... that Jesus is Son of God appears at several points in Mark, indicating that Jesus’ divine sonship is an important part of Mark’s portrait (cf. 1:11; 3:11; 5:7; 9:7; 14:61–62; 15:39), and this causes most scholars to believe that the title was originally here in the opening of the book and that it was accidentally omitted in some copies. It is very significant that Jesus is called the Son of God only by God (1:11; 9:7), by demons (3:11; 5:7), and by one man, the centurion at the cross ...
... the Gospel writers in imitation of Jesus’ own general usage (compare, e.g., 8:27 and Matt. 16:13). (For a recent, cogent study of the term, see Barnabas Lindars, Jesus Son of Man [London: SPCK, 1983]; cf. J. R. Donahue, “Recent Studies on the Origin of ‘Son of Man’ in the Gospels,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 48 [1986], pp. 484–98.) 2:12 This amazed everyone: Mark frequently describes people as amazed after Jesus’ miracles but seems to regard it as far short of true recognition of him (see, e ...
... as symbolic rebukes of the sinful among Israel and weekly reminders to all to participate in religious reform and repentance. Matthew 6:16–18 criticizes this publicizing of fasts as all too prone to become a device for self-exaltation, but the original intent was certainly more noble. From later tradition of rabbinic Judaism we know that the dominant opinion among the descendants of the Pharisees was that the Messiah and the long-awaited salvation would come when Israel had made itself ready and worthy ...
... as Peraea (modern-day Jordan) in the time of Jesus, roughly corresponding to the Gilead of the OT. In the early first century, the area was part of Herod Antipas’ domain and was occupied by Jews. Tyre and Sidon: Both of these cities were originally Phoenician seaports and remained essentially gentile cities in Jesus’ time, though Jews were living in them. The mention of the region around these cities suggests that non-Jews are presented here as coming to see Jesus, and elsewhere (7:24–31) we read of ...
... that prevent full obedience to Jesus’ message, and second, there is the encouraging assurance that there are those who receive the message, producing an abundant “harvest” to come. This means that the parable truly reflects the situation of Jesus’ ministry and arose originally out of reflection on the response to his work. We catch some of the excitement of the fervent ministry of Jesus and the Twelve still shining through the story and its interpretation. Additional Notes 4:9 He who has ears to ...
... allusion to these passages, and by this allusion the readers are to perceive that this feeding is a sign that this promised ingathering is to be accomplished as a result of Jesus’ ministry. Now, it is important to realize that, though the original prophetic oracles seem to have envisioned primarily a return of Jewish exiles from distant lands, early Christians took these passages as also predicting the ingathering of non-Jewish peoples into the church. Thus, Jesus’ feeding of a crowd that includes some ...
... to the temple prepares the reader for the incidents following in chapter 11, but it also is designed to show Jesus as the master who has come to the house that is rightfully his to inspect (perhaps an allusion to Mal. 3:1–2). In the original situation of Jesus’ ministry, it is unlikely that Jesus’ entrance was recognized as the appearance of the Messiah by any more than a few of his disciples at best. The enthusiasm of the crowd was both the reverence for a respected prophet—which they regarded ...
... OT passage mentions only the heart, soul, and strength. Mind is probably an addition by Mark or by an early copyist to clarify that heart includes mental and emotional energies. 12:31 Love your neighbor as yourself is a quotation of Lev. 19:18. In the original setting of the OT, the neighbor was mainly a fellow Israelite, and in Jesus’ time there is evidence that some Jews practiced a distinction between the way they felt obligated to treat a fellow Jew and the way they felt free to treat a Gentile. The ...
... (1 Cor. 15:1–6); and the detailed description of the actual arrest, trial, and execution in all the Gospels confirms that this material was a most important part of the sacred tradition of Jesus. The reason for mentioning that the authorities did not intend originally to make their move during the feast days (v. 2), even though they did arrest Jesus during that time, was probably to show that the timing was in God’s hands and not finally in the hands of Jesus’ enemies. This is in keeping with ...
... used to describe a rebellion, leading some to suggest that he may have been a revolutionary like the Zealots. In some manuscripts of Matthew, he is called Jesus Barabbas in Matt. 27:16–17, but the manuscripts in question are not the best witnesses to the original text of the Gospels. Nevertheless, it is possible that this was his full name, for Jesus was a common name among Jews of the time (being simply the name sometimes rendered Joshua, the great hero of the conquest of Palestine in the or book that ...
... Jesus). What Luke is saying is that the eyewitnesses of Jesus’ life and ministry have “handed down” the apostolic gospel tradition from which he will attempt to compose his own account. Those who from the first were eyewitnesses refers to the original disciples who became Jesus’ apostles and were eyewitnesses of his life and ministry. This is illustrated in Acts 1:21–22, where Judas’ replacement must have been an eyewitness from the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, commencing with the baptism of ...
... 2:22–23). (For further discussion see Fitzmyer, pp. 304–21.) One wonders how to account for all of the similarities and differences in the Lucan and Matthean infancy narratives. The numerous parallels make it unlikely that the Matthean and Lucan traditions originated separately, while in light of the many differences it is hard to see how they derive from a common literary source. Furthermore, the traditional explanation that the Matthean account goes back to Joseph, while the Lucan account goes back to ...
... to refer to rulers other than the four sons of Herod the Great as “tetrarch.” It has since been learned, however, that “tetrarch” had come to mean “ruler” in a general sense and could be applied to persons other than the four original tetrarchs of the Herodian family. Moreover, Josephus makes a few vague references to a Lysanius to whom belonged a “tetrarchy” (Antiquities 20.137–140) and who ruled the city of “Abila,” the capital city of Abilene (Antiquities 19.97–99; 20.137–140 ...
