The Gospel of Mark step-by-step

[patrick457]

This is a sister project to the (presently half-completed) Book of Revelation thread. Compared to that thread, however, this thread would be a bit-less patristic-oriented, though quotes from the Fathers will still be included.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/MarkEvangelist.jpg
THE GOSPEL OF MARK
EUANGELION KATA MARKON
EVANGELIUM SECUNDUM MARCUM

Authorship of the Gospel: The Gospel is anonymously written, yet since Papias (c. 60-130; his authority on this was ‘the elder’ John) the author of the book is believed to be Mark, generally identified with the John Mark of the New Testament (Acts 12:12, 25; 13:13; 15:37-39; 2 Tim 4:11; Col 4:10; Philemon 24; 1 Pet 5:13). Eusebius hereby quotes the relevant portion:

This, too, the presbyter used to say: ‘Mark, who had been Peter’s interpreter, wrote down carefully, but not in order, all that he remembered of the Lord’s sayings and doings. For he had not heard the Lord or been one of his followers, but later, as I said, one of Peter’s. Peter used to adapt his teachings to the occasion, without making a systematic arrangement of the Lord’s sayings, so that Mark was quite justified in writing down some of the things as he remembered them. For he had one purpose only – to leave out nothing that he had heard, and to make no misstatement about it.’

St. Irenaeus concurred with this tradition (Adv. Haer. 3.1.2):

“And after the death of these (Peter and Paul) Mark the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writing the things preached by Peter.”

As did Origen,

And Tertullian (Adv. Marc. 4.5):

Even wasps make combs; so also these Marcionites make churches. The same authority of the apostolic churches will afford evidence to the other Gospels also, which we possess equally through their means, and according to their usage — I mean the Gospels of John and Matthew — while that which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter’s whose interpreter Mark was. For even Luke’s form of the Gospel men usually ascribe to Paul.

And various other church Fathers.

Clement of Alexandria, writing at the end of the 2nd century, reported an ancient tradition that Mark was urged by those who had heard Peter’s speeches in Rome to write what the apostle had said:

“When Peter had preached the gospel publicly in Rome…those who were present…besought Mark, since he had followed him (Peter) for a long time and remembered the things that had been spoken, to write out the things that had been said; and when he had done this he gave the gospel to those who asked him. When Peter learned of it later, he neither obstructed nor commended.”

The author of the Anti-Marcionite Prologues says:

“Mark declared, who is called ‘stump-fingered,’ because he had rather small fingers in comparison with the stature of the rest of his body. He was the interpreter of Peter. After the death of Peter himself he wrote down this same gospel in the regions of Italy.”

Dating: The Gospel is considered by some scholars today to be the first of the canonical Gospels to be written, a position known as the Markan primacy (personally however, the opinions of the writer of this thread stands in-between the Augustinian and Griesbach hypothesis, which both posit that Matthew was written first). Generally however, a dating between c. 60-80 AD is given.

Whatever the dating, there is no denying that this Gospel was, even at an early date, designated for use in public worship. Subsequently, this Gospel even became a normative part of early Christian corpus of liturgical writings. This Gospel is included in preachers’ armamentarium of sources for knowing who Jesus is.

Eusebius and Jerome bear testimony to this widespread recognition of Mark’s Gospel (Eusebius has for his authority the testimony of Clement of Rome) by recording that Mark obtained the sanction of Peter’s authority himself to have this Gospel be published and read in churches.

 

[patrick457]

1:1-3: The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
As it is written in Isaiah the prophet:

“Behold, I send my messenger before your face,
Who will prepare your way;
The voice of one crying in the wilderness:
‘Prepare the way of the Lord,
Make straight his paths.’”

http://www.xmission.com/~research/gospel/title-mk.jpg
The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God…

DEFINITIONS AND CROSS-REFERENCES

Good news: Greek Euangelion. The word ‘gospel’ in turn comes from the English god spell, meaning ‘good news’.

Jesus Christ: By saying he is the Christ, Mark is declaring Jesus the Messiah, the successor to King David. Mark always uses “Christ” which is derived from the Greek translation; he never uses “Messias” which is derived from the Greek transliteration of the Aramaic word for Messiah.

The Son of God: Some important manuscripts here (such as Codex Sinaiticus) omit this phrase, yet the weight of evidence suggests that it was originally part of the verse (which may have been accidentally omitted).

Notably, only God and the demonic opponents of Jesus (supernatural beings) call Him the Son of God within the Gospel until the centurion in Mark 15:39 (the only human to confess Him so in the Gospel of Mark).

Isaiah the Prophet: While the text is only attributed to Isaiah, the quote actually has elements of Isaiah, Malachi and the book of Exodus (Exodus 23:20a; Isaiah 40:3; Mal. 3:1).

This does not mean that Mark is wrong however. Jewish exegetes, such as the rabbis of the Talmud, usually quoted different persons under the same name if they found them similar in character or activity or if they found a similarity between any of their actions. For example, in one case Malachi and Ezra are said to be the “same person” (Meg. 15a) because they both say similar things (Mal. 2:2, Ez. 10:2).

If the original reading is ‘Isaiah’ (instead of ‘the prophets’, which is used in the KJV), then this reading might have been noticed by pious scribes early on; who, because they though Mark is in error by attributing only Isaiah but not Malachi, 'the prophets**Isaiah. This is a more likely scenario than a scribe amending ‘prophets’ to ‘Isaiah’, either accidentally or on purpose.

Messenger: Greek angelos, the same word used for (and the origin of the word) Angel. Because of this passage, John the Baptizer is at times depicted with wings in iconography.

COMMENTARIES

1.) Commentary by Origen (Homily 21):

The way of the Lord must be prepared within the heart; for great and spacious is the heart of man, as if it were a whole world. But see its greatness, not in bodily quantity, but in the power of the mind which enables it to encompass so great a knowledge of the truth. Prepare, therefore, in your hearts the way of the Lord, by a worthy manner of life. Keep straight the path of your life, so that the words of the Lord may enter without hindrance.

**2.) Another Commentary by Origen (Contra Celsus II, 4):

But they who advance in the knowledge of Christianity do not, as you allege, treat the things written in the law with disrespect… In saying: “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in the prophet Isaiah: Behold, I send My messenger before Your face, who shall prepare Your way before You,” Mark shows that the beginning of the Gospel is connected with the Jewish writings. **

3.) Commentary by St. Irenaeus (Adversus Haereses, III, 10, 5):

Wherefore also Mark, the interpreter and follower of Peter, does thus commence his Gospel narrative: “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; as it is written in Isaiah the prophet: ‘Behold, I send My messenger before Your face, which shall prepare Your way. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare the way of the Lord, make the paths straight before our God.’”

Plainly does the commencement of the Gospel quote the words of the holy prophets, and point out Him at once, whom they confessed as God and Lord; Him, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who had also made promise to Him, that He would send His messenger before His face, who was John, crying in the wilderness, ‘in the spirit and power of Elijah (Luke 1:17),’ Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight paths before our God. For the prophets did not announce one and another God, but one and the same; under various aspects, however, and many titles.

4.) Commentary by Tertullian (An Answer to the Jews, 9):

Now He called him an angel, on account of the magnitude of the mighty deeds which he was to achieve (which mighty deeds Joshua the son of Nun did, and you yourselves read), and on account of his office of prophet announcing (to wit) the divine will; just as withal the Spirit, speaking in the person of the Father, calls the forerunner of Christ, John, a future angel, through the prophet: “*Behold, I send my angel before Your * (that is, Christ’s) face, who shall prepare Your way before You.” Nor is it a novel practice to the Holy Spirit to call those angels whom God has appointed as ministers of His power.

For the same John is called not merely an angel of Christ, but also a lamp shining before Christ. For David predicts: I have prepared the lamp for my Christ; and him Christ Himself, coming to fulfill the prophets, called so to the Jews. He was, He says, the burning and shining lamp; as being he who not merely prepared His ways in the desert, but withal, by pointing out the Lamb of God, illumined the minds of men by his heralding, so that they understood Him to be that Lamb whom Moses was wont to announce as destined to suffer.

 

[COPLAND_3]

Patrick,

If you need any assistance in gathering up Patrisitic resources then let me know. On my site I have some commentaries of Mark that you may be able to use. Plus, I also have access to some material (such as the very first commentary on Mark) on a subscription site that I can send you by email by copying and pasting. I also have plenty of resources from the ancient manuscripts and texts from the ancient languages that are either on my site or I can fax to you by email.

I wish you well! Keep up the good work!

 

[COPLAND_3]

litteralchristianlibrary.wetpaint.com/page/Bible+Commentaries-Fathers+and+Doctors

Here is the page for the commentaries. Within the commentaries on Mark is a link to the first chapter of the Ancient Christian Commentary where you can actually copy and paste from it, which may come in very handy, but there is also another link that gives you access to that volume but you can not copy and paste from it, but you can view it. There are some great excerts from Theophylact and also you have the Catena of St. Thomas Aquinas which is better than the ancient Christian Commentary.

 

[patrick457]

Patrick,

If you need any assistance in gathering up Patrisitic resources then let me know. On my site I have some commentaries of Mark that you may be able to use. Plus, I also have access to some material (such as the very first commentary on Mark) on a subscription site that I can send you by email by copying and pasting. I also have plenty of resources from the ancient manuscripts and texts from the ancient languages that are either on my site or I can fax to you by email.

I wish you well! Keep up the good work!

You’ve always been such a great help! May you be blessed ten, hundred, thousandfold.

 

[patrick457]

4-8: John the Baptizer came in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. And all the region of Judea was going out to him, and all those of Jerusalem; and they were baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins. And John was clothed in camel’s hair, and a leather belt around his waist, and fed on locusts and wild honey.

And he preached, saying, “There comes after me One mightier than I, the thong of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. I have baptized you with water, but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/4427/joaniscb2.png

DEFINITIONS and CROSS-REFERENCES

John the Baptizer came: Alternatively, “John came baptizing in the wilderness,…”

The wilderness: This refers to the wilderness of Judea which extends from the waters of the Dead Sea to the very edge of the central plateau (or hill country). It is mountainous, completely devoid of any vegetation, and boasts an annual rainfall of less than 2 inches making the area suitable for supporting only very small numbers of people.

http://www.bibleandscience.com/tours/images/wilderness.jpg
A view of a particular part of the wilderness of Judea.
Baptism: The practice of baptism was not entirely peculiar to John. Baptism was one of the rituals by which Gentiles were brought into Judaism as proselytes (eventually, Christianity borrowed this Jewish practice, yet cast it in a new light). Another related practice would perhaps be the ritual baths that the Essenes took frequently.

