1 And he left there and went to the region of Judea and beyond the Jordan, and crowds gathered to him again; and again, as his custom was, he taught them.

After Jesus gives his teachings in Capernaum on what is worth giving up in this life in order to avoid Hell, he travels South ” to the region of Judea and beyond the Jordan”, the inclusion of the water feature implies he is by the further southern body of water, connecting to the Jordan, meaning he is at the land with shores on the Dead Sea. Although a wide area, this could place him in the land of the Essenes, the second most populous group of First Century Jews after the Pharisees. This group had very different views on Temple Worship, Torah interpretation and funnily enough: Marriage. They resided at Qumran, on the shores of the Dead Sea.

Crowds gather round Jesus, again as we have noted before in these commentaries, this is really the peak of Jesus’ earthly ministry and has previously filled Synagogues and town squares so we should envision multiple hundreds. Mark tells us that “as his custom was, he taught them”. Many people especially in the modern day want to view Jesus as this ad-hoc random man that drops words of wisdom and enlightenment but this phrase implies an organised teaching method and routine. His methods might be strange and unlike the people of his day and ours but Jesus did have them.

2 And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?”

The Pharisees, the most influential group among the Jewish laity came to Jesus, likely from Jerusalem, “in order to test him”. Although Mark tells us they come essentially with ill intent, we should still acknowledge as Jesus did that at this time, they were the rightful teaching authorities of the Old Covenant people because they sat on the “seat of Moses”. Unfortunately for them, Jesus is God and vastly outranks any authority they might have.

The Pharisees and their Scribes, at large had “lawyer-talked” their Mosaic Covenant Laws into a system that benefited them. Things that were meant to be exceptions became rules and rules that were their to benefit others became a yoke that weighed unevenly on the common Jew. At this time especially there was heated debate on the topic of marriage between two major rabbinical schools of thought. Hillel vs Shammai. We need to take the pulse of this interpretive conflict in order to understand Jesus’ later correction.

The conflict hung upon the interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1.

“If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, he may write her a certificate of divorce, give it to her, and send her from his house.”

The school of Shammai interpreted “something indecent” very narrowly, limiting it to cases of sexual immorality or adultery. They believed that divorce was only permissible if the wife committed a serious moral transgression. The school of Hillel interpreted “something indecent” very broadly, allowing divorce for almost any reason that caused the husband displeasure. This could include trivial matters, such as burning a meal or even finding another woman more attractive.

3 He answered them, “What did Moses command you?”

Jesus first hangs the answer upon Moses, the writer of the Law. He does this on purpose, as we noted, exceptions and allowances were made but they were not meant to become the norm. They do not understand Jesus’ authority as they just see him as a fellow Jew so he hearkens back to Moses, whom they do trust as an authority.

4 They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to put her away.”

Now the Pharisees reference the passage we pointed out, the place of contention between the two Rabbinical schools, where interpretation of Deuteronomy becomes divisive. The Pharisees in their rabid legalism have turned an allowance out of God’s mercy, into a hard Law than even in itself was dependant on interpretation. Both Schools however do allow divorce but what enables it differs.

5 But Jesus said to them, “For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.

Jesus now points out to the Pharisees that this Law was an allowance, an act of mercy because of the “hardness of heart” that the Hebrew people had. Basically, they could not be taught without breaking their free will so God granted a mercy through Moses to them. God gave an inch, they took a mile.

6 But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’

7 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife,

8 and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh.

9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.”

This is where we circle back to the location, if you were to describe where the Essenes home base was at Qumran you would say “the region of Judea and beyond the Jordan“. Why do I bring this up? The Essenes were a very peculiar group among their fellow Second Temple Jews because of their views on Temple liturgy but another big quirk of theirs was marriage and celibacy.

They were the only group that practiced celibacy at large, and a form of monasticism. This comes from their view on marriage which was very strict, they lived like Monks because they believed the same thing as Jesus did. They believed that marriage was a lifelong, sacred bond, and divorce was seen as a violation of God’s law. This strict stance was rooted in their interpretation of Scripture, particularly the creation account in Genesis, where marriage is presented as an unbreakable union (“the two shall become one flesh,” Genesis 2:24). This is the same proof-text that Jesus uses. I’m not saying that Jesus was an Essene but it is fascinating to know that this teaching was not actually unique, there were some Jews who still abided by it. One of the scrolls found at the Dead Sea written by the Essenes was the Damascus Document which reads:

“They are caught in two traps: fornication, by taking two wives in their lives, while the foundation of creation is ‘Male and female He created them’ (Genesis 1:27). And those who entered the ark went in two by two into the ark (Genesis 7:9). And concerning the prince, it is written, ‘He shall not multiply wives for himself’ (Deuteronomy 17:17).

