¹ Jesus left there and went to his hometown, accompanied by his disciples. ² When the Sabbath came, he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were amazed.

“Where did this man get these things?” they asked. “What’s this wisdom that has been given him, that he even does miracles! ³ Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph,^a Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.

⁴ Jesus said to them, “Only in his hometown, among his relatives and in his own house is a prophet without honor.” ⁵ He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them. ⁶ And he was amazed at their lack of faith.

Charles Darwin said that belief was “the most complete of all distinctions between man and the lower animals.” If this observation is true, it suggests that lack of faith on man’s part puts him on the same level as the animals! Agnostic orator Col. Robert Ingersoll took a different point of view, for he once described a believer as “a songless bird in a cage.” You would probably agree that his words better describe an unbeliever!

One of the central themes in this section of Mark’s Gospel is the unbelief of people who came into contact with God’s Servant. All of these people had every reason to trust Jesus Christ, yet all of them failed to do so, including His own disciples! As you study this chapter, keep in mind the solemn admonition of Hebrews 3:12, “Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.” God takes unbelief seriously, and so should we.^[1]

The first five chapters of Mark are replete with huge crowds that flock to see and hear Jesus. However, there are those who oppose him. In Mark 2:1–3:6 we find Jesus attacked by the religious leadership and the Herodians. In 3:20–30 he is again criticized by the religious leaders and his family comes to take charge of him because of charges that he is out of his mind. In 5:17 the Gerasenes ask Jesus to leave their region. Opposition continues in 6:1–6 when Jesus visits Nazareth and is rejected by pious Jews from his own hometown.

WILL ANYONE TRUST GOD’S SERVANT? Mark 6:1–56

Charles Darwin said that belief was “the most complete of all distinctions between man and the lower animals.” If this observation is true, it suggests that lack of faith on man’s part puts him on the same level as the animals! Agnostic orator Col. Robert Ingersoll took a different point of view, for he once described a believer as “a songless bird in a cage.” You would probably agree that his words better describe an unbeliever!

One of the central themes in this section of Mark’s Gospel is the unbelief of people who came into contact with God’s Servant. All of these people had every reason to trust Jesus Christ, yet all of them failed to do so, including His own disciples! As you study this chapter, keep in mind the solemn admonition of Hebrews 3:12, “Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.” God takes unbelief seriously, and so should we.

When Jesus came to Nazareth he put himself to a very severe test. He was coming to his home town; and there are no severer critics of any man than those who have known him since his boyhood. It was never meant to be a private visit simply to see his old home and his own people. He came attended by his disciples. That is to say he came as a Rabbi. The Rabbis moved about the country accompanied by their little circle of disciples, and it was as a teacher, with his disciples, that Jesus came.

He went into the synagogue and he taught. His teaching was greeted not with wonder but with a kind of contempt. “They took offence at him.” They were scandalised that a man who came from a background like Jesus should say and do things such as he. Familiarity had bred a mistaken contempt.

They refused to listen to what he had to say for two reasons.

(i) They said, “Is not this the carpenter?” The word used for carpenter is tektōn. Now tektōn does mean a worker in wood, but it means more than merely a joiner. It means a craftsman. In Homer the tektōn is said to build ships and houses and temples. In the old days, and still to-day in many places, there could be found in little towns and villages a craftsman who would build you anything from a chicken-coop to a house; the kind of man who could build a wall, mend a roof, repair a gate; the craftsman, the handy-man, who with few or no instruments and with the simplest tools could turn his hand to any job. That is what Jesus was like. But the point is that the people of Nazareth despised Jesus because he was a working-man. He was a man of the people, a layman, a simple man—and therefore they despised him.

One of the leaders of the Labour movement was that great soul Will Crooks. He was born into a home where one of his earliest recollections was seeing his mother crying because she had no idea where the next meal was to come from. He started work in a blacksmith’s shop at five shillings a week. He became a fine craftsman and one of the bravest and straightest men who ever lived. He entered municipal politics and became the first Labour Mayor of any London borough. There were people who were offended when Will Crooks became Mayor of Poplar. In a crowd one day a lady said with great disgust, “They’ve made that common fellow, Crooks, Mayor, and he’s no better than a working man.” A man in the crowd—Will Crooks himself—turned round and raised his hat. “Quite right, madam,” he said. “I am not better than a working man.”

The people of Nazareth despised Jesus because he was a working man. To us that is his glory, because it means that God, when he came to earth, claimed no exemptions. He took upon himself the common life with all its common tasks.

The accidents of birth and fortune and pedigree have nothing to do with manhood.

We must ever beware of the temptation to evaluate men by externals and incidentals, and not by native worth.

(ii) They said, “Is not this Mary’s son? Do we not know his brothers and his sisters?” The fact that they called Jesus Mary’s son tells us that Joseph must have been dead. Therein we have the key to one of the enigmas of Jesus’ life. Jesus was only thirty-three when he died; and yet he did not leave Nazareth until he was thirty. (Luke 3:23.) Why this long delay? Why this lingering in Nazareth while a world waited to be saved? The reason was that Joseph died young and Jesus took upon himself the support of his mother and of his brothers and sisters; and only when they were old enough to fend for themselves did he go forth. He was faithful in little, and therefore in the end God gave him much to do.

But the people of Nazareth despised him because they knew his family. Thomas Campbell was a very considerable poet. His father had no sense of poetry at all. When Thoma’s first book emerged with his name on it, he sent a copy to his father. The old man took it up and looked at it. It was really the binding and not the contents at all that he was looking at. “Who would have thought,” he said in wonder, “that our Tom could have made a book like that?” Sometimes when familiarity should breed a growing respect it breeds an increasing and easy-going familiarity. Sometimes we are too near people to see their greatness.

The result of all this was that Jesus could do no mighty works in Nazareth. The atmosphere was wrong; and there are some things that cannot be done unless the atmosphere is right.

(i) It is still true that no man can be healed if he refuses to be healed. Margot Asquith tells of the death of Neville Chamberlain. Everyone knows how that man’s policy turned out in such a way that it broke his heart. Margot Asquith met his doctor, Lord Horder. “You can’t be much of a doctor,” she said, “as Neville Chamberlain was only a few years older than Winston Churchill, and I should have said he was a strong man. Were you fond of him?” Lord Horder replied, “I was very fond of him. I like all unlovable men. I have seen too many of the other kind. Chamberlain suffered from shyness. He did not want to live; and when a man says that, no doctor can save him.” We may call it faith; we may call it the will to live; but without it no man can survive.

(ii) There can be no preaching in the wrong atmosphere. Our churches would be different places if congregations would only remember that they preach far more than half the sermon. In an atmosphere of expectancy the poorest effort can catch fire. In an atmosphere of critical coldness or bland indifference, the most Spirit-packed utterance can fall lifeless to the earth.

(iii) There can be no peace-making in the wrong atmosphere. If men have come together to hate, they will hate. If men have come together to refuse to understand, they will misunderstand. If men have come together to see no other point of view but their own, they will see no other. But if men have come together, loving Christ and seeking to love each other, even those who are most widely separated can come together in him.

There is laid on us the tremendous responsibility that we can either help or hinder the work of Jesus Christ. We can open the door wide to him—or we can slam it in his face.^[2]

The Unbelief of His Acquaintances (Mark 6:1–6)

Jesus returned to Nazareth where a year before He had been rejected by the people and evicted from the synagogue (Luke 4:16–30). It was certainly an act of grace on His part to give the people another opportunity to hear His Word, believe, and be saved; and yet their hearts were still hard. This time, they did not evict Him: they simply did not take Him seriously.

Our Lord’s reputation had once again preceded Him, so He was permitted to teach in the synagogue. Keep in mind that He was ministering to people who knew Him well, because Nazareth was His “hometown.” However, these acquaintances had no spiritual perception at all. In fact, Jesus reminded them of what He had told them at that first dramatic visit, that a prophet is without honor in his own country and among his own people (Mark 6:4; Luke 4:24; John 4:44).

Two things astonished these people: His mighty works and His wonderful wisdom. Actually, Jesus did not do any mighty works while He was there, so the people must have been referring to the reports they had heard about His miracles (see Mark 1:28, 45; 3:7–8; 5:20–21). In fact, their unbelief hindered Jesus from having a greater ministry among them.

What was their problem? Why were they unable to trust Him and experience the wonders of His power and grace as had others? They thought that they really knew Him. After all, He had been their neighbor for nearly thirty years, they had seen Him at work in the carpenter’s shop, and He appeared to be just another Nazarene. He was a “commoner” and the people saw no reason to commit themselves to Him!

“Familiarity breeds contempt” is a well-known maxim that goes all the way back to Publius the Syrian, who lived in 2 b.c. Aesop wrote a fable to illustrate it. In Aesop’s fable, a fox had never before seen a lion, and when he first met the king of the beasts, the fox was nearly frightened to death. At their second meeting, the fox was not frightened quite as much; and the third time he met the lion, the fox went up and chatted with him! “And so it is,” Aesop concluded, “that familiarity makes even the most frightening things seem quite harmless.”

The maxim, however, must be taken with a grain of salt. For example, can you imagine a loving husband and wife thinking less of each other because they know each other so well? Or two dear friends starting to despise each other because their friendship has deepened over the years? Phillips Brooks said it best: “Familiarity breeds contempt, only with contemptible things or among contemptible people.” The contempt shown by the Nazarenes said nothing about Jesus Christ, but it said a great deal about them!

A tourist, eager to see everything in the art gallery, fled from picture to picture, scarcely noticing what was in the frames. “I didn’t see anything very special here,” he said to one of the guards as he left. “Sir,” the guard replied, “it is not the pictures that are on trial here—it is the visitors.”

A carpenter was a respected artisan in that day, but nobody expected a carpenter to do miracles or teach profound truths in the synagogue. Where did He get all this power and wisdom? From God or from Satan? (see Mark 3:22) And why did His brothers and sisters not possess this same power and wisdom? Even more, why did His brothers and sisters not believe in Him? The people who called Him “the son of Mary” were actually insulting Him; because in that day you identified a man by calling him the son of his father, not the son of his mother.

The people of Nazareth were “offended at Him,” which literally means “they stumbled over Him.” The Greek word gives us our English word scandalize. Kenneth Wuest wrote in his book Wuest’s Word Studies (Eerdmans), “They could not explain Him, so they rejected Him.” Jesus was certainly a “stone of stumbling” to them because of their unbelief (Isa. 8:14; Rom. 9:32–33; 1 Peter 2:8).

Twice in the Gospel record you find Jesus marveling. As this passage reveals, He marveled at the unbelief of the Jews, and He marveled at the great faith of a Roman centurion, a Gentile (Luke 7:9). Instead of remaining at Nazareth, Jesus departed and made another circuit of the towns and villages in Galilee. His heart was broken as He saw the desperate plight of the people (Matt. 9:35–38), so He decided to send out His disciples to minister with His authority and power.

1. 1. Mark does not identify Jesus’ hometown by name here, but he has already indicated it in 1:9 and 24. For information on Nazareth see the comments on 1:9.

6:1     Jesus left there and went to his hometown, accompanied by his disciples.  After the previous incidents in Capernaum, where Jesus healed the bleeding woman and brought a dead girl back to life, Jesus left there and went to his hometown; that is, he returned to Nazareth (1:9, 24). Nazareth was about twenty miles southwest of Capernaum. Mark mentioned that Jesus was accompanied by his disciples (a detail Matthew omitted), setting the stage for the sending out of the twelve disciples, recorded in 6:7.

Jesus had been born in Bethlehem, but he was raised in Nazareth (Matthew 2:19–23; Luke 2:39–40). This was not the first time he had spoken and taught in Nazareth; Luke 4:14–30 states that Jesus went to Nazareth, “where he had been brought up [and] went to the synagogue on the sabbath day” to read and teach (Luke 4:16 ). The response at that time was less than positive—in fact, the people had tried to kill him, but Jesus had walked away unharmed. Thus, this trip to Nazareth, recorded in Mark, is significant. The people of Nazareth were about to receive a second chance to believe; unfortunately, they again refused. Their rejection of Jesus was certainly a learning experience for the disciples, who would soon be sent out on their own (in pairs) to preach the Good News.^[3]

6:2     And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue.  Jesus’ forums for speaking included homes (2:2), the seashore (4:1), and the local synagogues (1:21, 39; 3:1). Synagogue services were conducted by lay people under the leadership of one or more synagogue “rulers” or leaders. For example, Jairus, the man whose daughter Jesus brought back to life, was a synagogue ruler (see 5:22). It was common for a visiting rabbi to be asked to speak in the local synagogue. Jesus, a well-known and popular speaker, had no trouble gaining an opportunity to teach in the synagogue on the Sabbath.

The synagogue was the center of the town, controlling civic and social as well as religious life. The synagogue was not like a church today—it was not an empty building except on Sabbath days when only the devoted would come. Instead, everyone seemed to come to the synagogue, for this was the focal point of ancient Jewish life. This was really a key place for Jesus to meet the people—much like the city gate of the Old Testament.

Many who heard him were amazed. “Where did this man get these things?” they asked. “What’s this wisdom that has been given him, that he even does miracles!”  As often happened when Jesus spoke, many who heard him were amazed (see also 1:22; 7:37; 10:26; 11:18). The Greek verb for “amazed” in all these verses is ekplesso, which literally means “to strike out of one’s senses.” The people were so amazed it was as if they had been struck with a blow, stunned. They were flabbergasted.

What was the source of their amazement? It focused on this man and where he, in particular, had gotten these things (referring to the wisdom of his teaching and the miracles he performed). They knew his miracles were supernatural, but they wondered about their source (the options were either God or Satan—see 3:22) and how Jesus could do them. These miracles were probably those they had heard about, for Mark recounted later that “he could not do any miracles there” because of their unbelief (6:5 ).

6:3     “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.  Jesus was teaching effectively and wisely, but the people of his hometown saw him as only the carpenter whose family they also knew well. “He’s no better than we are—he’s just a common laborer,” they said. The Greek word can mean “a stoneworker or carpenter.” In Matthew 13:55, Jesus is called “the carpenter’s son.” Jesus was almost thirty years old before he began his public teaching ministry. For the years prior to that, he had been at home, learning the trade of carpentry from his father and probably helping to support himself and the family after Joseph’s death.