John’s baptism is distressing in light of the meaning and use of baptism in Judaism. These were not Gentiles who were being baptized or indicted for their sin and warned of God’s coming wrath, but Jews. John was treating Jews as though they were lost sinners, in need of salvation, thus he is preaching a baptism of repentance. Most distressing of all, many Jews (from the whole region of Judea and Jerusalem, so Mark tells us) were actually believing John and coming to him for baptism. The religious leaders had convinced their followers that simply being Jewish and keeping the Law (as they interpreted it) was sufficient to save them. John’s ministry and message said otherwise.

River Jordan (Arabic: Nahr al-Urdun, Hebrew: Nehar ha-Yarden, Greek: Iordanē potamō): A river in Southwest Asia which flows into the Dead Sea. Historically and religiously, it is considered to be one of the world’s most sacred rivers. It is 251 kilometers (156 miles) long. In the Bible, the Jordan is referred to as the source of fertility to a large plain (“Kikkar ha-Yarden”), called on account of its luxuriant vegetation “the garden of God” (Genesis 13:10). There is no regular description of the Jordan in the Bible; only scattered and indefinite references to it are given.

http://img47.imageshack.us/img47/7207/baptismsitevs9.jpg
The excavated remains of Bethabara (aka Bethany beyond the Jordan), where according to John (1:28), John the Baptizer conducted his ministry.
Camel’s hair…leather belt: The garb of Elijah; cf. 2 Kings 1:8.

Locusts…wild honey (Greek ): Some believe that the ‘locusts’ refer to carob pods, aka St. John’s bread or locust beans, though certain species of locusts or grasshoppers are kosher according to Jewish law. It is interesting to note here that the practice of eating roasted or boiled grasshoppers/locusts in Qumran is attested; however, this is not sufficient evidence to point out that John was a former Essene (as some do) as locusts/grasshoppers and honey are not really foods distinctive to the sect.

In ancient times, ‘honey’ was a general term for any sweet substance, including dates, figs, pods or the gum/sap of the carob tree, and was not limited to the substance produced by bees. Some take the word literally and think that John ate bee honey; however, calling honey ‘wild’ (as in here) would be a tautology anyway as by the time of Jesus almost all bee honey in Palestine was uncultivated. Others think that it refers to a product distinct from bee honey, like a sweet tree-sap (sometimes referred to as honey water) or gum. For example, Diodorus Siculus mentions Arab tribes who survive the desert mainly by drinking ‘so-called wild honey from trees,’ which they mix with water.

Pliny the elder corroborates this by stating that such a beverage (which he calls elaeomeli, ‘oil honey’), a sweet substance thicker than honey yet thinner than resin was plentiful in coastal parts of Syria. Another is that some Greek authors (such as Plato or Theophrastus) use the word meli (translated here as honey) in context to refer to the sap of plants.

The thong of whose sandals I am not worthy to…untie: In ancient Palestine, teachers were not paid, and it was a terrible thing to ask payment for teaching. Instead, in partial compensation, disciples were in the habit of performing chores for their Rabbis.

However, one of the things which was considered “too low” for a Rabbi to expect from his disciples was the untying of the Rabbi’s sandal strap. Therefore, this job, usually done before foot washing, was duty of the lowest slave in the house. In fact, there was a Rabbinic saying that goes: ‘Every service which a slave performs for his master shall a disciple do for his teacher except the loosing of his sandal-thong.’

John therefore humbles himself to the point that he says he is unworthy to do even the lowest and most menial of chores to the One who is coming.

COMMENTARY:
1.) Commentary by Tertullian (On Repentance 2):

John bade the baptism of repentance lead the way, with the view of first preparing, by means of the sign and seal of repentance, them whom He was calling, through grace, to (inherit) the promise surely made to Abraham…He called us to purge our minds, that whatever defilement inveterate error had imparted, whatever contamination in the heart of man ignorance had engendered, that repentance should sweep and scrape away, and cast out of doors. Thus prepare the home of your heart by making it clean for the Holy Spirit, who was about to supervene, that He might with pleasure introduce Himself there-into, together with His celestial blessings.

2.) Commentary by St. Jerome (The Dialogue Against the Luciferians 7):

The baptism of John did not so much consist in the forgiveness of sins as in being a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, that is, for a future remission, which was to follow through the sanctification of Christ. For it is written, John came, who baptized in the wilderness, and preached the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. And soon after, And they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins. For as he himself preceded Christ as His forerunner, so also his baptism was the prelude to the Lord’s baptism.

3.) Commentary by St. Augustine (Answer to Petitilian the Donatist II, 37):

But why the baptism of John, which is not necessary now, was necessary at that time, I have explained elsewhere; and the question has no bearing on the point at issue between us at the present time, except so far as that it may appear that the baptism of John was one thing, the baptism of Christ another,— just as that baptism was a different thing with which the apostle says that our fathers were baptized in the cloud and in the sea, when they passed through the Red Sea under the guidance of Moses (1 Corinthians 10:1-2).

For the law and the prophets up to the time of John the Baptist had sacraments which foreshadowed things to come; but the sacraments of our time bear testimony that that has come already which the former sacraments foretold should come. John therefore was a foreteller of Christ nearer to Him in time than all who went before him. And because all the righteous men and prophets of former times desired to see the fulfillment of what, through the revelation of the Spirit, they foresaw would come to pass,— whence also the Lord Himself says, “That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which you see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which you hear, and have not heard them (Matthew 13:17),” — therefore it was said of John that he was more than a prophet, and that among all that were born of women there was none greater than he (Matthew 11:9, 11); because to the righteous men who went before him it was only granted to foretell the coming of Christ, but to John it was given both to foretell Him in His absence and to behold His presence, so that it should be found that to him was made manifest what the others had desired.

 

[COPLAND_3]

Wow! This is looking awesome so far! I sure wish I had you creating these things on my site!

 

[patrick457]

9-10: And it happened in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized by John in the Jordan.

And immediately coming up out of the water, He saw the heavens split open, and the Spirit descending on Him like a dove; and a voice came out of the heavens: “You are my Son–the beloved; in you I am well pleased.”

http://img48.imageshack.us/img48/5074/tissotbaptismjesus476x7ix2.jpg
Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized by John in the Jordan.
DEFINITIONS and CROSS-REFERENCES

Nazareth of Galilee: Situated inside a bowl atop the Nazareth ridge north of the Jezreel valley, present-day Nazareth is home to more than 60,000 Israeli Arabs, and Upper Nazareth is home to thousands more Jewish residents.

The situation was however different in the time of Jesus. Nazareth had a population of about two to four hundred living in 35 homes spread over about ten acres; it would have been 2,000 feet long from east to west and around 650 feet wide at its greatest north-south width. It was a secluded and quiet village.

As no major roads passed through the village and because it clung to the inside of a natural bowl in the rolling hills high above the Jezreel Valley, it wasn’t readily accessible. The only way to go there was by winding footpaths on an upward incline from the valley.

Only a single spring (now called “Mary’s Well”) surfaced at the end of the village. Undoubtedly this spring attracted the earliest settlers, but it was not large enough to sustain further growth. The residents had to augment it by cutting bottle-shaped cisterns in the soft limestone of the hillsides to collect rainwater. This guaranteed that Nazareth would remain small and insignificant, at least until modern irrigation techniques arrived.

http://www.bibleplaces.com/images/NAZARETH_AERIAL_FROM_WEST_121-36TB_wr.jpg
An aerial view of modern-day Nazareth.

Its residents were primarily interested in working the land so they could pay their taxes and survive on what was left. They generally made their living growing grapes, olives and grains such as wheat, barley and millet as evidenced by the discovery of a wine press, agricultural terraces, stone irrigation channels, the bases of five watchtowers (used to guard the harvested crops from any potential thieves), and pottery shards among rock terraces on a hilltop overlooking modern Nazareth in 1996.

This simple, rural lifestyle seems to have made an impression on Jesus, who included many familiar motifs in some of His parables such as vineyards, sowing seeds and harvesting grain.

Outside of the New Testament, Nazareth is rarely mentioned until the Byzantine period (4th c.). Archaeological excavations have confirmed that the city was only a small agricultural village during the Hellenistic and Roman periods. Due to the lack of any valuable mention (and outdated research), some believed that Nazareth did not exist in the 1st century A.D and was either an invention or interpolation by early Christians. However, recent research and archeology is suggesting otherwise (from Paul Barnett’s Behind the Scenes of the New Testament):

"Despite the Hellenization of the general region and the probability that Greek was known to many people it seems likely that Nazareth remained a conservative Jewish village. After the Jewish war with the Romans from AD 66-70 it was necessary to re-settle Jewish priests and their families. Such groups would only settle in unmixed towns, that is towns without Gentile inhabitants. According to an inscription discovered in 1962 in Caesarea Maritima the priests of the order of Elkalir made their home in Nazareth. This, by the way, is the sole known reference to Nazareth in antiquity, apart from written Christian sources…

(next paragraph) Some scholars had even believed that Nazareth was a fictitious invention of the early Christians; the inscription from Caesarea Maritima proves otherwise."

Another would be John P. Meier’s A Marginal Jew (citing Eric M. Meyers and James F. Strange’s Archeology, the Rabbis, & Early Christianity):

“Despite Nazareth’s obscurity (which had led some critics to suggest that it was a relatively recent foundation), archeology indicates that the village has been occupied since the 7th century B.C., although it may have experienced a ‘refounding’ in the 2nd century B.C.”

He saw the heavens torn open: The occasion of the baptism of Jesus is the response to Isaiah 64:1 for the heavens to open and and rain down messianic salvation.

The Spirit descending on Him like a dove: Indicating divine intervention in fulfillment of promise. Here the descent of the Spirit on Jesus is meant, anointing him for his ministry; cf. Isaiah 11:2; 42:1; 61:1; 63:9.

The dove is the symbol of the Holy Spirit, derived perhaps from the image of the ‘wind (spirit) of God’ hovering over the waters (Genesis 1:2). The intimation is that Jesus, possessor of the life-giving Spirit, is the creator of the new people of God.

You are my Son: cf. Ps. 2:7; Is. 42:1.

COMMENTARIES

1.) Commentary by St. Hippolytus (Discourse on the Holy Theophany 6):

Do you see, beloved, how many and how great blessings we would have lost, if the Lord had yielded to the exhortation of John, and declined baptism? For the heavens were shut before this; the region above was inaccessible. We would in that case descend to the lower parts, but we would not ascend to the upper. But was it only that the Lord was baptized? He also renewed the old man, and committed to him again the sceptre of adoption. For straightway the heavens were opened to Him. A reconciliation took place of the visible with the invisible; the celestial orders were filled with joy; the diseases of earth were healed; secret things were made known; those at enmity were restored to amity. For you have heard the word of the evangelist, saying, The heavens were opened to Him, on account of three wonders.

