in God, the Father Almighty, and the rest of the Creed. “And looking up to heaven, he groaned,” that is, He taught us to groan, and to raise up the treasures of our hearts to the heavens; because by the groaning of hearty compunction, the silly joy of the flesh is purged away. But the ears are opened to hymns, and songs, and psalms; and He looses the tongue, that it may pour forth the good word, which neither threats nor stripes can restrain.

 

[patrick457]

8:1-3: In those days there was again a large multitude with nothing to eat. And He calls His disciples and says to them, “I have compassion on the multitude because they have remained with me now three days and they have nothing to eat. And if I send them away hungry to their homes, they will faint on the way, and some of them have come from afar.”

PARALLELS IN OTHER GOSPELS: Matthew 15:30-39.

DEFINITIONS

In those days (En ekeinais tais imerais): Mark uses this rather more solemn introduction (compared to his more frequent use of kai, “And”) to underscore the significance of a particular event (cf. 1:9; 2:20; 4:35; 13:17, 24, 32; 14:25).

A large multitude: A similar designation (see 6:34) appears in the first feeding narrative (6:32-44). The two narratives are explicitly linked by the term “again” (palin).

I have compassion: The narrator uses the same term in 6:34, though here in the lips of Jesus it carries greater force.

They have remained with me: In contrast to 6:32-44 where the crowds pursue Jesus and arrive at the lakeshore before Him, the crowds in this narrative have presumably been with Jesus on His journey through the Decapolis region.

Three days (Imerai treis): This phrase, in the nominative, is usually described as a ‘parenthetic nominative’, with a few parallels in expressions of time in the LXX as well as in papyri. However, this remains an awkward and inelegant piece of Greek.

The term itself only appears elsewhere in Mark only in 8:31, 9:31, 10:33-34, 14:58, and 15:29. A “three-day” journey is frequent in the OT, often in anticipation of some significant event (Gen. 30:36; Ex. 3:18; 5:3; 8:27; Num. 10:33; Josh. 1:11). A three-day fast itself also precede some important events (cf. 1 Sam. 30:12; Esther 4:16).

And they have nothing to eat: Again, in contrast to the feeding of the 5000, where Jesus has compassion on them because they are leaderless and where the disciples call attention to the hunger of the crowd (6:34ff.), here Jesus is the first to notice their hunger and it moves Him to compassion.

From afar (apo makrothen): This does not necesaarily indicate that the crowd includes people from other provinces; even a day’s journey within the Decapolis would be too far after three days without food. A number of people (such as Frederick William Danker) argue that the phrase echoes the Jewish tendency to speak of gentiles as being those “far off” (Joshua 9:6; Isaiah 60:4 LXX; also Acts 2:39; 22:21; Eph. 2:11-12) thus designating some in the crowd as gentile. This is a possible nuance, but the literal meaning of the text is entirely appropriate and adequate in context.

COMMENTARIES
1.) From the Haydock Commentary:

(Matthew 15)Ver. 32. They continue with me now three days, eager to hear his divine instructions, and to witness the greatness of his miracles. The disciples, as if not remembering what Jesus had done on a similar emergency (see Matthew 14:16), expressed their solicitude and uneasiness for the hungered multitude. (Haydock)

2.) From the Catena Aurea:

Theophylact: After the Lord had performed the former miracle concerning the multiplication of the loaves, now again, a fitting occasion presents itself, and He takes the opportunity of working a similar miracle; wherefore it is said, In those days, the multitude being very great, and having nothing to eat, Jesus called his disciples to him and said to them,

I have compassion on the multitude, because they have now been with me three days, and have nothing to eat. For He did not always work miracles concerning the feeding of the multitude, lest they should follow Him for the sake of food; now therefore He would not have performed this miracle if He had not seen that the multitude was in danger.

Wherefore it goes on: “And if I send them away fasting to their own houses, they will faint on the way: for divers of them came from far.”

Bede: Why they who came from afar hold out for three days Matthew says more fully: And he went up to a mountain and sat down there, and great multitudes came to him having with them many sick persons, and cast them down at Jesus feet, to be healed them.

Theophylact: The disciples cannot yet understand, nor did they believe in His virtue, notwithstanding former miracles, wherefore it continues, And his disciples said to him, From whence can a man satisfy these men with bread here in the wilderness? But the Lord Himself does not blame them teaching us that we should not he grieviously angry with ignorant men and those who do not understand, but bear with their ignorance.

 

[patrick457]

4-6: And His disciples answered Him, “How can one satisfy these with bread here in the wilderness?” And He asked them, “How many loaves do you have?” And they said, “Seven.” And He commands the multitude to sit down on the ground; and taking the seven loaves, giving thanks He broke them, and started giving them to His disciples to serve, and they served the crowd. And they also had a few small fish; and having blessed them, He commanded these to be served as well.

http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/8479/197920jesus20basketsgg6.jpg
And taking the seven loaves, giving thanks He broke them…
DEFINITIONS

How can one satisfy these with bread: Though Jesus did not directly ask that the disciples feed the crowd as in 6:37, they actually perceive His intention here. Yet, the disciples appear more incredulous here than in the feeding of the 5000, since one would have expected them to have learned from that experience.

The failure of the disciples to learn from events that they witness with their own eyes will become an increasingly prominent theme in the next half of Mark’s Gospel, and Jesus Himself will rebuke them for it in 8:17-21. The sarcastic wording of their question, with chorastai (“satisfy”) shaprly juxtaposed to “in the wilderness” (ep’ erēmia), will be dramatically recalled in v. 8 when the narrator describes what happened in that very same wilderness.

Seven: In the feeding of the 5000 (6:38; cf. Matt. 14:17; Lk. 8:13; Jn. 6:9) there were five loaves and two fishes, while here and in Matt. 15:34 there are seven loaves and “a few” fish. While seven is a popular and symbolic number in both the Bible and in the Ancient Near East in general, specific nuances have been attributed to Mark’s use of it here: the number may symbolically suggest the gentiles.

Sit down on the ground: In contrast to the previous narrative, no seating arrangements are described (6:39-40) and the description is sketchier, perhaps because the previous seating arrangements echo OT descriptions of how God’s people were organized, and this crowd may have been predominantly gentile.

Giving thanks (eucharistēsas): The actions of Jesus (taking the bread, saying a ‘blessing’, breaking them, and handing them out to the disciples) parallel 6:41 but with significant variations. The use of eucharistēsas rather than eulogēsas (“He blessed”) may indicate a desire by Mark to draw out the eucharistic significance of the feeding (indeed he will also use the word to describe Jesus’ actions at His last supper, which Paul at 1 Cor. 11:23-24 also does), but since the two verbs are interchangeable in Jewish Greek usage, it may also be merely a stylistic variation.

