The Gospel of Mark step-by-step

[patrick457]

COMMENTARIES, continued

3.) From the Catena Aurea, continued:

It goes on, “And He sent him away to his house, saying, Go into thy home, and if thou enter into the town, tell it not to any one.”

Theophylact: These precepts He gave him, because they were unfaithful, as has been said, lest perchance he should receive hurt in his soul from them, and they by their unbelief should run into a more grievous crime.

Bede: Or else, He leaves an example to His disciples that they should not seek for popular favour by the miracles which they did.

Pseudo-Jerome: Mystically, however, Bethsaida is interpreted, ‘the house of the valley’, that is, the world, which is the vale of tears. Again, they bring to the Lord a blind man, that is, one who neither sees what he has been, what he is, nor what he is to be. They ask Him to touch him, for what is being touched, but feeling compunction?

Bede: For the Lord touches us, when He enlightens our minds with the breath of His Spirit, and He stirs us up that we may recognise our own infirmity, and be diligent in good actions. He takes the hand of the blind man, that He may strengthen him to the practice of good woks.

Pseudo-Jerome: And He brings him out of the town, that is, out of the neighborhood of the wicked; and He puts spittle into his eyes, that he may see the will of God, by the breath of the Holy Ghost; and putting His hands upon him, He asked him if he could see, because by the works of the Lord His majesty is seen.

Bede: Or else, putting spittle into the eyes of the blind man, He lays His hands upon him that he may see, because He has wiped away the blindness of the human race both by invisible gifts, and by the Sacrament of His assumed humanity; for the spittle, proceeding from the Head, points out the grace of the Holy Ghost. But though by one word He could cure the man wholly and all at once, still He cures him by degrees, that He may shew the greatness of the blindness of man, which can hardly, and only as it were step by step, be restored to light; and He exhibits to us His grace, by which He furthers each step towards perfection.

Again, whoever is weighed down by a blindness of such long continuance, that he is unable to distinguish between good and evil, sees as it were men like trees walking, because he sees the deeds of the multitude without the light of discretion.

Pseudo-Jerome: Or else, he sees men as trees, because he thinks all men higher than himself. But He put His hands again upon his eyes, that he might see all things clearly, that is, understand invisible things by visible, and with the eye of a pure mind contemplate, what the eye hath not seen, the glorious state of his own soul after the rust of sin. He sent him to his home, that is, to his heart; that he might see in himself things which he had not seen before; for a man despairing of salvation does not think that he can do at all what, when enlightened, he can easily accomplish.

Theophylact: Or else, after He has healed him, He sends him to his home; for the home of every one of us is heaven, and the mansions which are there.

Pseudo-Jerome: And He says to him, “If thou enter into the town, tell it not to any one,” that is, relate continually to thy neighbours thy blindness, but never tell them of thy virtue.

 

[patrick457]

27-30: And Jesus went out, and His disciples, to the villages of Caesarea Philippi; and on the way He asked His disciples, saying to them, “Who do men say that I am?” And they said to Him, saying, “John the Baptist; others, Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets.” And He asked them, “But you; who do you say that I am?” Answering, Peter says to Him, “You are the Christ!” And He strictly warned them that they should tell no one about Him.

http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/5499/withhisdisciples020cc6.jpg
But you; who do you say that I am?
DEFINITIONS
The villages: The term (also used in v. 23) may perhaps refer to small, outlying settlements (“suburbs”) surrounding the larger, main city. As a regional capital, Caesarea Philippi controlled a wide area which would contain smaller settlements.

Caesarea Philippi: Caesarea Philippi was an ancient city located 25 miles north of the Sea of Galilee, and situated on a slender, triangular terrace, 1,150 feet above sea level, on the southwest slope of Mount Hermon (Ba’al-Hermon or Arabic Jebel esh-Sheikh). The area is one of striking scenery, lush groves of trees, grassy fields and an abundance of water, that literally gushes from the ground. Apparently known as Baal Hermon and Baal Gad in the Old Testament period, this site later was named Panias after the Greek god Pan who was worshiped here. Worship of Pan was centered at the cave and the spring at the high rock bluff. Several niches carved into the rock are identified as being dedicated “to Pan and the nymphs.”

http://israel.biblicalstudies.info/caes_phil.jpg
The ruins of Caesarea Philippi (present-day Banias).

Further reinforcing the site’s attraction for worship, Herod the Great built a temple there dedicated to Emperor Augustus, who had given him the town as a reward for his loyalty for him. When Herod died in 4 B.C., his kingdom was divided, with his son Archelaeus inheriting Judea and Samaria, Herod Antipas receiving Galilee and Perea (Transjordan), and Philip taking over Gaulanitis, the territory on the Golan, east of the Jordan River and north of the Sea of Galilee. Following the example of his father, Philip built the first city at Panias in 3 BC, later naming it Caesarea in honor of the Roman emperor, Caesar Augustus and “made improvements” to the city. In the New Testament, the place is generally referred to as Caesarea Philippi (after Philip); Josephus, meanwhile, calls it Caesarea Panias. Philip’s image was placed on a coin issued in 29/30 (to commemorate the founding of the city); this was considered as idolatrous by Jews but was following in the Idumean tradition of Zenodorus, son of Lysanias.

http://www.welcometohosanna.com/LIFE_OF_JESUS/lifejesuspix/CaesareaPhilippiSacredComplex.jpg
A reconstruction of the sacred precinct in Caesarea Philippi, from which one of the sources of the Jordan River once emerged.

Caesarea Philippi became a center of Greek-Roman culture, a city known for its pagan worship, its prestigious status as the capital city of Herod Philip’s domain, and its significant gentile population. References to “the district of Caesarea Philippi” (Matt 16:13) and “the villages of Caesarea Philippi” (Mark 8:27) reflect the city’s status as the power center of Philip’s territory. These factors, together with the sheer rock cliff at the worship site, made this an ideal place for Jesus to make His historic announcements.

 

[patrick457]

DEFINITIONS, continued

He asked: One might expect the disciples to question the teacher. The key verb in 8:27-30 is legein, “to say,” and most of the statements are introduced by a double verb of saying: “asked His disciples, saying to them (8:27b)”…“they said to Him, saying (8:28a)”…“answering, Peter says to Him (8:29b).”

John the Baptist…Elijah…one of the prophets: The same list appeared in the introduction of the account of John the Baptizer’s death under Herod Antipas (6:14-15). The three descriptions all fall under the category of ‘prophet’, and clearly that is how many people classify Jesus. But John and Elijah are figures of the past, and the term eis tōn prophētōn most naturally has the same implication. Jesus is not just ‘a prophet’, but one of “the prophets,” and thus the reappearance of a past and well-known prophetic figure (cf. Luke’s version, and Matthew’s more specific suggestion of Jeremiah). Antipas’ wild surmise that Jesus was John redivivus is found to be not so much eccentric after all: other people are offering the same suggestions. It is of course a matter of debate how literally they would have expected such language to be taken; it may have been intended to convey a continuity of ministry and perhaps even an uncanny resemblance without postulating literal reincarnation, especially considering that Jesus received John’s baptism (1:9) and taught things quite similar to that of John’s (1:4, 15). We do not know enough about popular Jewish thought at the time to be sure, and in any case we are dealing at best with a second-hand account, even if Mark provided a verbatim record of what the disciples said.

If it is true that Jews believed that prophecy had ended with Malachi, the reincarnation of one of the prophets of old would be the most natural way of expressing the presence once again of a prophetic figure in Israel. But there is good reason to doubt whether this belief was as widespread as a dogma as was traditionally supposed; it seems to have been possible to think in prophetic terms about John the Baptizer even without invoking reincarnation (11:32; Matt. 11:9).

From Mark’s point of view, however, the precise form of belief is not important. What matters is that Jesus is popularly lauded as a prophet, which, while being a highly positive assessment, still falls short of the truth about Jesus. Like many today who express their appreciation of Jesus (alongside other figures) as a great teacher, the people of His own time, as reported by the disciples, have not yet grasped the full significance of His ministry.

http://www.thelandofthebook.com/IMG_0095.jpg
Another view of the ‘sacred precinct’ in Caesarea Philippi.
Peter says to Him: As is often the case in Mark’s gospel (8:32; 9:5; 10:28; 11:21), Peter serves as the spokesman for the disciples. He was among the first disciples called (1:16-20) and his name appeared first in the list of the Twelve (3:16).

 

[patrick457]

DEFINITIONS, continued

Christ: Up to now, the only title that the disciples have yet used for Him is didaskale (4:38); even the word kyrie (sir/Lord) occur on the lips of a gentile woman. Twice Jesus dropped the title “son of man” into His comments on His own authority (2:10; 2:28), but it has not been picked up and plays no further part into the narrative.

Both mashiach in Hebrew and christos in Greek mean “anointed.” The term is used in the Hebrew Bible to describe Israelite priests, prophets, and kings who were anointed with oil in consecration to their respective offices. For example, Cyrus the Great, the king of Persia, is referred to as “God’s anointed” (mashiach) in the Bible. The OT does not use the term in an absolute sense, nor does it develop or present a formal doctrine of the Messiah. This remains generally true for the intertestamental period, where the concept is less frequent and less developed than is often supposed. The earliest known instance of the absolute term “the Messiah” comes from the Dead Sea Scrolls (1QSa 2:11-14):

This is the assembly of the men of renown, [summoned] to the meeting of the Council of the Community,** when [God] begets the Messiah among them.** [The priests] will come at the head of the whole congregation of Israel, with all [his brethren, the sons] of Aaron, the priests [those summoned] to the meeting, the men of renown. And they shall sit be[fore him, each] according to his worth. And then the [Mess]iah of Israel will ?come/?sit].