For when Christ the Bridegroom was baptized, it was fitting that the bridal-chamber of heaven should open its brilliant gates. And in the same manner also, when the Holy Spirit descended in the form of a dove, and the Father’s voice spread everywhere, it was meet that the gates of heaven should be lifted up. And, lo, the heavens were opened to Him; and a voice was heard, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

2.) Commentary by Tertullian (On Baptism 8):

Over the waters of baptism, recognising as it were His primeval seat, He reposes: (He who) glided down on the Lord in the shape of a dove, in order that the nature of the Holy Spirit might be declared by means of the creature (the emblem) of simplicity and innocence, because even in her bodily structure the dove is without literal gall. And accordingly He says, Be simple as doves. Even this is not without the supporting evidence of a preceding figure.

For just as, after the waters of the deluge, by which the old iniquity was purged (after the baptism, so to say, of the world) a dove was the herald which announced to the earth the assuagement of celestial wrath, when she had been sent her way out of the ark, and had returned with the olive-branch, a sign which even among the nations is the fore-token of peace.

3.) Commentary by St. Augustine (Letter to Evodius):

We believe that many things are stated in Scripture separately concerning each of the Three, in order to teach us that, though they are an inseparable Trinity, yet they are a Trinity. For, just as when their names are pronounced in human language they cannot be named simultaneously, although their existence in inseparable union is at every moment simultaneous, even so in some places of Scripture also, they are by certain created things presented to us distinctively and in mutual relation to each other: for example, [at the baptism of Christ] the Father is heard in the voice which said, You are my Son; the Son is seen in the human nature which, in being born of the Virgin, He assumed; the Holy Spirit is seen in the bodily form of a dove, — these things presenting the Three to our apprehension separately, indeed, but in no way separated.

To present this in a form which the intellect may apprehend, we borrow an illustration from the Memory, the Understanding, and the Will. For although we can speak of each of these faculties severally in its own order, and at a separate time, we neither exercise nor even mention any one of them without the other two. It must not, however, be supposed, from our using this comparison between these three faculties and the Trinity, that the things compared agree in every particular, for where, in any process of reasoning, can we find an illustration in which the correspondence between the things compared is so exact that it admits of application in every point to that which it is intended to illustrate?

 

[patrick457]

12-13: And immediately the Spirit drove Him out into the wilderness. And He was in the wilderness forty days, tempted by Satan; and was with the wild animals, and the Angels ministered to Him.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...alDesierto.jpg/416px-Hole_JesusalDesierto.jpg
And immediately the Spirit drove Jesus out into the wilderness…

The Spirit drove Him out into the wilderness: Jesus, the possessor of the Spirit, is directed into the desert in a confrontation with Satan (Mark is the only one of the three Synoptics who names the devil), who attempts to frustrate the work of God, for forty days. Just as holy men were subjected to temptation in Jewish tradition, Jesus is depicted as the Lord’s servant who is loyal to God in His own time of trial (Heb. 2:14-18).

Jesus’ wandering through the desert area for “forty days” recalls the experiences of Moses and Elijah, and also the 40 years of Israel’s testing in the desert.

Wilderness: The location in which Jesus is believed to have went is gerentally identified with the rocky and uninhabited area between Jerusalem and Jericho. Christian tradition has identified a prominent mountain (366 m [1,200 feet] high) north-west of Jericho (known as the Mount of the Temptation, Mount Quarantania or Mount Quarantal) as the site of this temptation.

http://www.welcometohosanna.com/LIFE_OF_JESUS/lifejesuspix/judeandesert.gif
Judean desert from the road between Jericho and Jerusalem.
When people hear about a wilderness or a desert, the thing that comes to their minds is searing heat, endless sand dunes and an occasional oasis. However, the Judean desert is unlike that. As a matter of fact, there are only a few areas of dunes, and they are mainly along the Mediterranean coast. Mostly, the Negev and Judean deserts are rocky areas, either mountainous with virtually no vegetation, or flat (as in the Arava), with scattered trees and bushes (however, even these are not enough to provide shade). Both deserts are criss-crossed by wadis.

Jesus trudged through rain and occasional snow, blustery winds and damp cold, relieved only by the pale sun. The limestone made for rough walking, even for one accustomed to traveling on foot. Some of the paths had been washed away by water from sudden rain squalls erupting through the wadis.

http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefmedia/sharemed/targets/images/pho/t242/T242117A.jpg
A monastery standing precariously on a clifftop located on the Mount of the Temptation, overlooking the ancient city of Jericho.
There were also bands of roving thugs that preyed on lone, unprotected travelers in the area. Jesus may have been speaking from experience when He told about the story of the man beaten to death by such robbers (Luke 10:30-37).

Wild animals: The presence of wild animals here may indicate the horror and danger of the desert area (the Judean desert was in fact infamous for its lions), which was traditionally regarded as the abode of demons, or may reflect the paradise motif of harmony among all creatures; cf. Isaiah 11:6-9.

Angels ministered (diēkonoun) to Him: How the Angels ministered to Jesus is a matter of varying interpretation. Some interpret it either as the Angels feeding Jesus, and thus traditionally artists have depicted the scene as Jesus being presented with a feast; while some interpret it with as the Angels driving the Devil away (Angels are sometimes described as forming an army to battle evil).

The presence of ministering Angels to sustain Jesus recalls the Angel who guided the Israelites in the desert in the first Exodus (Exodus 14:19; 23:20) and the Angel who supplied nourishment to Elijah in the wilderness (1 Kings 19:5-7).

COMMENTARIES

1.) Commentary by Pope St. Gregory the Great (On the Gospel of the Sunday):

Temptation is brought to fulfillment by three stages: suggestion, delight, consent. And we in temptation generally fall through delight, and then through consent; for being begotten of the sin of the flesh we bear within us that through which we suffer conflict. But God, incarnate in the womb of a virgin, came into the world without sin, and so suffers no conflict within Himself. He could therefore be tempted by suggestion, but the delight of sin could never touch His mind. So all these temptations of the Devil were from without, not from within Him.

2.) Commentary by a 7th-century abbot (the very first formal Commentary on Mark):

Mark the Evangelist bounds along over level and difficult places, like a deer seeking the springs of water. He plucks only the tips of the vegetation and carries off the topmost branches. He is like a honeybee that fleetingly tastes the flowers of the field, to which is likened the smell of Isaac. Such is the way Mark recounts how Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee to receive baptism in the Jordan from John; as soon as He came out of the water, He saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit descending like a dove, and remaining upon Him; and the voice of the Father came from heaven saying that He was pleased with His beloved Son; and the Spirit drove Him into the desert; and the temptation by Satan for 40 days and nights; He was with the beasts, and He lingered with the ministering Angels. This order of events is to be morally followed by us according to the example of Christ. We must hasten to seek the company of Angels. Jesus demonstrated this by deed before he taught it by word. Thus we also run with the young people after the bridegroom, drawn from the fickleness of this uncertain world of the will by the scent of the flower of purity…

…The Spirit drives us out into the desert, for a 40-day period, to be tempted by Satan. This is so that our suffering might produce perseverance, perseverance hope, and that hope might result in charity. Since our struggle is not against flesh and blood but against the principalities, etc.

At that point, the wild beasts will be at peace with us in the ark of our soul. Let us tame the clean and unclean animals. And like Daniel we sleep with lions, since the spirit is not against the flesh, nor does the flesh lust against the spirit. Afterwards, the ministering angels, who see the face of our Father in Heaven, are always sent to us to respond to our needs and to provide solace for our expectant hearts. They announce, Your prayer has been heard, and Do not fear, you who are seeking Jesus, the Nazarene, and I rebuke and discipline those whom I love, and To him who conquers I will give to eat of the tree which is in the paradise of my God.

 

[patrick457]

14-15: Now after John had been handed over, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the Good News of God, and saying: “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the Good News!”

http://img395.imageshack.us/img395/3201/iesubh1.png
Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the Good News of God…
DEFINITIONS AND CROSS-REFERENCES

After John had been handed over: The Greek verb meaning ‘to hand over’ or ‘to deliver up’ used here (paradothēnai) will be also used later to describe Jesus being ‘handed over’ by Judas to the chief priests, and by them to Pilate, and by him to death (Mk. 14:10-11,18,21,41,42,44; 15:1, 15). Other striking similarities between Jesus’ and John’s respective fates will be clear later on.

Galilee (Hebrew: Ha-Galil, literally: ‘The Province’): A large region in northern Israel. Most of the region consists of rocky terrain, at heights of between 500 and 700 meters. There are several high mountains including Mount Tabor and Mount Meron in the region which relatively low temperatures and high rainfall in comparison to elsewhere in Israel. As a result of this climate, flora and wildlife thrive in the region, whilst many birds annually migrate from colder climates to Africa and back through the Hulah-Jordan corridor. The streams and waterfalls, the latter mainly in the Upper Galilee, along with vast fields of greenery and colorful wildflowers, as well as numerous towns of biblical importance, make the region a popular tourist destination in Israel.

According to the Bible, Solomon rewarded Hiram for certain services by giving him the gift of an upland plain among the mountains of Naphtali. Hiram called it “the land of Cabul”. In Isaiah (8:23), the region is referred to as “the District of the Nations” (Hebrew: Galil Haggoyim), with much of this name being retained in its present name of Galil or Ha-Galil.

In Roman times, the country was divided into Judea (Iudaea), Samaria, and the Galilee (Galileia), which comprised the whole northern section of the country, and was the largest of the three regions. Herod Antipas, son of Herod the Great, ruled Galilee as tetrarch.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...lestine.gif/300px-First_century_palestine.gif

Good News (Greek: Evangelion): The word originally meant the reward offered to a messenger who brought news of victory in battle or escape from danger. By a natural transference it came to mean the content of the message he brought, i.e., not simply news but good news (whether or not the news was actually cheerful, ‘good’, or even true at all). The immediate reaction on receiving the news was the offering of sacrifice to the gods as a token of gratitude. The religious connotation gathered around the noun evangelion through the cult of the Roman emperor.

Of special interest is the enthronement inscription from Priene in Asia Minor, dated 9 BC, in which the birthday of the emperor Augustus was hailed thus:

“It seemed good to the Greeks of Asia, in the opinion of the high priest Apollonius of Menophilus Azanitus: ‘Since Providence, which has ordered all things and is deeply interested in our life, has set in most perfect order by giving us Augustus, whom she filled with virtue that he might benefit humankind, sending him as a savior, both for us and our descendants, that he might end war and arrange all things, and since he, Caesar, by his appearance has exceeded the hopes of all former glad tidings (evangelia), surpassing not only the benefactors who came before him, but also leaving no hope that anyone in the future would surpass him, and since for the world the birthday of the god was the beginning of his glad tidings for the world that came by reason of him,’ which Asia resolved in Smyrna.”

Augustus, who had brought peace and prosperity to a war-weary world, wanted his reign to be viewed as the beginning of a new age. Thus, the celebration of this message became the “glad tidings” or “gospel” of the empire he ruled.