A few small fish (Ichthydia oliga, alternatively “a few scraps of fish”): In yet another contrast to the previous feeding, the mention of the fish occurs almost as an afterthought after the feeding with bread has already been recorded; Mark puts more significance on what Jesus did with the bread. The fish seems to have been “blessed” (eulogēsas, compared to the eucharistēsas used for the bread) by Jesus separately, after the bread, and the story reads as if they served as the second course for the meal. Surprisingly, no number is given for the fish this time; they are merely numbered as “few.” After the series of diminutives in 7:24-30 it is tempting to read ichthydia as a deliberate contrast to the full-scale ichthydes of 6:31-44, and thus indicating that gentiles get the less valuable food (cf. the “crumbs” of the “children’s bread” in 7:28), but this is probably an overinterpretation. Mark may have been only stressing that the supply was inadequate for the crowd.

 

[patrick457]

COMMENTARIES

1.) From the Catena Aurea:

Theophylact: The disciples did not yet understand, nor did they believe in His virtue, notwithstanding former miracles; wherefore it continues, “And His disciples said unto Him, From whence can a man satisfy these men with bread here in the wilderness?”

But the Lord Himself does not blame them, teaching us that we should not be grievously angry with ignorant men and those who do not understand, but bear with their ignorance.

After this it continues, “And He asked them, How many loaves have ye? and they answered, Seven.”

Remig.: Ignorance was not His reason for asking them, but that from their answering, “seven,” the miracle might be noised abroad, and become more known in proportion to the smallness of the number.

It goes on: “And He commanded the people to sit down on the ground.”

In the former feeding they lay down on grass, in this one on the ground.

It continues, “And He took the seven loaves, and gave thanks, and brake.”

In giving thanks, He has left us an example, that for all gifts conferred on us from heaven we should return thanks to Him. And it is to be remarked, that our Lord did not give the bread to the people, but to His disciples, and the disciples to the people.

For it goes on, “and gave to His disciples to set before them; and they did set them before the people.”

And not only the bread, but the fish also He blessed, and ordered to be set before them.

For there comes after, “And they had a few small fishes: and He blessed, and commanded to set them also before them.”

Bede: In this passage then we should notice, in one and the same, our Redeemer, a distinct operation of Divinity and of Manhood; thus the error of Eutyches [ed. note: i.e. the Monothelites], who presumes to lay down the doctrine of one only operation in Christ, is to be cast out far from the Christian pale. For who does not here see that the pity of our Lord for the multitude is the feeling and sympathy of humanity; and that at the same time His satisfying four thousand men with seven loaves and a few fishes, is a work of Divine virtue?

2.) Commentary by St. Augustine (Sermons on the New Testament 45.1):

In expounding to you the Holy Scriptures, I as it were break bread for you. In hunger receive it, and break forth with a fullness of phrase from the heart; and you who are rich in your banquet, be not meagre in good works and deeds. What I deal out to you is not my own. What you eat, I eat; what you live upon, I live upon. We have in heaven a common store-house; for from thence comes the Word of God.

The seven loaves signify the seven-fold operation of the Holy Spirit; the four thousand men, the Church established on the four Gospels; the seven baskets of fragments, the perfection of the Church. For by this number very constantly is perfection figured. For whence is that which is said, seven times in a day will I praise you? Does a man sin who does not praise the Lord so often? What then is seven times will I praise, but I will never cease from praise? For he who says seven times, signifies all time. Whence in this world there are continual revolutions of seven days. What then is seven times in a day will I praise You, but what is said in another place, His praise shall always be in my mouth?

With reference to this perfection, John writes to seven Churches. The Apocalypse is a book of St. John the Evangelist; and he writes to seven Churches. Be hungered; own these baskets. For those fragments were not lost; but seeing that you too belong to the Church, they have surely profited you. In that I explain this to you, I minister to Christ; and when you hear peaceably, you sit down. I in my body sit, but in my heart I am standing, and ministering to you in anxiety; lest peradventure, not the food, but the vessel offend any of you. You know the feast of God, you have often heard it, that it is for the heart, not for the belly.

 

[patrick457]

8-9: And they ate and were satisfied; and they picked up the fragments left over, seven baskets full. And there were about four thousand; and He dismissed them. And immediately He entered the boat with His disciples, and went to the region of Dalmanutha.

http://img60.imageshack.us/img60/2474/tellhadar2sui7.jpg
A monument on the western side of Tell Hadar (Sheikh-Khadr) on the north-east side of the sea of Galilee, commemorating the miracle.
DEFINITIONS
Seven baskets: The number seven is usually associated with fulfillment, rest, completion, or universality in the Bible.

Baskets (spyris): The Greek term here may suggest a smaller and more elegant basket (either used to carry food or as hampers) compared to the larger and more specifically Jewish kophinos of 6:43; however, spyris is also used in Acts 9:25 to refer to a basket large enough to carry an adult male.

The region: There are two variant readings here. While major MSS read merē (“region”), Matthew 15:39 and some MSS of Mark read oros or oria (“mountain” or “mountains”).

He entered the boat: Unlike in the former feeding, the disciples are no longer left to fend for themselves; Jesus goes along with them in the boat. The embarking on a boat is a frequent narrative transitional device in Mark (3:9; 5:21; 6:32; 8:13) and is often the occasion for a significant revelation (4:1-9; 4:35-41; 6:45-52; 8:13-21).

Dalmanutha: As of now, there is no record in extant ancient literature of a place that goes by this name. Matthew (15:39), meanwhile, records that Jesus went to “Magadan” or “Magedan,” which has been taken to be a variant form of “Magdala” (indeed, some manuscripts of Matthew have “Magdala” instead of “Magadan”), and perhaps under its influence, a few scribes have substituted “Magdala” in place of “Dalmanutha.” A recent suggestion derives Dalmanutha from a Hebrew term meaning “wall” (the radicals of Dalmanutha, dylm’, are found in the Talmud) and could have meant one of the enclosed cities of that region.

Since the Matthean variant Magdala is from the Aramaic word meaning “tower” (cognate to Hebrew migdal and Arabic majdal) it is suggested by some that the town of Magdala, on the shores of the Sea of Galilee, was Mark’s Dalmanutha, especially as it is probable that the locale had different names; in fact, a town mentioned by Josephus named Tarichaea (“salted fish” or “pickled fish”) in Greek, and another town appearing in the Talmud, named Magdala Nunaiya (“Magdala of the fishes”), are both identified with the Magdala of the Bible.