When the townspeople called him the son of Mary, it may have been a derogatory remark. While it may have been true that Joseph was already dead, in any normal situation Jesus would still have been called “son of Joseph.” But Jesus was conceived prior to Joseph and Mary’s wedding (while they were engaged, Matthew 1:18), and perhaps the townspeople saw Jesus as not even being Joseph’s son. Such was the stigma Mary continued to carry, even when Jesus was almost thirty years old. Apparently people saw Mary as less than honorable. Mary’s obedience to God in carrying his blessed Son had changed the course of her life (Luke 1:26–38).

The listing of the brothers (probably some of whom had come earlier to try to take Jesus by force in 3:21, 31) indicates that the people knew the family well—the mother, the brothers, the sisters. Apparently they were all ordinary people and Jesus had experienced an ordinary childhood. Thus for Jesus to claim to be someone special (especially with what they considered his less than honorable beginnings) caused them to take offense at his words, meaning they stumbled over them and could not accept them. They were offended that others could be impressed by Jesus and follow him. Their rejection was complete and absolute; he was one of their peers, and their preconceived notions about who he was made it impossible for them to accept his message. Jesus had come to them as a prophet, but they saw only a hometown boy.

Jesus’ brother James later became a believer, a leader in the Jerusalem church (Acts 15:13; Galatians 2:9), and the author of the book of James. Judas may have been Jude, author of the book of Jude. Nothing else is known of the other brothers and sisters.

We never ought to despise others because they are poor. It is disgraceful to be a gambler, or a drunkard, or covetous, or a liar; but it is no disgrace to work with our own hands and earn our own bread by our own labor. The thought of the carpenter’s shop at Nazareth should cast down the high thoughts of all who make an idol of riches. It cannot be dishonorable to occupy the same position as the Son of God and Saviour of the world.

1. C. Ryle^[4]

 

2–3. When Jesus taught in the synagogue at Capernaum the audience was amazed at his teaching and his ability to heal (1:21–28). In 6:2 Mark uses the same word as in 1:22 to describe the amazement in the synagogue at Nazareth. However, the amazement at Capernaum had positive connotations and resulted in Jesus performing many miracles there (1:32–34). The Nazareth crowd was offended. In Capernaum they spoke about his teaching; in Nazareth they spoke about his wisdom. In both places they spoke about his miraculous powers. But in Nazareth they remembered him as the carpenter (τέκτων, tektōn)¹ whose mother, brothers, and sisters they knew.² They were offended at the hometown boy who seemed to them to be claiming too much for himself.

This is the only biblical reference where Jesus is referred to as a carpenter. It is likely that before entering into public ministry, Jesus made His living by following in the vocation of His earthly father (Matthew 13:55). Imagine the beautiful masterpieces crafted by the one Who created the very trees!

Jesus’ words and actions raised many questions from the people. How would a carpenter know these things? They knew Jesus very well. He was the son of Mary. His brothers and sisters probably were among the congregation. They could not believe what was taking place in their synagogue, and they were greatly offended.

The Greek word σκανδαλιζω (scandalidzo), transliterated in this verse as “offended,” gives us our English word scandal. The congregation was scandalized by its perception of Who He was in light of their familiarity with His background. They knew that Mary became pregnant before she was married to Joseph, so to them, Jesus was Mary’s illegitimate son. How dare someone with His background have the audacity to sit in the place of the rabbi! He certainly taught with unusual wisdom, and He was able to do marvelous things. But how dare this illegitimate son try to legitimize Himself as their long-awaited Messiah!^[5]

4. 4. The reality of life Jesus’ proverb expresses has been widely recognized throughout human history.³

6:4  But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own country, among his own relatives, and in his own house.”  Jesus used a common proverb found in rabbinic literature. It is significant that Jesus applied the word prophet to himself, thus specifically claiming to be a prophet. The word refers not to one who foretells future events (although that may be part of a prophet’s ministry), but to one who speaks God’s message. Jesus was not the first prophet to be rejected in his own country. Jeremiah experienced rejection in his hometown, even by members of his own family (Jeremiah 12:5–6). Jesus also experienced rejection by relatives and members in his own house. His family thought he had gone crazy (3:21), and most of them didn’t believe until after his resurrection (John 7:5; Acts 1:14).^[6]

6:4 But Jesus told them, “The only place a prophet isn’t honored is in his hometown, among his relatives, and in his own house.”

Jesus responded to the people’s harsh judgment with a very simple statement. A prophet, especially among the Jewish community, was always revered and respected. They honored a prophet and generally accepted his message. However, in his home territory, a prophet was too well-known. Memories of childhood immaturity were too easily recalled and often hindered acceptance of adulthood significance. In Jesus’ case, His brothers and sisters would have also been profoundly aware of the many comments they had heard about Jesus. They themselves probably considered Him only their half brother. It must have been quite a struggle for them to believe that their mother had not committed adultery prior to her marriage. Could her implausible explanation actually be true? For Jesus, the isolation and accusations of His childhood resurfaced and posed a barrier to His ministry in His own hometown.

6:5 He couldn’t work any miracles there except to lay his hands on a few sick people and cure them.

As a result, Jesus’ message and ministry were rejected. In truth, Jesus Himself was rejected. The congregation could not accept the message or the works if they came from the hands and heart of Mary’s Son. Consequently, Jesus limited His works in Nazareth because of the hardness He recognized in their hearts. No crowds inundated His movements in Nazareth. He addressed only a few needs for healing—very few compared to His work in other Galilean territories.

It would be nice if we could reach into the pages of biblical history and correct the Nazarenes’ misconceptions about Jesus. Instead, we will have to settle for correcting our own hearts when they start to doubt. Did God promise something? Then He will do it. Does He keep His word? Always.^[7]

6:5  He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them.  That Jesus could not do any miracles in Nazareth does not mean a restriction on his power. Rather, Jesus could have done greater miracles in Nazareth, but he chose not to because of the people’s unbelief. In this Gospel, Mark emphasized the power and presence of God revealed only to those with faith. Jesus’ mighty works were meant to further the kingdom of God, not to try to convince a group of stubborn people who had already thoroughly rejected him. To do miracles would be of no value because the people did not accept his message or believe that he was from God. Therefore, Jesus looked elsewhere, seeking those who would respond to his miracles and message. This shows the limitation of simply being a model of faith for others to observe. Jesus was the perfect model, yet others rejected him. We need to verbally proclaim the gospel and, at times, move on to other people and towns.^[8]

5–6. There is quite a contrast between the many miraculous healings and exorcisms Jesus performed after his appearance in the synagogue at Capernaum (1:32–34) and the few healings he performed at Nazareth. The reason Jesus could not do many miracles there was their unbelief. Rather than amazing the citizens of Nazareth with his many miracles, Jesus was himself amazed at their unbelief. Once again Mark stresses the importance of belief.

6:6  And he was amazed at their unbelief.  This statement gives a subtle picture of Jesus’ humanity. As the divine Son of God, Jesus would not be amazed at anything. But as a human being, Jesus went to Nazareth (this second time, see 6:1) probably hoping for a warmer reception than the first time. He had been rejected by the people in Decapolis (5:17), but the unbelief and rejection of his friends and family—people he grew up with, knew, and loved—amazed him. The word for “amazed” is the same word Mark used in 5:20, 12:17, and 15:5 to describe people’s reactions to Jesus’ miracles. The miracles “amazed” the people of Capernaum and Jerusalem; in turn, the stubborn unbelief of the people of Nazareth “amazed” Jesus. This certainly provided a key lesson for the disciples, who would themselves experience rejection as they began their ministries. Jesus left Nazareth this second time, and there is no record that he ever returned. Most people feel that they may have unlimited opportunities to believe, but often there is no second chance.

Jesus was amazed at their unbelief and animosity. He had come to them with the entire body of evidence of His divine authority. He had proved beyond doubt that He was God’s Anointed, but they refused to accept Him.

Therefore, Jesus moved on. He left Nazareth and traveled to the surrounding area, continuing to teach those who would listen. Jesus did not try to convince the congregation of the validity of His ministry. If they could not accept Him on the basis of His mighty work, they would not accept Him. He proceeded instead to teach those who would respond.

Notes/Applications

The thrust of Mark’s gospel account is that Jesus’ actions validated His identity as the Son of God. Mark gives this summary statement in the first verse of the first chapter, yet despite the many actions that proved Jesus was the Son of God, the Lord saw little response from the people in His hometown of Nazareth. This is most likely because the community suspected His mother Mary to be an adulteress.

Before we hastily cast judgment on the unbelieving Nazarenes, let us examine ourselves. What causes doubt to spring up in our hearts? Have we not also witnessed God’s amazing deeds in the lives of friends and loved ones and, perhaps, even in our own? Still, we often pray without truly believing, merely giving lip service to familiar words. Maybe we fret over finances, relationships, and other issues that Jesus commanded us to leave in His hands. “³¹Don’t ever worry and say, ‘What are we going to eat?’ or ‘What are we going to drink?’ or ‘What are we going to wear?’ ³²Everyone is concerned about these things, and your heavenly Father certainly knows you need all of them. ³³But first, be concerned about his kingdom and what has his approval. Then all these things will be provided for you” (Matthew 6:31–33).

1. THE GALILEAN MINISTRY, SECTION THREE (6:6b–8:30)

All of the events in 1:16–3:12 took place in Galilee. The second section of the Galilean ministry (3:13–6:6b) contains one event in the Decapolis (the Gerasene demoniac), but the citizens of Gerasa asked him to leave. The third section of the Galilean ministry contains several events which occur in the surrounding regions in every direction except south. After the mission of the twelve, Jesus apparently seeks out other regions where he can spend more time with them alone, trying to lead them to the correct conclusion concerning his own identity.

1. THE MISSION OF THE TWELVE (6:6b–13)

Then Jesus went around teaching from village to village. ⁷ Calling the Twelve to him, he sent them out two by two and gave them authority over evil^a spirits.

⁸ These were his instructions: “Take nothing for the journey except a staff—no bread, no bag, no money in your belts. ⁹ Wear sandals but not an extra tunic. ¹⁰ Whenever you enter a house, stay there until you leave that town. ¹¹ And if any place will not welcome you or listen to you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave, as a testimony against them.”

¹² They went out and preached that people should repent. ¹³ They drove out many demons and anointed many sick people with oil and healed them.

Like the call of the four fishermen and the selection of the twelve, the sending of the twelve is a convenient dividing point in the Galilean ministry. Each of these represents a significant stage in Jesus’ work with those who would become his chief representatives. When he called the four, he called them to share his mission of fishing for people. When he selected the twelve he named them “apostles” (see notes on 3:14) because he planned to send them out to preach. Now they are ready to begin.

6b. Teaching from village to village was the essence of Jesus’ ministry in Galilee. This verse echoes the previous statements in 1:14 (“Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God”) and 1:38 (“ ‘Let us go somewhere else—to the nearby villages—so I can preach there also. That is why I have come.’ So he traveled throughout Galilee, preaching in their synagogues and driving out demons.”).⁴

The Unbelief of His Enemies (Mark 6:7–29)

When the Lord originally called the 12 Apostles, His purpose was to teach and train them so that they might assist Him and eventually be able to take His place when He returned to the Father (Mark 3:13–15). Before sending them out, He reaffirmed their authority to heal and to cast out demons (Mark 6:7); and He gave them some pointed instructions (see Matt. 10 for a more detailed account of this sermon).

He told them to take what they already owned and not go out and buy special equipment for their itinerant travels. They were not to be loaded down with extra baggage. (You cannot miss the note of urgency in this “commissioning sermon.”) Jesus wanted them to be adequately supplied, but not to the point of ceasing to live by faith. The word bag means “a beggar’s bag.” They were definitely not to beg for either food or money.

As they ministered from place to place, they would encounter both hospitality and hostility, both friends and enemies. He cautioned them to stay at one house in each community and not to “pick and choose” when it came to their food and accommodations. After all, they were there to be profitable servants, not pampered guests. If a house or a village did not receive them, they had His permission to declare God’s judgment on those people. It was customary for the Jews to shake the dust off their feet whenever they left Gentile territory, but for Jews to do this to their fellow Jews would be something new (Luke 10:10–11; Acts 13:51).

The word translated “send” in Mark 6:7 is apostello in the Greek and gives us our English word apostle. It means “to send someone with a special commission to represent another and to accomplish his work.” Jesus gave these twelve men both the apostolic authority and the divine ability to do the job He sent them to do. They were not “on their own”; they represented Him in all that they did and said.

We noted before (Mark 3:16–19) that a comparison of the lists of the Apostles’ names reveals that the names are given in several pairs: Peter and Andrew, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew, etc. Jesus sent them out in pairs because it is always easier and safer for servants to travel and work together. “Two are better than one” (Ecc. 4:9), and the Law, as previously observed, required two witnesses to verify a matter (Deut. 17:6; 19:15; 2 Cor. 13:1). They would not only help each other; they would also learn from each other.

The men went out and did what Jesus told them to do. It is remarkable that a band of ordinary men could go out in this way to represent Almighty God, and that they could demonstrate their authority by performing miracles. God’s commandments always include His enablements (2 Cor. 3:5–6). They proclaimed the Good News of the kingdom, called on sinners to repent, and healed many who were sick (Mark 6:12–13; Luke 9:6).

The reports of Christ’s ministry, augmented by that of His disciples (Luke 9:7), even reached into the palace of Herod Antipas. Mark called Him “King,” which is what Herod wanted to be called; but in reality, godless Herod was only a tetrarch, the ruler of a fourth part of the nation. When Herod the Great died, the Romans divided his territory among his three sons; and Antipas was made tetrarch of Perea and Galilee.