Pope Benedict XVI (donning his theologian/private individual hat), in his work Jesus of Nazareth, tells us that:

When the Evangelists adopt this word, and it thereby becomes the generic name for their writings, what they mean to tell us is this: What the emperors, who pretend to be gods, illegitimately claim, really occurs here—a message endowed with plenary authority, a message that is not just talk, but reality. In the vcabulary of contemporary linguistic theory, we would say that the evangelium, the Gospel, is not just information, but action, efficacious power that enters the world to save and transform. Mark speaks of the “Gospel of God,” the point being that it is not the emperors who can save the world, but God. And it is here that God’s word, which is at once both word and deed, appears; it is here that what the emperors merely assert, but cannot actually perform, truly takes place. For here it is the real Lord of the world—the living God—who goes into action.

Kingdom of God (Greek: Basileia ton Theon): A foundational concept in the three Abrahamic faiths, and most notably within Christianity, where it constitutes the central theme of Jesus’ message in the synoptic Gospels. The concept of the kingdom of God is referred to frequently in the Old Testament (see 1 Chronicles 29:10-12; Daniel 4:3). It is tied to Jewish understanding that God will restore the nation of Israel to the land. The Kingdom of God was expressly promised to the patriarch and prophet, King David, because he was a man “after God’s own heart” (1 Samuel 13:14, Acts 13:22).

Pope Benedict XVI, also from his work Jesus of Nazareth, says that there are “three dimensions” to the Church Fathers’ interpretation of the term:
-The first, coming from Origen, is that Jesus is Himself the kingdom in person (the Autobasileia), making the term a veiled Christology. By the way in which He speaks of the kingdom, Jesus leads men to realize that in Him God is present among them, that He is God’s presence.
-The second, also from Origen, “sees man’s interiority as the essential location of the kingdom;” that is, the kingdom is not something that could be located physically, but is in man’s inner being, where it grows and radiates outward from that inner space.
-The third dimension is what we could call the Ecclesiastical: the kingdom of God and the Church are related in different ways and brought into more or less close proximity; that is, the Church is the kingdom of God.

Kingdom: The underlying Hebrew word, malkuth (or the Aramaic malkutha) and the Greek word basileia are action words meaning the regal function, the active lordship of a king. Thus, when Jesus spoke of the kingdom of God, He is quite simply proclaiming God, proclaiming Him to be the living God who is able to act concretely in the world and in history and is now so acting. In this sense, Jesus’ message is very simple and thoroughly God-centered.

The new and totally specific thing about His message is that He tells us that God is acting now (thus Jesus preaches that ‘the time is fulfilled’ and the kingdom of God is ‘at hand’), this is the hour, the time when God is showing Himself in history as its Lord, as the living God, in a way that goes beyond anything seen before.

Repent (Greek: Metanoeite, literally ‘Change one’s mind’): With the advent of the kingdom of God, Jesus now demands repentance, by changing one’s heart and conduct, a turning of one’s life from rebellion to obedience towards God, and faith by believing in the Gospel (evangelion, the good news) of of God.

COMMENTARIES

1.) From the Haydock Commentary:

Ver. 15. As if he were to say: To this day the Mosaic law has been in full force, but henceforth the evangelical law shall be preached; which law is not undeservedly compared to the kingdom of God. (Theophylactus)

Repent, therefore, says our Saviour, and believe the gospel; for if you believe not, you shall not understand; repent, therefore, and believe. What advantage is it to believe with good works? the merit of good works will not bring us to faith, but faith is the beginning of good works. (St. Jerome)

2.) Commentary by St. Jerome (Commentary on the Gospels):

The sweetness of the apple makes up for the bitterness of the root. The hope of gain makes pleasant the perils of the sea. The expectation of health mitigates the nauseousness of medicine. One who desires the kernel breaks the nut. So one who desires the joy of a holy conscience swallows down the bitterness of penance.

 

[patrick457]

16-20: And passing along by the sea of Galilee, He saw Simon and Andrew, the brother of Simon, casting a net in the sea (for they were fishermen); and Jesus said to them, “Come after me, and I will make you become fishers of men.” And immediately they left the nets and followed Him.

And going on a little further from there, He saw James the son of Zebedee and John his brother, who also were in the boat mending their drag-nets. And immediately He called them, and they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired servants, and went after Him.

DEFINITIONS and CROSS-REFERENCES
Sea of Galilee (also Sea of Genneseret, Lake Kinneret or Lake Tiberias): Israel’s largest freshwater lake, being approximately 53 km (33 miles) in circumference, about 21 km (13 miles) long, and 13 km (8 miles) wide. The lake has a total area of 166 km², and a maximum depth of approximately 43 m. At 209 meters below sea level, it is the lowest freshwater lake on Earth and the second-lowest lake in the world after the Dead Sea, a saltwater lake.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/Kinneret_Genezareth_Israel_datafox.JPG
A view of the Sea of Galilee.

The Kinneret is situated deep in the Jordan Great Rift Valley, the valley caused by the separation of the African and Arabian Plates and is fed partly by underground springs although its main source is the Jordan River which flows through it from north to south. Consequently the area is subject to earthquakes and, in the past, volcanic activity. This is evidenced by the abundant basalt and other igneous rocks that define the geology of the Galilee region.

The Sea of Galilee lies on the ancient Via Maris which linked Egypt with the northern empires. The Greeks, Hasmoneans, and Romans founded flourishing towns and settlements on the lake including Gadara, Hippos and Tiberias. The 1st-century Jewish-Roman historian Flavius Josephus was so impressed by the area that he wrote, “One may call this place the ambition of Nature.” Josephus also reported a thriving fishing industry at this time, with 230 boats regularly working in the lake.

http://www.bibleplaces.com/images/En_Gev_first_century_boat_model_tb_n112000.jpg
A reconstruction of a 1st-century boat, based on a 1st-century boat discovered in the Sea of Galilee (see below).

Casting a net: The net that Simon (Peter) and Andrew are using here is an amphiblestron, a circular, bell-shaped casting net, perhaps twelve feet across with weights on the edges.

The casting net was thrown out over the water, where the weights would pull the net to the bottom, catching any fish that might be under it. The fisherman would then wade out to the net, and gather it in. Poorer fishermen who didn’t own boats usually use this method of casting nets while standing at the seashore.

http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/NTIntro/images/fishboatGalil.jpg
An ancient fishing boat discovered in 1986 on the north-west shore of the Sea of Galilee in Israel. This boat has been dated to 40 BC (plus or minus 80 years) based on radiocarbon dating, and 50 BC to 50 AD based on the pottery (including a cooking pot and lamp) and nails found in the boat, as well as hull construction techniques. When its fishermen owners thought it was beyond repair, they removed all useful wooden parts and the hull eventually sank to the bottom of the lake.

Fishermen: Peter and Andrew (and James and John) were commercial fishers based on one of the centers of the fishing industry located near the sea of Galilee that is Capernaum. There were other commercial fishing towns in the region such as Bethsaida (“house of fishing”) and Magdala (Migdal Nunaya, “bulwark of the fishes”) or Tarichaea (“salting installation for fish,” the Greek name of Magdala). Fishermen would usually sell the fish they caught fresh in the local markets, while the rest they would salt and dry for export as far as Spain.

Being a fisherman was a hard, strenuous job that ruled out the weak and indolent. Fishermen were quite crude in manner, rough in both speech and their treatment of others (John and James were in fact called by Jesus the ‘sons of thunder’) yet they were also hardy and fearless, having been exposed to various toils and the dangers of the water and the weather. They were also patient due to experience, as they often toiled for hours without success yet were always willing to try once more.

Mending their drag-nets: The word used here is diktyon, which is sometimes used to define a sort of seine, a vertical wall-like net that could be attached to the shore or to another boat. This kind of net was usually used by taking it into deep water, often at night, and laying it out the floats at the top of the net in a long line across the water. Fish might be driven into the net by the splashes of the fisherman. Then the ends would be pulled together surrounding a school of fish, and they would be pulled on board the boat. One of the fishermen had to be ready to dive if the net got entangled on the rocks at the sea floor.

Boat with the hired servants: Apparently, John and James are quite well-to-do (somewhere around lower middle-class), as attested by the boats, which their father Zebedee would have owned (fishermen were the owners of their own ships) and the presence of hired men.

COMMENTARIES

1.) From the (first) Commentary on Mark:

Four fishermen are called “those sent”: Simon and Andrew, James and John, who abandoned their nets, and their father, and the boat and the hired help. In this four-horse carriage we are transported to the heavens, just like Elijah. The first church is constructed from these four corners. By means of this four Hebrew letters, that is the “Tetragrammaton,” the name of the Lord is known by us.

2.) Commentary by Pope St. Leo the Great (Sermon 95, On the Beatitudes):

Of this high-souled humility the Apostles first, after the Lord, have given us example, who, leaving all that they had without difference at the voice of the heavenly Master, were turned by a ready change from the catching of fish to be fishers of men, and made many like themselves through the imitation of their faith, when with those first-begotten sons of the Church, ‘the heart of all was one, and the spirit one, of those that believed’ (Acts 4:32): for they, putting away the whole of their things and possessions, enriched themselves with eternal goods, through the most devoted poverty, and in accordance with the Apostles’ preaching rejoiced to have nothing of the world and possess all things with Christ.

3.) Commentary by St. Ephrem the Syrian (Hymns for the Feast of the Epiphany, VII, 24):

“Come after Me and truly I will make you fishers of men.”
For instead of a draught of that which perishes,
They fished for the draught that is forever.
They who had taken fishes for death,
Baptized and gave life to them that were to die.

4.) Commentary by St. Jerome (Letter 125, To Rusticus):

The apostles were fishers on lake Gennesaret before they became fishers of men. But at the Lord’s call they forsook all that they had: father, net, and ship, and bore their cross daily without so much as a rod in their hands.

 

[patrick457]

21-22: And they went into Capharnaum; and immediately on the Sabbath He entered into the synagogue and taught. And they were amazed at His teaching, for He taught them as one having authority, and not like the scribes.

http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/2791/jesus09by3.jpg
And they were amazed at His teaching, for He taught them as one having authority, and not like the scribes.

Capharnaum (alternatively Capernaum, from Hebrew Kfar Nahum, “Nahum’s village” or “Village of comfort”): A settlement situated on the north shore of the Sea of Galilee near one of the main highways connecting Galilee with Damascus. The site is a ruin today, but was inhabited from 150 BC to about AD 750.

The town is not mentioned in the Old Testament. Archaeological evidence demonstrates that the town came into existence in the second century BC, in the Hasmonean period. The site had no defensive wall and extended along the shore of the nearby lake (from east to west).

http://www.sacred-destinations.com/israel/images/capernaum/houses-c-biblewalks-350.jpg
Ruins of houses in Capernaum.