In Jesus’ time the term was by no means univocal, so no one can correctly speak about the various sects and schools of Judaism and their views about the messiah/s. However, one prominent form of messianism in the Second Temple period is represented by the hope of a Davidic king who would restore justice and good fortunes of the people of God (cf. Psalms of Solomon 17). Through the Messiah God will establish and protect an everlasting kingdom over all the earth. The Messiah would be the perfect king chosen by God from eternity, through whom God will first deliver Israel from its enemies and then cause it to dwell in eternal peace and tranquility (Sibylene Oracles 3:286-94). It should also be noted that originally, neither the “Servant of YHWH” nor the “son of man” concept in the OT is associated with messianic connotations. Though entirely human (cf. Dialogue with Trypho 67.2, where the Jew Trypho claims that the messiah would be a anthrōpos ex anthrōpōn genomenos, “a human born of humans”) the Messiah would be nonetheless be far greater than God’s earlier messengers to Israel, would be free from sin, and be mighty and wise in the spirit of God, who would rid Israel of all her enemies, gather the faithful from dispersion, and rule in justice and glory. Such a concept of a ‘king messiah’ would surely be a threat against the Romans and their Jewish collaborators, which would explain Jesus’ warning to the disciples against the use of the term.

http://www.bibleplaces.com/images/Gamla_from_east3_tb_n111700w.jpg
The ruins of Gamala, as seen from the east.

En route to Caesarea Philippi, Jesus and company would have passed west to the pinnacle of Gamala (from Aramaic gamla “camel”), the home of Judas of Galilee, founder of the Zealots (considered by Josephus to be the “fourth sect” in 1st-century Judaism, alongside the Pharisees, the Sadducees and the Essenes), who, in an attempt to usher in the utopia described in Psalms of Solomon 17 and to affirm YHWH as sole ruler of Israel, took up arms against Rome and their collaborators, finally culminating in the siege and destruction of Jerusalem in 66-70 AD. Gamala may been “one of the villages” that Jesus went through; alternatively, its proximity and associations would have prompted the disciples to see Jesus in a new light. We cannot know exactly what prompted Peter to say Jesus is the Messiah, but Jesus will cut a different profile from the popular stereotype. Jesus of course will identify with some ideas associated with the concept, but will eschew others, especially those with militant and political overtones. In declaring Jesus as the Christ, Peter has supplied the proper title, but has the wrong interpretation of it.

He strictly warned them: The exhortation implies that Jesus accepted the title but did not want it published abroad to all. The verb used here (epitimaō) was also used at 1:25 and 3:12 to silence the unclean spirits who made something of a true confession about Jesus’ identity.

From a historical perspective, it would have been very dangerous for the disciples to proclaim Jesus as the Messiah, since it would earn the ire of the Roman and Jewish officials. From the Markan narrative and theological perspective, however, the disciples (and the audience) need clarification about what kind of messiah Jesus actually is (surely not the kind described in Psalms of Solomon 17) and what the implications of Jesus’ messiahship are for His disciples (surely not to be high rulers over an earthly kingdom).

Given the strong popular hope of national liberation mingled with a recognition of the need for spiritual restoration of the people of God, there is little doubt that among unsophisticated circles it would be a term with a strong political flavor, and therefore one which was likely to be a hindrance rather than a help in communicating Jesus’ distinctive understanding of His mission.

PARALLELS: Matthew 16:13-20; Luke 9:18-21.

 

[patrick457]

COMMENTARIES

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/Mausoleo_di_santa_costanza,_mosaici_05.jpg
An apse mosaic from the Roman basilica of Santa Costanza showing Christ and St. Peter, 5th-7th century.
1.) From the Catena Aurea:

Theophylact: After taking His disciples afar from the Jews, He then asks them concerning Himself, that they might speak the truth without fear of the Jews.

Wherefore it is said, “And Jesus entered, and His disciples, into the towns of Caesarea Philippi.”

Bede, in Marc., 2, 35: Philip was that brother of Herod, of whom we spoke above, who in honour of Tiberius Caesar called that town, which is now called Paneas, Caesarea Philippi.

It goes on, “And by the way He asked His disciples, saying unto them, Whom do men say that I am?”

Pseudo-Chrys., Vict. Ant. e Cat. in Marc.: He asks the question with a purpose, for it was right that His disciples should praise Him better than the crowd.

Bede: Wherefore He first asks what is the opinion of men, in order to try the faith of the disciples, lest their confession should appear to be founded on the common opinion.

It goes on, “And they answered, saying, 'Some say John the Baptist, some Elias, and others, One of the prophets.”

Theophylact: For many thought that John had risen from the dead, as even Herod believed, and that he had performed miracles after his resurrection. After however having enquired into the opinion of others, He asks them what was the belief of their own minds on this point.

Wherefore it continues, “And He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?”

Chrys., Hom. in Matt., 54: From the manner, however, itself of the question, He leads them to a higher feeling, and to higher thoughts, concerning Him, that they might not agree with the multitude. But the next words show what the head of the disciples, the mouth of the Apostles, answered; when all were asked, “Peter answereth and saith unto Him, Thou art the Christ.”

Theophylact: He confesses indeed that He is the Christ announced by the Prophets; but the Evangelist Mark passes over what the Lord answered to his confession, and how He blessed him, lest by this way of relating it, he should seem to be favouring his master Peter; Matthew plainly goes through the whole of it.

Origen, in Matt. Tom., 12, 15: Or else, Mark and Luke, as they wrote that Peter answered, “Thou art the Christ,” without adding what is put down in Matthew, “the Son of the living God,” so they omitted to relate the blessing which was conferred on this confession.

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

Theophylact: For He wished in the meantime to hide His glory, lest many should be offended because of Him, and so earn a worse punishment.

Chrys.: Or else, that He might wait to fix the pure faith in their minds, till the Crucifixion, which was an offence to them, was over, for after it was once perfected, about the time of His ascension, He said unto the Apostles, “Go ye and teach all nations.”

2.) Commentary by St. Bede (Exposition on the Gospel of Mark 1.16):

“Messiah” in the Hebrew language means “Christ” in Greek; in Latin it is interpreted as “the Anointed One.” Hence “chrisma” in Greek means “anointing” in Latin. The Lord is named Christ, that is, the Anointed One, because, as Peter says, “God has anointed him with the Holy Spirit and with power (Acts 10:38).” Hence the Psalmist also speaks in his praise, “God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your companions (Ps. 45:7).” He calls us his companions since we have also been fully anointed with visible chrism for the reception of the grace of the Holy Spirit in baptism, and we are called “Christians” from Christ’s name.

3.) Another commentary by St. Bede (Homilies on the Gospels 1.17):

We note that the Lord called Himself “Son of man,” while Nathanael proclaimed Him “Son of God” (Jn. 1:49). Similarly is the account in the Gospels where Jesus Himself asks the disciples who people say the Son of man is, and Peter answers, “You are the Christ, Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:16). This was done under the guidance of the economy of righteousness. It shows that the two natures of the one mediator are affirmed: His divinity and His humanity, and attested both by out Lord Himself and by human mouths. By this means the God-man declared the weakness of the humanity assumed by Him. Those purely human would themselves declare the power of eternal divinity in Him.

 

[patrick457]

31-33: And He began to teach them that the Son of man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. And He was saying this openly. And Peter took Him aside and started to rebuke Him. But turning around and looking at His disciples, He rebuked Peter and says, “Get behind me, Satan! For you are not thinking the things of God, but that of man.”

http://img367.imageshack.us/img367/6215/superstock999153ue2.jpg

PARALLELS: Matthew 16:21-23; Luke 9:22.

DEFINITIONS

He began to teach: This phrase reads like a Greek translation of an underlying Semiticism. Having accepted Peter’s confession, Jesus now reveals the true nature of His messiahship and what it might mean for His followers.

Mark frequently uses the word archomai (“began”) to draw his audience’s attention on development in the story (rather like euthys, “immediately” or “at once”) rather than to indicate a marked change of theme. He had already used it this way in 4:1; 6;2; and 6:34, but the novel content of the announcement that follows, and the fact that its theme will be repeated from now on, suggests that we should read it as signaling a new and central theme in Jesus’ teaching to His disciples.

Son of man: The use of this term (not seen since 2:10), following so closely on the use of “the Christ” in v. 29, marks the deliberate substitution of a less-known and more enigmatic title for the more familiar christos (cf. 14:61-62). What Jesus is going to say about His fate is in sharp contrast to what the title christos (“messiah”) would naturally convey, and so is more suitable to His purpose. To speak of rejection, suffering, and death as the necessary destiny of the yios tou anthrōpou is indeed shocking enough, especially in the light of Daniel 7:13-14, which was usually interpreted as a victorious, not a suffering figure. But because the term is not yet understood to refer to a recognized messianic figure, there was no blueprint for the mission of such a figure which would make it impossible to grasp the concept of suffering and death as His role, however unexpected such an idea might be.