Herod Antipas had married the daughter of King Aretas IV and then had divorced her so he could marry Herodias, the wife of his half brother, Herod Philip. It was a wicked alliance that was contrary to the Law of Moses (Lev. 18:16; 20:21), and the fearless John the Baptist had denounced the king for his sins. When Herod heard about the wonderful works of Jesus, he was sure that John the Baptist had come back from the dead to haunt him and condemn him! Herod’s conscience was bothering him, but he was unwilling to face his sins honestly and repent.

At this point, Mark shifted into a flashback to explain how John the Baptist had been cruelly and unjustly arrested and slain. Even in this brief account, we sense the tension in the palace, for Herod feared John, privately listened to him preach, and was in a state of perplexity over what he should do. “Queen” Herodias, on the other hand, hated John, wanted to kill him, and patiently waited for the most convenient time. In their evil character and lawless deeds, these two remind us of Ahab and Jezebel (1 Kings 18–21).

The “strategic day” came (Mark 6:21, ) for Herodias to put her plan into action: the celebration of Herod’s birthday. Royal feasts were extravagant both in their display of wealth and in their provision for pleasure. The Jews would not have permitted a woman to dance before a group of men, and most Gentile mothers would have forbidden a daughter to do what the daughter of Herodias did. (History informs us that the girl’s name was Salome.) But the girl was a part of the mother’s plan to get rid of John the Baptist, and Salome played her part well.

When Herod heard the girl’s macabre request, he was “greatly distressed” (see Mark 14:34, where the same verb is used of Jesus); but he had to be true to his promise or lose face before a group of influential people. The word oath in Mark 6:26 is actually in the plural—“for his many oaths’ sake”—because Herod had repeatedly declared his desire to reward the girl for her performance. This was one way he had of impressing his guests, but it backfired. Herod had not been courageous enough to obey John’s word, but now he had to obey his own word! The result was the death of an innocent man.

It is remarkable that there is no evidence that any of the Jewish leaders did anything to rescue John the Baptist after he had been arrested. The common people considered John a prophet sent from God, but the religious leaders did not obey John’s message (Mark 11:27–33). John’s death was the first of three notable violent deaths in the history of Israel. The other two are the crucifixion of Christ and the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7). For the significance of these events, review the comments on Mark 3:22–30. Herod had feared that John’s messages would stir up a revolt among the people, something he wanted to avoid. Also, he wanted to please his wife, even though it meant the murdering of a godly man. John’s disciples were permitted to take the body of their leader and bury it, and then they went to tell Jesus what had happened (Matt. 14:12). No doubt the report of John’s death deeply stirred our Lord, for He knew that one day His own life would be laid down.

We meet Herod Antipas one more time in the Gospels, when he “tried” Jesus and hoped to see the Lord perform a miracle (Luke 23:6–12). Jesus would not even speak to this adulterer and murderer, let alone please him by doing a miracle! Jesus called Herod a “fox” (Luke 13:31–35), an apt description of this crafty man. In a.d. 39, Herod Agrippa (Acts 12:1), nephew of Herod Antipas, denounced his uncle to the Roman emperor, and Antipas was deposed and sent into exile. “For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” (Mark 8:36)

7. 7. The twelve shared not only in Jesus’ teaching ministry, but also in healing and exorcism. Like their message, their authority over the unclean spirits came from Jesus. They would extend both Jesus’ teaching and healing ministries. The use of pairs in mission work is reflected later in Acts (e.g., 13:1–3). “The background may lie in Jewish legal practice where two witnesses established the evidence (Deut 17:6; 19:15; cf. Matt 18:16; John 8:17; 2 Cor 13:1; 1 Tim 5:19), but it also may reflect the travel conditions and the need for personal and moral support.”⁵

8–9. The disciples were not allowed to take food, money, or a change of clothing. Perhaps the reason for these prohibitions was that the twelve were to depend upon God to provide the needs for their journey.⁶

We will understand all the references in this passage better if we have in our minds a picture of what the Jew in Palestine in the time of Jesus ordinarily wore. He had five articles of dress.

(i) The innermost garment was the chitōn, or sindōn, or tunic. It was very simple. It was simply a long piece of cloth folded over and sewn down one side. It was long enough to reach almost to the feet. Holes were cut in the top corners for the arms. Such garments were commonly sold without any hole for the head to go through. That was to prove that the garment was in fact new, and it was to allow the buyer to arrange the neck-line as he or she wished. For instance, the neckline was different for men and women. It had to be lower in the case of women so that a mother could suckle her baby. At its simplest, this inner garment was little more than a sack with holes cut in the corners. In a more developed form it had long close-fitting sleeves; and sometimes it was opened up so that it was made to button down the front like a cassock.

(ii) The outer garment was called the himation. It was used as a cloak by day and as a blanket by night. It was composed of a piece of cloth seven feet from left to right and four and a half feet from top to bottom. One and a half feet at each side was folded in and in the top corner of the folded part holes were cut for the arms to go through. It was therefore almost square. Usually it was made of two strips of cloth, each seven feet by a little more than two feet, sewn together. The seam came down the back. But a specially carefully made himation might be woven of one piece, as Jesus’ robe was (John 19:23). This was the main article of dress.

(iii) There was the girdle. It was worn over the two garments we have already described. The skirts of the tunic could be hitched up under the girdle for work or for running. Sometimes the tunic was hitched above the girdle, and in the hollow place so made above the girdle a parcel or a package could be carried. The girdle was often double for the eighteen inches from each end. The double part formed a pocket in which money was carried.

(iv) There was the head-dress. It was a piece of cotton or linen about a yard square. It could be white, or blue, or black. sometimes it was made of coloured silk. It was folded diagonally and then placed on the head so that it protected the back of the neck, the cheek-bones, and the eyes from the heat and glare of the sun. It was held in place by a circlet of easily stretched, semi-elastic wool round the head.

(v) There were the sandals. They were merely flat soles of leather, wood or matted grass. The soles had thongs at the edges through which a strap passed to hold the sandal on to the foot.

The wallet may be one of two things.

(a) It may be the ordinary travellers’ bag. This was made of a kid’s skin. Often the animal was skinned whole and the skin retained the original shape of the animal, legs, tail, head and all! It had a strap at each side and was slung over the shoulder. In it the shepherd, or pilgrim, or traveller carried bread and raisins, and olives, and cheese enough to last him for a day or two.

(b) There is a very interesting suggestion. The Greek word is pera; and it can mean a collecting-bag. Very often the priests and devotees went out with these bags to collect contributions for their temple and their god. They have been described as “pious robbers with their booty growing from village to village.” There is an inscription in which a man who calls himself a slave of the Syrian goddess says that he brought in seventy bags full each journey for his lady.

If the first meaning is taken, Jesus meant that his disciples must take no supplies for the road, but must trust God for everything. If the second meaning is taken, it means that they must not be like the rapacious priests. They must go about giving and not getting.

There are two other interesting things here.

(i) It was the Rabbinic law that when a man entered the Temple courts he must put off his staff and shoes and money girdle. All ordinary things were to be set aside on entering the sacred place. It may well be that Jesus was thinking of this, and that he meant his men to see that the humble homes they were to enter were every bit as sacred as the Temple courts.

(ii) Hospitality was a sacred duty in the East. When a stranger entered a village, it was not his duty to search for hospitality; it was the duty of the village to offer it. Jesus told his disciples that if hospitality was refused, and if doors and ears were shut, they must shake off the dust of that place from their feet when they left. The Rabbinic law said that the dust of a Gentile country was defiled, and that when a man entered Palestine from another country he must shake off every particle of dust of the unclean land. It was a pictorial formal denial that a Jew could have any fellowship even with the dust of a heathen land. It is as if Jesus said, “If they refuse to listen to you, the only thing you can do is to treat them as a rigid Jew would treat a Gentile house. There can be no fellowship between them and you.”

So we can see that the mark of the Christian disciple was to be utter simplicity, complete trust, and the generosity which is out always to give and never to demand.^[9]

6:10    “Wherever you enter a house, stay there until you leave the place.”  That a pair of disciples would enter a house meant that they had found a “worthy person” (Matthew 10:11)—a believer—and would either request or be invited to lodge in that person’s home. Then Jesus commanded that they stay there until they left the city to move on. They were not to offend their hosts by looking for “better” lodging in a home that was more comfortable or socially prominent. To remain in one home would not be a burden for the home owner because the disciples’ stay in each community would be short.

In a nutshell, Jesus instructed the disciples to depend on others while they went from town to town preaching the gospel. Their purpose was to blanket Judea with Jesus’ message, and by traveling light they could move quickly. Their dependence on others had other good effects: (1) It clearly showed that the Messiah had not come to offer wealth to his followers; (2) it forced the disciples to rely on God’s power and not on their own provision; and (3) it involved the villagers and made them more eager to hear the message. Staying in homes was an excellent approach for the disciples’ short-term mission; it was not intended, however, to be a permanent way of life for them. Yet the faith and simplicity that this way of life portrayed would serve them well in the future.^[10]

10–11. The primary means by which God would provide for the twelve in their traveling was through the hospitality of individuals in various places. The exhortation to stay in any house they enter until they leave the area was perhaps designed to oppose moving up to finer quarters if offered by another supporter.⁷ On the other hand, in some places they would not be welcome at all. As they leave they should shake off the dust of their feet as a witness against that location. This was a symbolic act of separation and condemnation.⁸ Luke 10:5 provides the accompanying explanation to be given by the missionaries: “Even the dust of your town that sticks to our feet we wipe off against you.”

Jesus then outlined the spirit in which to conduct this ministry. Apparently, when the disciples entered a city, they were to follow Jesus’ example—to preach, to heal, and to cast out demons. Jesus knew that their ministries would not attract everyone. He Himself had just experienced personal rejection in His own hometown of Nazareth.

Therefore, Jesus instructed His disciples to perform the task of the ministry and not to be concerned about the reception of their efforts. If received, they should rejoice and accept the hospitality. If not received, they should “leave and shake the dust from your feet as a warning to them.” In the Jewish culture of that day, it was customary for a Jew to shake the dust off his feet when leaving pagan territories to preserve and maintain the purity of his Jewish culture.² This was a symbolic gesture that reminded the Jew of his unique heritage and that he was one of God’s chosen. It was also a sign that the pagan did not participate in the Jewish tradition. Jesus now used this cultural custom against the Jewish people. This expression would symbolize that the disciples were Jesus’ chosen. If they were not accepted, those who rejected them would never be members of God’s chosen people. Their Jewish race would not be enough; they would not be chosen by the Son of God Himself, Jesus the Christ.

Rejection of His chosen delegates was rejection of Jesus. There is nothing more that God offers humankind than to send His only Son with an urgent call to repent.^[11]

6:11    “If any place will not welcome you and they refuse to hear you, as you leave, shake off the dust that is on your feet as a testimony against them.”  The disciples should also expect rejection, such as Jesus had faced in Decapolis (5:17) and in Nazareth (6:3). So Jesus further instructed that if any place did not welcome them (that is, take them in and offer hospitality) and refused even to hear them, then they should shake off the dust on their feet as they left.

Shaking off dust that accumulated on one’s sandals showed extreme contempt for an area and its people, as well as the determination not to have any further involvement with them. Pious Jews shook dust from their feet after passing through Gentile cities or territory to show their separation from Gentile influences and practices. When the disciples shook the dust from their feet after leaving a Jewish town, it would be a vivid sign that they wished to remain separate from people who had rejected Jesus and his message and say that the Jews in that place had acted like “Gentiles” or pagans.

Shaking off the dust of a place, Jesus said, would be a testimony against them (see also 1:44). Its implications were clear and had eternal consequences. The act showed the people that the disciples had discharged their duty, had nothing further to say, and would leave the people to answer to God. By this statement, Jesus made it clear that the listeners were responsible for what they did with the gospel. The disciples were not to blame if the message was rejected, as long as they had faithfully and carefully presented it. Likewise, we are not responsible when others reject Christ’s message of salvation, but we do have the responsibility to share the gospel clearly and faithfully.^[12]

12–13. The ministry of the twelve is portrayed as parallel to the ministry of Jesus. Like him they preach repentance and they heal the sick and cast out demons.

In interpreting the disciples’ use of anointing with oil it would be unwise to overlook the common use of oil as a medical potion in antiquity.⁹ Nonetheless, the context makes it clear that the healings brought about by the disciples were miraculous in nature. The oil may have been viewed both as a symbol of God’s healing power and as a medical potion.¹⁰ The widespread recognition of oil’s medicinal value may have suggested its usefulness as a symbol in connection with miraculous healings. In both respects there may be a parallel in Jesus’ use of spittle in Mark 7:33 and 8:23.

Here in brief summary is an account of the work that the Twelve did when Jesus sent them out.

(i) To the people they brought Jesus’ message. The word used is literally that used for a herald’s proclamation. When the apostles went out to preach to men, they did not create a message; they brought a message. they did not tell people what they believed and what they considered probable; they told people what Jesus had told them. It was not their opinions they brought to men; it was God’s truth. The message of the prophets always began, “Thus saith the Lord.” The man who would bring an effective message to others must first receive it from God.

(ii) To the people they brought the King’s Message; and the King’s message was, “Repent!” Clearly that was a disturbing message. To repent means to change one’s mind and then to fit one’s actions to this change. Repentance means a change of heart and a change of action. It is bound to hurt, for it involves the bitter realization that the way we were following is wrong. It is bound to disturb, because it means a complete reversal of life.

That is precisely why so few people do repent—for the last thing most people desire is to be disturbed. Lady Asquith, in a vivid phrase, speaks of people who “dawdle towards death.” So many people do that, they resent all strenuous activity. Life for them is “a land where it is always afternoon.” In some ways the positive, vivid, swashbuckling sinner who is crashing his way to some self-chosen goal is a more attractive person than the negative, nebulous, loiterer who drifts spinelessly and without direction through life.

There is a passage in the novel Quo Vadis? Vinicius, the young Roman, has fallen in love with a girl who is a Christian. Because he is not a Christian she will have nothing to do with him. He follows her to the secret night gathering of the little group of Christians, and there, unknown to anyone, he listens to the service. He hears Peter preach, and, as he listens, something happens to him.” He felt that if he wished to follow that teaching, he would have to place on a burning pile all his thoughts, habits and character, his whole nature up to that moment, burn them into ashes and then fill himself with a life altogether different, and an entirely new soul.”