Ancient Capernaum stretched east to west for nearly 1000 feet along the lake shore and for some 600 feet from the lake shore to the hills (south to north). At its maximum size during the Byzantine period, Capernaum numbered some 1,500 inhabitants, far inferior to the large cities around the lake. Nearby Magdala, for example, had a population of some 40,000 at the time of the First Jewish Revolt (according to Josephus, but likely exaggerated). But, as an economic center in the Galilee it was more significant than tradition has allowed. Capernaum controlled at least 5 miles of the lake shore and was important enough to have a contingent of Roman soldiers (most likely mercenaries) whose purpose it was to guard the border between the territories of Herod Antipas and Herod Philip.

http://www.ascensiontomball.com/LIFE_OF_JESUS/lifejesuspix/capernhouse.gif
An artist’s conception of 1st century Capernaum.

Houses were built of black lava rock known as basalt (Galilee was once a volcanic region; the Sea of Galilee in fact was formed by a lava flow that dammed the Jordan River), giving the town a rather somber appearance. The walls of the humble homes were formed of large, unhewn basalt stones mortared with mud and pebbles; only the stones used in door jambs and sills were dressed. Archaeologists use the term “insula” to describe the style of homes in Capernaum.

An insula consisted of several small roofed rooms clustered around a single large open courtyard. The squat rooms were too small for gatherings; they were used solely as shelters for belongings and for sleeping in the rainy season. The courtyard functioned like the modern living room, kitchen, dining room, workshop, garage and storage area all in one. Many daily activities took place in the courtyard. Four mills (for grinding large quantities of grain) and ovens were always found there. Here women fixed meals; here artisans worked and probably here too people slept in the summertime on mats stretched on the ground. Parents would sleep with their small children in the middle, snuggled together to keep warm. Adjacent to the inner wall of the courtyard was a bench where people could sit; above might be a thatched eve providing shade. During the long summers, an oppressive heat hovered over the town. Families then made a tent of branches and slept on the roof, which was, in fact, a very important part of the house. Sometimes a trellis was put on the roof and grape vines trained over it. It was also used for drying fruit, grain and, in a lakeside town like Capernaum, for drying fish and fishing nets.

The cemetery zone is found 200 meters north of the synagogue, which places it beyond the inhabited area of the town (as per the requirements of Jewish law). It extended 3 kilometers to Tabgha, an area which appears to have been dedicated to agriculture, judging by the many oil and grain mills which were discovered in the excavation. Fishing was also a source of income; the remains of another harbor were found to the west of that built by the Franciscans.

He entered into the synagogue and taught: Although a rabbi might be recognized as the leader because of his distinguished teaching, there was no official clergy. People who felt themselves qualified could ask permission to preach during Synagogue services, such as Jesus does here.

Synagogue: Commonly used today to describe a Jewish house of prayer; however, some think that in the time of Jesus, the term “synagogue” was not yet fixed to describe only one type of institution: the term both covered a public village/town assembly and a semi-public voluntary association. Using the term to describe only one form of institution is a later development that should not be read back to the 1st century.

http://www.bibleplaces.com/images/Capernaum_synagogue_interior,_tb102702014wr.jpg
The synagogue at Capernaum. This was dated to somewhere later than the 1st century (exactly when is still a matter of debate), yet excavations have revealed a synagogue from the time of Jesus with walls made of worked basalt stone 4 feet thick. These earlier walls, which were preserved up to 3 feet high with the entire western wall still existing, were used as the foundations for the later synagogue.

In the 1st century, the establishment went under many names; synagoge (“Assembly”) and proseuche (“House of Prayer”) were two of the more common. The institution(s) designated by these names could function as council halls, archives (where, e.g., records of manumissions were kept), treasuries, and/or hostels. In the Jewish world these were second only to the temple in Jerusalem itself as religious institutions.

Activities could also include judicial proceedings and political meetings could be held in buildings designated by synagogue terms. The liturgical activity emphasized most in the sources is without competition, such as the reading and teaching of the Torah or other writings, even if there are a few occasions where prayer is mentioned briefly (note that Synagogue services are not yet ‘fixed’ by the time of Jesus, so there are a few variations in services from place to place). Finally, communal meals and public fasts took place in spatial settings designated by synagogue terms.

He taught them as one having authority: cf. Matt. 7:28-29.

Scribes: Men specially trained in writing, and thus influential as interpreters and teachers of the Law, and agents of the rulers. The Scribes were not a sect (they did not form their own party, but could belong to other groups) but a profession; they were scholars learned in the law, who lectured on it in synagogues, taught it in schools, debated it in public and private, and applied it in judgment on specific cases. These men came from all classes. Some were priests, but the vast majority were merchants, artisans and laborers. Among the most famous scribes in Jesus’ day, there was Shammai (a carpenter) and Hillel (a laborer).

Unlike the hereditary ancestral and financial status of the Sadducees, the authority of the scribes rested upon their learning. Anyone who wished could try to become a member of this venerated class, but he had to devote years upon years of study. A scribe to-be had already mastered the law and achieved a thorough familiarity with the Tanakh by the age of 14. Thereafter he spent years in close association with a recognized scribal teacher, receiving lengthy instruction in personal conduct and application of the law in everyday situations. Finally, when he reached the point where he could make his own personal decisions on points of law and justice, he became a non-ordained scholar. Only at about the age of 40 would he be formally ordained as a scribe in his own right, and from that time on he could be addressed as rabbi.

Scribes were so venerated that pupils often observed not only their teachings but their actions as well. Scribes were always given seats of honor at public gatherings, such as the synagogue, in the marketplace, and at weddings; they were looked up as living models to be followed.

 

[patrick457]

23-28: And just then there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit; and he cried out, saying: “What is this to us and to you, Jesus the Nazarene? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!”

And Jesus rebuked him, saying: “Be quiet, and come out of him!” And the unclean spirit, convulsing him violently and crying with a loud voice, came out of him.

And they were all amazed so that they debated among themselves, saying: “What is this? A new teaching with authority! He commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey Him.” And immediately His fame went out everywhere into all the surrounding region of Galilee.

http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/9986/daeira4.png

DEFINITIONS and CROSS-REFERENCES

What is this to us and to you: A Hebrew expression of either hostility (Judges 11:12; 2 Chron 35:21; 1 Kings 17:18) or denial of common interest (Hosea 14:9; 2 Kings 3:13).

The Holy One of God: This phrase is an allusion to the phrase “Holy One of Israel” used often in Isaiah and Jeremiah. The demons recognize what the audience does not, which is one of the main ironies here.

Amazed: cf. Mark 6:2, 7:37, 10:26, 11:18.

What is this? A new teaching with authority: Alternatively, “What is this? A new teaching! For with authority He commands…”

COMMENTARIES

1.) Commentary by St. Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. IV, 6, 6-7):

By the law and the prophets did the Word preach both Himself and the Father alike [to all]; and all the people heard Him alike, but all did not alike believe. And through the Word Himself who had been made visible and palpable, was the Father shown forth, although all did not equally believe in Him; but all saw the Father in the Son: for the Father is the invisible of the Son, but the Son the visible of the Father. And for this reason all spoke with Christ when He was present [upon earth], and they named Him God. Yes, even the demons exclaimed, on beholding the Son: “*We know You who You are, the Holy One of God *(Mark 1:24).” And the devil looking at Him, and tempting Him, said: “If You are the Son of God;” (Matthew 4:3; Luke 4:3) — all thus indeed seeing and speaking of the Son and the Father, but all not believing [in them].

For it was fitting that the truth should receive testimony from all, and should become [a means of] judgment for the salvation indeed of those who believe, but for the condemnation of those who believe not; that all should be fairly judged, and that the faith in the Father and Son should be approved by all, that is, that it should be established by all [as the one means of salvation], receiving testimony from all, both from those belonging to it, since they are its friends, and by those having no connection with it, though they are its enemies. For that evidence is true, and cannot be gainsaid, which elicits even from its adversaries striking testimonies in its behalf.

2.) Commentary by St. Augustine (Tractates on the Gospel of John, 7, 6):

Impure spirits knew that Jesus Christ would come, they had heard of His coming from the angels, they had heard of it from the prophets, and they expected it. For if they were not expecting it, why did they exclaim, “*What have we to do with You? are You come before the time to destroy us? We know who You are; the Holy One of God *(Mark 1:24).” They expected that He would come, but they were ignorant of the time. But what have you heard in the psalm regarding Jerusalem? “For Your servants have taken pleasure in her stones, and will pity the dust thereof. You shall arise,” says he, “and have mercy upon Zion: for the time is come that You will have mercy upon her.” When the time came for God to have mercy, the Lamb came. What sort of a Lamb whom wolves fear? What sort of a Lamb is it who, when slain, slew a lion? For the devil is called a lion, going about and roaring, seeking whom he may devour (1 Peter 5:8). By the blood of the Lamb the lion was vanquished. Behold the spectacles of Christians.

3.) Commentary by St. Athanasius (Ad Episcopus Aegypti et Libyae 2, 3):

When He put a curb in the mouths of the demons that cried after Him from the tombs. For although what they said was true, and they lied not then, saying, “You are the Son of God,” and “*the Holy One of God *;" (Matthew 8:29; Mark 1:24) yet He would not that the truth should proceed from an unclean mouth, and especially from such as them, lest under pretence thereof they should mingle with it their own malicious devices, and sow these also while men slept. Therefore He suffered them not to speak such words, neither would He have us to suffer such, but has charged us by His own mouth, saying, “*Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheeps’ clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves *(Matthew 7:15);” and by the mouth of His Holy Apostles, “*Believe not every spirit *(1 John 4:1).”

 

[patrick457]

29-34: And as soon as they came out of the synagogue, they went into the house of Simon and Andrew with James and John; and the mother-in-law of Simon lay ill with a fever, and immediately they told Him about her. And He came and took her by the hand and raised her up, and the fever left her, and she waited on them.

And at evening, after the sun had set, they brought to Him all who were sick and those who were possessed by demons. And the whole town gathered together at the door, and He healed many who were sick with various diseases, and cast out many demons; and He would not let the demons speak, because they knew Him.

http://img368.imageshack.us/img368/82/0015976bwtn3nb0.jpg

DEFINITIONS and CROSS-REFERENCES
The house of Simon and Andrew: During the excavations at Capernaum, one domestic dwelling of about 25 square feet with an outer courtyard was discovered in 1968. Sometime towards the end of the 1st century AD the dwelling, which was perhaps built in the Late Hellenistic period, had apparently had been transformed into a house-church for the local community of Jewish-Christians.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/petershouse.gif
Archaeological reconstruction of Peter’s house as it may have appeared at Jesus’ time.