It is passages like this from Mark and its parallel records in the other Gospels that inform the Catholic Church’s unbroken position on marriage, whereas other groups like Protestants, Eastern Orthodox and their derivatives have basically locked themselves into the Jewish lawyer dichotomy of Hillel vs Shammai which our Lord outright corrects, appealing to an even greater authority (Himself). We understand marriage to be the earthly sign of the Covenant relationship between Christ and the Church, as Saint Paul says in Ephesians.

He who loves his wife loves himself. For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This is a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and the church; however, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

10 And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter.

11 And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her;

12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

As is usual, his disciples who have been living within the religious-social dichotomy of the Pharisees are confused about Jesus’ teaching on marriage so when they get back to a place of privacy they ask him themselves the same question that the Pharisees asked but this time it is coming from a place of confusion. Jesus says it clearly, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

38 John said to him, “Teacher, we saw a man casting out demons in your name, and we forbade him, because he was not following us.”

It is important to acknowledge the series of events leading up to this point in order to fully understand the context of what is going on here below the surface. Previous to this we had three significant moments, Jesus passing on the authority to exorcise demons to his apostles, their failing in exorcising the mute and deaf spirit and Jesus presenting a child to them as a model of humility after their ego-filled discussions amongst themselves. This is the back drop of the following event.

John, one of the inner three apostles of Jesus, says to his master that the disciples saw someone casting out demons in Jesus’ name. So we should acknowledge these as successful exorcisms as that is what is being described, miraculous events of spiritual warfare have taken place with the side of Christ winning, despite not being among those selected to receive the authority.

John and those with him, forbade the man “because he was not following us”. John and the other disciples intentions are likely not pure, they have VERY recently proved their big headedness, coupled with a failure to exorcise a demon. Just because things that were once hidden from man have now been revealed, does not mean all the hidden mysteries have been revealed, the machinations of the divine realm and spiritual warfare we only seem dimly, like through dirty glass.

Examples like that of the two men outside the Old Covenant Camp when the spirit descended on the elders, from mans perspective, especially Moses and Aaron’s, these men were not called but God in his wisdom choose for a hidden reason to bestow the spirit on to them as well, giving them the power of prophecy. See Numbers Chapter 11.

39 But Jesus said, “Do not forbid him; for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon after to speak evil of me.

Jesus rebukes John, telling him to not forbid those that do a “mighty work” or “works a miracle” in Jesus’ name. It is important to stress that the person can actually do such a miraculous feat. Otherwise they are likely just liars and therefore an enemy of Him who is Truth itself. Jesus tells John that those who actually do such works are not likely to be able to speak evil of Jesus. To speak evil could also mean do evil.

So if someone can actually do such works, they are like what Saint Paul and Saint John speak of in their Epistles, those who live by the Spirit and cannot sin. I think it is interesting that these two are the ones who write about this, John first of all as he is the one being rebuked on the topic in the Gospel reading and Paul, one who was miraculously picked outside of the ordinary way, the thirteenth apostle who never met Christ in his earthly ministry. Interesting synchronicity there.

40 For he that is not against us is for us.

This small verse is rather profound for its simple composition. The words that Jesus is speaking are so few but it gives us a lot to hold on to. Regardless of where someone is on their journey in faith, as long as they are not against Jesus’ mission and covenant family, they can easily be seen as an ally. It makes the process of deduction in who is with us or against us very easy. Anyone on that path will eventually end up exactly where they need to be, on the ride side.

30 They went on from there and passed through Galilee. And he would not have any one know it;

31 for he was teaching his disciples, saying to them, “The Son of man will be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him; and when he is killed, after three days he will rise.”

Following the exorcism of a mans son who had a mute and deaf spirit, Jesus and his disciples make their way through Galilee. Usually when in Galilee Jesus is doing public ministry works but in this case, he is keep his journey secretive as he is instructing his disciples.