That is repentance. But what if a man has no other desire than to be left alone? The change is not necessarily from robbery, theft, murder, adultery and glaring sins. The change may be from a life that is completely selfish, instinctively demanding, totally inconsiderate, the change from a self-centred to a God-centred life—and a change like that hurts. W. M. Macgregor quotes a saying of the Bishop in Les Miserables. “I always bothered some of them; for through me the outside air came at them; my presence in their company made them feel as if a door had been left open and they were in a draught.” Repentance is no sentimental feeling sorry; repentance is a revolutionary thing—that is why so few repent.

(iii) To the people they brought the King’s mercy. Not only did they bring this shattering demand upon men; they brought also help and healing. They brought liberation to poor, demon-possessed men and women. From the beginning Christianity has aimed to bring health to body and to soul; it has always aimed not only at soul salvation, but at whole salvation. It brought not only a hand to life from moral wreckage, but a hand to lift from physical pain and suffering. It is most suggestive that they anointed with oil. In the ancient world oil was regarded as a panacea. Galen, the great Greek doctor, said, “Oil is the best of all instruments for healing diseased bodies.” In the hands of the servants of Christ the old cures acquired a new virtue. the strange thing is that they used the things which men’s limited knowledge knew at that time; but the spirit of Christ gave the healer a new power and the old cure a new virtue. the power of God became available in common things to the faith of men.

So the Twelve brought to men the message and the mercy of the King, and that remains the church’s task to-day and every day.^[13]

6:13    And they cast out many demons, and anointed with oil many who were sick, and healed them.  Jesus gave his disciples authority to cast out demons (3:15), as well as the power to heal the sick. Casting out demons extended Jesus’ personal ministry, which was to confront Satan’s power and destroy it. As the disciples went throughout Galilee, they would be announcing the arrival of the kingdom of God through their preaching and healing. If they had only preached, people might have thought the kingdom was only spiritual. On the other hand, if the disciples had only been given the power to cast out demons and heal the sick, without preaching, people might not have realized the spiritual importance of their mission. Most of their listeners expected the arrival of God’s kingdom and the Messiah to bring wealth and power to their nation; they preferred material benefits to spiritual discernment. But the truth about Jesus is that he is both God and man, both spiritual and physical; and the salvation that he offers is both for the soul and the body. Any group or teaching that emphasizes soul at the expense of body, or body at the expense of soul, is in danger of distorting Jesus’ Good News.

Of all the Gospel writers, Mark alone included the words anointed with oil in writing of the disciples’ healing ministry. This “oil” was olive oil, used often at that time as treatment (both internally and externally) for many illnesses. Medicines were few in those days, and olive oil had proven to have exceptional qualities. The “anointing with oil” done by the disciples is explained further in James 5:14, where James instructed, “Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord” (). For all its medicinal uses, the oil did not accomplish the healings; rather, it was the spiritual anointing and praying of the disciples on behalf of the sick person. However, God could use the medicine to heal many who were sick.^[14]

Notes/Applications

So many principles can be gleaned from this account of the disciples’ ministry. We earnestly seek formulas to apply to our lives and churches, but we need to exercise caution in this endeavor. God’s pattern for one circumstance and for one group of people may not be His chosen pattern for all situations. God engineers a distinct blueprint for each of our ministries, and those plans will almost certainly be carried out in different ways.

If we distill the message of this passage down to one phrase, it is that God provides for His own. A second, ancillary message is that we need not worry about the details, which is, of course, exactly what our human nature does. We fret over this decision and that one, where our next mortgage payment will come from, whether we should take that new job in a distant city, whom we should marry, and so forth.

²⁵So I tell you to stop worrying about what you will eat, drink, or wear. Isn’t life more than food and the body more than clothes?

²⁶Look at the birds. They don’t plant, harvest, or gather the harvest into barns. Yet, your heavenly Father feeds them. Aren’t you worth more than they?

²⁷Can any of you add a single hour to your life by worrying? (Matthew 6:25–27)

Though we are not told, surely similar doubts reared in the minds of the disciples. We can almost hear them: Take only a staff? Is He joking? But, whatever their initial reaction, the disciples did as their Master bid them, and God blessed their ministry.

Whatever we struggle with today, the best course of action is simply to submit it to God. “Turn all your anxiety over to God because he cares for you” (1 Peter 5:7). We are to literally heave our burdens off of our shoulders onto another—the Son of God. Jesus used a similar metaphor when He told the crowd, “²⁸Come to me, all who are tired from carrying heavy loads, and I will give you rest. ²⁹Place my yoke over your shoulders, and learn from me, because I am gentle and humble. Then you will find rest for yourselves ³⁰because my yoke is easy and my burden is light” (Matthew 11:28–30).

As we trust our futures to God, He assures us that we can find rest in Him. Our call of allegiance is to go, relinquishing our earthly concerns and letting Him handle the details.^[15]

1. HEROD HEARS ABOUT JESUS (6:14–16)

¹⁴ King Herod heard about this, for Jesus’ name had become well known. Some were saying,^a “John the Baptist has been raised from the dead, and that is why miraculous powers are at work in him.”

¹⁵ Others said, “He is Elijah.”

And still others claimed, “He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of long ago.”

¹⁶ But when Herod heard this, he said, “John, the man I beheaded, has been raised from the dead!”

Most of the narrative of Jesus’ ministry has been told under the cloud of John’s imprisonment. It was mentioned in 1:14 when Jesus began his public ministry. As such, 6:17–29 is a flashback. As told in the previous section, Jesus sent out his disciples to carry out ministry on their own. Their mission may have been short in duration, but it was a great success. This development provided Mark with a place to tell how John the Baptist died.

People were trying to explain Jesus’ success. They were not ready to acknowledge him as the Son of God, but they were willing to call him a new prophet or an old prophet like Elijah returned from the past. Some, like King Herod, were convinced that Jesus must be John the Baptist come back to life. Apparently, Herod was suffering pangs of guilt after ordering John’s murder. He had gone along with his wife Herodias’s scheme to take revenge on the irritating preacher by ordering him to be beheaded.

Told side by side, the success of the apostolic mission and the result of John’s mission present a sobering lesson to those who obey God’s calling: Sometimes discipleship means death. John, Jesus, and almost every one of the disciples backed up the truth of their ministry with their lives.^[16]

Although less clearly so than 3:20–35 and 5:21–43, 6:6b–44 could be considered one of the sandwich sections in Mark. The sending of the twelve can be considered a complete story by itself, but to some extent it is continued in 6:30 when the twelve return from their mission and begin to tell Jesus about it. Between the sending of the twelve and their return Mark reports concerning Herod hearing about Jesus, which leads him to describe the death of John the Baptist (since Herod’s own opinion is that Jesus might be John raised from the dead). Some connect the sandwiched material thematically, noting that there is a sense in which John the Baptist’s encounter with and persecution by Herod foreshadow both the experiences of Jesus and the twelve (cf. 13:9–13) with respect to governing authorities.

Herod Antipas, son of Herod the Great, was born in 20 b.c.¹¹ He ruled Galilee and Perea from 4 b.c. (the date of his father’s death) to a.d. 39. He was never officially designated “king” by the Romans. However, he was one of the tetrarchs who ruled over a part of the former kingdom of his father and Mark’s reference to him as “king” reflects popular, unofficial usage.¹² During Jesus’ childhood and early manhood Antipas ruled from Sepphoris, a city only a few miles from Nazareth. During the ministries of John the Baptist and Jesus he ruled from Tiberias on the shores of Galilee, a city he founded and named after the emperor Tiberius.

14–15. Already Jesus’ fame had spread far and wide. He was not just “the talk of the town” but “the talk of the land.” Even King Herod was aware of Jesus because His “name had become well-known.” Herod Antipas was the son of Herod the Great, who destroyed all of the male children two years of age or younger in the area of Bethlehem in a vain attempt to eliminate the possibility of a Jewish king coming to the throne.³ He heard of one born “King of the Jews” through the wise men of the East, who had followed the star to Bethlehem and found Jesus nearly thirty years earlier (Matthew 2:2). Now, his son, Herod Antipas, occupied the throne and ruled as king with the approval of Rome. In reality, Herod Antipas was tetrarch of Galilee.⁴ He was a Jew that served at the pleasure of Rome. Being a loyal puppet king made him phenomenally wealthy and powerful compared to his countrymen, who detested him for his allegiance to Rome.

Because of Jesus’ reputation, some people, including Herod, surmised that Jesus was John the Baptizer risen from the dead.^[17]

Mark continues to provide various reactions to Jesus and assessments of him by friend and foe. The three assessments provided in these verses apparently come from those who considered it possible that Jesus was not a false teacher, an ally of Satan, or a lunatic, but was perhaps a prophetic man of God. Only those who, like Herod, believed that John was “a righteous and holy man” would conclude that Jesus might be John raised from the dead. Since there is no reference to John working any miracles they apparently concluded that the miraculous powers were given to him in his resurrected state.

Mal 4:5–6 created a widespread expectation that Elijah would return in the last days (see Mark 9:11; John 1:21).¹³ Jesus’ miraculous powers could easily be associated with the miracles of Elijah the Tishbite. Of course, Jesus himself considered John the Baptist to be Elijah (cf. Mark 9:13).

Moses had predicted in Deut 18:17–20 that God would raise up a prophet like himself to lead the people. It was a natural conclusion for many that Jesus was a prophet like the ancient prophets of Israel.

In typical Jewish fashion, there arose much conjecture as to the identity of this new prophet. Some thought He might be Elijah, an extraordinarily powerful prophet who never saw death but was taken by a whirlwind to heaven. Others thought Jesus might be the prophet promised in Deuteronomy. This prophet was to stand above all the prophets, one through whom God would speak directly: “So I will send them a prophet, an Israelite like you. I will put my words in his mouth. He will tell them everything I command him” (Deuteronomy 18:18). Some had previously asked John the Baptizer, “Are you the prophet?” (John 1:21). Jewish believers knew this prophet would be very special, but they did not necessarily know He would be the Messiah.

Others simply thought that Jesus resembled one of the prophets. He certainly behaved like a prophet. His message was apocalyptic when He cried to the crowds to repent. He taught the people with prophet-like authority. The people were amazed at His teaching. There were all those remarkable reports of many being healed, of many being freed from domination by demons, and even of some being brought back to life.^[18]

By this time news of Jesus had penetrated all over the country. The tale had reached the ears of Herod. The reason why he had not up to this time heard of Jesus may well be due to the fact that his official residence in Galilee was in Tiberias. Tiberias was largely a Gentile city, and, as far as we know, Jesus never set foot in it. But the mission of the Twelve had taken Jesus’ fame all over Galilee, so that his name was upon every lip. In this passage we have three verdicts upon Jesus.

(i) There is the verdict of a guilty conscience. Herod had been guilty of allowing the execution of John the Baptizer, and now he was haunted by what he had done. Whenever a man does an evil thing, the whole world becomes his enemy. Inwardly, he cannot command his thoughts; and, whenever he allows himself to think, his thoughts return to the wicked thing that he has done. No man can avoid living with himself; and when his inward self is an accusing self, life becomes intolerable. Outwardly, he lives in the fear that he will be found out and that some day the consequences of his evil deed will catch up on him.

Some time ago a convict escaped from a Glasgow prison. After forty-eight hours of liberty he was recaptured, cold and hungry and exhausted. He said that it was not worth it. “I didn’t have a minute,” he said. “Hunted, hunted all the time. You don’t have a chance. You can’t stop to eat. You can’t stop to sleep.”

Hunted—that is the word which so well describes the life of the man who has done some evil thing. When Herod heard of Jesus, the first thing that flashed into his mind was that this was John the Baptizer whom he had killed, come back to reckon with him. Because the sinning life is the haunted life, sin is never worth the cost.

(ii) There is the verdict of the nationalist. Some thought that this Jesus was Elijah come again. The Jews waited for the Messiah. There were many ideas about the Messiah, but the commonest of all was that he would be a conquering king who would first give the Jews back their liberty and who would then lead them on a triumphant campaign throughout the world. It was an essential part of that belief that, before the coming of the Messiah, Elijah, the greatest of the prophets, would come again to be his herald and his forerunner. Even to this day, when the Jews celebrate the Passover Feast, they leave at the table an empty chair called Elijah’s chair. They place it there with a glass of wine before it, and at one part of their service they go to the door and fling it wide open that Elijah may come in and bring at last the long-awaited news that the Messiah has come.

This is the verdict of the man who desires to find in Jesus the realization of his own ambitions. He thinks of Jesus, not as someone to whom he must submit and whom he must obey; he thinks of Jesus as someone he can use. Such a man thinks more of his own ambitions than of the will of God.

(iii) There is the verdict of the man who is waiting for the voice of God. There were those who saw in Jesus a prophet. In those days the Jews were pathetically conscious that for three hundred years the voice of prophecy had been silent. They had listened to the arguments and the legal disputations of the Rabbis; they had listened to the moral lectures of the synagogue; but it was three long centuries since they had listened to a voice which proclaimed, “Thus saith the Lord.” Men in those days were listening for the authentic voice of God—and in Jesus they heard it. It is true that Jesus was more than a prophet. He did not bring only the voice of God. He brought to  led Antipas to seriously consider the possibility that John had been raised from the dead. It is also possible that Herod made this statement with a note of irony or mockery.¹⁴

6:14    King Herod heard about this, for Jesus’ name had become well known.  The narrative about the disciples’ preaching tour of Galilee continues at 6:30, having been interrupted with several verses telling the story of John the Baptist’s death. The expanded ministry of the gospel by the disciples brought Jesus, who had become well known, to the attention of King Herod, ruler over the territories of Galilee and Perea. In 4 b.c. Herod had been named tetrarch—one of four rulers over the four districts of Palestine. He was the son of Herod the Great, who had ordered the killing of the babies in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:16). Also known as Herod Antipas, he heard Jesus’ case before Jesus’ crucifixion (Luke 23:6–12). The history of the Herod family is filled with lies, murder, treachery, and adultery. They were evil. Herod Antipas was known for his insensitivity and debauchery. Though he was popular with his Roman superiors, his unbridled political ambitions eventually led to his exile in a.d. 39 by the Roman emperor Caligula, who removed him on the basis of charges by his nephew (Herod Agrippa I) who ruled Galilee after Herod Antipas. While Herod Antipas was not officially a “king,” Mark used the title for his Roman audience. The Romans applied the title to all eastern rulers. Some scholars think that Mark used the title to reflect Herod’s self-importance and vanity.