Excavators found no household utensils from this period, but the walls had been replastered at least three times and on the white plaster were some 131 inscriptions in Aramaic, Greek, Syriac and Latin with such words as “Jesus,” “Lord,” “Christ,” “Peter,” “Amen” and “Kyrie Eleison.” One phrase is a prayer reading: “O Lord Jesus Christ help…and…” (the two missing names are indecipherable). There were also painted floral motifs in different colors, namely red, pink, dark red, yellow, dark brown, green, blue and white. While no human or animal images were used, the decoration consisted of branches, trees, flowers, figs, pomegranates, Eucharist symbols and a sign of the cross. Fish hooks were also discovered there.

In the 4th century AD this primitive house-church/synagogue was enlarged by adding a covered portico on the east. An arch was built in the main room to support a heavier roof, and the complex was also set apart from the rest of the town by an imposing wall to form a sacred precinct.

Then, in the second half of the 5th century AD, a church was built over it, consisting of a small central octagon, the preferred form for a memorial at the time, surrounded by a larger octagon and another outer partial octagon (5 sides), that served as an entrance hall. The central octagon had a mosaic floor dominated by a peacock, an early Christian symbol of the resurrection, and thus of immortality. Its body encircled by its colorful tail.

http://198.62.75.1/www1/terras/TScpoct.jgp
The octagonal Byzantine Church standing over Peter’s house at the time of discovery.

Possibly this dwelling was earliest church in the Holy Land and it appears to have been the same building described by a Spanish pilgrim, Egeria, who visited the site sometime between 381-384 AD during her pilgrimage to the Holy Land:

“The house of the prince of the Apostles (St. Peter) in Capharnaum was changed into a church; however, the walls (of that house) are still standing as they were (in the past).”

In the 6th century, the Piacenza Pilgrim wrote, “The house of St. Peter is now a basilica.” Like the nearby synagogue, the octagonal church was destroyed early in the 7th century AD, possibly at the time of the Persian invasion (614 AD).

http://198.62.75.1/www1/terras/cp-simon-s.jpg
A church (the Memorial) over the ruins of the House of Peter. At the time when this picture is taken, this church was still under construction, which was finally dedicated on June 29th (the feasts of Sts. Peter and Paul), 1990.
Because this house was regarded with such exceptional reverence by the earliest Christians, there is a real possibility that this was indeed the dwelling of Peter and his family. If so, Peter and his brother Andrew needed to walk only a short distance south to the lake to begin their work as the dwelling is close to the shore (more closer to it than the synagogue).

Mother-in-law of Simon: This passage (and its parallels in the other Synoptics) is usually used to point out that Peter had a wife. Some detractors even point out that since Peter was married, then he could not have been the Pope (as Catholic clerics have a discipline of celibacy); however, that is not necessarily the case.

What is unclear from the text, though, is whether his wife, if any, is still alive by this time. Some believe that Peter is, by this time, a widower, as in the next passages we see that it is his mother-in-law who waits on Jesus and the others, which would usually be the wife’s job.

And she waited on them: Meals in Capernaum and other 1st century Galilee villages were family affairs. In the short rainy and cold season, they took place in one of the larger rooms; in the hot summers everyone gathered in shaded portions of the courtyard. Stews of olive oil, lentils, beans or vegetables were ladled on loaves of bread. Olives and perhaps bits of cheese or fruit were passed around. Naturally, there was fish: salted, dried or grilled, and some wine (water was unsafe to drink, so wine was the common and popular alternative) to take the edge off a hard day’s labor.

And He would not let the demons to speak, because they knew Him: cf. Mark 1:24-25.

 

[patrick457]

35-40: And in the morning, a long time before daylight, He got up and went out, and went away into a deserted place, and prayed there. And Simon and those with Him searched for Him; and they found Him, and said to him, “Everyone is seeking you.” And He said to them, “Let us go somewhere else to the nearby towns, that I may preach there also; for to this purpose have I come.”

And He went into their synagogues throughout all Galilee, preaching and casting out demons.

DEFINITIONS and CROSS-REFERENCES

And went away into a deserted place: cf. Matthew 14:23; Luke 4:42, 43; 5:16.

And prayed there: This is a good illustration that Jesus’ strength comes from the Father. Whereas the normal tendencies of humans, after a full day of ministry, is just to sleep in order to regain strength, here Jesus wakes up early and prays.

And He went into their synagogues: cf. Matthew 4:23; 9:35; Mark 1:23; 3:1.

COMMENTARIES

1.) Commentary by Origen (On Prayer 3,1):

Jesus prayed and did not pray in vain, since He received what He asked for in prayer when He might have done so without prayer. lf so, who among us would neglect to pray? Mark says that “in the morning, a great while before day, He rose and went into a lonely place, and there prayed.” And Luke says, “He was praying in a certain place, and when He ceased, one of His disciples said to Him, ‘Lord, teach us to pray,’” (Lk. 11:1) and elsewhere, “*And all night He continued in prayer to God *(Lk. 6:12).” And John records his prayer, saying, “*When Jesus had spoken these words, He lifted up His eyes to Heaven and said, ‘Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son that the Son may glorify You.’ *(John 17:1)” The same Evangelist writes that the Lord said that He knew “you hear me always (John 11:42).” All this shows that the one who prays always is always heard.

 

[patrick457]

40-45: And there came to Him a leper, beseeching Him, [and kneeling down] and saying to Him: “If you are willing, you can make me clean.”

And being moved with compassion, He stretched forth His hand, and touched him, and said to him: “I am willing; be made clean!” And immediately the disease went from him, and he was made clean. And He sternly charged him, and immediately sent him out, and said to him: “See you say nothing to anyone. But go, show yourself to the priest, and offer for your cleansing the things which Moses commanded, as a testimony to them.”

But he went out and began to talk freely about it, and to spread the news, so that Jesus could no more openly enter a city, but was out in deserted places, and they were coming to Him from every quarter.

http://img376.imageshack.us/img376/7112/leperij7.png

A leper: The Biblical term often translated as “leprosy” included many forms of skin disease, including psoriasis and ringworm. Scholars tell us that what we call leprosy today, Hansen’s disease, may have only entered Palestine somewhere around 300 B.C. and that many of those described as lepers undoubtedly had distasteful skin diseases but not Hansen’s disease. According to the Jewish Encyclopedia:

The probabilities are that “tzara’at” (Note: the word usually translated as “leprosy” in the Old Testament) comprised a number of diseases of the skin, which, owing to the undeveloped state of medical science at that period, were not distinguished. The white spots, upon which so much diagnostic stress was laid, were in all likelihood those of vitiligo, a disease quite common in tropical countries, and characterized by bright white spots, the hairs on which also become white. Vitiligo begins as small patches, which slowly spread, often involving ultimately large areas of the body’s surface. The disease is harmless, but most disfiguring in those of swarthy complexion.

In the Septuagint “tzara’at” is translated by “lepra.” It is reasonable to assume that the Hebrews attached the same meaning to “tsara’at” that the Greeks did to “lepra,” which is derived from “lepros” (= “rough” or “scaly”). According to the medical writings of Aegineta, Aetius, Actuarius, Oribasus, and others, lepra was uniformly regarded as a circular, superficial, scaly eruption of the skin; in other words, their lepra was the psoriasis of modern times. There is absolutely nothing in the Greek description of lepra that suggests even in a remote manner the modern leprosy. The Greeks, in speaking of true leprosy, did not use the term “lepra,” but “elephantiasis.” It is evident, therefore, that they meant by “lepra” an affection distinct and apart from the disease of leprosy as now known. The confusion and obscurity that have enveloped this subject for centuries have resulted from the use of different terms in successive ages to designate the same disease, and from the total change in the meaning and application of the word “lepra.”

Whatever it was, once a person caught it, it was considered incurable, and those diagnosed with leprosy were banned from society. While the early Israelites didn’t operate on the Germ Theory of disease, they understood something about infectious diseases, and those suspected of leprosy were kept isolated until their diagnosis was confirmed (Leviticus 13:5). But the loathing directed at lepers was not merely fear of a disease; leprosy made a person ritually unclean. In a sense, leprosy was viewed as a sign of God’s disfavor.

Later Jewish practice prescribed that while lepers might attend synagogue, they must be the first to enter and last to leave, and must stay in a special compartment to isolate them from the other worshippers. No less than a distance of four cubits (six feet) must be kept from a leper.

Beseeching Him: The Greek word used is parakaleo, a present tense participle, showing that it was an ongoing or continuous or repeated calling.

This man was having an apparently serious and incurable disease and is driven by desperation to violate the social codes (instead of backing away and shouting ‘Unclean, Unclean’, He comes to and calls to Jesus) in order to find a cure.

And being moved with compassion: So in the majority of MSS. A few manuscripts, though, have the curious variant orgistheis, “moved with anger”.

The late Bruce Metzger, in his Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, says thus about the variant:

It is difficult to come to a firm decision concerning the original text. On the one hand, it is easy to see why orgistheis (“being angry”) would have prompted over-scrupulous copyists to alter it to splagchnistheis (“being filled with compassion”), but not easy to account for the opposite change. On the other hand, a majority of the Committee was impressed by the following considerations. (1) The character of the external evidence in support of orgistheis is less impressive than the diversity and character of evidence that supports splagchnistheis. (2) At least two other passages in Mark, which represent Jesus as angry (3:5) or indignant (10:14), have not prompted over scrupulous copyists to make corrections. (3) It is possible that the reading orgistheis either (a) was suggested by embrimesamenos “warn sternly”] of ver. 43, or (b) arose from confusion between similar words in Aramaic (compare Syriac ethraham, “he had pity,” with ethra’am, “he was enraged”).

The scholar R.T. France (in his commentary on Mark) disagrees with the reason no. 2 given by Metzger above, saying that in the other two passages in Mark (3:5; 10:14), the reasons why Jesus is angry or indignant is clear, as opposed to this passage which is more ambiguous as to why.

With regards to the ‘anger’ variant, a number of people (for example the Christian economist and theologian Chad Myers) have suggested that the leper ‘dared’ Jesus to declare him clean, something only priests could do. Because of this, Jesus becomes angry. Then, after healing the man, He “snorted with indignation” (Greek: embrimesamenos, originally used to describe the snorting of horses) and ‘drove out’ the man back to the priests (the probable meaning of exebalen, a word which was also used to describe Jesus ‘casting out’ demons).

On the other hand, others (such as R.T. France) suggest that Jesus was not angry with the leper himself, but with his disease, which represents the work of the Evil One. Another factor which may have also angered Jesus is the system which had ostracized this man (and those like him) as an outcast on the grounds of ‘impurity’, forever dooming the man to a life outside of ‘normal’ society.

As for the use of the word exebalen, this word is also used Mark 5:40 to describe Jesus sending the dead girl’s family out of the room where she is lying. Obviously, the image here is not of Jesus grabbing the girl’s family by the collar and angrily throwing them out!