First of all speaking in the third person, Jesus says that he must be “delivered into the hands of men” this means to be arrested, surrendering himself to them, not taken by force. He uses his favourite title for himself “The Son of Man”. Although its older meaning just meant a male human being, after the Prophet Daniels messianic revelations it took on a new, divine meaning.

The passage in Daniel is chapter 7:13-14 and it reads:

I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.

This figure in Second Temple Judaism was seen as divine as he shares dominion and glory with God the Father (The Ancient of Days. This figure is all the fulfilment of the first prophecy the Bible found in Genesis 3:15

“I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”

The “He” in this passage, the Messiah and the “Son of Man” were all perceived to be the same figure. Jesus using this title for himself is a divine claim, he is claiming to be that figure riding on the cloud with the glory of the Ancient of Days. Although to us in our Post-Resurrection context, we don’t see a problem here but to many Jews this was considered blasphemy to claim (unless it was true).

Jesus explains that the Son of Man must be surrendered to the powers of men and be killed but after three days, he will rise again. This was in fact foretold, again, by the Prophet Daniel, along with a whole timeline but pride veiling itself as piety prevented people from being able to accept. Even Jesus’ own disciples struggle with the concept.

Daniel 9:24-26 reads:

“Seventy weeks of years are decreed concerning your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place. Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time. And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off, and shall have nothing“

This timeline is from the Archangel Gabriel, the same messenger in the Annunciation, and it articulates that in the last week the “anointed one shall be cut off”. Greek for anointed is Christos and when comparing scriptures especially Exodus and Leviticus we can see that “Cut off” is a Hebraism for death, more specifically, execution. So even in the Prophet Daniel we find this message that Jesus is trying to teach his apostles. The Christ must be put to death. He must die so God as fully God and Man, can conquer death for us. That is what the Resurrection is, which explains will occur after three days.

32 But they did not understand the saying, and they were afraid to ask him.

As the generations of Hebrews before, they also do not understand what Jesus is saying. Scripture requires humility and divine revelation, the reason why is because the Devil can read. This prideful blindness that stops them comprehending Jesus words will be expressed quite fully in the following verses.

33 And they came to Caperna-um; and when he was in the house he asked them, “What were you discussing on the way?”

34 But they were silent; for on the way they had discussed with one another who was the greatest.

Jesus has spent his time trying to reveal to the mysteries of the divine plan, telling them the horrible death he must endure and they have spent their time…trying to one up each. Discussing “who was the greatest”. It makes sense that they cannot understand what Jesus is saying because of that humility requirement.

35 And he sat down and called the twelve; and he said to them, “If any one would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all.”

36 And he took a child, and put him in the midst of them; and taking him in his arms, he said to them,

37 “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me; and whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me.”

Jesus then uses their competition among themselves to motivate them in the right direction. If you want to be the “greatest” you must be “last of all and servant of all”. The greatest’s obligations are not to lord over people but to serve all. This is what God does in the Incarnation. This is who Jesus. Power is not to be used selfishly but to use for others.

In order to show just how far from the humble state they must be in, Jesus takes a child in his arms and says to the apostles that “whoever receives one such child in my name receives me; and whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me.” If you are humble enough to accept a child among you in Jesus’ name. You are imitating him because what the Son does in the Incarnation is the same form. Change the child to Jesus and Jesus to God the Father and we’re seeing the same image. One on an earthly scale and the other on the divine scale. If you can be trusted in small things, you can be trusted in bigger things. It is all a part of the divine condescension of the mystery of the Incarnation but such things are difficult for us to understand because we can only see through the eyes of faith and a humble heart. So Jesus re-enacts the divine scene in a visual way with the young boy.

Several ancient writers actually believe that the young boy found in this passage was a young Saint Ignatius of Antioch, who took the surname “Theophorus” which typically means “God-Carrier” but you can read it also “Carried by God”. Similar to Saint Paul he wrote as being one “born out of time”, he wasn’t old enough to be a disciple of Jesus but as Jesus points out, he has the humility required that the apostles actually lack.

