《Pett’s Commentary on the Bible –Mark(Vol. 1)》(PeterPett)
Commentator
Dr. Peter Pett BA BD (Hons-London) DD is a retired Baptist minister and college lecturer. He holds a BD (good honours) from King's College London and was trained at what is now the London School of Theology (formerly London Bible College).
In this modernly written verse-by-verse commentary of the Bible (see book exclusions below), Dr. Peter Pett leads the reader through the Scriptures with accuracy and insight. Students and scholars alike will delight at Pett's clear and direct style, concisely examining the original text, its writers, translations and above all, the God who inspired it. Study the bible online.
Commentary excludes 1 and 2 Chronicles, Esther, Job, and Psalms 67-150 because the material has not yet been written.
00 Introduction
The Author.
The Gospel was written by John Mark who, as a young man, had probably himself known the Lord Jesus Christ personally for a brief time on His visits to Jerusalem (inferred from Acts 12:12), and had spent some considerable time with all the Apostles and especially with both Peter (1 Peter 5:13) and Paul (Colossians 4:10; 2 Timothy 4:11), listening to their preaching and especially to their testimony to Jesus. During this time he would have heard Peter and other eyewitnesses again and again describe events and teaching from the life of Jesus. And this not in some informal way, but in a deliberate formatting of events in such a way as to be remembered and repeated, for this kind of information was the life blood of the early church.
Papias in the second century AD tells us that, ‘Mark, who was Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, all that he (Peter) recollected of what Christ had done’. Indications can regularly be found in Mark’s Gospel suggestive of an eyewitness, although in such a way as to suggest that it was simply writer’s licence. Rather it was in a way which suggests that it was almost unconscious. Paul also would have made himself familiar with such things and would have passed them on to him, and we should note that Paul is always careful to distinguish what is based on the Lord’s words and what is not (1 Corinthians 7:12; 2 Corinthians 11:17). What the Lord had specifically said was considered as divine truth, as the equivalent of Scripture, and was remembered as such.
We must remember that from the moment that three thousand people from around the Empire had been converted on the day of Pentecost, accurate teaching about ‘the Testimony of Jesus’ would have been demanded and required. All the new converts would have needed to know something about His life and teaching, and those with minds like Paul’s would not have been satisfied with just anything. And the further the message spread the more accurate information would continue to be required, for it was from this that men would come to know more intimately the Jesus in whom they had come to believe. As Papias makes clear the very words of the Apostles were eagerly sought after for this reason.
Thus from the very beginning incidents in the life of Jesus would have become described in a form that would soon become standardised and deliberately preserved, following early Rabbinic pattern, to be memorised and accurately passed on, and to be proclaimed alongside the (Old Testament) Scriptures. For they would already be seen as ranking alongside the Scriptures and as having at least equivalent value to Christians as the Teaching of the Elders had to the Pharisees. And the fact that they were mainly to begin with passed on in oral form would mean that they were put in such a form as to be easily remembered (as Jesus had put His words in the same way). There would be great concern for the accurate passing on of His life and words. The people did not want to know interesting stories, they wanted to know the truth. It is also inconceivable that some of these standardised forms were not written down (Luke 1:1), even if this were only in order to communicate it to others at a distance. So Mark would have plenty of material to work with, and could check for accuracy with Peter himself.
Mark was cousin (or nephew) to Barnabas. His Gospel is written in the common Greek of the area and bears evidence of a Jewish background. We can hardly doubt that the collection of the materials, their recording in writing and their putting together in a reasonably consecutive narrative took place over a number of years, and this was almost certainly at times in discussion with Peter and other eyewitnesses. But they would not necessarily be (and were not) chronological in every detail - what mattered was presenting the material and getting over the message indicated in them. Exact chronology was of less importance except where it was necessary to preserve the truth.
The Purpose of The Gospel.
In the Gospel the historical material is brought together with the intention of presenting Jesus Christ in the fullness of His glory. It is not a life story, written out of academic interest, nor, except in general outline, a chronological history, but the reverent recording of truth about Jesus and His teaching that was carefully remembered and passed on by those who knew Him (who were skilled at memorising) because of Who He was, put together in order to present the truth about Him. The purpose was in order to demonstrate that He was what they had come to know Him to be. But there is no extravagance in the descriptions (this lack of extravagance is a distinctive feature of the four Gospels), they are sensible, deliberate, and even under-stated.
As the Apostles spoke they would be aware that others who knew the facts were listening to, and judging, what they said, and in view of the importance attached to the exact words of Jesus, as demonstrated by Paul’s letters, it would have been important to remember them exactly. This was aided by the fact that Jesus had deliberately taught in such a way as to assist the memory. As John expresses it elsewhere, ‘what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have gazed on and our hands have handled concerning the Word of life -- we declare to you’ (1 John 1:1-3).