And touched him: To touch a leper defiled a Jew almost as much as touching a dead person. Jesus would have been made ‘unclean’ as per the Law because of this particular act (then again, ‘a king is not bound by his own rules’).

And he was made clean: To the rabbis, the cure of a leper was as difficult as raising a person from the dead. In all of Biblical history only two people had been cured of leprosy: Miriam, Moses’ sister (Numbers 12:9-15), and Naaman the Syrian (2 Kings 5). Healing a leper had not been done in Israel for seven hundred years, and was thought to be an earmark of the Messianic Age (Luke 7:22), when leprosy would no longer afflict people.

Show yourself to the priest, and offer for your cleansing the things which Moses commanded: cf. Leviticus 14:1-32.

And He sternly charged him: Here is another instance of the so-called ‘Messianic Secret’, which is a common theme in Mark’s Gospel. There are some plausible theories as to why Jesus commanded His followers to keep His identity a secret:

1.) Jesus, despite being the Messiah (Christ), did not appear as a military leader, which was quite different from what the Jews expected from the Messiah. He might also have wanted to suppress public fervor about Himself until the opportune time to retain some measure of anonymity in order to be able to move about the country freely without a multitude of followers on His tail.
2.) It was not the proper time for Jesus to be revealed as such yet.

As a testimony to them: The Greek can also mean “as a testimony against them.” It is not clear whether them refers to the priests or the people. The phrase (a testimony against/to them) was usually interpreted as Jesus abrogating/fulfilling the old Mosaic Law, suggesting that new state of affairs is at hand.

But he went out and began to talk freely about it: Remember that Jesus lived in a society where the literacy rate is low and the common way of spreading a news is by word of mouth (in other words, gossiping). Because of this, the story about the incident would have spread really fast, and Jesus could no longer enter in towns privately like He used to without being mobbed by crowds and so decided to stay in less-populated areas, but even there the crowds come to Him.

Here is one of another ironies that is present in Mark: Jesus strictly orders someone not to reveal to the people who He is, but those commanded would disobey Him anyway.

COMMENTARIES

1.) Commentary by St. Ephrem the Syrian (Commentary on Tatians Diatessaron):

‘“If you are willing, you can cleanse me.” So he stretched out his hand.’ In this stretching out of His hand He seemed to be abrogating the law. For it is written in the law that whoever approaches a leper becomes impure…He showed that nature was good in that He repaired its defect. Because He sent him to the priests, he thereby upheld the priesthood. He also ordered him to make an offering for his cleansing. Did he not thus upheld the Law, as Moses had commanded? There were many proscriptions against leprosy, but they were unable to procure any benefit. Then the Messiah came, and by His word, bestowed healing and abolished these many precepts which the Law had reckoned should exist for leprosy.

2.) From the Haydock Commentary:

Verse 44. It was not the intention of Christ, that he should not tell anybody; had that been His wish, He would easily have realized it: he spoke thus purposely, to shew us that we ought not to seek the empty praises of men. He bade him also offer the sacrifices prescribed, because the law remained in full force till the passion of Christ, in which was offered a perfect sacrifice, that did away with all the legal sacrifices. (Nicholas of Lyra)

 

[patrick457]

2:1-4: And when He entered again into Capernaum after some days, it was heard that He was at home. And many were gathered together, so that there was no longer room, not even near the door; and He was preaching the word to them. And they came, bringing to Him a paralytic, carried by four men. And when they could not get Him because of the crowd, they removed the roof where He was. And when they had broken it up, they let down the pallet on which the paralytic was lying.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3066/2578250954_5262e23400.jpg?v=0
And when they had broken the roof, they let down the pallet on which the paralytic was lying.

They removed the roof where He was: The flat roofs of houses were made by laying beams across the width of the walls, and placing smaller beams at right angles across them. Thick layers of straw and reeds were then placed on the beams to protect them from dampness, and everything was covered with packed mud for additional insulation (in fact, grass was sometimes said to grow on the roofs). The whole structure was made firm by using a stone roller. A ladder or outside staircase gave access to the roof. The four men would have climbed up on to the roof using a staircase and dug through the clay and straw covering the wooden beams.

Rooftops was a very important part of the house, as they proved useful for doing chores, drying flax and clothes, also as sleeping and eating areas during the hot, rainless summers, when families made tents of branches and slept there. Sometimes a trellis was put on the roof to support grape vines. The roof was also used for drying fruit, grain, fish and fishing nets.

Pallet: The intended meaning here is perhaps a sort of portable matress, perhaps with a wooden frame.

 

[patrick457]

5-12: And Jesus, seeing their faith, said to the paralytic: “Child, your sins are forgiven.” But there were some of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts: “Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but One–God?”

And immediately Jesus, perceiving in His spirit that they reasoning thus within themselves, said to them: “Why do you reason these things in your hearts? Which is easier to say to the paralytic: ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say: ‘Rise, and pick up your pallet and walk’? But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on Earth to forgive sins”— He said to the paralytic —“I say to you, rise, pick up your pallet, and go home.”

And at once he rose, picked up his pallet, and went away in the sight of everyone; so that they were all astounded and glorified God, saying: “We have never seen anything like this!”

And Jesus, seeing their faith: Faith is one important ingredient in healing. For example, lack of faith in Nazareth resulted in few healings by Jesus, as we will later see (Mark 6:5-6).

The men had gone to great lengths in bringing the paralytic in front of Jesus, even breaching the roof just so they could get the man to be seen and healed. If they didn’t believe the paralytic would be healed, they never would have carried out this rather desperate act. They could have just turned around and went away when they saw the huge crowds, but none of the sort happens.

And then there is the man himself. Unless he is completely without any motor control whatsoever, he would have protested this ‘craziness’ to the men and insisted they take him home to avoid embarrassment; unless he, too, believes in Jesus’ power.

Child: The word used here is teknon, which is defined as “offspring, children, child;” more specifically, “a male child, a son.”

Your sins are forgiven: In Jewish thinking, sin and misfortune/disease are linked to each other. Disease and/or misfortune was considered to be a sort of temporal punishment for some sin committed.

Who can forgive sins but One–God: cf. Isaiah 43:25.

Reasoning in their hearts: The verb used here is dialogizomai, meaning “to consider, ponder, reason something in one’s own mind.” While dialogizomai can also indicate a verbal argument, we know this was an unspoken, internal disagreement as Mark says they questioned Jesus “in their hearts.”

COMMENTARIES

1.) From the Haydock Commentary:

Ver. 2. Some Greek and Latin copies have, after eight days.

Ver. 4. Such diligence ought to be used to bring sinners to Christ, by means of the sacraments, as was used to procure for this man, through Christ, the health of his body. (Bristow)

When Jesus saw their faith: Our Lord is moved to show mercy to sinners, by the faith and desires, and prayers of others; for this man was not more helpless in his limbs, than in his soul. From this example, we are taught that in sickness the sacraments and helps of the Church, which are the medicines of the soul, should be called for in the first instance; for Christ first healed the sick man’s soul, before he removed his bodily infirmity. We also learn that many diseases originate in sin, and that we are to remove the effect by removing the cause.

The Son of man: Jesus Christ here proves that Himself as man, and not as God only, has power to forgive sins; by this, that He was able to do miracles, and make the sick man suddenly rise; so the apostles and their successors, though they be not God, may in like manner have authority from God to remit sins, not as God, but as God’s ministers, and acting in His name, and vested with his delegated authority.

On earth. This power which the Son of man has to remit sins on earth, was never taken from Him, but is perpetuated in His sacraments and ministers, by whom He still remits sins in the Church, and not in Heaven only. Relative to sin, there is one court of conscience on Earth, and another in Heaven, and the judgment of heaven follows and approves this on earth; as is plain by the words of our Saviour, to Peter first, and then to all the Apostles: Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall by bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. See Matthew 16:19 and 28:18. Whereupon St. Jerome says: that priests having the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, judge in some manner before the day of judgment. (Ep. v. ad Heliod; and St. Chrysostom, more at large, lib. iii. de Sacerd.)

Ver. 12. This paralytic is not the same as that mentioned in St. John; for that distressed man had no one to assist him, whereas this person had four; the former was by the side of the Probatica, but the latter in a house at Capharnaum. (Theophylactus)

2.) Commentary by St. John Chrysostom (Homily on the Paralytic Let Down through the Roof 6):

The Jews persecuted Jesus not only because He broke the Sabbath but also because He said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God (John 5:16), which is a far greater thing, for He effected this by the demonstration of His deeds. How then do the envious and wicked act, and those who seek to find a handle in every direction? Why does this man blaspheme? they say for no man can forgive sins save God alone (Mark 2:7).

As they persecuted Him there because He broke the Sabbath, and took occasion from their reproaches to declare His equality with the Father in the form of a defence, saying: my Father works hitherto and I work (John 5:17), so here also starting from the accusations which they make He proves from these His exact likeness to the Father. For what was it they said? No man can forgive sins save God alone.

Inasmuch then as they themselves laid down this definition, they themselves introduced the rule, they themselves declared the law, He proceeds to entangle them by means of their own words. You have confessed, He says, that forgiveness of sins is an attribute of God alone: my equality therefore is unquestionable.

And it is not these men only who declare this but also the prophet thus saying: who is God as thou? and then, indicating His special attribute he adds: taking away iniquity and passing over unrighteousness (Micah 7:18). If then any one else appears thus doing the same thing He also is God, God even as that one is God. But let us observe how Christ argues with them, how meekly and gently, and with all tenderness. And behold some of the scribes said within themselves: this man blasphemes. They did not utter the word, they did not proclaim it through the tongue, but reasoned in the secret recesses of their heart. How then did Christ act?

He made public their secret thoughts before the demonstration which was concerned with the cure of the paralytic’s body, wishing to prove to them the power of His Godhead. For that it is an attribute of God alone, a sign of His deity to show the secrets of His mind, the Scripture says: Thou alone know men’s hearts (1 Kings 8:39). Do you see that this word alone, is not used with a view of contrasting the Son with the Father. For if the Father alone knows the heart, how does the Son know the secrets of the mind? For He Himself it is said, knew what was in man (John 2:25); and Paul when proving that the knowledge of secret things is a special attribute of God says, and He that searchest the heart (Romans 8:27), showing that this expression is equivalent to the appellation God.

For just as when I say He who causes rain said, I signify none other than God by mentioning the deed, since it is one which belongs to Him alone: and when I say He who makes the sun to rise, without adding the word God, I yet signify Him by mentioning the deed: even so when Paul said He who searches the hearts, he proved that to search the heart is an attribute of God alone.