14 And when they came to the disciples, they saw a great crowd about them, and scribes arguing with them.

Following the Transfiguration, Peter, James, John and Jesus come down from the mountain to the other disciples and their is a large crowd gathered. This crowd are followers of Jesus and they are arguing with the Scribes. The Scribes were hired consultants of the Law, they are not a separate sect but Mosaic Lawyers, different groups had their own Scribes and some Scribes were independent.

15 And immediately all the crowd, when they saw him, were greatly amazed, and ran up to him and greeted him.

16 And he asked them, “What are you discussing with them?”

Upon Jesus’ arrival the crowds are amazed that he is here. It is important to not forget that Jesus’ fame at this time was at its height during his earthly ministry. We know from previous passages that the crowds were so large that they filled the Synagogues of the towns Jesus went to and they also filled up the areas around the Synagogues at the same time. Whenever we see this phrasing we should be envisioning multiple hundreds of people.

Jesus is more interested in what they were arguing about with the Scribes so he asks them the question “What are you discussing with them?” The response given in the following verses will illuminate what they were arguing about.

17 And one of the crowd answered him, “Teacher, I brought my son to you, for he has a dumb spirit;

18 and wherever it seizes him, it dashes him down; and he foams and grinds his teeth and becomes rigid; and I asked your disciples to cast it out, and they were not able.”

A man in the crowds says that he has brought his son to Jesus because he has a “dumb spirit”. This implies that the demon possessing the child itself is mute, not the child which is curious since most demons are rather vocal, especially in the presence of Jesus. The idea of a mute spirit is odd, even in the supernatural realm of things and the demon later on does make a noise so it is hard to truly understand what Mark is trying to articulate for us.

The man then lists the rest of the symptoms, the spirit “seizes him” meaning takes control of his body, it throws him to the ground, foams at the mouth, grinds his teeth and becomes rigid. A lot of sceptical scholars perceive this to not be a supernatural occurrence at all but a natural one and claim that the child has epilepsy but Jesus later “rebukes the spirit” so we should take the Bible at its word, this is a demon that is causing these symptoms. It isn’t to say that all epilepsy is demonic, but in this case the inspired Word says it is.

Previous to this Jesus has granted the authority to cast out demons to his apostles and they have successfully gone out on mission and done this. They didn’t have any problems then but they are having problems now. We should understand that the miracles done by Jesus are dependant on faith, even though Jesus has granted his apostles the faculty we should be able to infer that if for some reason they became big headed about this new founded power, it would likely fail as it would if the recipients of an exorcism lacked the openness to faith.

19 And he answered them, “O faithless generation, how long am I to be with you? How long am I to bear with you? Bring him to me.”

Jesus correctly diagnosing the problem, his apostles and/or the man requesting the healing lack faith. He uses the same language used to describe the rebellious generation in the Wilderness years of the Old Covenant people “faithless generation”. Jesus then appears to be somewhat impatient about his time with them, rhetorically asking “how long am I to be with you? How long am I to bear with you?”. Jesus knows that his earthly ministry is temporary and is supposed to be the training ground for his apostles to become him essentially and go out eventually to all nations but here they are, struggling on home turf even while he is present.

He cuts to the quick and requests that the boy be brought straight to him.

20 And they brought the boy to him; and when the spirit saw him, immediately it convulsed the boy, and he fell on the ground and rolled about, foaming at the mouth.

Upon entering Jesus vicinity the boy immediately reacts, or at least the evil spirit possessing him does. Throwing him to the ground and causing him to foam at the mouth, the same symptoms that the father had listed before. Although the demon hasn’t spoken like previous possessions, it is reacting somewhat similarly, being near Jesus is enough to make it scared.

21 And Jesus asked his father, “How long has he had this?” And he said, “From childhood.

22 And it has often cast him into the fire and into the water, to destroy him; but if you can do anything, have pity on us and help us.”

23 And Jesus said to him, “If you can! All things are possible to him who believes.”

24 Immediately the father of the child cried out and said, “I believe; help my unbelief!”

Jesus turns to the father asking how long the boy has suffered, he responds informing him that it has happened since childhood. This perhaps gives us a better understanding of the age, he is likely a fully grown adult instead of being a child. He explains that it causes his son to do dangerous things to himself, trying to drown him, burn him to “destroy him”. The father is beseeching Jesus on behalf of his son, similar to the Syrophoenician woman and her daughter. This might seem like an unimportant detail but Jesus explains that all things are possible to him who believes. The exorcisms, as well as healings, are not dependant it seems on the person needing it themselves necessarily but on the person who intercedes for them. This speaks to the power of intercession for friends and loved ones who might be atheists.