COMMENTARIES

1.) From the Haydock Commentary:

Ver. 8. After the multitude had eaten and were filled, they did not take the remains; but these the disciples collected, as in the former miracle of the multiplication of the loaves. By this circumstance we are taught to be content with what is sufficient, and to seek no unnecessary supplies. We may likewise learn from this stupendous miracle the providence of God and his goodness, who sends us not away fasting, but wishes all to be nourished and enriched with his grace. (Theophylactus)

Thus does our Lord verify in his works what he has promised in his instructions; that if we will seek in the first instance the kingdom of God and his justice, that all necessary things shall be added unto us. By the gathering up of the fragments that remained, he not only made the miracle more striking to the multitude and to the apostles, but has also left us a practical lesson, how, in the midst of plenty, which proceeds from the munificence of heaven, we must suffer no waste. (Haydock)

Ver. 9. St. Matthew (15:38) adds, without counting either the women or the children.

Ver. 10. Dalmanutha. St. Matthew (xv. 39.) has, to the borders of Magedan; in Greek, Magdala, or Magedan. These were two towns beyond the sea of Galilee, situated near each other; it is of little consequence which of these names the Evangelists mention; perhaps our Saviour visited both. (Tirinus)

The major part of commentators, if we can believe the Bible of Vence, take Magedan, or Magdala, to be the the town of that name situated to the east of the lake of Tiberias, in the vicinity of Gerasa, and Dalmanutha to be the name of that part of the country in which these two towns were situated. (Bible de Vence)

Polus in his Synopsis Criticorum, (vol. iv. p. 410.) gives three explanations for the discrepance of the names in Sts. Matthew and Mark:

1. Idem locus erat binominis, the same place might have two names.
2. Propiqua erant loca, the places were near.
3. Alterum erat regio, alterum vicus, the one was the name of the territory, the other of the town or village; and concludes with asserting from Jewish authorities, that it was the same territory in which the two villages Magedan and Dalmanutha were situated; so that it miht be known by either name, as we find the territory of Gadara and of Gergesa is one and the same. (Polus)

 

[patrick457]

COMMENTARIES, continued

2.) From the Catena Aurea:

It goes on, “And they took up of the broken meat that was left seven baskets.”

Theophylact: The multitudes who ate and were filled did not take with them the remains of the loaves, but the disciples took them up, and they did before the baskets. In which we learn according to the narration, that we should be content with what is sufficient, and not look for any thing beyond. The number of those who ate is put down, when it is said, “And they that had eaten were about four thousand: and He sent them away;” where we may see that Christ sends no one away fasting, for He wishes all to be nourished by His grace.

Bede: The typical difference between this feeding and the other of the five loaves and two fishes, is, that there the letter of the Old Testament, full of spiritual grace, is signified, but here the truth and grace of the New Testament, which is to be ministered to all the faithful, is pointed out.

Now the multitude remains three days, waiting for the Lord to heal their sick, as Matthew relates, when the elect, in the faith of the Holy Trinity, supplicate for sins, with persevering earnestness; or because they turn themselves to the Lord in deed, in word, and in thought.

Theophylact: Or by those who wait for three days, He means the baptized; for baptism is called illumination, and is performed by true immersion.

Greg., Mor. 1, 19: He does not however wish to dismiss them fasting, lest they should faint by the way; for it is necessary that men should find in what is preached the word of consolation, lest hungering through want of the food of truth, they sink under the toil of this life.

Ambrose, in Luc., 6, 73: The good Lord indeed whilst He requires diligence, gives strength; nor will He dismiss them fasting, “lest they faint by the way,” that is, either in the course of this life, or before they have reached the fountainhead of life, that is, the Father, and have learnt that Christ is of the Father, lest haply, after receiving that He is born of a virgin, they begin to esteem His virtue not that of God, but of a man.

Therefore the Lord Jesus divides the food, and His will indeed is to give to all, to deny none; He is the Dispenser of all things, but if thou refusest to stretch forth thy hand to receive the food, thou wilt faint by the way; nor canst thou find fault with Him, who pities and divides.

Bede: But they who return to repentance after the crimes of the flesh, after thefts, violence, and murders, come to the Lord from afar; for in proportion as a man has wandered farther in evil working, so he has wandered farther from Almighty God. The believers amongst the Gentiles came from afar to Christ, but the Jews from near, for they had been taught concerning Him by the letter of the law and the prophets. In the former case, however, of the feeding with five loaves, the multitude lay upon the green grass: here, however, upon the ground, because by the writing of the law, we are ordered to keep under the desires of the flesh, but in the New Testament we are ordered to leave even the earth itself and our temporal goods.

Theophylact: Further, the seven loaves are spiritual discourses, for seven is the number, which points out the Holy Ghost, who perfects all things; for our life is perfected in the number of seven days.

Pseudo-Jerome: Or else, the seven loaves are the gifts of the Holy Spirit, the fragments of the loaves are the mystical understanding of the first week.

Bede: For our Lord’s breaking the bread means the opening of mysteries; His giving of thanks shews how great a joy He feels in the salvation of the human race; His giving the loaves to His disciples that they might set them before the people, signifies that He assigns the spiritual gifts of knowledge to the Apostles, and that it was His will that by their ministry the food of life should be distributed to the Church.

Pseudo-Jerome: The small fishes blessed are the books of the New Testament, for our Lord when risen asks for a piece of broiled fish.

Or else, in these little fishes, we receive the saints, seeing that in the Scriptures of the New Testament are contained the faith, life, and sufferings of them who, snatched away from the troubled waves of this world, have given us by their example spiritual refreshment.

Bede: Again, what was over and above, after the multitude was refreshed, the Apostles take up, because the higher precepts of perfection, to which the multitude cannot attain, belong to those whose life transcends that of the generality of the people of God; nevertheless, the multitude is said to have been satisfied, because though they cannot leave all that they possess, nor come up to that which is spoken of virgins, yet by listening to the commands of the law of God, they attain to everlasting life.

Pseudo-Jerome: Again, the seven baskets are the seven Churches. By the four thousand is meant the year of the new dispensation, with its four seasons. Fitly also are there four thousand, that in the number itself it might be taught us that they were filled with the food of the Gospel.

Theophylact: Or there are four thousand, that is, men perfect in the four virtues; and for this reason, as being more advanced, they ate more, and left fewer fragments. For in this miracle, seven baskets full remain, but in the miracle of the five loaves, twelve, for there were five thousand men, which means men enslaved to the five senses, and for this reason they could not eat, but were satisfied with little, and many remains of the fragments were over and above.