For if this expression had not been of equal force with the name God for pointing out Him who was signified, he would not have used it absolutely and by itself. For if the power were shared by Him in common with some created being, we should not have known who was signified, the community of power causing confusion in the mind of the hearers. Inasmuch then as this appears to be a special attribute of the Father, and yet is manifested of the Son whose equality becomes thence unquestionable, therefore we read: Why think ye evil in your hearts? for whether is easier: to say: Your sins are forgiven you or to say arise and walk?

 

[patrick457]

13-17: And He went out again by the seaside; and all the multitude came to Him, and He taught them. And as he passed by, He saw Levi the (son) of Alphaeus sitting at the the tax booth, and He said to him: “Follow me.” And he got up and followed Him.

And it happened that He was reclining at the table in his house, and many tax collectors and sinners sat down with Jesus and His disciples; for there were many, and they followed Him. And the scribes of the Pharisees, when they saw that He was eating with the sinners and tax collectors, said to His disciples: “Why does He eat with tax collectors and sinners?”

And when Jesus heard it, He said to them: “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but those who are sick. I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

Tax booth:

He was reclining at the table: Ancient Jews did not usually sit on chairs at meals, but reclined at couches or cushions around a low table (called a triclinium in Latin). Diners reclined on their left side with their feet away from the table, supporting their head on their left elbow, leaving their right hand free to take food.

Following Greek custom, diners reclined on their own couches, which meant that an average household contained a fairly large number of them. Couches were a more formal and festive seating than chairs, as a saying from a Midrash attests: “If a man has a close friend, the first time he gives him a couch to sit on; the second time the friend visits, he gives him a chair; the third time, a bench; and the fourth time he says: what a bother and a nuisance this man is!”

In some wealthy households there were one or more wooden armchairs with backs (in Latin cathedra). Cathedrae made of stone are also present in public places, such as synagogues (where rabbis and sages would sit and preach). Both were not upholstered, but they were covered each time they were used. In households with cathedrae guests were usually made to sit on them first before moving to the couches to lie down and eat.

Sitting on the floor was very uncommon and was usually reserved to mourners or those under a ban. Only at public assemblies or large gatherings of students around their rabbis would people sit on the ground (with mats under them) because of the lack of seats or out of respect for the speaker.

He got up and followed Him: i.e. Levi became a disciple of Jesus. Note the similarity of this phrase with Mark 1:16-20.

Tax collectors: In the New Testament era the Romans collected a variety of

 

[patrick457]

13-17: And He went out again by the seaside; and all the multitude came to Him, and He taught them. And as he passed by, He saw Levi the (son) of Alphaeus sitting at the the tax booth, and He said to him: “Follow me.” And he got up and followed Him.

And it happened that He was reclining at the table in his house, and many tax-collectors and sinners sat down with Jesus and His disciples; for there were many, and they followed Him. And the scribes of the Pharisees, when they saw that He was eating with the sinners and tax collectors, said to His disciples: “Why does He eat with tax-collectors and sinners?”

And when Jesus heard it, He said to them: “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but those who are sick. I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/34/Hole_jesus_calls_levi.jpg
“Follow me!”

Tax booth (Greek: To Telonion; aka Receipt of Customs, Tax Office):** A word unique to the Synoptic tradition in the passage describing the call of Matthew/Levi. Perhaps what is meant here is a sort of toll booth or a small customhouse on which all goods in transport are taxed. Capernaum’s tax booth must have been very important, as it is located on a major caravan route that connected Damascus with the Mediterranean (the “way of the sea”, aka Via Maris) and was thus a major point of entry into Palestine from the north and the east.

He got up and followed Him: i.e. Levi became a disciple of Jesus. Note the similarity of this phrase with Mark 1:16-20.

He was reclining at the table: Ancient Jews did not usually sit on chairs at meals, but reclined at couches or cushions around a low table (called a triclinium in Latin). Diners reclined on their left side with their feet away from the table, supporting their head on their left elbow, leaving their right hand free to take food.

http://img371.imageshack.us/img371/6611/tricliniumep4.jpg
A mosaic depiction of a (Roman?) triclinium, from Sepphoris.

Following Greek custom, diners reclined on their own couches, which meant that an average household contained a fairly large number of them. Couches were a more formal and festive seating than chairs, as a saying from a Midrash attests: “If a man has a close friend, the first time he gives him a couch to sit on; the second time the friend visits, he gives him a chair; the third time, a bench; and the fourth time he says: what a bother and a nuisance this man is!”

http://img362.imageshack.us/img362/5809/recline3wb2.gif

In some wealthy households there were one or more wooden armchairs with backs (in Latin cathedra). Cathedrae made of stone are also present in public places, such as synagogues (where rabbis and sages would sit and preach). Both were not upholstered, but they were covered each time they were used. In households with cathedrae guests were usually made to sit on them first before moving to the couches to lie down and eat.

Sitting on the floor was very uncommon and was usually reserved to mourners or those under a ban. Only at public assemblies or large gatherings of students around their rabbis would people sit on the ground (and even then, with mats under them) because of the lack of seats or out of respect for the speaker.

Tax-collectors: In the New Testament era the Romans collected a variety of indirect taxes and tolls (in contrast to the direct poll and land taxes) from the provinces through members of the local populations, making use of a network of tax-farming in Palestine similar to that which existed in the rule of the Ptolemies. In this system one usually became a tax-collector by bidding against others to guarantee the highest amount of money to the tax-farmers (the true publicani), who were directly responsible to the government. This arrangement obviously provided the opportunity at several levels for considerable personal gain through the unrestricted inflation of taxes and polls, a portion of which conveniently went into the pockets of the ‘middlemen’, which is one of the reasons collectors of taxes are scorned; they were seen as people who ‘does Rome’s dirty work for her’. Other reasons as to why they are hated so is they were notoriously unscrupulous, growing rich at the expense of their own people, and the fact that their job called for regular contact with Gentiles, who are seen as ritually unclean.

The many taxes and custom tolls that the Romans exacted from the provinces necessitated a large number of tax-collectors. Since a major source of tax revenue was derived from the customs tolls placed upon the transportation of merchandise, tax-collectors were concentrated in key ports of entry, i.e. at ports and main caravan routes such as Capharnaum and Jericho, where the tax-collectors who appear in the Bible are mostly associated with. Both towns were located in major roads and near borders, which were subject to levy tolls.

They are hated so much that Rabbinic literature even suggests that the hatred should also be extended to the tax collector’s family, and, since they are considered to be no better than thieves or robbers, it would not be wrong to attempt to defraud them (while it may seem rather too much at first, remember that Jesus lived in an honor-shame based society were ‘keeping face’ is important, and therefore it was a very big deal when a cause for shame is made public). Thus, just imagine the mortified looks on some people’s faces when they saw Jesus call Levi, a tax-collector, and then share a meal with said tax-collector and his fellow pariahs of Jewish society! Jesus was doing something very astonishing and very offensive here.

Scribes of the Pharisees: As we have mentioned before, the ‘scribes’ are not a sect like the Pharisees or Sadducees, but is, rather, a profession common to both sects; thus the mention of Pharisaic scribes here.

Pharisees (Greek Pharisaios, from the Hebrew P’rushim, “Separated”): A political party, a social movement, and a school of thought among Jews that flourished during the Second Temple Era (536 BC–70 AD). The Pharisees were one of at least four major schools of thought within the Jewish religion around the first century (the other three were the Essenes, the Revolutionaries and the Sadducees) and were most prominently in opposition to the Sadducee sect. They were also one of several successor groups of the Hasidim (the “pious”), an anti-Hellenistic Jewish movement that formed in the time of the Seleucid king, Antiochus Epiphanes (175–163 BC). The social standing and beliefs of the Pharisees changed over time, such that the role, significance, and meaning of the Pharisees evolved as political and social conditions in Judea changed.

The Pharisees and their opponents the Sadducees were two of the earliest sects to emerge in the Second Temple period, as political factions during the Hellenist Hasmonean rule. At no time did any of these sects constitute a majority; most Jews were non-sectarian. However, Josephus indicates that the Pharisees received the backing and good-will of the common people, apparently in contrast to the more elite Sadducees associated with the ruling classes.

For most of their history, Pharisees considered themselves in opposition to the Sadducees. Conflicts between the Sadducees and the Pharisees took place in the context of much broader conflicts among Jews in the Second Temple era, which followed the Babylonian captivity of Judah. One conflict was class, between the wealthy and the poor. Another conflict was cultural, between those who favored hellenization and those who resisted it. A third was juridico-religious, between those who emphasized the importance of the Temple, and those who emphasized the importance of other Mosaic laws and prophetic values. A fourth, specifically religious, involved different interpretations of the Tanakh, and how to apply the Torah to Jewish life, with the Sadducees recognizing only the written letter of the Tanakh or Torah and rejecting life after death, while the Pharisees held to oral Rabbinic interpretations additional to the written texts (an oral Torah).

COMMENTARIES

1.) Commentary by St. Gregory of Nazianzus (Second Commentary on Easter):

Do you conceive of [Jesus] as less because He girds Himself with a towel and washes His disciples, and shows that humiliation is the best road to exaltation; because He humbles Himself for the sake of the soul that is bent down to the ground, that He may even exalt with Himself that which is bent double under a weight of sin?

How comes it that you do not also charge it upon Him as a crime that He eats with Publicans and at Publicans’ tables, and makes disciples of Publicans that He too may make some gain. And what gain? The salvation of sinners. If so, one must blame the physician for stooping over suffering and putting up with evil smells in order to give health to the sick; and him also who leans over the ditch, that he may, according to the Law, save the beast that has fallen into it.

2.) Commentary by St. Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. III, 5, 4):

What medical man, anxious to heal a sick person, would prescribe in accordance with the patient’s whims, and not according to the requisite medicine? But that the Lord came as the physician of the sick, He does Himself declare saying, “They that are whole need not a physician, but they that are sick; I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” How then shall the sick be strengthened, or how shall sinners come to repentance? Is it by persevering in the very same courses? or, on the contrary, is it by undergoing a great change and reversal of their former mode of living, by which they have brought upon themselves no slight amount of sickness, and many sins? But ignorance, the mother of all these, is driven out by knowledge. Wherefore the Lord used to impart knowledge to His disciples, by which also it was His practice to heal those who were suffering, and to keep back sinners from sin. He therefore did not address them in accordance with their pristine notions, nor did He reply to them in harmony with the opinion of His questioners, but according to the doctrine leading to salvation, without hypocrisy or respect of person.

3.) Commentary by St. Jerome (Against the Pelagians 2, 12):

There are two ways of interpreting “I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.” The first is by analogy of the accompanying phrase: “They that are whole need not the physician, but they that are sick.” The other way is to put a more literal construction on the statement, like this: Since no one is perfectly righteous, Christ has not come to call those who are not there, but the multitudes of sinners who are there, with whom the world is filled, remembering the Psalm which says “*Help, Lord, for the godly man ceases *(Ps. 12:1).”