Must: The impersonal verb dei (“must,” “[it is] necessary”), used here for the first time, carries an overtone of apocalyptic determinism and will become increasingly prominent as the gospel proceeds (9:11; 13:7, 10, 14; 14:31). It injects the idea of divine agency as God’s plan unfolds in Jesus’ passion and in the endtimes (three occurences in chapter 13).

It would have been shocking for the disciples to hear the Messiah talking about suffering and death, as never in Israel has it been heard that the messiah should suffer. There is of course the “suffering servant of YHWH” in Isaiah 53, but as noted there is no evidence that these were used in connection with the Messiah. Nor is there any allusion to the expiatory suffering of the Messiah. The suffering foreseen by Jesus is not regarded as is suffering in the Psalms, for example, as a lamentable misfortune contrary to the will of God; rather, the will of God is that Jesus must undergo the way of suffering.

Rejected: The Greek word used, apodokimasthēnai, picks up a term familiar from Psalm 117 [118]:22 (LXX), where Christians recognized in the stone “rejected” by the workers an image of Jesus’ own rejection in the hands of the authorities, and His subsequent vindication by God (12:10; Matt. 21:42; Lk. 20:17; 1 Pet. 2:4, 7).

The elders and the chief priests and the scribes: In the Markan passion story these three groups constitute the leaders of the Jewish opposition to Jesus. The Pharisees, so prominent in the various controversy stories, will disappear from the narrative. The “elders” (presbyterōn) represent the Jewish leaders, perhaps members of the Sanhedrin and other influential (and noble) lay figures, with rhe “chief priests” (archiereōn) including primarily the Annas and Caiaphas and the upper levels of the Temple personnel and the “scribes” (grammateōn) describing those who were trained not only in reading and writing but also in the Law and traditional wisdom.

We know from Josephus and other records that there was often internal disagreement and rivalry between the different parties which were represented in the Sanhedrin (cf. Acts 23:6-10), but their opposition to Jesus and His teaching would be enough to unite them under one banner.

After three days (meta treis imeras): This is another distinctive feature of Mark’s wording, as both Matthew and Luke consistently uses the term “on the third day” (tē triti imera). Mark’s phrase (and Matthew’s isolated use of it in Matt. 27:63-64) may reflect a Jewish idiom, whereby “after three days” would mean “the day after tomorrow” (cf. Gen 42.16-18; 1 Sam. 30:1, 12-13; 2 Chr. 10:5, 12; Josephus, Antiquities 7.280 with 281; 8.214 with 218) and “three days and three nights” would mean only two nights in our reckoning. The Talmud itself helps clarify this method of expression, where Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah states that “a day and a night are an onah (literally “a time period”) and the portion of an onah is as the whole of it (Pesachim 4a).” Alternatively, this expression could mean “a short while later.”

 

[patrick457]

DEFINITIONS, continued
Rise again (anastēnai): The more usual terminology for the resurrection of Jesus is “on the third day” and “be raised” (divine passive). Mark’s account however is consistent in that they use “after three days” and the verb anastēnai rather than egeirein (“raise”). Each of the three passion predictions in Mark reaches their climax by referring to the resurrection, and it will be assumed already in 9:9 that the disciples are already familiar with the idea (though wrongly, as 9:10 reveals). It will again be assumed in 14:28 (cf. 14:58). But even Mark’s brief account of the events in Jerusalem indicates that the disciples were not in fact expecting Jesus to bodily rise again, and the other gospels underline this point far more strongly.

Mark offers no explanation of the disciples’ failure to grasp such a striking idea, often and emphatically repeated; perhaps we are to assume that the concept was too foreign to their thinking that they could not absorb its meaning, and were perhaps imagining that Jesus were speaking in metaphor about ultimate vindication (though this would not sit comfortably with the very specific “after three days”). At any rate it seems that it was the more intelligible theme of suffering and death which stuck in the disciples’ minds.

He was saying this openly: The imperfect elalei suggests repeated action on Jesus’ part (cf. 2:2; 4:33). The verb parrēsia derives from the noun for “courage,” “frankness,” or “boldness” and here it means “openly, plainly.” This indicates the emphasis with which this new perspective is presented (contrast the secrecy of v. 30) and shows that the ‘disgrace’ involved in rejection and persecution is not a cause of embarassment or concealment. This parrēsia makes the force of Jesus’ unwelcome words all the more uncomfortable for the disciples, and prompts Peter into taking remedial action.

Peter took Him aside (proslambanetai) and started to rebuke (epitiman) Him: The precise reason for Peter’s action is not specified, but the context suggests that Peter could not make the connection with the “Messiah” (v. 29) or the “Son of man” suffering and dying, which as we have seen was mainly common at that time.

The verb proslambanetai suggests a confidential approach, taking the misguided zealot on one side to prevent any more embarassing outbursts (also see Acts 18:26); Peter now takes Jesus off and tries to correct His ‘bizarre’ view of the messianic role. We are not told the exact content of Peter’s complaint, but epitiman, “to rebuke,” suggests that it was firm and none too gentle (cf. 1:25; 3:12; 10:13, 48). The repetition of this same verb in v. 30 (Jesus to disciples), 32 (Peter to Jesus), and 33 (Jesus to Peter) marks a serious confrontation of incompatible ideologies.

Turning around and looking at His disciples, He rebuked Peter: Whereas Peter intended his rebuke of Jesus to be private, Jesus makes His rebuke of Peter either with the disciples as His audience or by implicating the disciples in His rebuke. Peter acts as the spokesman for the disciples, which is made clear by His “turning around,” which neatly picks up the narrative element of Peter’s taking Jesus aside – He is not going to be “taken aside,” and deliberately involves the whole group by implication in His reply, even though it is addressed, as it must be, specifically to Peter.

Get behind me, Satan (ypage opisō mou): This is reminiscent of Jesus’ words in Matthew 4:10. By itself, opisō mou is not a term of disassociation; in the gospels it more normally refers to ‘following’ in a good sense (1:7 and 1:17), and it will be used that way in the next verse. But with ypage rather than deute (“to come, follow”) it is not a summons but a dismissal, and the addition of “Satan” completes the fiercely negative tone of Jesus’ counterrebuke.

The Hebrew verb śāṭān may derive from a Northwest Semitic root śṭn meaning “to be hostile,” “to test,” or “to accuse,” which expresses well the role of the being called “Satan” in Job 1-2 and Zechariah 3:1-2. The name had already occurred in 1:13; 3:23, 26; 4:15 as the familiar Jewish term for the devil (also called Beelzeboul in 3:22), but its use for a human being, however antagonistic, is unattested (it is sometimes suggested that this should be understood in the sense of “my adversary;” but aside from the absence of any parallel to such a use, the retention of the Hebrew/Aramaic form rather than rendering it into Greek surely indicates that it was recognized and remembered as a proper name). It functions here as more than just an extravagant term of abuse, and implies that Peter’s protest, even though described as the thoughts of man, is so much at odds with the “thoughts of God” as to be attributed to a supernatural source. By rejecting the plan of God for His Messiah, Peter and the disciples put themselves on the wrong side of the struggle and are acting as the spokesmen of God’s enemy (cf. Satan’s role in taking away the word of God in 4:15).

You are not thinking the things of God, but that of man: For similar constructions involving the verb phronein see Romans 8:5 and Colossians 3:2. The divine purpose revealed in v. 31 makes no sense in human terms. If even the privileged disciples are unable to get beyond their human understanding of the Messiah’s role, what hope is there for the people in general to get it right? The problem lies not at the level of competing loyalties, but at that of incompatible ideologies, of a human perspective which cannot grasp the purpose of the Divine.

 

[patrick457]

COMMENTARIES

http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/796/390965.JPG
Get behind me, Satan! For you are not thinking the things of God, but that of man.

1.) From the Catena Aurea:

Wherefore it goes on, “And He began to teach them that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and of the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again; and He spake that saying openly,” that is, concerning His future passion.

But His disciples did not understand the order of the truth, neither could they comprehend His resurrection, but thought it better that He should not suffer.

Chrys., Vict. Ant. e Cat. in Marc.: The reason, however, why the Lord told them this, was to shew, that after His cross and resurrection, Christ must be preached by His witnesses. Again, Peter alone, from the fervour of his disposition, had the boldness to dispute about these things.

Wherefore it goes on, “And Peter took Him up, and began to rebuke Him.”

Bede: This, however, he speaks with the feelings of a man who loves and desires; as if he said, This cannot be, neither can mind ears receive that the Son of God is to be slain.

Chrys.: But how is this, that Peter, gifted with a revelation from the Father, has so soon fallen, and become unstable? Surely, however, it was not wonderful that one who had received no revelation concerning the Passion should be ignorant of this. For that He was the Christ, the Son of the living God, he had learnt by revelation; but the mystery of His cross and resurrection had not yet been revealed to him. He Himself, however, shewing that He must come to His Passion, rebuked Peter.

Wherefore there follows, “And when He had turned about and looked on His disciples, He rebuked Peter, etc.”

Theophylact: For the Lord, wishing to shew that His Passion was to take place on account of the salvation of men, and that Satan alone was unwilling that Christ should suffer, and the race of man be saved, called Peter Satan, because he savoured the things that were of Satan, and, from unwillingness that Christ should suffer, became His adversary; for Satan is interpreted ‘the adversary.’