 

[patrick457]

COMMENTARIES, continued
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...tude.jpg/442px-Hole_Feeding_the_multitude.jpg
And they ate and were satisfied; and they picked up the fragments left over, seven baskets full.
2.) From the Catena Aurea, continued:

Theophylact: After that our Lord had worked the miracle of the loaves, He immediately retires into another spot, lest on account of the miracle, the multitudes should take Him to make Him a king.

Wherefore it is said, “And straightway He entered into a ship with His disciples, and came into the parts of Dalmanutha.”

Augustine, de Con. Evan., 2, 51: Now in Matthew we read that He entered into the parts of Magdala [ed. note: Magedan]. But we cannot doubt that it is the same place under another name; for several manuscripts even of St. Mark have only Magdala.

3.) Commentary by St. Augustine (Sermons on the New Testament 45.3):

Of a truth four thousand men were filled by seven loaves; what is more wonderful than this! Yet even this were not enough, had not seven baskets also been filled with the fragments that remained. O great mysteries! they were works, and the works spoke. If you understand these doings, they are words. And yoy too belong to the four thousand, because you live under the fourfold Gospel. To this number the children and women did not belong. For so it is said, “and those who ate were four thousand men, excepting women and children.” As though the void of understanding, and the effeminate were without number. Yet let even these eat. Let them eat: it may be the children will grow, and will be children no more; it may be the effeminate will be amended, and become chaste. Let them eat; we dispense, we deal out to them. But who these are, God inspects His feast, and if they do not amend themselves, He who knew how to invite them thither, knows also how to separate them from the rest.

 

[patrick457]

11-13: And the Pharisees came out and began to debate with Him, seeking from Him a sign from heaven, testing Him. And sighing deeply in His spirit He says, “Why does this generation look for a sign? Amen, I tell you, no sign will be given to this generation!” And He left them, embarked again and went away to the other side.

http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/3152/00159143ps2ze3.jpg
The Pharisees came out and began to debate with Him…

PARALLELS: Matthew 16:1-4.

DEFINITIONS

The Pharisees: Whereas in 3:22 and 7:1 the opposition has come from Pharisaic scribes who had come from Jerusalem (which, by this period of time was the ‘main center’ of sorts for the sect), Mark here gives the impression that the source of this demand is are Galilean Pharisees, who, on His arrival at Dalmanutha, presumably “came out” in order to confront Him. Aware of their (self-imposed?) role as the keepers of religious orthodoxy and practice in the area, and perhaps threatened by this ‘unorthodox’ preacher rising on the popularity charts, their aim is to put Jesus ‘back in His place’ by demanding to see His credentials.

Debate: While the Greek word used here, syzeteō can have a neutral sense (“to discuss”), as in 1:27 and 9:10, more often is it used in a negative sense, that is “to debate” or “to argue.” Mark mentions no other subject of debate, so this sentence seems to indicate the Pharisees’ hostility. They do not come for dialogue; they only wish to discredit Jesus.

A sign from heaven (Symeion apo tou ouranou): The word symeion (“sign”) is not used as a general term for miracles in the Synoptics (as it is in John). Here the term does not therefore mean that they wish to see a miracle, but rather a supernatural (‘from heaven’) authentication.

The exact nature of this ‘sign’ is interpreted, aside from other interpretations, as either a different kind of display which conclusively shows that Jesus’ power comes from God Himself, or an ‘apocalyptic phenomena’ that was triumphalistic, even imperious, in character very much similar to the “mighty deeds” that God performed when rescuing the Israelites from slavery.

While miracles abound in Mark’s gospel, it is likely, even possible, that these Pharisees would have at least heard about some of them. But perhaps they (at least those present in this narrative) had not personally witnessed any of these and were not prepared to trust to hearsay. The scribes in 3:22 did not deny that Jesus can work wonders, but attributed them to Beelzeboul rather than God. For them, even admitted miracles need to have an authenticating sign to show that they are of divine origin.

The concept of a sign to authenticate a prophet or another person claiming divine authorization is a thoroughly Biblical and Jewish one (cf. 1 Cor. 1:22). For example, it features in both the stories of both Moses and Elijah (Ex. 4:1-9, 29-31; 7:8-22, etc.; 1 Kings 18:38; Isaiah 7:10-17; 38:7-8); so the desire for “a sign” is not in itself wrong. By adding the phrase “testing (peirazontes) Him,” however, Mark paints the request of the Pharisees as a dishonest one, and thus prepares Jesus’ refusal for, on the face of it, a reasonable request.

Sighing deeply (anastenazō): The word anastenazō (“to sigh or to groan deeply”) is rare, occuring only here in the NT (though the root word, stenazō had occured earlier in 7:34) and fewer than thirty times in all of Greek literature. A survey of its uses reveals that it is not so much an expression of anger or indignation so much as of dismay or despair.

Jesus’ deep sigh or groan indicates His distress not over a physical complaint but over the unresponsiveness of “this generation,” revealed in the demand for a sign when so many miracles have testified to His unique authority. The Pharisees’ antagonism reminds one of the antagonism of the people to Moses in the wilderness – with Jesus’ reaction being an echo of God’s disgust with the bent and recalcitrant Israelites (Ex. 33:5)!

This generation: The use twice over of this phrase suggests that the unbelief which demands a sign is not limited to the Pharisees alone, as two other almost similar instances of the phrase (8:38 and 9:19) are not limited to any other specific group. Such statements suggest that now Jesus’ public ministry in Galilee is over the eager response of the earlier narratives has not been fully sustained, and the people as a whole actually share in the skepticism of the Pharisees. It is against this background that Jesus will now focus His attention more directly on His chosen group.

No sign will be given: The phrasing of this warning is unusual in Greek and is a Semitic construction, with a conditional clause (minus main clause) serving the function of an emphatic negative statement; this implies categorical denial and a suppressed self-execration. In modern slang, a near equivalent would be “I’ll be damned if so-and-so happens!”

And He left them (apheis autous): A possible alternative translation for aphiemi is to “send away” or “dismiss,” which some believe captures Jesus’ authority more, who has silenced His adversaries since they never explicitly appear or even speak in the narrative.

 

[patrick457]

COMMENTARIES

1.) From the Haydock Commentary:

Ver. 11. Jesus Christ did not consent to the petition they made him, because there will be another time for signs and wonders, viz. his second coming, when the powers of heaven shall be moved, and the moon refuse her light. This his first coming is not to terrify man, but to instruct and store his mind with lessons of humility, and every other virtue. (Theophylactus)

Ver. 12. Jesus Christ fetches a deep sigh on account of their obduracy, and says; why do these ask for a miracle to confirm their belief, when they resist the authority of so many miracles, which are daily performed under their eyes? (Bible de Vence)

A sign shall not be given. But by a Hebrew form of speech, if divers times is put for a negative. (Witham)

2.) From the Catena Aurea:

It goes on, “And the Pharisees came forth, and began to question with Him, seeking of Him a sign from heaven, tempting Him.”