John the Baptist was last mentioned in 1:14; John had been arrested just prior to Jesus beginning his public ministry. The arrest marked the end of John’s public ministry. He was imprisoned for some time prior to his death (see Matthew 11:2–6). At this point, the reader is to understand that John the Baptist had died at Herod’s hands. (Mark will record the story in detail.)

 Some were saying, “John the Baptist has been raised from the dead, and that is why miraculous powers are at work in him.”  The people, still trying to figure out where Jesus’ miraculous powers came from (like those in Nazareth, 6:2), had three main explanations. First, perhaps he was John the Baptist who had been raised from the dead. Oddly enough, John had done no miracles; he had simply preached and prepared the way for Jesus. Apparently the people were willing to believe that John had died and had arisen and thus was in touch with unseen powers enabling him to perform miracles. However, they could not see Jesus for who he was (the Messiah) and his miracles for what they were (heavenly evidence of God’s kingdom).

The some who were saying that this was a risen John the Baptist included King Herod, who said with certainty, “This is John, whom I beheaded; he has been raised from the dead!” (6:16 ). While Herod had succeeded in silencing John, he had not succeeded in silencing his own guilty conscience. When news of Jesus reached the palace, Herod thought that John had come back to trouble him some more. Thus began Herod’s great interest in Jesus and his long-standing desire to see him perform a miracle (Luke 23:8).

6:15    But others said, “It is Elijah.” And others said, “It is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old.”  Second, others who were familiar with the Old Testament thought Jesus was Elijah, the great prophet who did not die but was taken to heaven in a chariot of fire (2 Kings 2:1–11). They applied the prophecy of Elijah’s return in Malachi 4:5 to Jesus. But they should have applied the prophecy to John, then they would have realized Jesus’ identity. Later Jesus explained to his disciples that John had fulfilled Malachi’s prophecy (Mark 9:13).

Third, still others believed that Jesus was a prophet, like one of the prophets of old, someone in the tradition of Moses, Isaiah, or Jeremiah. While John the Baptist had been widely regarded as a prophet (and the first prophet to the nation in over four hundred years), the people refused to hear what John had to say about the one who would follow him (1:7–8) and instead regarded this “one” as just another prophet. Obviously, they didn’t even listen to those they regarded as prophets—a problem Israel had throughout its history.

It was so difficult for the people to accept Jesus as the Son of God that they tried to come up with other solutions—most of which sound quite unbelievable to us. Very few found the correct answer, as Peter did (Luke 9:20). Many people today still cannot accept Jesus as the fully human yet fully divine Son of God, and they look for alternate explanations—a great prophet, a radical political leader, a self-deceived rabble-rouser. None of these explanations can account for Jesus’ miracles or, especially, for his glorious resurrection; so these realities have to be rationalized. In the end, the attempts to explain away Jesus are far more difficult to believe than the truth.^[19]

6:16    But when Herod heard, he said, “This is John, whom I beheaded; he has been raised from the dead!”  Herod’s guilty conscience screamed the most obvious answer. Upon hearing about Jesus, Herod was certain that John, whom he had beheaded, had been raised from the dead. The readers had the first explanation of what happened to John. He had died, they knew from 6:14; but here they read that he had died by beheading. Mark hinted of Herod’s incredible guilt over having ordered the beheading in recording Herod’s words, “whom I beheaded” (these words actually appear at the beginning of the sentence, in an emphatic position). The “I” is also emphatic. Herod was placing the guilt of John’s gruesome death on himself.

Some of Mark’s readers might still wonder how that could have come about; Mark will fill in the details in a flashback sequence in the following verses.

6:17    For Herod himself had given orders to have John arrested, and he had him bound and put in prison. He did this because of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, whom he had married.  Herod’s personal guilt was well placed, for he had ordered John to be arrested. Again the readers might ask, “Why? What could John have possibly done to cause him to be arrested?” While Mark’s Roman readers would have pondered that question, modern-day readers would be even more perplexed. But we must understand law and order in ancient days. Kings had absolute sway; if the king wanted someone arrested, the arrest was carried out by the king’s guards—no questions asked. Herod, empowered by Rome over the region of Galilee, simply had given the orders and John had been arrested … bound and put in prison. The Jewish historian Josephus pinpointed this prison as Machaerus, a fortress (combination palace and prison) near the barren northeastern shore of the Dead Sea in the region of Moab.

Why was John treated so harshly? Herod had to put John away because of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, whom he had married. Apparently Mark’s Roman readers knew enough about the Herod family to need no further information. But we would do well to try to grasp exactly what Mark meant by this sentence. Philip was Herod’s half brother and another of Palestine’s four rulers. His territories were Iturea and Traconitis, northeast of the Sea of Galilee (Luke 3:1). Herodias was the daughter of Aristobulus, another half brother. Thus Herodias was a half niece to both Philip and Herod (and they, in turn, were her half uncles). Herodias married her half uncle Philip and then divorced him to marry another half uncle, Herod. (Herod, meanwhile, had divorced his first wife.) Thus, in marrying, Herodias and Herod had committed adultery, as well as a type of incest. John the Baptist condemned Herod and Herodias for living immorally (6:18). Rebuking a tyrannical Roman official who could imprison and execute him was extremely dangerous, yet that is what John did.^[20]

1. HEROD HAS JOHN BEHEADED (6:17–29)

¹⁷ For Herod himself had given orders to have John arrested, and he had him bound and put in prison. He did this because of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, whom he had married. ¹⁸ For John had been saying to Herod, “It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife.” ¹⁹ So Herodias nursed a grudge against John and wanted to kill him. But she was not able to, ²⁰ because Herod feared John and protected him, knowing him to be a righteous and holy man. When Herod heard John, he was greatly puzzled^a; yet he liked to listen to him.

²¹ Finally the opportune time came. On his birthday Herod gave a banquet for his high officials and military commanders and the leading men of Galilee. ²² When the daughter of Herodias came in and danced, she pleased Herod and his dinner guests.

The king said to the girl, “Ask me for anything you want, and I’ll give it to you.” ²³ And he promised her with an oath, “Whatever you ask I will give you, up to half my kingdom.”

²⁴ She went out and said to her mother, “What shall I ask for?”

“The head of John the Baptist,” she answered.

²⁵ At once the girl hurried in to the king with the request: “I want you to give me right now the head of John the Baptist on a platter.”

²⁶ The king was greatly distressed, but because of his oaths and his dinner guests, he did not want to refuse her. ²⁷ So he immediately sent an executioner with orders to bring John’s head. The man went, beheaded John in the prison, ²⁸ and brought back his head on a platter. He presented it to the girl, and she gave it to her mother. ²⁹ On hearing of this, John’s disciples came and took his body and laid it in a tomb.

Mark now explains what Herod meant when he referred to “John, the man I beheaded.” This is the only incident in Mark that does not mention Jesus. However, it is tied to the speculation that Jesus was John raised from the dead. Mark may also have seen this story as a precursor of Jesus’ death.¹⁵ Both men died by the order of Roman rulers who were reluctant to have them executed. John’s death may also be viewed as a precursor of the fate of Jesus’ disciples (cf. 13:9–13), especially if this story is viewed as sandwiched by the story of the mission of the twelve (see the introductory remarks on 6:14–16).¹⁶

The Jewish historian Josephus (c. a.d. 37–120) also commented on Antipas’s marriage to Herodias and on his execution of John. According to Josephus, Antipas had been married to his first wife for a long time when he fell in love with Herodias, his half-brother’s wife (and Antipas’ own niece).¹⁷ He “brazenly broached to [Herodias] the subject of marriage,” and she accepted on the condition that he divorce his first wife.¹⁸ Josephus does not mention John’s criticism of the marriage, but does discuss the fact that “Herod had put [John] to death, though he was a good man and had exhorted the Jews to lead righteous lives …”¹⁹ According to Josephus, Antipas feared the possibility that John’s work might lead to an uprising. Therefore he had John brought in chains to, and then put to death in, Machaerus—a Herodian fortress in Perea on the eastern side of the Dead Sea.²⁰

17–18. Mark does not identify the place where John was imprisoned and finally executed. He does mention the presence of “the leading men of Galilee,” but they could have been invited to the fortress at Machaerus (in accord with Josephus). Josephus’s opinion that Antipas had John imprisoned because of fear of an uprising is also consistent with Mark’s account, although Mark emphasizes the particular conflict over the marriage.²¹ The Philip Mark identifies as Herodias’s former husband is apparently not Philip the tetrarch, who ruled the region north and east of Antipas’s territory. Philip the tetrarch was a different half brother, who later married Herodias’s daughter Salome. The three men involved in this discussion—Antipas, Philip the tetrarch, and Philip the first husband of Herodias—were all sons of Herod the Great, but had three different mothers.²² The different mothers explains how two half brothers could both bear the name Philip.²³

John offended Antipas by telling him, “It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife.” Although the Mosaic levirate marriage laws involved marrying a dead brother’s widow, the law was quite explicit about the shame of marrying a living brother’s wife (Lev 18:16; 20:21). Josephus does not report what John said about the marriage of Herodias and Antipas, but Josephus himself disapproved of marrying a living brother’s wife: “Herodias, taking it into her head to flout the way of our fathers, married Herod, her husband’s brother by the same father, who was tetrarch of Galilee; to do this she parted from a living husband.”²⁴ That John exhibited great bravery in criticizing Antipas is clear from the eventual outcome.

19–20. Herodias’s desire to kill John fits well with two other events that reveal her character, or lack of it. First, she had, of course, conspired with Antipas to leave their current spouses for each other, a matter made worse by the fact that Antipas was Philip’s half brother. Second, when Herodias’s own brother Agrippa was later made ruler over adjoining territories and was given the title “king,” she was filled with envy and pushed Antipas, against his will, into going to Rome to pursue the same title.²⁵ These two incidents demonstrate the selfish and opportunistic character of Herodias.

Antipas, however, feared John because he knew John was righteous and holy. Although he arrested him, he initially spared his life, protecting him from Herodias. It is quite interesting that Antipas liked to listen to John and that what John said perplexed²⁶ him.

21–23. The birthday banquet was probably held at the fortress in Machaerus. Josephus tells us that Herodias had a daughter from her previous marriage named Salome.²⁷ She was thus Herodias’s daughter, but not Antipas’s. The term “girl” (v. 22) and Salome’s appeal to her mother for advice (v. 24) suggest that Salome was young.²⁸ Although the dance is usually portrayed as a sensual dance, it might have been a respectable kind of dancing.²⁹

Concerning Antipas’s oath, it is noteworthy that Josephus records an incident years later in which the emperor Caligula made a somewhat similar oath to Agrippa I at a banquet in Rome. According to Josephus, “while he was relaxed with wine and while his mood was unusually genial,” Caligula offered to Agrippa “any service that can add its weight in the scale of prosperity.”³⁰ Both promises were rash and led their makers to do something they did not want to do.

24–28. With the incredible possibility of asking for virtually anything, Herodias advised her daughter to ask for the head of the Baptist. Lane suggests that the idea of putting John’s head on a platter was “an expression of black humor inspired by the banquet yet in progress.”³¹

Antipas’s need to fulfill his rash oath because of the witnesses (v. 26) is paralleled in the Josephus story of Caligula’s promise to Agrippa I: “Furthermore, if he repented quickly of his offer, he regarded it as unseemly to break his word before so many witnesses.”³²

29. 29. Mark completes the story with John’s burial. Antipas allowed John’s disciples to take the body for burial.

This story has all the simplicity of tremendous drama.

First, let us look at the scene. The scene was the castle of Machaerus. Machaerus stood on a lonely ridge, surrounded by terrible ravines, overlooking the east side of the Dead Sea. It was one of the loneliest and grimmest and most unassailable fortresses in the world. To this day the dungeons are there, and the traveller can still see the staples and the iron hooks in the wall to which John must have been bound. It was in that bleak and desolate fortress that the last act of John’s life was played out.

Second, let us look at the characters. The marriage tangles of the Herod family are quite incredible, and their inter-relations are so complicated that they become almost impossible to work out. When Jesus was born Herod the Great was king. He was the king who was responsible for the massacre of the children in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:16–18). Herod the Great was married many times. Towards the end of his life he became almost insanely suspicious, and murdered member after member of his own family, until it became a Jewish saying, “It is safer to be Herod’s pig than Herod’s son.”

First, he married Doris, by whom he had a son, Antipater, whom he murdered. Then he married Mariamne, the Hasmonean, by whom he had two sons, Alexander and Aristobulus, whom he also murdered. Herodias, the villainess of the present passage, was the daughter of this Aristobulus. Herod the Great then married another Mariamne, called the Boethusian. By her he had a son called Herod Philip. Herod Philip married Herodias, who was the daughter of his half-brother, Aristobulus, and who was therefore his own niece. By Herodias, Herod Philip had a daughter called Salome, who is the girl who danced before Herod of Galilee in our passage. Herod the Great then married Malthake, by whom he had two sons-Archelaus and Herod Antipas who is the Herod of our passage and the ruler of Galilee. The Herod Philip who married Herodias originally, and who was the father of Salome, inherited none of Herod the Great’s dominions. He lived as a wealthy private citizen in Rome. Herod Antipas visited him in Rome. There he seduced Herodias and persuaded her to leave her husband and marry him.