Pseudo-Chrys., Vict. Ant. e Cat. in Marc.: But He saith not to the devil, when tempting Him, “Get thee behind me,” but to Peter He saith, “Get thee behind me,” that is, follow Me, and resist not the design of My voluntary Passion.

There follows, “For thou savourest not the things which be of God, but which be of men.”

Theophylact: He says that Peter savours the things which be of men, in that he in some way savoured carnal affections, for Peter wished that Christ should spare Himself and not be crucified.

 

[patrick457]

34-37: And He called the crowd, along with His disciples, and said to them, “If anyone wants to come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me; for whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever will lose his life on account of me and of the good news will save it. For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his life? For what can a man give in recompense for his life?”

http://www.catholicstory.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/dscn3106.JPG
If anyone wants to come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.
PARALLELS: Matthew 16:24-26; Luke 9:23-25.

DEFINITIONS

The crowd, along with His disciples: The instructions about discipleship that follow are directed not only to those who are already disciples but also to anyone who would wish to follow Jesus’ movement.

He must deny himself: The verb “to deny” (aparneomai) is also associated with Peter’s denial of Jesus; in context it means to disassociate oneself completely from someone, to sever the relationship. The reflexive use here (aparnēsasthō) may perhaps imply to refuse to be guided by one’s own interests, to surrender control of one’s own destiny. What Jesus calls for is thus a radical abandonment of one’s own ‘self’ (identity) and self-determination; it is not the denial of something to the self, but a denial of the self itself.

Take up his cross: There was no ‘set’ procedure for crucifixion. The details at times vary depending on the situation, though it often involved flogging and the victim carrying the crossbeam to the place of execution, where he will be nailed or tied to it and raised up to a vertical post (stipes), seated on a small wooden peg called a sedile, and have his feet also nailed or tied.

While modern parlance typically uses the expression “to carry the cross” figuratively in the sense of “carrying one’s burden,” Jesus is not figuratively talking about a mere burden or trial or difficulty; He is talking about potential suffering and death, which would make sense in the context in which this statement is made. Death by crucifixion was purposely shameful, excruciating, and often protracted; the cross was considered to be utterly offensive, even ‘obscene’ by the ancients so as to be completely avoided in polite discussion and even referred to by euphemisms. Jesus is, in effect, saying that if anyone wants to be His follower, he/she should not be afraid to follow Jesus and carry up his or her cross(beam) to the place of execution like a condemned victim, bearing all the shame that the cross carries with it (cf. Hebrews 13:11-13?).

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/749/588pxjosderibera054ia0.jpg

Life (psychē): The word psychē poses another problem for translators, as rendering it merely as “soul” (the traditional rendering) or “life” (as per many modern versions) would fail to capture the many nuances and senses of the word. While psychē (like the Hebrew nephesh or the Aramaic naphsha) could simply mean one’s mortal existence (e.g., Acts 27:37) another sense of this word is that of “personhood,” “being,” “identity,” “personality,” or “self,” that is, the full personal existence of humans as they perceive themselves and are seen by others to be, the inner core of one’s existence which constitutes the self. There is thus a wordplay of sorts here: psychē denotes both the mortal, earthly “life” which one might seek to save by escaping persecution and martyrdom, and the true, everlasting “life” which may be the outcome of such a martyrdom, and is to be found beyond and which could be forfeited by attempting to save the earthly life.

For whoever wants to save his life will lose it: The imagery of “taking up one’s cross” continues here. The immediate subject of these is surely the loss of (earthly) life which the disciple is called to accept as the potential result of following Jesus. To cling to the things of earthly life is the way to forfeit life everlasting; Jesus Himself, in His death and resurrection, will be the supreme example of acceptance of death (for the right reason) as a way to true life.

On account of me and of the good news: The promise of true life is not attached to death itself, but to the loss of life for both Jesus’ and the good news’/gospel’s sake (some MSS, however, omit “of me,” which could either be an accidental omission or a harmonizing addition). The possibility of literal martyrdom as a result of being a Christian is clearly envisaged here. Jesus’ expectation of His own death and the experiences of the early Christian church from Acts 7 henceforth would add weight to it. The specific mention of the gospel as the cause of loss of life indicates that the disciples will play an active role in mission than merely privately following the teachings of Jesus, and that it is in this missionary work that they are likely to meet persecution, suffering, and death.

In recompense (antallagma): The word (meaning “something given in exchange”) continues the somewhat commercial nuances of the former words (profit…gain…forfeit) and its contrast with the most precious aspect of the person, his eternal life.

 

[patrick457]

COMMENTARIES

http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/6956/patibulocb6.jpg

1.) From the 1587 Rheims New Testament (spelling modernized):

1. For me and the Gospel. By the Gospel is signified, not only the four Evangelists, but all Scriptures, and whatsoever Christ said that is not in Scripture: for He saith in this very place, He that shall be ashamed of my words, the Son of man will be ashamed of him etc. Neither his own words only, but whatsoever the Apostles taught in word or writing: for our Saviour saith, He that despiseth you, despiseth me. For defence of any of all these and of every article of the Catholic faith, we ought to die, and this is to lose our life for Christ and his Gospel.

1. Gain the whole world. Let such note this, that for fear or flattery of the World condescend to obey the unjust laws of men touching religion, against their own consciences: and be content for the rest of a few days of this life, and for saving their temporal goods, to lose their soul and the joys of heaven.

2.) From the Catena Aurea:

Bede: After shewing to His disciples the mystery of His passion and resurrection, He exorts them, as well as the multitude, to follow the example of His passion.

Wherefore it goes on, “And when He had called the people unto Him with His disciples also, He said unto them, Whosoever wishes to come after Me, let him deny himself.”

Chrys., Hom. in Matt., 55: As is He would say to Peter, Thou indeed dost rebuke Me, who am willing to undergo My passion, but I tell thee, that not only is it wrong to prevent Me from suffering, but neither canst thou be saved unless thou thyself diest.

Again He says, “Whosoever wishes to come after Me;” as if He said, I call you to those good things which a man should wish for, I do not force you to evil and burdensome things; for he who does violence to his hearer, often stands in his way; but he who leaves him free, rather draws him to himself. And a man denies himself when he cares not for his body, so that whether it be scourged, or whatever of like nature it may suffer, he bears it patiently.

Theophylact: For a man who denies another, be it brother or father, does not sympathize with him, nor grieve at his fate, though he be wounded and die; thus we ought to despise our body, so that if it should be wounded or hurt in any way, we should not mind its suffering.

Chrys.: But He says not, a man should not spare himself, but what is more, that he should deny himself, as if he had nothing in common with himself, but face danger, and look upon such things as if another were suffering; and this is really to spare himself; for parents then most truly act kindly to their children, when they give them up to their masters, with an injunction not to spare them. Again, He shews the degree to which a man should deny himself, when He says, “And take up his cross,” by which He means, even to the most shameful death.

Theophylact: For at that time the cross appeared shameful, because malefactors were fixed to it.

Pseudo-Jerome: Or else, as a skilful pilot, foreseeing a storm in a calm, wishes his sailors to be prepared; so also the Lord says, “If any one will follow me, etc.”

Bede: For we deny ourselves, when we avoid what we were of old, and strive to reach that point, whither we are newly called. And the cross is taken up by us, when either our body is pained by abstinence, or our soul afflicted by fellow-feeling for our neighbour.

Theophylact: But because after the cross we must have a new strength, He adds, “and follow me.”

Chrys.: And this He says, because it may happen that a man may suffer and yet not follow Christ, that is, when he does not suffer for Christ’s sake; for he follows Christ, who walks after Him, and conforms himself to His death, despising those principalities and powers under whose power, before the coming of Christ, he committed sin.

Then there follows, “For whosoever will save his life shall lose it, etc.”

I give you these commands, as it were to spare you; for whosoever spares his son, brings him to destruction, but whosoever does not spare him, saves him. It is therefore right to be always prepared for death; for if in the battles of this world, he who is prepared for death fights better than others, though none can restore him to life after death, much more is this the case in spiritual battle, when so great a hope of resurrection is set before him, since he who gives up his soul unto death saves it.

Remig.: And life is to be taken in this place for the present life, and not for the substance itself of the soul.

Chrys.: And therefore He had said, “For whomsoever will save his life shall lose it,” lest any one should suppose this loss to be equivalent to that salvation, He adds, “For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul, etc.” As if He said, Think not that he has saved his soul, who has shunned the perils of the cross; for when a man, at the cost of his soul, that is, his life, gains the whole world, what has he besides, now that his soul is perishing? Has he another soul to give for his soul? For a man can give the price of his house in exchange for the house; but in losing his soul, he has not another soul to give. And it is with a purpose that He says, “Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?” for God, in exchange for our salvation, has given the precious blood of Jesus Christ.

Bede, in Marc. 2, 36: Or else He says this, because in time of persecution, our life is to be laid aside, but in time of peace, our earthly desires are to be broken, which He implies when He says, “For what shall it profit a man, etc.”

 

[patrick457]

8:38-9:1: “For if anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful age, the Son of man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels.” And He was saying to them, “Amen, I say to you that there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God come with power.”