Bede, in Marc., 2, 33: The Pharisees, then, seek a sign from heaven, that He, Who had for the second time fed many thousands of men with a few loaves of bread, should now, after the example of Moses, refresh the whole nation in the last time with manna sent down from heaven, and dispersed amongst them all.

Theophylact: Or they seek for a sign from heaven, that is, they wish Him to make the sun and moon stand still, to bring down hail, and change the atmosphere; for they thought that He could not perform miracles from heaven, but could only in Beelzebub perform a sign on earth.

Bede: When, as related above, He was about to refresh the believing multitude, He gave thanks, so now, on account of the foolish petition of the Pharisees, He groans; because, bearing about with Him the feelings of human nature, as He rejoices over the salvation of men, so He grieves over their errors.

Wherefore it goes on, “And He groaned in spirit, and saith, Why doth this generation seek after a sign? Verily I say unto you, If a sign shall be given to this generation.”

That is, no sign shall be given; as it is written in the Psalms, “I have sworn once by my holiness, if I shall fail David,” [Ps 80:36] that is, I will not fail David.

Augustine: Let no one, however, be perplexed that the answer which Mark says was given to them, when they sought a sign from heaven, is not the same as that which Matthew relates, namely, that concerning Jonah. He says that the Lord’s answer was, that no sign should be given to it; by which we must understand such an one as they asked for, that is, one from heaven; but he has omitted to say, what Matthew has related.

Theophylact: Now, the reason why the Lord did not listen to them was, that the time of signs from heaven had not arrived, that is, the time of the second Advent, when the powers of the heaven shall be shaken, and the moon shall not give her light. But in the time of the first Advent, all things are full of mercy, and such things do not take place.

Bede: For a sign from heaven was not to be given to a generation of men, who tempted the Lord; but to a generation of men seeking the Lord, He shews a sign from heaven, when in the sight of the Apostles He ascended into heaven.

It goes on, “And He left them, and entering into a ship again, He departed to the other side.”

Theophylact: The Lord indeed quits the Pharisees, as men uncorrected; for where there is a hope of correction, there it is right to remain; but where the evil is incorrigible, we should go away.

3.) Commentary by St. John Chrysostom (Commentary on Matthew Homily 53.3):

Mark says, that when they came to Him, and were questioning with Him, He sighed deeply in His spirit, and says, Why does this generation seek after a sign? Mark 8:12

And yet surely their inquiry was deserving of anger and great displeasure; yet nevertheless the benevolent and provident One is not angry, but pities and bewails them as incurably diseased, and after so full a demonstration of His power, tempting Him.

For not in order to believe did they seek, but to lay hold of Him. Since had they come unto Him as ready to believe, He would have given it. For He who said to the woman, It is not meet, (Matthew 15:26) and afterwards gave, much more would He have shown His bounty to these.

But since they did not seek to believe, therefore He also calls them hypocrites, because in another place they said one thing, and meant another. Yea, had they believed, they would not even have asked. And from another thing too it is evident that they believed not; that when reproved and exposed, they abode not with Him, nor said, We are ignorant and seek to learn.

 

[patrick457]

14-21: And they had forgotten to take loaves of bread, except for one loaf they had with them in the boat. And He was giving orders to them, saying, “Watch out! Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and the yeast of Herod.” And they went on discussing with one another that they had no bread.

And becoming aware, He says to them, “Why are you discussing about having no bread? Do you not yet see or understand? Has your heart been hardened? Having eyes, do you not see? And having ears, do you not hear? And do you not remember? When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many wicker baskets full of fragments did you pick up?” They say to Him, “Twelve.”

“When I broke the seven loaves for the four thousand, how many baskets full of fragments did you pick up?” And they say [to Him], “Seven.”
And He said to them, “Do you still not understand?”

DEFINITIONS
Except for one loaf: The allusion to this is unclear. Given the subsequent criticism of the disciples, it may be an allusion to Jesus’ orders that the disciples may not take even a single loaf on their journeys (6:8). Some find here a veiled allusion to the presence of Jesus with eucharistic overtones – i.e. Jesus is the “bread” that is sufficient for all the disciples’ needs, especially considering that the word ‘bread’ (artos) is not used after this narrative until 14:22, when at the supper Jesus proclaims the bread He takes as “[His]* body.*”

He was giving orders: The imperfect tense of diestelleto (“to command,” “to admonish,” “to give orders”) suggests that Jesus’ warning against the Pharisees and Herod is not an isolated and unprovoked exclamation, but rather a summary of a more extended discourse.

Yeast (zymē): The form of yeast used in Biblical period bread-making consisted always, so far as the evidence goes, of a piece of fermented dough kept over from a former baking. There is no trace nor mention of the use of other sorts of leaven, such as the lees of wine or those mentioned by Pliny (Naturalis Historia, xviii.26 [102-104]), so it is unclear whether the Jews used them. The lump of dough thus preserved was either dissolved in water in the kneading-trough before the flour was added, or was “hid” in the flour and kneaded along with it, as was the case mentioned in the parable in Matthew 13:33. The bread thus made was known as “leavened,” as distinguished from “unleavened” bread (Exodus 12:15, etc.)

Yeast is used metaphorically in a number of ways. While it can directly symbolize evil (1 Cor. 5:8), it can also be used positively as a a picture of the growth of the Kingdom of God (Mt. 13:33). Its main metaphorical force in the NT seems to be on yeast’s powerful growth and influence (1 Cor. 5:6; Gal. 5:9) and its association with the Passover, which demanded the removal of any yeast. In Jewish usage there is a similarly wide range of metaphorical connotations. The significance here is therefore not immediately self-evident. While in Matthew (16:12), the “yeast” is explained to be the “teachings” of the Pharisees and Sadducees (indeed, some point out that the words “teaching” and “yeast” sound almost similar in Aramaic, which may have precipitated the misunderstanding), and in Luke (15:1) it is shown as the Pharisees’ “hypocrisy,” in Mark its meaning remains elusive, and Jesus’ warning puts the focus more on the Pharisees and Herod themselves as being Jesus’ enemies than on any specific connection with their “yeast.”