... Luke’s time a divine connotation may have been sensed. 5:13 touched the man: On touching and healing see Luke 7:14; 8:46; 13:13; 18:15; 22:51; Acts 5:15. Ellis (p. 103) suggests that touching for purposes of healing “seems to have its origin in the Elijah/Elisha healings”; however, see note on 4:40 above. That Jesus touched the leper is remarkable in view of popular beliefs and practices. By doing so Jesus demonstrates power and compassion. 5:14 Don’t tell anyone: This phrase, taken from Mark 1:44 ...
... a sinner.” It is likely this woman had been a prostitute, although adultery could be in view. Matthew Black (An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, 3rd ed. [Oxford: Clarendon, 1967], pp. 181–83), however, has suggested that the Greek has misunderstood the original Aramaic which had described the woman as a “debtor.” If he is correct, then the Parable of the Two Debtors (7:41–42) fits the context better. Leaney (p. 147) is correct in noting that there is no evidence that the sinful woman was ...
... number of persons who made up Jacob’s family (Gen. 46:27). However, in the Hebrew there are only seventy, while in the Greek version there are seventy-two. Since it is the Greek version that Luke has followed, seventy-two is probably the original reading. For a fuller discussion see Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (New York: United Bible Societies, 1971), pp. 150–51. On the significance of this number see Fitzmyer, p. 847; Schweizer, p. 174; Tiede, pp. 200–201. two ...
... wants to cut it down, but his question (Why should it use up the soil?) may hint at the replacement of this fruitless tree. 13:8 one more year: The implication is that judgment will be postponed, but only for a brief period. When the parable was originally told, the man who pleaded for the tree probably represented no one, but it is possible that later he came to be understood as symbolizing Jesus in his intercessory role (see Marshall, p. 556). Lachs (p. 297) cites the Syriac version of the Story of Ahikar ...
... (3) the Parable of the Narrow Door (vv. 22–30). The first parable is found in Mark 4:30–32 and Matthew 13:31–32, while the second and third parables appear only in Matthew (13:33; 7:13–14, including verses elsewhere in Matthew). Originally these parables were delivered in different contexts, but they are here grouped together topically. Of the three, the third one fits in especially well with Luke’s theological interests (see esp. vv. 29–30). 13:18–19 The point of the Parable of the Mustard ...
... all rights should be excluded from Jewish society, perhaps even stoned? Jack T. Sanders (“Tradition and Redaction in Luke xv. 11–32,” NTS 15 [1969], pp. 433–38) has argued on form-critical grounds that vv. 25–32 were not part of the original parable, but that Luke composed the second part of the parable in order to direct polemic against the Pharisees and so provide for a smoother transition into the next chapter. Other scholars disagree (for example, see John J. O‘Rourke, “Some Notes on Luke ...
... writings (see Luke 9:61–62; Acts 20:28–29). The point of all this is to say that Jesus’ parable would have come to be understood by early Christians as directly applicable to themselves. It is quite possible, however, that when originally uttered, the parable addressed not Jesus’ disciples, but Pharisees (and Sadducees?), who owned farms on which servants worked. If so, then this would be another example of how a Palestinian saying or parable came to be applied to the later, wider Christian context ...
... the Nazarene” (NIV: “Jesus of Nazareth”). The name of the city itself is found in the New Testament spelled either Nazaret or Nazara. Fitzmyer (pp. 1215–16) has suggested that the curious spelling in Luke may have arisen from an early attempt to relate Jesus’ place of origin (Nazareth) either to the OT idea of the Nazirite (from nāzîr, “consecrated one”; see Num. 6:2–3; Judg. 13:4–5), an idea with which Luke is familiar (see note on 1:15 above), or to the OT idea of the “Branch of ...
... The Feast of Unleavened Bread and the Passover were actually two holidays. Whereas the Passover was observed on the 14th day of Nisan (approximately April 1), the Feast of Unleavened Bread was celebrated the following week, Nisan 15–21. Unleavened Bread originally celebrated the beginning of harvest, but later was combined with Passover, a holiday where only unleavened (yeastless) bread could be eaten. In Hebrew the Passover is called pesaḥ, while in the Greek it is called Pascha. Because the Greek verb ...
... of v. 34 (“Jesus said, ‘Father forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.’ ”). The saying may have been inserted as a parallel to Acts 7:60b where Stephen offers a similar prayer of forgiveness (see Fitzmyer, pp. 1503–4). If original (so Ellis, pp. 267–68; Marshall, p. 868; Schweizer, pp. 359–60; J. T. Sanders, p. 227), it presents Jesus as willing to forgive those who have committed an inexcusable crime against him. Jesus asks that they be forgiven on the grounds that they did ...
... way, and how Jesus was recognized by them when he broke the bread. It was in the act of remembering the Lord’s death that the full import of the Easter event could be grasped. Additional Notes 24:13 Emmaus: There is considerable uncertainty about the original location of this city. Luke tells us that it was about seven miles (lit. “sixty stadia” or about 6.8 miles) from Jerusalem. If Luke means sixty stadia one way (instead of a round-trip), then the two disciples indeed made a long journey for one ...
... more deadly because it infects three vital organs instead of one. Nor is human evil less evil because God chooses to meet it with good. That would be like saying that if a master painter could make a bad painting into a good one, then the original painting was not bad after all. If our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness (v. 5) that does not change the fact that the unrighteousness is ours and the righteousness is God’s! “Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth” (1 Cor ...