DEFINITIONS

This adulterous and sinful age: cf. Matt. 12:39. Influenced by various OT phrases and motifs (Isa. 1:4; Hosea 2:4, etc.) this criticizes the moral and religious behavior of Jesus’ time (with “adultery” perhaps as a symbol of idolatry and apostasy, as in Hosea and the rest of the OT).

Taste death: Here the Greek verb (geusōntai) does not mean “sample a small amount” (as a typical English reader might infer from the word “taste”), but “experience something cognitively or emotionally” or “come to know something.” The verb is also used in very much the same manner in John 8:52 and Hebrews 2:9; in addition, the Talmud contains similar usages of the word “taste” by the rabbis, such as “[tasting] the taste of sleep” (Sukk. 53a) or “[tasting] the taste of death” (Ber. R. 21), for instance.

Come: The perfect tense of elēlythysian indicates that they are not to see the actual coming of the kingdom of God, but rather to witness the fact that it has come. The prediction thus focuses not on its arrival, but the point in which its presence, already a reality, is visible and displayed with power.

With power: The term dynamis is used by Mark with reference to Jesus’ miracles (6:2, 5, 14; 9:39), to God (12:24; 14:62), and to the heavenly powers and the coming of the Son of man (13:25-26).

 

[patrick457]

8:38-9:1: “For if anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful age, the Son of man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels.” And He says to them, “Amen, I say to you that there are some of those standing who will certainly not taste death until they see the kingdom of God come with power.”

familyartusa.com
If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful age, the Son of man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels.
PARALLELS: Matthew 16:27-28; Luke 9:26-27.

DEFINITIONS

This adulterous and sinful age: cf. Matt. 12:39. Influenced by various OT phrases and motifs (Isa. 1:4; Hosea 2:4, etc.) this statement criticizes the moral and religious behavior of the times (with “adultery” used as a symbol of idolatry and apostasy, as in Hosea and the rest of the OT).

When He comes in the glory of His Father: cf. Mark 13:26 and 14:62 for similar statements.

Taste death: Here the Greek verb (geusōntai) does not mean “sample a small amount” (as a typical English reader might infer from the word “taste”), but “experience something cognitively or emotionally” or “come to know something.” This Semitic idiom also used in very much the same manner in John 8:52, Hebrews 2:9 and 4 Esdras 6:26; in addition, the Talmud contains similar usages of the word “taste” by the rabbis, such as “[tasting] the taste of sleep” (Sukk. 53a) or “[tasting] the taste of death” (Ber. R. 21), for instance.

Come: The major interpretive problem from a textual point lies on the word elēlythysian, which is in the perfect participle. If taken as as true perfect in tense, it may indicate that the Kingdom “has come”; the disciples will not so much see its arrival than witness the fact that it has come. The prediction thus focuses not on the arrival itself, but the point in which its presence, already a reality, is visible and displayed with power. However, if taken in the present tense (as seems to be the case with estēkotōn), then it might mean that the advent of the Kingdom of God is an event still in the future, yet an imminent one. It might be possible, though, that both senses are intended here – that Jesus stresses both the present reality and the future advent of the Kingdom.

Traditionally, this reference to “the Kingdom come in power” is either understood to be a reference to the glory of Jesus’ transfiguration (usually considered as a preview of the parousia of the Son of man) or His post-resurrection reign through His Church, which (at least some of) His disciples do witness.

With power: The term dynamis is used by Mark with reference to Jesus’ miracles (6:2, 5, 14; 9:39), to God (12:24; 14:62), and to the heavenly powers and the coming of the Son of man (13:25-26).

COMMENTARIES
1.) From the Haydock Commentary (Gospel of Matthew 16):

Ver. 27. Shall come in the glory. Jesus Christ wishing to shew his disciples the greatness of his glory at his future coming, reveals to them in this life as much as it was possible for them to comprehend, purposely to strengthen them against the scandal of his ignominious death. (St. Chrysostom)

Ver. 28. Till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. Some expound this, as fulfilled at his transfiguration, which follows in the next chapter. Others understand it of the glory of Christ, and of his Church, after his resurrection and ascension, when he should be owned for Redeemer of the world: and this state of the Christian Church might be called the kingdom of Christ. (Witham)

This promise of a transitory view of his glory he makes, to prove that he should one day come in all the glory of his Father, to judge each man according to his works: not according to his mercy, or their faith, but according to their works. (St. Augustine, de verb. apos. serm. 35.)

Again, asks St. Augustine, how could our Saviour reward every one according to his works, if there were no free will? (lib. ii. chap. 4. 5. 8, de act. cum Fœlic. Manich.) (Bristow)

2.) From Cornelius Lapide’s Commentary:

Ver. 34. In this adulterous generation, of depraved Jews, who are sons of God, though not genuine ones, but like spurious children, the offspring of adultery. For they are degenerate from the faith of their fathers, the Patriarchs, since they will not receive Me, who am the Messiah promised to them. Therefore they are not so much children of God as of the devil. Such are called in Hebrew bene nechar, i.e., children born of a strange, alien, or adulterous father. See what has been said on S. Matt. 10:33.

Ver. 39. The kingdom of God, i.e., the glory of the kingdom of God, which is about to be in My transfiguration.

 

[patrick457]

COMMENTARIES, continued

3.) From the Catena Aurea:

But we are often hindered by a habit of shamefacedness, from expressing with our voice the rectitude which we preserve in our hearts; and therefore it is added, “For whosoever shall confess Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, him also shall the Son of man confess, when He cometh in the glory of His Father with the holy angels.”

Theophylact: For that faith which only remains in the mind is not sufficient, but the Lord requires also the confession of the mouth; for when the soul is sanctified by faith, the body ought also to be sanctified by confession.

Pseudo-Chrys., Vict. Ant. e Cat. in Marc.: He then who has learned this, is bound zealously to confess Christ without shame. And this generation is called adulterous, because it has left God the true Bridegroom of the soul, and has refused to follow the doctrine of Christ, but has prostrated itself to the devil and taken up the seeds of impiety, for which reason also it is called sinful. Whosoever therefore amongst them has denied the kingdom of Christ, and the words of God revealed in the Gospel, shall receive a reward befitting His impiety, when He hears in the second advent, “I know you not.” (Matt 7:23)

Theophylact: Him then who shall leave confessed that his God was crucified, Christ Himself also shall confess, not here, where He is esteemed poor and wretched, but in His glory and with a multitude of Angels.

Greg., Hom. in 32, in Evang.: There are however some, who confess Christ, because they see that all men are Christians; for if the name of Christ were not at this day in such great glory, the Holy Church would not have so many professors. The voice of the profession therefore is not sufficient for a trial of faith whilst the profession of the generality defends it from shame.

In the time of peace therefore there is another way, by which we may be known to ourselves. We are ever fearful of being despised by our neighbours, we think it shame to bear injurious words; if perchance we have quarrelled with our neighbour, we blush to be the first to give satisfaction; for our carnal heart, in seeking the glory of this life, disdains humility.

Theophylact: But because He had spoken of His glory, in order to shew that His promises were not vain, He subjoins, “Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here who shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.”

As if He said, Some, that is, Peter, James, and John, shall not taste of death, until I shew them, in my transfiguration, with what glory I am to come in my second advent; for the transfiguration was nothing else, but an announcement of the second coming of Christ, in which also Christ Himself and the Saints will shine.

Bede, in Marc., 3, 36: Truly it was done with a loving foresight, in order that they, having tasted for a brief moment the contemplation of everlasting joy, might with the greater strength bear up under adversity.

Chrys., Hom. in Matt., 56: And He did not declare the names of those who were about to go up, lest the other disciples should feel some touch of human frailty, and He tells it to them beforehand, that they might come with minds better prepared to be taught all that concerned that vision.

Bede: Or else the present Church is called the kingdom of God; and some of the disciples were to live in the body until they should see the Church built up, and raised against the glory of the world; for it was right to make some promises concerning this life to the disciples who were uninstructed, that they might be built up with greater strength for the time to come.

Pseudo-Chrys., Orig. in Matt. tom., 12, 33, 35: But in a mystical sense, Christ is life, and the devil is death, and he tastes of death, who dwells in sin; even now every one, according as he has good or evil doctrines, tastes the bread either of life or of death. And indeed, it is a less evil to see death, a greater to taste of it, still worse to follow it, worst of all to be subject to it.

 

[patrick457]

2-4: And after six days Jesus takes Peter, and James, and John and leads them up on a high mountain apart, by themselves. And He was transformed before them, and His clothes became gleaming exceedingly white, that a fuller on the earth is not able to whiten. And Elijah appeared before them along with Moses, and they were talking with Jesus.

http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/2879/628pxtransfigurationofcro4.jpg
And He was transformed before them, and His clothes became gleaming white…

PARALLELS: Matthew 17:1-9; Luke 9:28-36.

DEFINITIONS

After six days: The specific time reference is quite unusual for Mark’s pre-Passion material. This may mean that it has some special significance: that it either alludes to Exodus 24:15-17 (where six days denotes the time of preparation for revelation from Sinai), the time period between Yom Kippur and Sukkot, or even to the Passion (as Jesus was crucified on the seventh day of the week).