The father cries out “I believe, help my unbelief”. He is struggling with a supernatural worldview and is basically saying “I believe as much as I can” but is essentially clueless to the miraculous mysteries going on here. He intellectually knows that Jesus can do this, that is why he sought him, but his heart is struggling.

25 And when Jesus saw that a crowd came running together, he rebuked the unclean spirit, saying to it, “You dumb and deaf spirit, I command you, come out of him, and never enter him again.”

26 And after crying out and convulsing him terribly, it came out, and the boy was like a corpse; so that most of them said, “He is dead.”

27 But Jesus took him by the hand and lifted him up, and he arose.

Jesus sees that the crowd are about to swarm them, so he seeks to save the mans son beforehand. Jesus rebukes the spirit and calls it “dumb and deaf”, Jesus as usual as a little more insight that the people who only see with their eyes. He acknowledges the muteness but also, through his divine knowledge, knows that it is deaf as well. This is a very peculiar demonic spirit. As he usually does, he commands the spirit by word to leave the young man and to never enter him again. Now the demon makes a loud cry or perhaps, the young man himself is making the noise in the painful extraction of the demon. The demon leaves and the boys body is so still that people think he is dead, as Mark records for us, some even say so out loud but Jesus takes him by the hand and lifts him up and the boy rises and he is fine.

28 And when he had entered the house, his disciples asked him privately, “Why could we not cast it out?”

29 And he said to them, “This kind cannot be driven out by anything but prayer and fasting.”

Mark takes no wasted space in his parchment, they are suddenly back at “the house” this informs us that they are in Capernaum, Jesus home base of ministry at the house of Simon Peter. Now they have some privacy they ask Jesus why they could not cast the demon out. Now the peculiarity of this demon gets weirder. Jesus says, “This kind cannot be driven out by anything but prayer and fasting”. I am about to go out on a little bit of a limb here but I think this lets us know something about this particular entity especially based on its other traits, muteness and deafness. Jesus can cure the boy but the apostles can’t, the only cure without Jesus personally getting involved is disconnecting from the material world, prayer and fasting.

The Greek word used by Mark here for “kind” is genos. That typically means race or stock. We think of demons as one thing, fallen angels but when we look through ancient eyes we see a bigger picture. Typical demonic possession is somewhat personal, demons hate us cuz they aint us so they cause us harm in a personal fashion and can communicate.

In Second Temple and Qumranic thought, many illnesses were attributed to spirits or forces acting under divine or rebellious authority. The Book of Jubilees (10:1-14) describes how demons, led by Mastema (a Satan-like figure), afflicted humans. Interestingly, God permits some of these spirits to remain active, though controlled.

The ancient worldview of angelic beings, all natural forces like fire, wind, water and any material force you could think of, were actually kept in place by spiritual beings in the lowest level of heaven. We perceive physics as a set of rules and the ancients believed that too but acknowledged the philosophical dilemma here, who is keeping the rules? God can do everything but he passes this on to others to minister to, that is just how God works. Sickness was perceived as a force too, God did not intend for sickness to come into the world but he allows it… so someone/something, at least in the ancient world view, has that job. So what if the spirit causing this isn’t some personal soldier of Satan but a similar, non-social yet still rebellious material-law enforcing spirit? It would explain the muteness and deafness, on top of that, Jesus says the only cure is prayer and fasting, disconnection from reliance on the material world and its many angelic ministers (good or bad). He can cure it because he’s God but the authority he gave to the Apostles was to fight the demonic soldiers of the devil, not rebellious elemental spirits.

34 And he called to him the multitude with his disciples, and said to them, “If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.

Jesus, following Peter’s confession of faith, calls the crowds and his other groups of disciples to him to further explain the suffering he must endure and how they must imitate it. If anyone is to follow in Jesus’ way they must deny themselves meaning their will and desires. They are also to take up their “cross” as they follow him.