The World Into Which Jesus Went Out To Proclaim the Kingly Rule of God.
The commencement of Jesus’ ministry was in Galilee. Galilee was a smallish mountainous conclave set on its own to the north of Palestine surrounded on all sides by Samaritans and Gentiles, and separated from Judea by Samaria. It was a self-sufficient and fertile land and its fertility was made full use of by its industrious people. It was from a knowledge of the land and its farmers that Jesus obtained much of His preaching material. It was far from being just a smaller version of Judea. The people were a mixture and more cosmopolitan and many of them had been forced into Judaism a century before Christ when Galilee was ‘liberated’ by Jewish forces. All who had then wanted to remain there had had to be circumcised and live according to Jewish Law. Thus in its own way it had formed its own fanatical Jewish beliefs shaped by its own environment.
Its type of religious orthodoxy was frowned on by Jerusalem, and while the peoples of both spoke Aramaic, the language of these peoples was as distinct from each other as is that of, say, the Southern states of America as compared with UK English, with many variations in pronunciation and meaning. Similarly in a small country like the UK itself we can find many regional variations, even in spite of modern communications, and we only have to compare broad Scots ‘English’ with English as spoken in England to evidence this. To an Englishman broad Scots English is almost impossible to understand, and by some might even be looked down on. And in precisely the same way Galileans would often be jeered at when they visited Jerusalem, which they did regularly for the feasts, and they were instantly recognisable because of their speech (see for example Matthew 26:73). They blurred the distinctions between the guttural pronunciation of certain letters and were seen as being like someone using English who drops his aitches. Thus their speech could sometimes be misunderstood, often causing great hilarity, and no little contempt.
It is easy for us to tend to assume that those who spoke and wrote in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek were all using the same languages, and while true in general, it is in fact far from true in detail, and indeed Mark’s koine (popular) Greek was very different from classical Greek, while Luke used different forms of Greek for different sections of his writings. Speaking loosely we could say that Luke used Septuagintal Greek in Luke 1-2, Aramaic Greek in Acts 1-15 and a form of classical Greek elsewhere. In the same way Galilean Aramaic differed from Judean Aramaic, and we are still far from knowing quite by how much.
We can compare how to a non-English speaker all English might appear to be the same. This reminds me of how, when I was lecturing in Hong Kong, a Chinese student expressed her puzzlement to me over why it was that all Western lecturers, American, English and Australian, all spoke with the same accent! I could hardly believe my ears. Those who have not studied the use of the languages tend to think the same about Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew. Reading some commentaries (which are trying to be helpful in bringing out meanings) we can begin to wonder why English could not be as specific and exact as Greek and Hebrew clearly were, but in fact they are not always so (ordinary readers of English versions of the Hebrew text would probably be amazed, and often dumbfounded, if they read a translation which was made literally word for word).
In religious matters Galilee was far more liberal than Jerusalem and Judea, and its orthodoxy, while being acceptable in general, was nevertheless viewed with some suspicion by the Jewish authorities. So by being Galilean Jesus started off at a disadvantage as far the Jerusalem Pharisees were concerned. Certainly in some ways Galileans could be laxer with regard to cultic requirements, while in others they could actually be more dogmatic. They did not always see eye to eye with their Jerusalem counterparts. For example, from later Rabbinical sources we know that Hanina ben Dosa, a Galilean Rabbi, was criticised for walking alone in the streets at night, and Yose the Galilean, another Galilean Rabbi, was rebuked by a woman for engaging in too long a conversation with her when he was asking the way. Both these acts would have been frowned on in Jerusalem.
But we must not overstate the differences. It is noteworthy that with rare exceptions Jesus was never Himself criticised by the Pharisees, even the Jerusalem Rabbis, about His general observance of Pharisaic requirements, even though His disciples were. He may have been willing to eat with tax gatherers and ‘sinners’ (ordinary people who were laxer with regard to ritual and laws of ‘cleanliness’ and did not tithe sufficiently) but that did not mean that He was lax Himself in observing the proper requirements. It was only some (although not all) of His disciples who were accused of not ritually ‘washing their hands’ (Mark 7:2). He was clearly well aware of Pharisaic requirements and in most cases scrupulously sought Himself to avoid unnecessary offence. Had He been constantly criticised for it there was no reason why the Gospel writers should have hidden the fact. Indeed it would have been a powerful weapon against the Judaisers. (But see Luke 11:38, which may, however, have had specific intent, for He knew that on the whole they were there to test Him out).