Luke noticeably mentions the Transfiguration as happening “eight days” after Jesus’ Passion prediction, which at first glance would contradict the statement here. However, Luke was clearly estimating (“Now it happened that about ōsei, meaning “as if,” “about,” “nearly”] eight days after these sayings…”), and in light of Peter’s words about building tents for Elijah and Moses, the “six days” referred to could mean “after the six days between the Yom Kippur and the Feast of Tabernacles.” Luke the gentile physician-cum-writer does not use this method of reckoning time; it would have no meaning for his readers. St. Augustine, meanwhile, is of the opinion that Matthew and Mark only counted the intermediate days, leaving out the days on which Jesus spoke to His disciples and on which He transfigured, while Luke reckoned these two days in.

Peter, and James, and John: Among the first disciples called (1:16-20), these three form an inner circle as well as in 5:37 and 14:33.

A high mountain: None of the Gospel accounts identifies the “high mountain” of the scene by name. A number of modern-day commentators (such as R.T. France) have suggested that Mount Hermon in the anti-Lebanon mountain range is a good candidate due to its proximity to Caesarea Philippi – located at the southern base of the mount --which was the scene of the last pericope (cf. 8:27). Many early Christian Fathers (including Origen, Sts. Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, and Jerome), however, places it on Mount Tabor, at the eastern end of the Jezreel Valley, eleven miles (17 km) west of the Sea of Galilee. Eusebius, meanwhile, was divided as to whether the event took place in Tabor or Hermon, and the anonymous Pilgrim of Bordeaux (333 AD) thinks the event happened on the Mount of Olives. Other mountains have also been proposed, such as Mount Carmel or even the tallest mountain in Galilee, Mount Meron (first proposed in 1907 by Rev. William Ewing).

http://www.bibleplaces.com/images/Mt_Tabor_from_Nazareth_ridge,_tb_n011400.jpg
Mount Tabor as seen from the ridge of Nazareth in the Jezreel valley.

More important than the precise geographical location is the idea, also present in many ancient cultures, that mountains are hallowed areas, places of communication with the Divine and of divine revelation. Just as in Mark’s specific mention of “six days,” this may also be a continuation of the reference to Exodus, with the “high mountain” being an allusion to the mountain of Sinai.

Transformed (metamorphoun): The episode is commonly known as the “Transfiguration” due to the strength of the Vulgate rendering transgifuratus est.

The Greek word carries the meaning “to change in form” (Greek morphē); indeed, this connotation is still somewhat present in the English word metamorphosis. This verb occurs only four times in the New Testament (9:2; Matt. 17:2; Romans 12:2; 2 Cor. 3:18), and in each instance it denotes a radical transformation. In 2 Corinthians 3:18, St. Paul says that as a consequence of beholding the glory of the Lord, we were metamorphoun (“transformed”) from glory into glory. Similarly, in the apocryphal Ascension of Isaiah 7:25, Isaiah’s countenance “was being transformed” as he ascended from heaven to heaven. In Mark’s narrative, however, metamorphoun does not denote a change in Jesus’ nature but rather a transformation of His outward appearance to accord with His true nature. In this event the inner circle of the disciples receive a glimpse of Jesus’ true morphē.

Gleaming exceedingly white: The gleaming white clothes presumably show forth the glory of one who wears them (cf. Rev. 3:4; 7:9); in addition, brilliant garments are often signs of heavenly beings in Scripture (Dan. 10:5; Matt. 28:3; Mk. 16:5; Jn. 20:12; Acts 1:10; Rev. 3:4; 4:4; 6:11; 7:9, 13; 14:14; 19:14). The term stilbein (“to gleam,” “to glisten,” “to glitter”) occurs only here in the NT. Matthew (17:2) and Luke (9:29) mention that Jesus’ face shone as well, which heightens the comparison with Moses, whose face shone very brightly because it reflected the glory of God (Ex. 34:35). The garments and the brilliant face of Jesus, the new Moses, signify total transformation and suffusion with the Divine presence.

 

[patrick457]

DEFINITIONS, continued

Fuller (gnapheun): The trade of the fullers, so far as it is mentioned in Scripture, appears to have consisted chiefly in cleansing garments and whitening them. Cloth dyers also worked as fullers, since, before the woven cloth could be properly dyed, it must be freed from the oily and gummy substances naturally found on the raw fiber. Fulling, since it caused offensive smells, and because it also required a huge space for drying the cloths, appears to have been carried on outside the city (2 Ki 18:17; Isa 7:3; 36:2).

Many different substances were in ancient times used for cleansing. Among them were white clay or chalk, urine (human urine was very important in the Roman method of fulling to the point that Nero imposed a tax on it), the ashes of certain desert plants (Arabic qali; the “soap” of Mal 3:2), and natron (Proverbs 25:20; Jeremiah 2:22).

The process of bleaching consists of having the unbleached cloth soaked in water and sprinkling powdered plant ashes (qali) or chalk over it. Then, the cloths are beaten in heaps on a flat stone either with another stone or with a large wooden paddle, and then washed free from the alkali by treading or stamping on it in a running stream or in many changes of clean water (cf. En-rogel, literally meaning “foot-fountain” but is also understood as “fuller’s fountain”). This was the original method of fulling and is the reason why in English, “walking” (waulking in Scotland) is synonymous for fulling.

Elijah…along with Moses: These two are generally taken to be emblematic of the Law (Moses) and the Prophets (Elijah).

Pre-Christian Jewish tradition does not provide an obvious key as to why Moses and Elijah appeared in the mount of the Transfiguration. On the one hand, the two were great deliverers of Israel. Luke describes Jesus’ passion as an “exodus,” an obvious allusion to the exodus from Egypt under Moses. Elijah was also a deliverer of Israel, however this was from worship of false gods rather than from foreign oppressors. Despite the common thread of redemption, it is doubtful if this accounts for the presence of Moses and Elijah, however, for the OT knew other, more important deliverers such as Josiah or Joshua, for example.

It is thus more probable that the two appear as representatives of the prophetic tradition that, according to the belief of the early Church, would anticipate Jesus (cf. Acts 10:43). According to Deuteronomy 18:15 and 18, Moses is considered the prototype of the eschatological Prophet, and Moses himself is considered as the representative figure of the prophetic tradition in Judaism. Likewise, Elijah was also associated with Mt. Sinai (1 Kings 19:1-9) where he received a revelation from God.

The joint appearance of Moses and Elijah more likely recalls Malachi 4:4-6, where Israel is commanded to remember the instruction (the “torah”) of Moses, and where Elijah is introduced as the prophet who would turn the heart of the people to repentance on the Day of the Lord, and their prophetic roles as joint preparers of the final Prophet to come (Deut. 18:15, 18; Mal. 4:5-6; cf. 4Q175 lines 5-8*). The presence of the two thus signifies that Jesus was not a “walk on” in the divine economy, nor is His revelation as the Son of God an anomaly or an arbitrary expression of the divine will. Rather, the two prophets as forerunners attests to the culmination of a purposeful revelation of God’s Son with the history of Israel. Their word and work bear witness to and are consummately fulfilled in Jesus (Rom. 10:4; 2 Cor. 1:20).

Many commentators worry about the peculiar order “Elijah along with Moses” (compare Matt. 17:3; Luke 9:30; Mark 9:5). However, it was pointed out that in Mark’s Gospel, the party mentioned second and introduced by syn (“with”) is the more notable figure (the “with” implies a certain subordination of Elijah to Moses), and thus all the Synoptics are saying the same thing. Yet it is possible that there is a significance in mentioning Elijah first: he was the forerunner meant to remind the people that the time of fulfilment, the “Day of the LORD” is at hand.

COMMENTARIES
1.) From the Haydock Commentary:

Ver. 4. The law and the prophets were signified by Moses and Elias; both bear testimony to the divinity of Jesus Christ’s mission, which was effectually to close the old, and open the new dispensation. By the apparitions of these two illustrious personages, we learn also that sometimes, though not often, there is, by the permission of heaven, a certain intercourse between the living and the dead. (Bristow)

 

[patrick457]

COMMENTARIES, continued
http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/3640/transfigurationlargeeh6.jpg

2.) From the Catena Aurea:

Wherefore it is said, “And after six days Jesus taketh with Him, Peter and James and John, and led them up into an high mountain apart by themselves, and He was transfigured before them.”

Chrys., Hom. in Matt. 65: Luke in saying “After eight days,” does not contradict this; for he reckoned in both the day on which Christ had spoken what goes before, and the day on which He took them up. And the reason that He took them up after six days, was that they might be filled with a more eager desire during the space of these days, and with a watchful and anxious mind attend to what they saw.

Theophylact: And He takes with Him the three chief of the Apostles, Peter, as confessing and loving Him, John, as the beloved one, James, as being sublime in speech and as a divine; for so displeasing was he to the Jews, that Herod wishing to please the Jews slew him.

Pseudo-Chrys., Vict. Ant. e Cat. in Marc.: He does not however shew His glory in a house, but He takes them up into a high mountain, for the loftiness of the mountain was adapted to shewing forth the loftiness of His glory.

Theophylact: And He took them apart, because He was about to reveal mysteries to them. We must also understand by transfiguration not the change of His features, but that, whilst His features remained as before, there was added unto Him a certain ineffable brightness.

Pseudo-Chrys., Vict. Ant. e Cat. in Marc.: It is not therefore fitting that in the kingdom of God any change of feature should take place, either in the Saviour Himself, or in those who are to be made like unto Him, but only an addition of brightness.