Note who Herodias was: (a) she was the daughter of his half-brother, Aristobulus, and therefore his niece; and (b) she was the wife of his half-brother Herod Philip, and therefore his sister-in-law. Previously Herod Antipas had been married to a daughter of the king of the Nabataeans, an Arabian country. She escaped to her father who invaded Herod’s territory to avenge his daughter’s honour and heavily defeated Herod. To complete this astounding picture—Herod the Great finally married Cleopatra of Jerusalem, by whom he had a son called Philip the Tetrarch. This Philip married Salome who was at one and the same time (a) the daughter of Herod Philip, his half brother, and (b) the daughter of Herodias, who herself was the daughter of Aristobulus, another of his half brothers. Salome was therefore at one and the same time his niece and his grand-niece. If we put this in the form of a table it will be easier to follow—see opposite page.

Seldom in history can there have been such a series of matrimonial entanglements as existed in the Herod family. By marrying Herodias, his brother’s wife, Herod had broken the Jewish law (Leviticus 18:16; 20:21) and had outraged the laws of decency and of morality.

 

Herod the Great

married

Cleopatra of Jerusalem

Doris

Mariamne the Hasmonean

Mariamne the Boethusian

Matlhake

Philip the Tetrarch, who married Salome

Antipater, murdered by his father

Alexander, murdered by his father

Aristobulus murdered by his father

Herod Philip, who married Herodias

Herod Antipas, who married Herodias

Archelaus

Herodias

Salome

 

 

Because of this adulterous marriage and because of Herod’s deliberate seduction of his brother’s wife, John had publicly rebuked him. It took courage to rebuke in public an oriental despot who had the power of life and death, and John’s courage in rebuking evil wherever he saw it is commemorated in the Prayer-book collect for St. John the Baptist’s Day.

“Almighty God, by whose providence thy servant, John the Baptist, was wonderfully born, and sent to prepare the way of thy Son our Saviour, by preaching of repentance; Make us so to follow his doctrine and holy life, that we may truly repent according to his preaching; and after his example constantly speak the truth, boldly rebuke vice, and patiently suffer for the truth’s sake.”

In spite of John’s rebuke Herod still feared and respected him, for John was so obviously a man of sincerity and of goodness; but with Herodias it was different. She was implacably hostile to John and determined to eliminate him. She got her chance at Herod’s birthday feast which he was celebrating with his courtiers and his captains. Into that feast her daughter Salome came to dance. Solo dances in those days in such society were disgusting and licentious pantomimes. That a princess of the royal blood should so expose and demean herself is beyond belief because such dances were the art of professional prostitutes. The very fact that she did this is a grim commentary on the character of Salome, and of the mother who allowed and encouraged her to do so. But Herod was pleased; and Herod offered her any reward; and thus Herodias got the chance she had plotted for so long; and John, to gratify her spleen, was executed.

There is something to learn from every character in this story.

(i) Herod stands revealed before us.

(a) He was an odd mixture. At one and the same time he feared John and respected him. At one and the same time he dreaded John’s tongue and yet found pleasure in listening to him. There is nothing in this world so queer a mixture as a human being. It is man’s characteristic that he is a mixture. Boswell, in his London Diary, tells us how he sat in church enjoying the worship of God and yet at the same time was planning how to pick up a prostitute in the streets of London that same night.

The strange fact about man is that he is haunted both by sin and by goodness. Robert Louis Stevenson speaks about people “clutching the remnants of virtue in the brothel or on the scaffold.” Sir Norman Birkett, the great Q.C. and judge, speaks of the criminals he had defended and tried. “They may seek to escape but they cannot; they are condemned to some nobility; all their lives long the desire for good is at their heels, the implacable hunter.” Herod could fear John and love him, could hate his message and yet not be able to free himself from its insistent fascination. Herod was simply a human being. Are we so very different?

(b) Herod was a man who acted on impulse. He made his reckless promise to Salome without thinking. It may well be that he made it when he was more than a little drunk and flown with wine. Let a man have a care. Let a man think before he speaks. Let him never by self-indulgence get into a state when he loses his powers of judgment and is liable to do things for which afterwards he will be very sorry.

(c) Herod feared what men might say. He kept his promise to Salome because he had made it in front of his cronies and was unwilling to break it. He feared their jeers, their laughter; he feared that they would think him weak. Many a man has done things he afterwards bitterly regretted because he had not the moral courage to do the right. Many a man has made himself far worse than he is because he feared the laughter of his so-called friends.

(ii) Salome and Herodias stand revealed before us. There is a certain greatness about Herodias. Years after this her Herod sought the title of King. He went to Rome to plead for it; instead of giving him the title the Emperor banished him to Gaul for having the insolence and the insubordination to ask for such a title. Herodias was told that she need not share this exile, that she might go free, and she proudly answered that where her husband went she went too.

Herodias shows us what an embittered woman can do. There is nothing in this world as good as a good woman, and nothing as bad as a bad woman. the Jewish Rabbis had a quaint saying. They said that a good woman might marry a bad man, for by so doing she would end by making him as good as herself. But they said that a good man might never marry a bad woman, for she would inevitably drag him down to her own level. The trouble with Herodias was that she wished to eliminate the one man who had the courage to confront her with her sin. She wished to do as she liked with no one to remind her of the moral law. She murdered John that she might sin in peace. She forgot that while she need no longer meet John, she still had to meet God.

(iii) John the Baptizer stands revealed before us. He stands as the man of courage. He was a child of the desert and of the wide open spaces, and to imprison him in the dark dungeons of Machaerus must have been the last refinement of torture. But John preferred death to falsehood. He lived for the truth and he died for it. The man who brings to men the voice of God acts as a conscience. Many a man would silence his conscience if he could, and therefore the man who speaks for God must always take his life and his fortune in his hands.^[21]

Notes/Applications

Mark disclosed the unusual string of events surrounding John the Baptizer’s death. A striking contrast arises between the Herod that protected John from Herodias’ anger and the Herod who succumbed to the sensual dance of a young girl. His wife’s anger did not faze this Jewish tetrarch, but the dancing of a teenage girl weakened his resolve.

John had been reared in a godly environment from his birth. In fact, he belonged to God before he was born.

¹³The angel said to him, “Don’t be afraid, Zechariah! God has heard your prayer. Your wife Elizabeth will have a son, and you will name him John. ¹⁴He will be your pride and joy, and many people will be glad that he was born. ¹⁵As far as the Lord is concerned, he will be a great man. He will never drink wine or any other liquor. He will be filled with the Holy Spirit even before he is born. ¹⁶He will bring many people in Israel back to the Lord their God. ¹⁷He will go ahead of the Lord with the spirit and power that Elijah had. He will change parents’ attitudes toward their children. He will change disobedient people so that they will accept the wisdom of those who have God’s approval. In this way he will prepare the people for their Lord.” (Luke 1:13–17)

As a young man, John began a ministry of baptism and the preaching of repentance for sins. Herod Antipas regarded John as a “fair and holy man” and accepted much of his message with gladness. However, when John’s commitment to preach against immorality put the spotlight on Herod’s unlawful marriage, it earned John the undying hatred of Herod’s wife and eventually cost him his life. Nevertheless, he remained faithful to the ministry and message God had called him to deliver.

As we contrast these two men, one of them embodies our own earthly quest for pleasure and luxury. Who among us does not secretly crave a life of ease? We revel in the thought of gaining more possessions, but when we obtain them, we are disappointed that they do not satisfy after all. A life of self-centeredness is tragic, for in the end, we lose our eternal souls. It is far better to seek the wisdom of a man like John the Baptizer, who lived in the wilderness and dined on locusts and honey yet was at peace with his Creator.^[22]

Notes/Applications

In the intensity of his lust and pride, Herod made an impulsive commitment, offering Herodias’ daughter anything she wanted up to half of his kingdom. He was willing to grant the young seductress wealth beyond her wildest imagination, but at her mother’s prompting, she requested to have John the Baptizer beheaded. Herod, seemingly prepared to hand over unfathomable wealth, was unprepared for such a morbid demand. However, the king had essentially sworn an oath before a group of witnesses and thereby had obligated himself to fulfill the girl’s request, even though doing so deeply distressed him. “A person without good sense closes a deal with a handshake. He guarantees a loan in the presence of his friend” (Proverbs 17:18).

We could easily detest Herod’s senseless and hasty pledge, especially since it had such severe consequences for John the Baptizer. But how many times do we, even as Christians, make commitments without considering the ramifications? How often have these commitments had responsibilities beyond what we anticipated? These commitments may not be sinful. In fact, they may very well be necessary causes, but does the Lord mean for us to invest in that particular ministry or activity? Once we make a pledge, in order to be considered a person of integrity we are bound by our word. However, when we find ourselves locked into a situation that we know is not God’s will for us, the Lord has provided a course of action for righting ourselves with the other parties involved.

¹My son, if you guarantee a loan for your neighboror pledge yourself for a stranger with a handshake,

²you are trapped by the words of your own mouth, caught by your own promise.

³Do the following things, my son, so that you may free yourself, because you have fallen into your neighbor’s hands: Humble yourself, and pester your neighbor.

⁴Don’t let your eyes rest or your eyelids close. ⁵Free yourself like a gazelle from the hand of a hunter and like a bird from the hand of a hunter. (Proverbs 6:1–5)

Hasty commitments have consequences. They impact our relationship with the Master and with our loved ones. Yielding to the Holy Spirit’s discernment regarding the best allocation of our time, energy, and resources in this manner is not a one-time occurrence in our Christian journey. It is a daily exercise of seeking the Lord’s direction and purpose in our lives. By waiting for God’s prompting, we will spare ourselves the consequences of acting before we think. “It is a trap for a person to say impulsively, ‘This is a holy offering!’ and later to have second thoughts about those vows” (Proverbs 20:25).^[23]

1. FEEDING THE FIVE THOUSAND (6:30–44)

³⁰ The apostles gathered around Jesus and reported to him all they had done and taught. ³¹ Then, because so many people were coming and going that they did not even have a chance to eat, he said to them, “Come with me by yourselves to a quiet place and get some rest.”

³² So they went away by themselves in a boat to a solitary place. ³³ But many who saw them leaving recognized them and ran on foot from all the towns and got there ahead of them. ³⁴ When Jesus landed and saw a large crowd, he had compassion on them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd. So he began teaching them many things.

³⁵ By this time it was late in the day, so his disciples came to him. “This is a remote place,” they said, “and it’s already very late. ³⁶ Send the people away so they can go to the surrounding countryside and villages and buy themselves something to eat.”

³⁷ But he answered, “You give them something to eat.”

They said to him, “That would take eight months of a man’s wages^a! Are we to go and spend that much on bread and give it to them to eat?”

³⁸ “How many loaves do you have?” he asked. “Go and see.”

When they found out, they said, “Five—and two fish.”

³⁹ Then Jesus directed them to have all the people sit down in groups on the green grass. ⁴⁰ So they sat down in groups of hundreds and fifties. ⁴¹ Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves. Then he gave them to his disciples to set before the people. He also divided the two fish among them all. ⁴² They all ate and were satisfied, ⁴³ and the disciples picked up twelve basketfuls of broken pieces of bread and fish. ⁴⁴ The number of the men who had eaten was five thousand.

The initial part of this section, vv. 30–32, could be considered the conclusion of the story of the mission of the twelve, which was begun in vv. 7–13. However, the focus quickly shifts to the crowd and to the miraculous feeding.

Mark gives considerable emphasis to the two miraculous feedings (6:30–44; 8:1–10) and to the disciples’ responses to them (6:35–37, 51–52; 8:4, 14–21). In each case the disciples do not see how the crowd can be fed—even on the second occasion when they have already seen Jesus feed a larger crowd. Furthermore, each case is followed by a boat scene in which the disciples’ failure to understand the import of the miraculous feedings is brought out.

The disciples’ failure to understand has already been identified in Mark in 4:10–13 (concerning the meaning of the parables) and in 4:41 (concerning the identity of one who could command the wind and the waves). But in connection with the feeding narratives this theme reaches a heightened intensity when Mark says “their hearts were hardened” (6:52) and portrays Jesus as upbraiding them for their lack of understanding (8:17–21).

The importance of the story of the feeding of the five thousand is underscored by the fact that it appears in all four Gospels (Matt 14:13–21; Luke 9:10–17; John 6:1–13). John especially focuses attention on it by providing a lengthy discussion of its aftermath (6:14–15, 22–71).

There is a parallel to the miraculous feedings in 2 Kings 4:42–44: “A man came from Baal Shalishah, bring the man of God [Elisha] twenty loaves of barley bread baked from the first ripe grain, along with some heads of new grain. ‘Give it to the people to eat,’ Elisha said. ‘How can I set this before a hundred men?’ his servant asked. But Elisha answered, ‘Give it to the people to eat. For this is what the Lord says: ‘They will eat and have some left over.’ Then he set it before them, and they ate and had some left over, according to the word of the Lord.” Of course, the miracle performed by Jesus was on a much grander scale.

The Unbelief of His Disciples (Mark 6:30–56)

Jesus took His disciples to a secluded place so that they might rest after their labors. He wanted to discuss their ministry with them and prepare them for their next mission. As Vance Havner has said, “If you don’t come apart and rest, you will come apart.” Even God’s Servant-Son needed time to rest, fellowship with His friends, and find renewal from the Father.

Another factor was the growing opposition of both the political and the religious leaders. Herod’s murder of John the Baptist was evidence enough that the “climate” was now changing and that Jesus and His disciples had to be careful. In the next chapter, we shall encounter the hostility of the Jewish religious leaders, and, of course, the political enthusiasm of the crowds was always a problem (John 6:15ff). The best thing to do was to get away.

But the overzealous crowds would not leave Him alone. They followed Him to the area near Bethsaida, hoping to see Him perform some miraculous cures (Luke 9:10–11; John 6:1ff). In spite of the interruption to His plans, the Lord welcomed them, taught them the Word, and healed those who were afflicted. Having experienced interruptions many times in my own life and ministry, I marvel at His patience and grace! What an example for us to follow!