Yeast of Herod: Some MSS (p45, Coptic Sahidic), perhaps under the influence of Mark 3:6 and 12:13, has “Herodians” instead of “Herod.” The inclusion of Herod Antipas is surprising, since Mark has not explicitly presented him as an enemy of Jesus; however, his interest in Jesus and his linking of Him with John the Baptizer (6:14-29) has alerted the audience to him as a potential threat, and in 9:12-13 Jesus will imply that John’s fate is a foreshadowing of His own.

Do you not yet see or understand? etc. These set of rhetorical questions echo the thought of Isaiah 6:9, yet the wording differs from other allusions to that text, and is more closer to Jeremiah 5:21; Ezekiel 12:2; Ps. 115:5-6. The idea of sense organs which do not function is a way of describing people’s lack of spiritual awareness, and Jesus’ rebuke draws on that recurrent theme of the OT. Both the expressions “to not understand” (oude syniete) and “hardness of heart” (kardia pepōrōmenē) have been formerly used of the disciples by Mark in 6:52 as a part of an editorial comment, which in turn recalled the reference to Isaiah 6:9 in 4:12. Jesus chastises His disciples as being no better off than the “outsiders” to whom that text had already been applied. Their privileged insight into the “mysteries of the Kingdom” seems for now to have deserted them! There is, however, the saving addition of ourō (“yet”) in vv. 17 and 21.

 

[patrick457]

DEFINITIONS, continued

Wicker baskets…baskets (kophinoun…spyridōn): The two words have been rendered differently in order to highlight the two different Greek words used. In each retrospective reference to the feedings the distinct terminology of each feeding is used.

Full of fragments: The word “full” in both cases serve to stress the superabundant results of the miracles and in turn heightens the obtuseness of the disciples.

And they say [to Him]: A difficult textual problem is found here, involving three different variants: “kai legousin” is found in א pc; “oi de eipon” is the reading of Ì45 A D W Θ Ë1,13 33 Ï it; and “kai legousin autō” is supported by B C L (Δ 579 892) 2427 pc. The first two variants would not be translated differently; the third reading, however, would add “to Him” after “they say.” What complicates the issue is that the external evidence is fairly evenly split between the second and third readings, though the first reading is in agreement with the second reading in lacking the dative pronoun. Indeed, another layout of the problem here could treat this as two distinct problems: kai legousin vs. oi de eipon and autō vs. omission of the word. In this second arrangement of the problem, the reading without the pronoun has slightly stronger support (Ì45 א A D W Θ Ë1,13 33 Ï it). Internally, Mark never elsewhere uses the form eipon for the third person plural indicative form of this verb (it is always “eipan”). And although only one other time in Mark is the object lacking after legousin (6:38), it is a similar context (viz., the disciples’ response before Jesus feeds the 5000). Very tentatively, the reading that is followed here is kai legousin. Nestle-Aland 27 puts autō in brackets, indicating some doubt as to its authenticity.

PARALLELS IN OTHER GOSPELS: Matthew 16:5-12; Luke 12:1.

COMMENTARIES

1.) From the Haydock Commentary:

Ver. 15. Of the leaven of Herod. In St. Matthew chap. xvi. ver. 6, we read of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees: we may conclude that Christ named all of them. (Witham)

2.) From Cornelius Lapide’s Commentary:

Ver. 15. Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the leaven of Herod. The leaven is the doctrine of the Pharisees, by which they taught children to say to their parents corban, as well as other things contrary to the law of God. The leaven of Herod is the doctrine of the Sadducees, for with them Christ had had His most recent controversy, as appears from Matt. 16:1-12. For Herod, as well as many of the principal people at that time, were Sadducees (see Jos. xviii. c. 2). They denied the immortality of the soul, and lived as Atheists. So Herod lived in adultery, killed John, and committed many other crimes, having no fear of God. For although he thought that John had risen again in Christ, yet that opinion did not arise, out of faith, but was wrung out of him by fear. Others, with Origen and S. Jerome, understand by leaven the sect of the Herodians, who flattered Herod, saying that he was the Messiah. But that referred to Herod of Ascalon, not Herod Antipas, as I have shown on Matt. 22:16.

 

[patrick457]

COMMENTARIES, continued
3.) From the Catena Aurea:

There follows: “Now they had forgotten to take bread, neither had they in the ship with them more than one loaf.”

Bede: Some may ask, how they had no bread, when they had filled seven baskets just before they embarked in the ship. But Scripture relates that they had forgotten to take them with them, which is a proof how little care they had for the flesh in other things, since in their eagerness to follow the Lord, even the necessity of refreshing their bodies had escaped from their mind.

Theophylact: By a special providence also the disciples forgot to take bread, that they might be blamed by Christ, and thus become better, and arrive at a knowledge of Christ’s power.

For it goes on, “And He charged them, saying, Take heed, and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the leaven of Herod.”

Pseudo-Chrys., Vict. Ant. e Cat. in Marc.: Matthew says, “of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees;” Luke, however, of the Pharisees only. All three, therefore, name the Pharisees, as being the most important of them, but Matthew and Mark have each mentioned one of the secondary sects; and fitly has Mark added “of Herod,” as a supplement to Matthew’s narrative, in which they were left out.

But in saying this, He by degrees brings the disciples to understanding and faith.

Theophylact: He means by leaven their hurtful and corrupt doctrine, full of the old malice, for the Herodians were the teachers, who said that Herod was the Christ.

Bede: Or, the leaven of the Pharisees is making the decrees of the divine law inferior to the traditions of men, preaching the law in word, attacking it in deed, tempting the Lord, and disbelieving His doctrine and His works; but the leaven of Herod is adultery, murder, rash swearing, a pretence of religion, hatred to Christ and His forerunner.

Theophylact: But the disciples themselves thought that the Lord spoke of the leaven of bread.

Wherefore it goes on, “And they reasoned amongst themselves, saying, it is because we have no bread;” and this they said, as not understanding the power of Christ, who could make bread out of nothing; wherefore the Lord reproves them.

For there follows: “And when Jesus knew it, He said unto them, Why reason ye because ye have no bread?”

Bede: Taking occasion then from the precept, which He had commanded, saying, “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the leaven of Herod,” our Saviour teaches them what was the meaning of the five and the seven loaves, concerning which He adds, “And do ye not remember, when I brake the five loaves amongst five thousand, and how many baskets full of fragments ye took up?”

For if the leaven mentioned above means perverse traditions, of course the food, with which the people of God was nourished, means the true doctrine.

 

[patrick457]

22-26: And they come to Bethsaida. And they bring a blind man to Him, and they are begging Him to touch him. And He took the blind man by the hand and brought him outside of the village, and He spit on his eyes, placed His hands on him and asked, “Do you see anything?” And looking up he said, “I see men, walking like trees.” Then He placed His hands on his eyes again. And he looked intently and was restored, and saw everything clearly. And He sent him home, saying, “Do not even go into the village.”