Although after two millenia of Christendom the cross has become a symbol of salvation and life, pre-resurrection it was the most shameful and horrific sign of death for a variety of cultures because it was the perfected instrument of crucifixion. The origins of the crucifixion trace back to the Assyrians and Babylonians in the 9th and 6th centuries before Christ. The Greeks adopted it in the 4th century BC as a terror tactic against their enemies but Greek culture at large rejected its use as being excessively cruel and dishonourable. It would be be perfected and systematised under the Romans in the 2nd century BC. It was used to punish the lowest of criminals like slaves and rebels. The Romans perfected crucifixion into a slow, torturous and publicly humiliating form of execution. The victims were also forced to publicly carry the crossbeam (patibulum) to the location of their execution and were then nailed or tied to it after being scourged.The Jew’s saw this form of execution as the worst possible way to die because in Deuteronomy it says who ever dies hanging from tree is cursed. The victim is stripped naked, whipped to near death, forced to carry the crossbeam, nailed or tied to the beam and then left to be humiliated as they slowly suffocate to death.

The sign for all of this horror was “the cross” that Jesus is telling his followers that they must carry and follow him with. This statement of Jesus would have been absolutely shocking and stomach churning to those who heard it.

35 For whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel’s will save it.

Jesus does not stop at the horror of the cross, he now goes further. Anyone who tries to save his own life for the sake of himself will lose it, that being they would lose eternal life, the life beyond this one we experience this side of the veil but whoever loses his life for the sake of Jesus and the Good News, will save it. Meaning they will receive eternal life.

36 For what does it profit a man, to gain the whole world and forfeit his life?

37 For what can a man give in return for his life?

Jesus proposes two rhetorical questions to make his audience focus on eternal things. The life of a man is more important than him gaining all the material of the whole world. A life is never meant to be an commercial exchange, possibly referring the Psalms of David, Jesus is saying that your life is not able to purchase anything from God the source of all life.

38 For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of man also be ashamed, when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.”

Whoever is ashamed of Jesus, Jesus will be ashamed of him when he comes at the final judgement, his Second Coming, with the glory of God the Father and the angelic host. Jesus also refers to those that do this as an adulterous and sinful generation, this language is reminiscent of the language used against the sinful generation that grumbled against Moses in the Exodus.

1 And he said to them, “Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.”

Here Jesus states that some of those in attendance will not die before the Kingdom of God has come with power. Although many see this as proof of a moment where Jesus is wrong, they are in fact massively mistaken. Jesus is not saying that there are some here that will see the second coming, he is saying that some will be alive during his judgement of the Holy City in 70 AD. This is when the Old Covenant cultic practices are officially and literally destroyed. The Romans completely conquer the city and raze the Temple to the ground, something that Jesus predicted. Just as God used Nebuchanezzer to punish his people in the Old Testament, God will use the Romans to punish his people now because they refused Jesus as the Messiah. The Church is the earthly satellite state of the Kingdom of God and although the New Covenant was established officially at the last supper, it would not be until those old wineskins are thrown out that the fresh skins are filled. The Old must be destroyed to make way for the New.

27 And Jesus went on with his disciples, to the villages of Caesarea Philippi; and on the way he asked his disciples, “Who do men say that I am?”

After the healing of the blind man at Beth-saida, Jesus takes his disciples thirty miles north to Caesarea Philippi. This is a ten hour hike, for apparently no purpose at all except to ask a question on the way. Caesarea Philipipi is no insignificant place. Firstly lets start from Jesus’ time and move backward.

It’s name in the Gospels was its name at that time, it was called Caesarea in honor of Caesar Augustus but Philip the Tetrarch wanted to distinguish it from Caesarea Maritima on the coast so he added his own name to it. Herod the Great, father of Philip built a large temple in honor of Caesar there as well. About three hundred years before this, after Alexander the Greats Hellenistic conquest of the region it became the major centre of cultic worship of the Greek god Pan and was named “Paneas” after the deity. There was a large cave there known as the Grotto of Pan and was believed to be the entrance to the underworld. Now that’s usually where scholars stop, because do we need to go any further? The answer is yes, yes we do.