When the disciples came back from their mission they reported to Jesus all that they had done. The demanding crowds were so insistent that they had no time even to eat; so Jesus told them to come with him to a lonely place on the other side of the lake that they might have peace and rest for a little time.

Here we see what might be called the rhythm of the Christian life. The Christian life is a continuous going into the presence of God from the presence of men and coming out into the presence of men from the presence of God. It is like the rhythm of sleep and work. We cannot work unless we have our time of rest; and sleep will not come unless we have worked until we are tired.

There are two dangers in life. First, there is the danger of a too constant activity. No man can work without rest; and no man can live the Christian life unless he gives himself times with God. It may well be that the whole trouble in our lives is that we give God no opportunity to speak to us, because we do not know how to be still and to listen; we give God no time to recharge us with spiritual energy and strength, because there is no time when we wait upon him. How can we shoulder life’s burdens if we have no contact with him who is the Lord of all good life? How can we do God’s work unless in God’s strength? And how can we receive that strength unless we seek in quietness and in loneliness the presence of God?

Second, there is the danger of too much withdrawal. Devotion that does not issue in action is not real devotion. Prayer that does not issue in work is not real prayer. We must never seek the fellowship of God in order to avoid the fellowship of men but in order to fit ourselves better for it. The rhythm of the Christian life is the alternate meeting with God in the secret place and serving men in the market place.

But the rest which Jesus sought for himself and for his disciples was not to be. The crowds saw Jesus and his men going away. At this particular place it was four miles across the lake by boat and ten miles round the top of the lake on foot. On a windless day, or with a contrary wind, a boat might take some time to make the passage, and an energetic person could walk round the top of the lake and be there before the boat arrived. That is exactly what happened; and when Jesus and his men stepped out of the boat the very crowd from which they had sought some little peace was there waiting for them.

Any ordinary man would have been intensely annoyed. The rest Jesus so much desired and which he had so well earned was denied to him. His privacy was invaded. Any ordinary man would have resented it all, but Jesus was moved with pity at the pathos of the crowd. He looked at them; they were so desperately in earnest; they wanted so much what he alone could give them; to him they were like sheep who had no shepherd. What did he mean?

(i) A sheep without the shepherd cannot find the way. Left to ourselves we get lost in life. Principal Cairns spoke of people who feel like “lost children out in the rain.” Dante has a line where he says, “I woke up in the middle of the wood, and it was dark, and there was no clear way before me.” Life can be so bewildering. We can stand at some cross-roads and not know what way to take. It is only when Jesus leads and we follow that we can find the way.

(ii) A sheep without the shepherd cannot find its pasture and its food. In this life we are bound to seek for sustenance. We need the strength which can keep us going; we need the inspiration which can lift us out of ourselves and above ourselves. When we seek it elsewhere our minds are still unsatisfied, our hearts still restless, our souls still unfed. We can gain strength for life only from him who is the living bread.

(iii) A sheep without the shepherd has no defence against the dangers which threaten it. It can defend itself neither from the robbers nor the wild beasts. If life has taught us one thing it must be that we cannot live it alone. No man can defend himself from the temptations which assail him and from the evil of the world which attacks him. Only in the company of Jesus can we walk in the world and keep our garments unspotted from it. Without him we are defenceless; with him we are safe.^[24]

Mark recorded two miracles that Jesus performed.

The feeding of the 5,000 (vv. 33–44). Jesus sent the 12 Apostles out to minister because He had compassion on the needy multitudes (Matt. 9:36–38). This time, the needy multitudes came to them—and the disciples wanted to send them away! As yet, they had not learned to look at life through the eyes of their Master. To them, the crowds were a problem, perhaps even a nuisance, but to Jesus, they were as sheep without a shepherd.

When D.L. Moody was building his great Sunday School in Chicago, children came to him from everywhere. They often passed by other churches and Sunday Schools to be with Mr. Moody. When asked why he walked so far to attend Moody’s Sunday School, one boy replied, “Because they love a fella over there!” The children could tell the difference.

The disciples had two suggestions for solving the problem: either send the people away to find their own food, or raise enough money to buy a bit of bread for everybody. As far as the disciples were concerned, they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, and nothing could be done! With that kind of approach, they would have made ideal committee members! Someone has defined a committee as a group of people who individually can do nothing and collectively decide that nothing can be done.

Jesus looked at the situation, not as a problem, but as an opportunity to trust the Father and glorify His name. An effective leader is someone who sees potential in problems and is willing to act by faith. Acting on the basis of human wisdom, His disciples saw the problem but not the potential. How many times God’s people have complained, “If we only had enough money, we could do something!” Two hundred pence (denarii) would be the equivalent of a year’s wages for the average laborer! The first step is not to measure our resources, but to determine God’s will and trust Him to meet the need.

It was Andrew who found the lad with the lunch (John 6:8–9). The Lord had the people sit down in organized groups on the green grass (see Pss. 23:2; 78:19), quite a contrast to Herod’s glittering sensual feast. Jesus took the little lunch, blessed it, broke it, and gave it to the disciples to distribute to the hungry people. The miracle took place in His hands, not in theirs; for whatever we give to Him, He can bless and multiply. We are not manufacturers; we are only distributors.

John tells us that Jesus used this miracle as the basis for a sermon on “the bread of life” (John 6:22ff). After all, He did not perform miracles just to meet human needs, though that was important. He wanted each miracle to be a revelation of Himself, a sermon in action. For the most part, the people were amazed at the miracles, appreciated the help He gave them, but failed to get the spiritual message (John 12:37). They wanted the gift but not the Giver, the enjoyment of physical blessings but not the enrichment of spiritual blessings.

Little is Much in the Hands of Jesus

It is a notable fact that no miracle seems to have made such an impression on the disciples as this, because this is the only miracle of Jesus which is related in all four gospels. We have already seen how Mark’s gospel really embodies the preaching material of Peter. To read this story, so simply and yet so dramatically told, is to read something that reads exactly like an eye-witness account. Let us note some of the vivid and realistic details.

They sat down on the green grass. It is as if Peter was seeing the whole thing in his mind’s eye again. It so happens that this little descriptive phrase provides us with quite a lot of information. The only time when the grass would be green would be in the late springtime, in mid-April. So it is then that this miracle must have taken place. At that time the sun set at 6 p.m., so this must have happened some time in the late afternoon.

Mark tells us that they sat down in sections of a hundred and of fifty. The word used for sections (prasiai) is a very pictorial word. It is the normal Greek word for the rows of vegetables in a vegetable garden. When you looked at the little groups, as they sat there in their orderly rows, they looked for all the world like the rows of vegetables in a series of garden plots.

At the end they took up twelve basketsful of fragments. No orthodox Jew travelled without his basket (kophinos). The Romans made a jest of the Jew and his basket. There were two reasons for the basket which was a wicker-work affair shaped like a narrow-necked pitcher, broadening out as it went down. First, the very orthodox Jew carried his own food supplies in his basket, so that he would be certain of eating food that was ceremonially clean and pure. Second, many a Jew was an accomplished beggar, and into his basket went the proceeds of his begging. The reason that there were twelve baskets is simply that there were twelve disciples. It was into their own baskets that they frugally gathered up the fragments so that nothing would be lost.

The wonderful thing about this story is that all through it runs an implicit contrast between the attitude of Jesus and the attitude of the disciples.

(i) It shows us two reactions to human need. When the disciples saw how late it was, and how tired and hungry the crowd were, they said, “Send them away so that they can find something to eat.” In effect they said, “These people are tired and hungry. Get rid of them and let someone else worry about them.” Jesus said, “You give them something to eat.” In effect Jesus said, “These people are tired and hungry. We must do something about it.” There are always the people who are quite aware that others are in difficulty and trouble, but who wish to push the responsibility for doing something about it on to someone else; and there are always the people who when they see someone up against it feel compelled to do something about it themselves. there are those who say, “Let others worry.” And there are those who say, “I must worry about my brother’s need.”

(ii) It shows us two reactions to human resources. When the disciples were asked to give the people something to eat, they insisted that ten pounds, or what the Authorized Version calls two hundred “pence” was not enough to buy bread for them. The word the Authorized Version translates penny is denarius. This was a Roman silver coin worth about 3½p. It was the standard day’s wage of a working man. In effect the disciples were saying, “We could not earn enough in more than six months’ work to give this crowd a meal.” They really meant “Anything we have got is no use at all.”

Jesus said, “What have you got?” They had five loaves. These were not like English loaves: they were more like rolls. John (6:9) tells us they were barley loaves; and barley loaves were the food of the poorest of the poor. Barley bread was the cheapest and the coarsest of all bread. They had two fishes, which would be about the size of sardines. Tarichaea—which means the salt-fish town—was a well known place on the lake from which salt-fish went out to all over the world. The little salt-fishes were eaten as relish with the dry rolls.

It did not seem much. But Jesus took it and worked wonders with it. In the hands of Jesus little is always much. We may think that we have little of talent or substance to give to Jesus. That is no reason for a hopeless pessimism such as the disciples had. The one fatal thing to say is, “For all I could do, it is not worth my while trying to do anything.” If we put ourselves into the hands of Jesus Christ, there is no telling what he can do with us and through us.^[25]

The stilling of the storm (vv. 45–56). The series of miracles beginning with Jesus’ calming the storm in 4:35–41 concludes with a double demonstration of Jesus’ power. He walked on the water and calmed the wind.

A long and stressful day was coming to a close. Jesus insisted that his disciples go on ahead in a boat while he dismissed the crowd. As people dispersed, Jesus went alone to pray. His time of silence and fellowship with his Father did not prevent his noticing the disciples struggling to make headway against the wind out on the lake. So Jesus ended his day (and began the next) by meeting the needs of his disciples as they floundered in the waves.

The presence of trouble does not mean that we are working against God’s purposes. Nor does it mean that God does not notice. We can be certain of his help. In desperate moments, we may feel as if Christ is passing us by. When we recognize our helplessness, we are ready to receive his help. Even when our trust is inadequate, Christ comes to our aid because he is trustworthy. We must guard against having hardened hearts. Stubborn refusal to believe in Christ’s presence and power leaves us fearful and floundering.^[26]

A number of miracles were involved in this event: Jesus walking on the water, Peter walking on the water (Mark did not record this; see Matt. 14:28–32), Jesus stilling the storm, and the boat arriving on shore the instant Jesus entered it (John 6:21). It was certainly a “night of wonders” for the Twelve!

Why did Jesus compel His disciples to leave? Because the crowd was getting restless, and there was danger they might start a popular uprising to make Jesus King (John 6:14–15). The Twelve were not ready to face this kind of test, because their ideas of the kingdom were still too national and political.

There was a second reason: He wanted to teach them a lesson on faith that would help prepare them for the work that lay ahead of them after He was gone. The disciples had just completed a very successful mission, healing the sick and preaching the Gospel. They had shared in the miraculous feeding of 5,000 people. They were on a “spiritual high” and this in itself was dangerous. It is good to be on the mountaintop if you don’t get careless and step off a cliff.

Spiritual blessings must be balanced with burdens and battles; otherwise, we may become pampered children instead of mature sons and daughters. On a previous occasion, Jesus had led His disciples into a storm following an exciting day of teaching (Mark 4:35–41). Now, after a time of miraculous ministry, He again led them into a storm. In the Book of Acts, it is interesting to note that the “storm” of official persecution began after the disciples had won 5,000 people to Christ (Acts 4:1–4). Perhaps while they were in confinement, the Apostles recalled the storm that followed the feeding of the 5,000, and they must have encouraged themselves with the assurance that Jesus would come to them and see them through.

Each new experience of testing demands of us more faith and courage. In that first storm experience, the disciples had Jesus in the boat with them; but this time, He was on the mountain praying for them. He was teaching them to live by faith. (For that matter, even when He was in the ship with them, they were still afraid!) The scene illustrates the situation of God’s people today: We are in the midst of this stormy world, toiling and seemingly ready to sink, but He is in glory interceding for us. When the hour seems the darkest, He will come to us—and we will reach shore!

The waves that frightened the disciples (including the fishermen in the group) were only stairsteps to bring the Lord Jesus to them. He waited until their situation was so desperate that they could do nothing to help themselves. But why did He act as though He would pass them by? Because He wanted them to recognize Him, trust Him, and invite Him into the ship. They did not recognize Him, but instead screamed with fear because they thought He was a ghost!

Jesus reassured them with His word: “Take courage; it is I, do not be afraid” (Mark 6:50, ). At this point, Peter asked Jesus to let him walk on the water; but Mark omits this detail. Tradition says that Mark wrote as Peter’s spokesman, so perhaps Peter was reticent to include this experience lest it give people the wrong impression. It is easy to criticize Peter for sinking—but have you ever gotten out of the boat yourself?

The disciples had failed their test because they lacked spiritual insight and receptive hearts. The miracle of the loaves and fishes had made no lasting impression on them. After all, if Jesus could multiply food and feed thousands of people, then surely He could protect them in the storm. Even a disciple of Jesus Christ can develop a hard heart if he fails to respond to the spiritual lessons that must be learned in the course of life and ministry.

As you review these two miracles, you see that Jesus Christ brings provision and protection. “The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want … I will fear no evil” (Ps. 23:1, 4). If we trust Him, we will always have sufficiency and security, no matter what the situation might be. The important thing is that we trust Him.

Mark closed this section on a positive note as he described the people who brought their sick for Jesus to heal. These people had faith and their faith was rewarded. This scene is in contrast to that in Nazareth where very few were healed because the people lacked faith.

“And this is the victory that overcomes the world, even our faith” (1 John 5:4). Trust the Servant! He never fails.^[27]

30–32. Except for 3:14, where there is some question due to a textual variant, v. 30 is the only place in Mark in which “the twelve” (a designation used in 4:10; 6:7; 9:35; 10:32; 11:11; 14:10, 17, 20, 43) are identified as “the apostles.” Perhaps the term “apostle” seems especially appropriate to Mark in these two contexts, one in which Jesus chooses those who will be “sent” (3:14, ἀποστέλλω, apostellō), and one in which they return from being “sent” (6:7, using the same Greek verb).