The truth is that He had regard for the religious feelings of others. And when He was criticised on certain points He always cited a Scriptural reason, and it was always for the good of people generally, for He would not allow cultic requirements to cause people unnecessary suffering and He had little time for over-exactness with regard to interpretation especially when accompanied by glaring misbehaviour in other spheres (Matthew 23:24). It was not therefore that He totally condemned the teaching of the Scribes and Pharisees, but that He subjected it to a criticism and scrutiny for which they were not prepared, and required too much of them by arguing that mercy and compassion were more important than the minutiae of ritual (Matthew 9:13; Matthew 12:7). Assiduously keeping to their ritual (ritual hand-washing, strict Sabbath observance, avoiding what was ‘ritually unclean’, in depth tithing, etc) had become more important to many of them than revealing goodness, kindness and compassion. They thus felt that He was undermining their beliefs and the confidence of the ordinary people in them. But Jesus did not condemn them for their assiduousness. What He condemned them for was their hardness of heart, and their lack of appreciation that what they demanded was not always possible for ordinary people.
Indeed Jesus taught His followers in general to observe basic Scribal and Pharisaic teaching (Matthew 23:3). What He wanted them to avoid was the hypocrisy of many of them, especially the more extreme (Matthew 23:24). For, as even the Pharisees themselves acknowledged, there were a number of different types of Pharisee, and it was probably the more extreme who constantly tangled with Jesus. Thus Jesus defended those of His followers who were criticised because He felt that the accusers were themselves guilty of being two faced and were going outside the intentions of the Law. We must not, however, assume that all Pharisees would have agreed with all the accusations hurled at Him, and indeed many later became His followers. Nevertheless it cannot be gainsaid (except by doubtful methods) that the Jerusalem Scribes and Pharisees as a whole were certainly, with their influence, partly responsible for His crucifixion, the more liberal seemingly bowing to the will of the majority, and that while it was probably an inner group of the Sanhedrin with their adherents who first condemned Him (Mark 14:53), the whole Sanhedrin (no doubt with a few notable absentees) finally passed sentence (Mark 15:1).
Galilee was separately governed, being ruled first by Herod Antipas up to 39 AD (along with Perea across the Jordan ), and then by King Agrippa I (up to 44 AD), as against the Roman procurators who ruled Judea. Yet Galilee was also the fiercest in its opposition to Rome, possibly because it was not held down by such an iron hand. A large amount of Rome’s problems stemmed from Galilee which spawned a number of famous rebels, including Judas of Galilee in 6 AD (Acts 5:37) who gained control of the weapons in the royal armoury and caused widespread trouble, but was defeated by Quirinius. Acts also mentions an early Theudas (Acts 5:36), but our knowledge of Jewish history about this time is limited. From this time on Galilee was a hotbed of trouble and was always on the verge of rising up. The others we actually know of, (mainly from Josephus), included another later Theudas (a fairly common name), an ‘Egyptian’, and a Samaritan prophet, and there were probably others who certainly caused trouble, but were after the time of Jesus. The roots, however, of their rebellious attitude must be seen as going back to earlier revolutionaries, of whom there would have been a constant stream, even if they were waiting quietly but impatiently for some opportunity to arise and someone to lead them. For Galilee had few Sadducees and no chief priests to maintain the status quo, even though they were probably ruled under Herod by a council of seventy, which would include Herodians, Pharisees and important lay people. It is not therefore surprising that a Galilean wonder-worker who gathered large crowds should be looked on with suspicion by the Romans and by the authorities when the crowds began to gather round Him. The Romans especially were always wary of mass movements. Nevertheless Pilate took no action against Him until it was forced on him by the Jewish authorities, for he clearly did not see Him as a threat, while also seeing Him as being in the main under Herod’s jurisdiction.
Into this world Jesus came, His ministry centred on the proclamation of the Kingly Rule of God (Mark 1:15). For while He healed large numbers of people (Mark 1:34) He never portrayed Himself as a healer except in so far as it supported His central message (Matthew 11:4-6), and sought to prevent healing taking over from His other activities (Mark 1:38). He did not want to be seen as a wonder-worker. It is true that He did emphasise more the casting out of evil spirits as evidence of Who He was and what He had come to do (Mark 1:39; Matthew 12:28), but He made a clear distinction between that and healing. What there can be no doubt about was that He portrayed Himself, and was portrayed by others, as One uniquely chosen by God (Mark 2:10; Mark 2:17; Mark 2:19-20; Mark 2:28; Mark 3:22-27; etc), and that Mark’s purpose was to highlight this fact and bring it home to his readers. But if we are to assess Him rightly it must be on the basis of what He taught, and His claim that as the suffering Servant He had come to die in order to give His life a ransom for many (Mark 10:45). This is especially brought out by the fact that the last part of Mark’s Gospel centres on that death. He was as unlike other ‘wonder-workers’ as it was possible to be, nor did He want to be seen as a wonder-worker. He wanted recognition that what He taught and what He had come to do was of God.