Bede, 3, 37: Our Saviour then when transfigured did not lose the substance of real flesh, but shewed forth the glory of His own or of our future resurrection; for such as He then appeared to the Apostles, He will after the judgment appear to all His elect.

It goes on, “And His raiment became shining.”

Greg., Mor. 32: Because, in the height of the brightness of heaven above, they who shine in righteousness of life, will cling to Him; for by the name of garments, He means the just whom He joins to Himself.

There follows, “And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses, and they were talking with Jesus.”

Chrys., Hom. in Matt., 56: He brings Moses and Elias before them; first, indeed, because the multitudes said that Christ was Elias, and one of the Prophets. He shews Himself to the Apostles with them, that they might see the difference between the Lord, and His servants.

And again because the Jews accused Christ of transgressing the law, and thought Him a blasphemer, as if He arrogated to Himself the glory of His Father, He brought before them those who shone conspicuous in both ways; for Moses gave the Law, and Elias was zealous for the glory of God; for which reason neither would have stood near Him, if He had been opposed to God and to His law.

And that they might know that He holds the power of life and of death, He brings before them both Moses who was dead, and Elias who had not yet suffered death. Furthermore He signified by this that the doctrine of the Prophets was the schoolmaster to the doctrine of Christ. He also signified the junction of the New and Old Testament, and that the Apostles shall be joined in the resurrection with the Prophets, and both together shall go forth to meet their common King.

3.) Commentary by St. Augustine (Harmony of the Gospels, 2.56.112-113):

This vision of the Lord upon the mount in the presence of the three disciples, Peter, James, and John, on which occasion also the testimony of the Father’s voice was borne Him from heaven, is related by the three evangelists in the same order, and in a manner expressing the same sense completely. And as regards other matters, they may be seen by the readers to be in accordance with those modes of narration of which we have given examples in many passages already, and in which there are diversities in expression without any consequent diversity in meaning.

But with respect to the circumstance that Mark, along with Matthew, tells us how the event took place after six days, while Luke states that it was after eight days, those who find a difficulty here do not deserve to be set aside with contempt, but should be enlightened by the offering of explanations. For when we announce a space of days in these terms, ‘after so many days’, sometimes we do not include in the number the day on which we speak, or the day on which the thing itself which we intimate beforehand or promise is declared to take place, but reckon only the intervening days, on the real and full and final expiry of which the incident in question is to occur. This is what Matthew and Mark have done. Leaving out of their calculation the day on which Jesus spoke these words, and the day on which He exhibited that memorable spectacle on the mount, they have regarded simply the intermediate days, and thus have used the expression, after six days. But Luke, reckoning in the extreme day at either end, that is to say, the first day and the last day, has made it after eight days, in accordance with that mode of speech in which the part is put for the whole.

 

[patrick457]

COMMENTARIES, continued

4.) Commentary by Origen (Commentary on Matthew, 12.36-39):

Now, also, let it be granted, before the exposition that occurs to us in relation to these things, that this took place long ago, and according to the letter. But it seems to me, that those who are led up by Jesus into the high mountain, and are deemed worthy of beholding His transfiguration apart, are not without purpose led up six days after the discourses previously spoken. For since in six days — the perfect number — the whole world, — this perfect work of art, — was made, on this account I think that he who transcends all the things of the world by beholding no longer the things which are seen, for they are temporal, but already the things which not seen, and only the things which are not seen, because that they are eternal, is represented in the words, After six days Jesus took up with Him certain persons. If therefore any one of us wishes to be taken by Jesus, and led up by Him into the high mountain, and be deemed worthy of beholding His transfiguration apart, let him pass beyond the six days, because he no longer beholds the things which are seen, nor longer loves the world, nor the things in the world, (1 John 2:15) nor lusts after any worldly lust, which is the lust of bodies, and of the riches of the body, and of the glory which is after the flesh, and whatever things whose nature it is to distract and drag away the soul from the things which are better and diviner, and bring it down and fix it fast to the deceit of this age, in wealth and glory, and the rest of the lusts which are the foes of truth. For when he has passed through the six days, as we have said, he will keep a new Sabbath, rejoicing in the lofty mountain, because he sees Jesus transfigured before him; for the Word has different forms, as He appears to each as is expedient for the beholder, and is manifested to no one beyond the capacity of the beholder.

But you will ask if, when He was transfigured before those who were led up by Him into the lofty mountain, He appeared to them in the form of God, in which He formerly was, so that He had to those below the form of a servant, but to those who had followed Him after the six days to the lofty mountain, He had not that form, but the form of God. But hear these things, if you can, at the same time giving heed spiritually, that it is not said simply, “He was transfigured,” but with a certain necessary addition, which Matthew and Mark have recorded; for, according to both, “He was transfigured before them.” And according to this, indeed, you will say that it is possible for Jesus to be transfigured before some with this transfiguration, but before others at the same time not to be transfigured. But if you wish to see the transfiguration of Jesus before those who went up into the lofty mountain apart long with Him, behold with me the Jesus in the Gospels, as more simply apprehended, and as one might say, known according to the flesh, by those who do not go up, through works and words which are uplifting, to the lofty mountain of wisdom, but known no longer after the flesh, but known in His divinity by means of all the Gospels, and beholden in the form of God according to their knowledge; for before them is Jesus transfigured, and not to any one of those below. But when He is transfigured, His face also shines as the sun, that He may be manifested to the children of light, who have put off the works of darkness, and put on the armour of light (Romans 13:12), and are no longer the children of darkness or night, but have become the sons of day, and walk honestly as in the day; and being manifested, He will shine unto them not simply as the sun, but as demonstrated to be the sun of righteousness.

And not only is He transfigured before such disciples, nor does He only add to the transfiguration the shining of His face as the sun; but further also to those who were led up by Him into the high mountain apart, *His garments appear white as the light *(Matthew 17:2). But the garments of Jesus are the expressions and letters of the Gospels with which He invested Himself. But I think that even the words in the Apostles which indicate the truths concerning Him are garments of Jesus, which become white to those who go up into the high mountain along with Jesus. But since there are differences also of things white, His garments become white as the brightest and purest of all white things; and that is light. When therefore you see any one not only with a thorough understanding of the theology concerning Jesus, but also making clear every expression of the Gospels, do not hesitate to say that to Him the garments of Jesus have become white as the light. But when the Son of God in His transfiguration is so understood and beheld, that His face is a sun, and His garments white as the light, straightway there will appear to him who beholds Jesus in such form Moses, — the law — and Elijah, — in the way of synecdoche, not one prophet only, but all the prophets— holding converse with Jesus; for such is the force of the words talking with Him; (Matthew 17:3) but, according to Luke, “Moses and Elijah appeared in glory,” down to the words, “in Jerusalem” (Luke 9:30-31). But if any one sees the glory of Moses, having understood the spiritual law as a discourse in harmony with Jesus, and the wisdom in the prophets which is hidden in a mystery (1 Corinthians 2:7), he sees Moses and Elijah in glory when he sees them with Jesus.

 

[patrick457]

COMMENTARIES, continued

4.) Commentary by Origen (Commentary on Matthew, 12.36-39), continued:

Then, since it will be necessary to expound the passage as given in Mark, “And as He was praying He was transfigured before them,” we must say that perhaps it is possible especially to see the Word transfigured before us if we have done the things aforesaid, and gone up into the mountain, and seen the absolute Word holding converse with the Father, and praying to Him for such things as the true High-Priest might pray for to the only true God. But in order that He may thus hold fellowship with God and pray to the Father, He goes up into the mountain; and then, according to Mark, “His garments become white and glistening as the light, so as no fuller on earth can whiten them” (Mark 9:3). And perhaps the fullers upon the earth are the wise men of this world who are careful about the diction which they consider to be bright and pure, so that even their base thoughts and false dogmas seem to be beautified by their fulling, so to speak; but He who shows His own garments glistering to those who have ascended and brighter than their fulling can make them, is the Word, who exhibits in the expressions of the Scriptures which are despised by many the glistering of the thoughts, when the raiment of Jesus, according to Luke, becomes white and dazzling (Luke 9:29).

5.) Commentary by St. John Chrysostom (Homily 2 on Eutropius, 10-11a):

Make an effort, and do not grow weary of my prolonged discourse. For as when He manifests Himself, He is not manifested as He really is, nor is His bare essence manifested (for no man has seen God in His real nature; for when He is but partially revealed the Cherubim tremble— the mountains smoke, the sea is dried up, the heaven is shaken, and if the revelation were not partial who could endure it?) as then, I say, He does not manifest Himself as He really is, but only as the beholder is able to see Him, therefore does He appear sometimes in the form of old age, sometimes of youth, sometimes in fire, sometimes in air, sometimes in water, sometimes in armour, not altering his essential nature, but fashioning His appearance to suit the various condition of those who are affected by it. In like manner also when any one wishes to say anything concerning Him he employs human illustrations. For instance I say: He went up into the mountain and He was transfigured before them, and His countenance shone as the sun, and His raiment became white as snow. He disclosed, it is said, a little of the Godhead, He manifested to them the God dwelling among them and He was transfigured before them. Attend carefully to the statement. The writer says and He was transfigured before them, and His raiment shone as the light, and His countenance was as the sun. When I said such is His greatness and power and added be merciful to me O Lord, (for I do not rest satisfied with the expression but am perplexed, having no other framed for the purpose) I wish you to understand, that I learned this lesson from Holy Scripture. The evangelist then wished to describe His splendour and he says He shone. How did He shine? tell me. Exceedingly. And how do you express this? He shone as the sun. As the sun do you say? Yes. Wherefore? Because I know not any other luminary more brilliant. And He was white do you say as snow? Wherefore as snow? Because I know not any other substance which is whiter. For that He did not really shine thus is proved by what follows: the disciples fell to the ground. If he had shone as the sun the disciples would not have fallen; for they saw the sun every day, and did not fall: but inasmuch as he shone more brilliantly than the sun or snow, they, being unable to bear the splendor, fell to the earth.