As Mark has frequently indicated on previous occasions (1:33, 45; 2:2, 13; 3:7–10, 20; 4:1; 5:24), Jesus was again inundated with crowds. As in 3:20, the crowds were even keeping him and the twelve from finding time to eat. Therefore, Jesus and the apostles left in a boat to find a deserted place along the shores of the lake (cf. v. 35), a place where they might rest.

33–34. These verses once again indicate the tremendous crowds following Jesus. Mark says they ran from all the towns. Jesus had compassion on them because they were like sheep without a shepherd, an image that would be familiar to ancient readers. Sheep were not kept in fenced plots of land, but were herded in open territory. Without a shepherd to herd them, lead them to food and water, and protect them, they would be in serious trouble. Despite Jesus’ efforts to find a place of solitude for rest, his compassion (cf. 1:41; 8:2) compelled him to teach the crowds.

35–37. As darkness drew near the disciples became concerned about the crowd’s need for food (and perhaps their own—see v. 31). They suggested Jesus dismiss the crowd so that they could go to find food. It is understandable on this first occasion before Jesus had performed a feeding miracle that the disciples were baffled by his suggestion that they provide the food. They presumed he was suggesting they go somewhere and buy it. They estimated that it would take two hundred denarii worth of bread to feed such a crowd. One denarius was a day’s wages for a common laborer, and so the  translators estimate two hundred denarii at eight months of a man’s wages.

Notes/Applications

Jesus, compassionately gazing out over the crowd who rushed to meet Him on the other side of the Sea of Galilee, gave us a powerful glimpse into the shepherd heart of God. “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives his life for the sheep” (John 10:11). If Jesus was moved with compassion for this crowd, which hungered for His words, we know that God must look with tender compassion on us as well.

Though smelly and dumb, sheep are incredibly loyal to the one who leads them. They know their shepherd’s voice and will only come when called by that particular shepherd. Similarly, a good shepherd grows to know each of his sheep by name and even by their individual bleating. The realization that his sheep are helpless in the face of danger makes the shepherd all the more vigilant as they graze.

Although Jesus sought much-needed rest, He placed the desire of the searching crowd above His personal need for peace and quiet. He is a righteous judge, but He is also a loving shepherd who faithfully cares for His sheep. What encumbrances are we allowing to draw our immediate attention away from the good shepherd’s voice? “I have wandered away like a lost lamb. Search for me, because I have never forgotten your commandments” (Psalm 119:176). “^3bHe calls his sheep by name and leads them out of the pen. ⁴After he has brought out all his sheep, he walks ahead of them. The sheep follow him because they recognize his voice. ⁵They won’t follow a stranger. Instead, they will run away from a stranger because they don’t recognize his voice” (John 10:3–5).^[28]

38–41. According to John 6:9 the five loaves of bread and two fish came from a boy in the crowd. Jesus instructed his disciples to seat the people in groups of hundreds and fifties, apparently to facilitate the distribution of the food. Some consider Mark’s statements “taking the five loaves … gave thanks and broke the loaves. Then he gave them to his disciples to set before the people” to be deliberate parallels to the description of the inauguration of the Lord’s Supper in Mark 14:22, when he “took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples.”³³ The language is similar, but so is the language of Acts 27:35 where Paul encouraged the men on board a ship in a storm to eat and “took some bread and gave thanks to God in front of them all. Then he broke it and began to eat.” Giving thanks before a meal and breaking loaves of bread for eating were common activities that do not necessarily have overtones of the Lord’s Supper.³⁴

42–44. According to Matt 14:21 the number five thousand includes only the men and does not include the women and children who were present. Mark, Luke, and John are consistent with this because in each case they use the term usually used for males in particular (ἀνήρ, anēr) rather than the generic term (ἄνθρωπος, anthrōpos) which often includes women. The term used here for the twelve baskets (κόφινος, kophinos) differs from the term used for the seven baskets (σπυρίς, spyris) in the account of the feeding of the four thousand.³⁵ In both cases the point of referring to the baskets is to emphasize that after everyone had plenty to eat there was still food left over.

Notes/Applications

Apparently, the disciples had already forgotten the events that marked their recent missionary travels. When Jesus placed the problem of feeding the crowd squarely on their shoulders, they did not face the task with faith but with cold logic. They knew they did not have enough money to buy food for so many, and therefore they saw no way to feed such a crowd.

However, Jesus quietly resolved the matter by multiplying the small portions of bread and fish. Mark does not tell us what the disciples’ reaction was to this miracle. After the euphoria of a successful missionary journey, were they so preoccupied that they could not recognize a miracle before their eyes?

Despite the stressful situation, Jesus set about the task of making use of what He had and multiplying it for His glory. We experience this miracle for ourselves whenever we trust Him to take our broken lives and make something beautiful out of them. God does not need a surplus of gifts and talents in the ones He chooses to carry out His mission; in fact, He seems to seek out those bereft of outward qualifications: Moses had a speech impediment; Jacob was a braggart and a cheat; Gideon was a coward; David was the lowest of his family; some of the disciples were unlearned fishermen; and Matthew was a despised tax collector. “But he told me: ‘My kindness is all you need. My power is strongest when you are weak.’ So I will brag even more about my weaknesses in order that Christ’s power will live in me” (2 Corinthians 12:9). How can we, as believers, be so wonderfully used by Jesus and yet remain so utterly blind that we cannot see that He is still at work within and among us?^[29]

^a Greek Joses, a variant of Joseph

^[1] Warren W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary, vol. 1 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1996), 129.

^[2] William Barclay, ed., The Gospel of Mark, The Daily Study Bible Series (Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster John Knox Press, 1976), 138–141.

^[3] Bruce B. Barton, Mark, Life Application Bible Commentary (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1994), 153–154.

^[4] Bruce B. Barton, Mark, Life Application Bible Commentary (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1994), 154–156.

¹ Matt 13:55 identifies Jesus as “the carpenter’s son.” He apparently took up the trade of his father.

² The fact that Jesus is identified by his mother and his father is not mentioned has elicited several hypotheses. Perhaps the most common is that Joseph was no longer alive. See Guelich, pp. 309–310.

^[5] Practical Christianity Foundation, Mark: Jesus Christ, Love in Action, The Easy-To-Read Commentary Series (Green Key Books, 2004), 140.

³ BAGD, p. 637, cites several ancient parallels which comment on how philosophers got no respect in their home areas.

^[6] Bruce B. Barton, Mark, Life Application Bible Commentary (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1994), 156.

^[7] Practical Christianity Foundation, Mark: Jesus Christ, Love in Action, The Easy-To-Read Commentary Series (Green Key Books, 2004), 140–142.

^[8] Bruce B. Barton, Mark, Life Application Bible Commentary (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1994), 157.

^a Greek unclean

⁴ Mark does not differentiate between preaching and teaching.

⁵ Guelich, p. 321.

⁶ Ibid., p. 322. Gundry, pp. 308–309, lists seven hypotheses concerning why Jesus made the prohibitions listed in vv. 8–9. He concludes that there is no clear answer.

^[9] William Barclay, ed., The Gospel of Mark, The Daily Study Bible Series (Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster John Knox Press, 1976), 141–144.

^[10] Bruce B. Barton, Mark, Life Application Bible Commentary (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1994), 161–162.

⁷ Guelich, p. 322.

⁸ See Acts 13:51 and the similar act of shaking one’s clothes in Neh 5:13 and Acts 18:6.

² William L. Lane, The Gospel of Mark, of The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974), 208–209.

^[11] Practical Christianity Foundation, Mark: Jesus Christ, Love in Action, The Easy-To-Read Commentary Series (Green Key Books, 2004), 144–145.

^[12] Bruce B. Barton, Mark, Life Application Bible Commentary (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1994), 162–163.

⁹ Cf. Isa 1:6; Luke 10:34. Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 17.172 reports that Herod the Great’s physicians “seated him in a tub of (warm) oil” in an effort to treat his terminal illness. See the list of ancient texts in Peter Davids, Commentary on James, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), p. 193.

¹⁰ In non-healing situations anointing with oil clearly could have symbolic value. For example, it was used ceremonially in the appointment of kings.

^[13] William Barclay, ed., The Gospel of Mark, The Daily Study Bible Series (Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster John Knox Press, 1976), 144–146.

^[14] Bruce B. Barton, Mark, Life Application Bible Commentary (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1994), 163–164.

^[15] Practical Christianity Foundation, Mark: Jesus Christ, Love in Action, The Easy-To-Read Commentary Series (Green Key Books, 2004), 146–147.

^a Some early manuscripts He was saying

^[16] Bruce B. Barton, Mark, Life Application Bible Commentary (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1994), 164–165.

¹¹ On Antipas (and the rest of the Herodian dynasty) see H.W. Hoehner, “Herodian Dynasty,” DJG, pp. 317–326.

¹² BAGD, p. 136.

³ New Geneva Study Bible, ed. R. C. Sproul (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1995), 1571.

⁴ John Gill, Exposition of the Old and New Testaments, vol. 7 (1810; reprint, Paris, Ark.: The Baptist Standard Bearer, 1989), 423.

^[17] Practical Christianity Foundation, Mark: Jesus Christ, Love in Action, The Easy-To-Read Commentary Series (Green Key Books, 2004), 148.

¹³ Sirach 48:10 (c. 180–200 b.c.) says of Elijah, “At the appointed time, it is written, you are destined to calm the wrath of God before it breaks out in fury, to turn the hearts of parents to their children, and to restore the tribes of Jacob” (). Cf. 4 Ezra 6:26.

^[18] Practical Christianity Foundation, Mark: Jesus Christ, Love in Action, The Easy-To-Read Commentary Series (Green Key Books, 2004), 148–149.

¹⁴ Harold W. Hoehner, Herod Antipas (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1972), pp. 189–191.

^[19] Bruce B. Barton, Mark, Life Application Bible Commentary (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1994), 165–167.

^[20] Bruce B. Barton, Mark, Life Application Bible Commentary (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1994), 167–168.

^a Some early manuscripts he did many things

¹⁵ So, e.g., Lane, p. 215.

¹⁶ Anderson, Mark, p. 170.

¹⁷ Hoehner, Herod Antipas, p.138 n. 4, observes that there were several uncle-niece marriages in the Herodian family. He discusses the differing opinions among the ancient Jews about the legitimacy of such marriages. Neither the Gospels nor Josephus address this issue with respect to Antipas and Herodias.

¹⁸ Josephus, Antiquities 18.110.

¹⁹ Ibid., 18.117.

²⁰ Ibid., 18.119.

²¹ On these matters see Lane, pp. 215–217.

²² Herod the Great had many wives. For discussion of the two Philips see Hoehner, “Herodian Dynasty,” pp. 322–324.

²³ Ibid.

²⁴ Josephus, Antiquities 18.136. Josephus would disapprove both of the fact that a woman initiated the divorce (Antiquities 15.259–60) and that she married her husband’s brother. In another case Josephus (Antiquities 17.341) observes that Archelaus, one of Antipas’s brothers, married the widow of a half brother named Alexander. Even though in this case Alexander was deceased (cf. Josephus, War 2.114–116) the marriage was still against Mosaic law because the levirate statute only applied if there were no children born to a brother before he died. Alexander had children and so Josephus remarks “And [Archelaus] transgressed ancestral law in marrying Glaphyra, … who had been the wife of his brother Alexander and had borne him children, for it is abhorrent to the Jews to marry the wife of a brother.”

²⁵ Josephus, Antiquities 18.240–252. The result was the deposition and banishment of Antipas.

²⁶ According to BAGD, p. 97, the word ἀπορέω (aporeō) means “to be at a loss, in doubt, uncertain.” For this text Bauer suggests “he was very much disturbed.” UBS 4 provides a variant reading here with a “C” rating, meaning they are uncertain which reading is correct. The  footnote translates the alternative “he did many things.” It is hard to understand what it might mean to say “When Herod heard John, he did many things; yet he liked to listen to him.”

²⁷ According to some ancient witnesses to v. 22, Herodias’s daughter is here named Herodias. The UBS 4 text chooses this reading, but gives their choice a “C” rating indicating their uncertainty. Since Josephus, Antiquities 18.136 says Herodias had a daughter named Salome from her previous marriage, it seems best not to adopt the reading which identifies the dancing girl as being named Herodias. See Hoehner, Herod Antipas, pp. 151–154.

²⁸ Hoehner, Herod Antipas, pp. 154–156, suggests twelve to fourteen.

²⁹ Ibid., pp. 156–157.

³⁰ Josephus, Antiquities 18.293.

³¹ Lane, p. 222.

³² Josephus, Antiquities 18.299–300.

^[21] William Barclay, ed., The Gospel of Mark, The Daily Study Bible Series (Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster John Knox Press, 1976), 149–154.

^[22] Practical Christianity Foundation, Mark: Jesus Christ, Love in Action, The Easy-To-Read Commentary Series (Green Key Books, 2004), 151–153.

^[23] Practical Christianity Foundation, Mark: Jesus Christ, Love in Action, The Easy-To-Read Commentary Series (Green Key Books, 2004), 156–157.

^a Greek take two hundred denarii

^[24] William Barclay, ed., The Gospel of Mark, The Daily Study Bible Series (Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster John Knox Press, 1976), 155–156.

^[25] William Barclay, ed., The Gospel of Mark, The Daily Study Bible Series (Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster John Knox Press, 1976), 156–159.

^[26] Bruce B. Barton, Mark, Life Application Bible Commentary (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1994), 184.

^[27] Warren W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary, vol. 1 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1996), 129–133.

^[28] Practical Christianity Foundation, Mark: Jesus Christ, Love in Action, The Easy-To-Read Commentary Series (Green Key Books, 2004), 160–161.

³³ See the list in Guelich, p. 342.

³⁴ Guelich, p. 342.

³⁵ BAGD, p. 447, cites Juvenal 3.14; 6.542 as providing evidence that kophinoi were typical for the Jews.

^[29] Practical Christianity Foundation, Mark: Jesus Christ, Love in Action, The Easy-To-Read Commentary Series (Green Key Books, 2004), 164–165.