Before the Hellenistic conquest, this region, especially Mount Hermon which the city was at the foot of was the centre of Ba’al worship. That Ba’al mentioned in your Old Testament. Ba’al means Lord or Husband and became the term we use for the Evil One hence Beelzebub. The Canaanites storm riding, sea chaos defeating, divine king “Ba’al” was basically Marduk of ancient Babylon. A prince of the air, if you will. But the ancient Hebrews did not see it that way, they believed something about this place, especially Mount Hermon that puts all of this in to a fantastic backdrop for the starting of the New Covenant.

If you ask a Christian when did all the bad stuff start, when was the “fall” they would tell you about our first parents, Adam and Eve. They’re right to say that but if you asked an ancient Hebrew they would ask you back “Which fall?” Because to them, there was more than one. The Fall in Eden was terrible but another Fall came after that preoccupied Hebrew thought all the way to the Second Temple Period and definitely occupied the minds of the New Testament Authors and therefore early Christians.

The second big fall was that of the “Son’s of God” who left their domain and did some illicit activity with human women, I am not going to say what, not because I’m squeamish but because I truly do not believe we will ever fully comprehend what this infringement was. The Bible only gives us Genesis 6:1-4 to explain. Either way, God put them in prison until the Day of Judgement for it. According to Hebrew Tradition, that exact location of that Fall was Mount Hermon. This is where our fallen nature from the first fall was twisted and mutilated even further by the “Sons of God”, rebels against the divine plan.

This is the backdrop of this scene, it is WAY bigger than most people realise. Jesus then asks them a simple question “Who do people say I am?” Mark is summarising the exact phrasing but I think looking at the exact phrasing is important for this to make sense. “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” writes Saint Matthew. This is a messianic title, initially just meaning a man but in the revelations given to the Prophet Daniel we understand the Son of Man to be the Messiah, the one who will come to fix basically everything and he will be Divine.

We understand that there were two falls, the first in Eden and the second on Mount Hermon. What do you think “Son of Man” is in Hebrew? Ben Adam. The Phrase Son of Man can also be read as the New Adam. He is going to fix the first fall by being the New Adam and is going to fix then second by founding his New Covenant family on top of the location of it. Literally conquering it. He proposes the question so the Leader of the Apostles has his chance to lay the first brick of the Church,.

28 And they told him, “John the Baptist; and others say, Elijah; and others one of the prophets.”

The disciples respond with the presumptions of others, those that are listed out by Herod Antipas’ court. So this seems to be the dominant opinion by “the people”. Some think he is the resurrected John the Baptist, some think Elijah. There was a particular expectation of the Prophet Elijah as he was prophesied to arrive as a forerunner to the Messiah in the Old Testament. Other Prophets are also considered as being the true identity of Jesus.

29 And he asked them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered him, “You are the Christ.”

He now directs the question specifically at them, he wants to know who they think he is. Only Peter answers, the Leader of the Apostles and he answers “You are the Christ.” That is the Anointed One, that’s what Christos in Greek means. Those who are anointed are kings, priests and prophets. This lets us know that although all those offices were anointed there was a type of Messianic labelling as the definite article “The” is being used. He is The Anointed One, as in the Messiah, the Son of Man seen by the Prophet Daniel in a heavenly vision. Not just any particular King, Priest or Prophet but a preeminent one.

30 And he charged them to tell no one about him.

He tells them to keep the Messianic secret, this is so all things play out exactly as God ordained. It might sound silly but I can’t help but see some of what Jesus does as a divine version of Secret Boss. To see exactly how his people act without them knowing they are being tested.

31 And he began to teach them that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.

The Prophet Daniel when he receives the Messianic Timeline from the Angel Gabriel discovers that the Messiah in the final week will be “Cut off”. This is a Hebraism that means be killed. Something that obviously perplexed many Jews for along time (and still does to be honest). Jesus explains what this entails but Mark only summarises for us. Jesus must suffer many things, be rejected by the elders, chief priests and scribes and be killed. The “Head” of the Old Covenant Ekklesia will reject him, to use naturalistic imagery and will kill him but after three days he will rise. He will conquer Death, which entered the world through the first Fall and made worse in the Second Fall. He says all of this at the perceived Gates of Hell at the foot of Mount Hermon.

32 And he said this plainly. And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him.

Summarising for us again, Mark tells his audience that Jesus said this all plainly, meaning he said it so it could not be misunderstood. Peter takes issue with this, not wanting to see his Master die and attempts to rebuke Jesus. Right after his confession of faith. It’s understandable from an emotional point of view why Peter does this but our emotions are not as ordered as we think they are and can become an adversary to the plan God has.