DEFINITIONS

Bethsaida: The boat journey mentioned in vv. 13-14 brings Jesus and company to Bethsaida. Located on the north shore of the sea of Galilee, Bethsaida lay immediately to the east of the outflow of the Jordan into the lake. Bethsaida, whose name either means “house of fishing” or “house of the fisherman,” was at the time of Jesus a large village covering an area of about 20 acres. The ancient city walls could still be seen so that it looked like a fortified village. Still, it was a working-class settlement populated by hard working people living a simple, no frills way of life. This was a fishing village, most of the families living there were supported by the “fish of the sea.”

http://www.bibleplaces.com/images/Bethsaida_house_of_the_fisherman_tb_n011500_wr.jpg
The so-called “House of the Fisherman” at et-Tell, usually identified as the biblical Bethsaida.

Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews, 18.2.1) related that the tetrarch Herod Philip, one of the sons of Herod the Great, whose territory included the northern part of the country (the Golan Heights), elevated the city to the status of a Greek city-state (polis) and renamed it Bethsaida-Julias, in honor of Julia, the daughter of the former Roman emperor, Augustus, and wife of the current emperor, Tiberius. Philip also built a lavishly decorated temple on the highest spot of the town. In recent years cult objects were found in and around the temple, including a pair of bronze incense shovels, pottery jugs and juglets used for ritual practices, figurines, amulets and votive objects. The building had particularly thick walls; stones decorated with meander and floral motifs suggest its elegance. The temple did not serve for more than a century, however. The excavations reveal that during the 2nd century AD it went out of use and a private house was built over it. Bethsaida’s status as a polis, together with this temple, suggest that it was one of the centers of the Roman emperor-worship cult.

Brought him outside (exēnenken): Three important uncials (A D W) read exēgagen, “led out.”

Brought him outside of the village, and He spit on his eyes: cf. 7:33. The use of the less common poetic term ommata (“eyes”) as opposed to the more common ophthalmoi (which occurs in v. 25) may no more be than a search for a variety of expression; alternatively, it, together with the use of saliva, may suggest a more formal ritual of healing.

The village (kōmē): The mention of “village” here is surprising, especially in the light of Bethsaida actually being raised to polis status by Philip, as mentioned above. Perhaps we are to envisage Jesus here (as in v. 27) avoiding the city itself and visiting an outlying settlement near Bethsaida.

Looking up (anablethan): The Greek word has the double meaning of “to look up” and “to see again.” Mark uses (and exploits) both senses here: the man “looks up,” apparently having the power to “see again,” but not yet perfectly.

I see men, walking like trees: The word peripatountas agrees with anthrōpous (“men”), not with dendra (“trees”); thus, the sense is not “I see people who look like walking trees” but rather “I see people, and I see them walking like trees.” The contrast with v. 25 makes it clear that this is intended to be a description of indistinct sight: the man sees moving shapes, yet cannot see them clearly enough to identify them – they might as well be trees!

He looked intently (dieblepen): Alternatively, “he stared with eyes wide open” or “he saw clearly.”

He looked intently and was restored, and saw everything clearly: The second attempt by Jesus (unique to this pericope) results in a full healing which is emphasized by three parallel expressions: diablepō (“to look intently”) denotes unimpeded clarity of vision (cf. Matt. 7:5), apokathistēmi (“to be restored”) denotes restoration to full health and proper function of the eyes (cf. 3:5), and eneblepen tēlaugōs apanta (“saw everything clearly”) leaves no room for uncertainty over the completeness of the cure.

Do not even go into the village: Codex Bezae (D) replaces “Do not even go into the village” with “Go to your house, and do not tell anyone, not even in the village.” Other MSS with some minor variations (Θ Ë13 28 565 2542 pc) expand on this prohibition to read “Go to your house, and if you go into the village, do not tell anyone.” There are several other variants here as well. While these expansions are not part of Mark’s original text, they do accurately reflect the sense of Jesus’ prohibition.

 

[patrick457]

COMMENTARIES

1.) From the Haydock Commentary:

Ver. 23. It may be asked, why our Lord led the man from the multitude before he cured him? — It may be answered, that he did it not to seem to perform his prodigies through vain glory; and thence to teach us to shun the empty praises of men: secondly, to facilitate recollection, and to give himself to prayer, before he cured the blind man; and lastly, he went out of the city because the inhabitants of Bethsaida had already rendered themselves unworthy of the miracles of Christ. For among them our Saviour had wrought many miracles, yet they would not believe. (St. Matthew xi. 21.) (Tirinus) (Theophylactus)

Dionysius says, that Jesus led him from the multitude to shew that if a sinner, figured by the blind man, wishes to be converted from his evil ways, he must first leave all immediate occasions and inducements to sin. (Dionysius)

Ver. 24. Man[1] as trees walking. In the Latin text, walking may agree either with men, or with trees, but the Greek shews that walking must be referred to men. Perhaps Christ restored sight in this manner to the man by degrees, to make him more sensible of the benefit; or to teach us how difficult is a sinner’s conversion; of which this was a figure. (Witham)

Ver. 25. Our Saviour made use of exterior signs in the performance of his miracles to command attention, and to signify the inward effects of the favours grants: these the Catholic Church, after the example of her Founder and Model, also uses in the celebration of her sacraments, and for the same purposes. Nor ought any supercilious and superficial reasoner to undervalue and contemn the corporal and external application of holy things, under the hollow plea, that we are exclusively to attend to the spirit and faith.

[1] Ver. 24. Video homines velut arbores ambulantes, Greek: Blepo taus anthropous os dendra peripatountas.

2.) From Cornelius Lapide’s Commentary:

Ver. 23. And taking the blind man by the hand, He led him out of the town, i.e., outside of Bethsaida, as is plain from ver. 22. He led him forth for the same reason that when He was about to heal the deaf and dumb man He took him aside from the multitude. This was,
1st: For the sake of prayer, that, being alone, He might collect His thoughts, and unite Himself wholly to God, and pray the more intently and collectedly.
2nd: To fly from the applause of men, and teach us to do the same.
3rd: Because the citizens of Bethsaida were unworthy of the miracle of Christ; for although they had seen Him work so many miracles, they would not believe in Him.

And spitting upon his eyes. Fasting spittle does good to the purblind, but does not illuminate those who have actually lost their sight. The saliva, therefore, of Christ was not a natural but a supernatural remedy for blindness, being the instrument by which Christ’s Godhead wrought.