Tell me then, O evangelist, did He shine more brightly than the sun, and yet do you say, as the sun? Yea: wishing to make that light known to you, I know not any other greater luminary, I have no other comparison which holds a royal place among luminaries. I have said these things that you may not rest contentedly in the poverty of the language used: I have pointed out to you the fall of the disciples: they fell to the earth, and were stupified and overwhelmed with slumber. Arise He said, and lifted them up, and yet they were oppressed. For they could not endure the excessive brightness of that shining, but heavy sleep took possession of their eyes: so far did the light which was manifested exceed the light of the sun. Yet the evangelist said as the sun, because that luminary is familiar to us and surpasses all the rest.

6.) Hymn by St. Ephrem the Syrian (Hymns on Paradise 9.27):

The Lord who is beyond measure
measures out nourishment to all,
adapting to our eyes the sight of himself,
to our hearing his voice,
His blessing to our appetite,
His wisdom to our tongue.

 

[patrick457]

COMMENTARIES, continued

7.) Commentary by the Venerable St. Bede (Exposition on the Gospel of Mark 1.24):

If anyone asks what the Lord’s garments, which became white as snow, represent typologically, we can properly understand them as pointing to the Church of His saints [who]…at the time of the resurrection will be purified from every blemish of iniquity and at the same time from all the darkness of mortality. Concerning the Lord’s garments the Evangelist Mark remarks that “they became as bright as snow, such as no bleacher on earth can make them white.” It is evident to everyone that there is no one who can live on earth without corruption and sorrow. So it is evident to all who are wise, although heretics deny it, that there is no one who can live on earth without being touched by some sin. But what a cleansing agent (that is, a teacher of souls or some extraordinary purifier of his body) cannot do on earth, that the Lord will do in heaven. He will purify the church, which is his clothing, “from all defilement of flesh and spirit (2 Cor. 7:1),” renewing [Her] besides with eternal blessedness and light of flesh and spirit.

Moses and Elijah, who talked with the Lord on the mountain, and spoke about his passion and resurrection, represent the oracles of the law and and prophets which were fulfilled in the Lord…The figures of Moses and Elijah embrace all who are finally to reign with the Lord. By Moses, who died and was buried, we can understand those who at the judgment are going to be raised up from death. By Elijah, on the other hand, who has not yet paid the debt of death, we understand those who are going to be found alive in the flesh at the judge’s coming.

http://drjeffadams.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/the-transfiguration.jpg

8.) Coelestis Formam Gloriae (From the Sarum Breviary of 1495, translated by John M. Neale, 1851):

Coelestis formam gloriae / Quam spes quaerit Ecclesiae / In monte Christus indicat / Quo supra solem emicat.

Res memoranda saeculis / Hic cum tribus discipulis / Cum Moyse et Helia / Grata promit eloquia.

Assistunt testes gratiae / Legis atque prophetiae / De nube testimonium / Sonat Patris ad Filium.

Glorificata facie / Christus claret hodie / Queis sit honor credentium / Deo pie fruentium.

Visionis mysterium / Corde levat fidelium / Unde solenni gaudio / Clamat nostra devotio.
(English)

O wondrous sight! O vision fair / Of glory that the church shall share / Which Christ upon the mountain shows / Where brighter than the sun He glows!

From age to age the tale declares / How with the three disciples there / Where Moses and Elijah meet / The Lord holds converse high and sweet.

The law and prophets there have place / Two chosen witnesses of grace / The Father’s voice from out the cloud / Proclaims His only Son aloud.

With shining face and bright array / Christ deigns to manifest that day / What glory shall be theirs above / Who joy in God with perfect love.

And faithful hearts are raised on high / By this great vision’s mystery / For which in joyful strains we raise / The voice of prayer, the hymn of praise.

O Father, with the eternal Son / And Holy Spirit, ever One / Vouchsafe to bring us by Thy grace / To see Thy glory face to face.

9.) The Kontakion of the Feast of the Transfiguration:

Thou wast transfigured on the mountain, O Christ our God,
and Thy disciples beheld Thy glory as far as they were capable,
that when they should see Thee crucified,
they might know that Thy suffering was voluntary
and might proclaim to the world
that Thou art indeed the reflection of the Father.

 

[patrick457]

5-8: And answering, Peter says to Jesus, “Rabbi, it is good that we are here, and let us make three booths — one for you, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah,” for he did not know what to answer because they were very frightened. And there was a cloud overshadowing them, and there was a voice from the cloud, “This is my Son, the beloved; hear Him!” And suddenly when they looked around they no longer saw anyone but Jesus alone with them.

http://img357.imageshack.us/img357/8392/cloudsmq0.jpg
“This is my Son, the beloved; hear Him!”
DEFINITIONS
Answering (apokrinomai): If this is understood only of a response to a previous utterance, then its double use here is inappropriate. But it frequently represents the Hebrew idiom vaya’an (“and [he] answered”) which serves to continue, or even begin, a discourse. Peter’s words are not a response to words already spoken, but to the situation in which the disciples find themselves.

Rabbi: The Hebrew word rabbi literally means “my lord” or “my great one.” At the 1st century, the word was merely an unofficial honorific, usually used for teachers (especially teachers of the Torah) or people of higher social rank.

It was only after 70 AD that the meaning of the word changed, when the focus of scholarly and spiritual leadership of the Jews shifted almost entirely to the sages of the Sanhedrin at the wake of the destruction of the Temple. From that time only did the term ‘rabbi’ started to become an official title borne by scholars ordained by the Sanhedrin. Some scholars therefore object to calling Jesus ‘rabbi’ – due to the implications of the term post-70 AD – and prefer to label Him as a “sage” instead.

(Further reading: The Social Structure of the Rabbinic Movement in Roman Palestine)

The word is quite synonymous with didaskale (“teacher”), but in this context, where Jesus had been revealed to be not just a mere human “rabbi,” its use seems even more inappropriate. It conveys Peter’s complete failure to grasp the significance of the occasion, and fits well with his proposal to erect “booths” or shelters for the three august personages.

It is good: Why exactly it is good is unclear. Perhaps we are to assume that the experience was pleasurable, or that the occasion gave the disciples a chance to serve Jesus and His two visitors (important personages in the history of Israel). Or perhaps we are to take it as an awkward comment on Peter’s part.

Three booths: The primary reference here seems to be the booths or tabernacles used in Sukkoth (Feast of Tabernacles/Booths) (known as sukkah in Hebrew; the LXX translates sukkah as skēnē, the exact same word used here).


A modern-day sukkah with palm leaves forming an entryway.
Peter’s suggestion, especially in the light of Mark’s editorial comment, is often thought of as foolish and awkward. It is not foolish in a sense, however, for Judaism did hold onto the hope that God would once again tabernacle with His people as in the time of the Exodus (Tobit 13:11; cf. John 1:14). Josephus also mentions certain messianic claimants who led their followers into the wilderness promising “signs of freedom,” which may be an echo of this expectation (Ant. 20.97; 20.167; War 2.259). In this respect, Peter’s proposal was fitting for a pious and knowledgeable Jew. What he must come to understand, however, is that God is providing His own tabernacle in which to dwell.

Very frightened (ekphoboi): The Greek word has the connotations of “to be frightened out of one’s wits” or even “fright enough to make one’s hair stand on end”.

A cloud: In an area such as the Holy Land where much of life depends on the regular cycle of rains from October to April, the cloud was a symbol of life and hope. Since God is the Author of life it is not surprising that the cloud became also a symbol of the Divine Presence (the shekhinah). In Exodus 40:34-38 a cloud covers the Tabernacle, and at the dedication of Solomon’s Temple in Jerusalem “a cloud filled the house of the LORD” (1 Kings 8:10-11). Evoking a familiar epithet for the Canaanite god Baal, Psalm 68:4 calls YHWH “Him who rides on the clouds”.

Overshadowing them: A number of commentators suggest that the “them” refers to Jesus, Moses, and Elijah, with the disciples being outside the cloud. However, the natural antecedent is the whole group, since in the preceding sentences the focus of attention was on Peter and the other two disciples. The fact that the voice was coming to them “from the cloud” does not require that they were outside it.

Suddenly: Mark effectively conveys the abruptness of the story’s ending not only by the unusual adverb exapina (“suddenly”) but also by the double negative (ouketi oudena, which is literally “no longer no one”), the adversative alla (“except”), and the final phrase monon meth’ auton (“only…with them”).

But Jesus alone: Some commentators see in this a visible sign of Jesus’ obedience to the will of the Father. Rather than escaping into glory with His heavenly visitors, Jesus remains to complete His final sojourn to Jerusalem. Elijah and Moses, the greatest figures of the Old Testament, have disappeared; in relation to Jesus they have no permanent standing.