S. Hilarion imitated this miracle by which Christ gave sight to a blind man, as S. Jerome relates in his Life. “A blind woman was brought to S. Hilarion, who said that she had expended all her substance upon physicians. Hilarion said to her, If thou hadst given to the poor what thou hast thrown away upon physicians, Christ the true Physician would have healed thee.”

Laid His hands, i.e., when He had placed His hands upon the eyes of the blind man, and again removed them. For that is improbable which the Scholiast in S. Chrysostom says, that this blind man saw people (ver. 24) when Christ’s hands were over his eyes. For this would have been a new and uncalled-for miracle.

Ver. 24. And looking up, he said, I see men as it were trees, walking. As much as to say, I see something obscurely and confusedly; for I see men walking, but in such a way that I cannot distinguish whether they are men or trees. Just as it happens to ourselves, says Bede; when we see people at a great distance, we can only distinguish men from trees by their motion, because men walk, but trees do not. The word walking must be referred to men, not to trees, as is plain by the Greek. The word walking in the Latin text, however, might refer to trees in this sense: I see men as it were trees split, and therefore two-footed, and so walking. This blind man, therefore, as yet in darkness, saw men as it were through a mist and cloud, in which they appeared greater than they really were, it might be as thick and tall as trees, as by means of magnifying glasses letters appear larger than they are in reality.

It is related of S. Gregory Thaumaturgus, that in the Decian persecution he fled with his deacon to a certain hill. A certain traitor made known where they were to the persecutors, who carefully searched the whole hill to discover Gregory. With strong faith in God, he stood in prayer, with eyes immovable and hands stretched out. But God smote the persecutors with inability to see. They returned and reported that they had seen nothing on the hill except two trees a little distant from one another. When they had gone away, the traitor himself went up the hill and saw two men, Gregory and his deacon, instead of the trees. He acknowledged that it was the work of Divine power that they had appeared to the persecutors to be trees, and he fell down at their feet, and from a traitor became a confessor of the faith. (S. Greg. Nyss. in Vita.)

Mystically: The Scholiast in S. Jerome says, “The blind man is a penitent sinner. He sees men as trees walking, because he esteems every one superior to himself. With David he counts himself unworthy to be called a man, deeming himself to be a dead dog and a flea” (2 Sam. 16).

 

[patrick457]

COMMENTARIES, continued

2.) From Cornelius Lapide’s Commentary, continued:

Ver. 25. After that again He laid His hands upon his eyes, and he began to see, and was restored, so that he saw all things clearly. Christ wished not suddenly, but by degrees, perfectly to illuminate this blind man:
1st: That He might exhibit miracles of every description.
2nd: That this miracle might be more esteemed.
3rd: And principally, That He might accommodate Himself to the imperfect faith of the blind man and those who brought him, their faith increasing as the miracle proceeded; and that He might the more kindle in them faith, hope, and desire that it might be brought to a perfect work. “In the first place, He cured this blind man imperfectly,” says Euthymius, “inasmuch as he believed imperfectly, that he who as yet had but a little vision might by means of the little light believe more perfectly, and be healed more completely; for He was the wise Physician.” And by and by he says, “Increase of faith deserved increase of healing.”

Tropologically: Christ wished to teach us that the unbeliever and the sinner are gradually illuminated by God, and that they ought correspondingly to make gradual increase in the knowledge and worship of God. “He did it,” says Bede, “that He might show the greatness of human blindness, which is wont to arrive step by step, and by certain grades, as it were, of progression, at the light of the Divine knowledge.” For as the Scholiast says, “There are degrees of knowledge; neither can any one arrive in a single hour, or, indeed, without considerable time, at perfect knowledge.” We have experience of this in children and scholars, who must be taught and instructed step by step. For if the teacher, being impatient of delay and trouble, should wish to teach them everything at once, he would crush their memory and intellect, so that they would take in nothing. It is like wine when it is poured into a vessel with a narrow neck; if you try to pour it all in at once, you pour in scarcely anything, but nearly the whole is spilled. Worthy of note is the Italian proverb, “Gently, gently, if you would go far;” or the saying of the philosopher, “Progression is by degrees.”

Symbolically: The Scholiast in S. Jerome says, “Christ laid His hands upon his eyes, that he might see all things clearly, that is, that by visible works he might understand things invisible, and which eye hath not seen; and that after the film of sin he might clearly behold the state of his soul with the eye of a clean heart. For blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.”

3.) From the Catena Aurea:

Gloss: After the feeding of the multitude, the Evangelist proceeds to the giving sight to the blind, saying, “And they came to Bethsaida, and they bring a blind man to Him, and besought Him to touch him.”

Bede, in Marc., 2, 34: Knowing that the touch of the Lord could give sight to a blind man as well as cleanse a leper.

It goes on, “And He took the blind man by the hand, and led him out of the town.”

Theophylact: For Bethsaida appears to have been infected with much infidelity, wherefore the Lord reproaches it, “Woe to thee, Bethsaida, for if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.” [Matt. 11, 21] He then takes out of the town the blind man, who had been brought to Him, for the faith of those who brought him was not true faith.

It goes on, “And when He had spit in his eyes, and put His hands upon him, He asked him if he saw ought.”

Pseudo-Chrys., Vict. Ant. e Cat. in Marc.: He spat indeed, and put His hand upon the blind man, because He wished to shew that wonderful are the effects of the Divine word added to action; for the hand is the symbol of working, but the spittle, of the word proceeding out of the mouth. Again He asked him whether he could see any thing, which He had not done in the case of any whom He had healed, thus shewing that by the weak faith of those who brought him, and of the blind man himself, his eyes could not altogether be opened.

Wherefore there follows: “And He looked up, and said, I see men as trees walking;” because he was still under the influence of unfaithfulness, he said that he saw men obscurely.

Bede: Seeing indeed the shapes of bodies amongst the shadows, but unable to distinguish the outlines of the limbs, from the continued darkness of his sight; just as trees standing thick together are wont to appear to men who see them from afar, or by the dim light of the night, so that it cannot easily be known whether they be trees or men.

Theophylact: But the reason why he did not see at once perfectly, but in part, was, that he had not perfect faith; for healing is bestowed in proportion to faith.

Pseudo-Chrys., Vict. Ant. e Cat. in Marc.: From the commencement, however, of the return of his senses, He leads him to apprehend things by faith, and thus makes him see perfectly; wherefore it goes on, “After that, He put His hands again upon his eyes, and he began to see,” and afterwards he adds, “And he was restored, and saw all things clearly,” that is, being perfectly healed in his senses and his intellect.