33 But turning and seeing his disciples, he rebuked Peter, and said, “Get behind me, Satan! For you are not on the side of God, but of men.”

Jesus turns to the others, as if for his gaze to convert their doubts that might be growing in the face of Peter’s rebellious attitude and rebukes Peter in front of them. He tells him to “Get behind me, Satan! For you are not on the side of God, but of men.” This phrase for some reason always gets anti-catholic people excited but that’s because they do not understand what any of these words mean.

Satan was not a common proper noun for the evil one in this time period, some used the definite article “The” in english to denote the Evil One but that also referred to the divine prosecutor of God’s heavenly court (who is not the devil) but the common and older usage of satan, which was still in use in Jesus’ time simply meant “adversary”. It is essentially a description of someone’s position in opposition to something else. In the Hebrew Bible, it is used to describe human adversaries. For example, in 1 Samuel 29:4, David is called a satan because he is perceived as an adversary to the Philistines. Jesus also tells Peter to get behind him, as in to follow him and not be an “adversary”. Peter is following his fallen human nature, which considering the backdrop is again very theologically deep, and is called to a higher standard.

22 And they came to Beth-saida. And some people brought to him a blind man, and begged him to touch him.

Following Jesus’ chiding of the disciples for being spiritually blind, he and his disciples finally arrive at Beth-saida. This was the location that Jesus said they were going to when they encountered the storm on the sea of Galilee so perhaps this was the original final destination of the journey as planned but there were other points he wanted to stop off at to do ministry work. Beth-saida was a small fishing town on the northern shore of Galilee and according Josephus, the Jewish historian, it was under the control of Philip the Tetrarch, brother of Herod Antipas and son of Herod the Great.

Upon arriving at Beth-saida, the people come to greet Jesus and bring to him a blind man. Fully aware of Jesus’ ability to heal people they seek on the mans behalf for Jesus to give the his his sight.

23 And he took the blind man by the hand, and led him out of the village; and when he had spit on his eyes and laid his hands upon him, he asked him, “Do you see anything?”

24 And he looked up and said, “I see men; but they look like trees, walking.”

Jesus takes the man out of the village, this like a few of his other healings, brings about a sense of intimacy. Jesus then uses his own spittle on the mans eyes, lays his hands on him and asks him if he sees anything. As we have noted before, the other Gospel authors have relational, philosophical or typological methods of establishing the humanity of Christ. A dogma of the faith, the Incarnation necessitates the God-man being truly God and truly man.

Mark’s method of establishing this fact, or should we say Peter’s method, as all these things are recorded from Peter’s memory, is by these very intimate healings. They echo that of how a parent very intimately and humanly takes care of their children. A mother using her own spit to wipe the dirt off of her sons dirty face for example. This does not mean we should reduce this healing to some natural action however, Jesus is also fully God and this is miraculous yet not quite complete.

It appears that the man can see somewhat but not clearly. He sees men but “they look like trees, walking.” Jesus is God and is all powerful but his healings require a “perfect conduit” so to speak that relies on the receivers faith. In his home town of Nazareth where their faith was weak, he did not perform many miracles. God is a trinity of Persons, God’s being is a perfect communion and God seeks that communion out in his creatures. It is evidence of a divine condescension, it makes us able to participate in our own salvation despite it being all his power.

25 Then again he laid his hands upon his eyes; and he looked intently and was restored, and saw everything clearly.

The first part of the healing obviously helped the mans faith in what Jesus could do. The second time Jesus lays his hands upon his eyes, looking intently, the man is fully healed and “saw everything clearly.” Jesus in his divine condescension makes even the healing of a blind man a relational event.

26 And he sent him away to his home, saying, “Do not even enter the village.”

Jesus sends the man away to his home, charging him with the command “Do not even ever the village”. First Jesus takes him away from the village, as to not make a spectacle out of the mans sight being given to him by a miracle and now he tells him to not even go to the village, presumably to tell the town what has happened. This was not a point of entertainment it was an extremely person intimate encounter with the Word made Flesh, it is not to be paraded around and for Jesus to receive adulation from the village folk. It was entirely about Jesus and the man alone.

14 Now they had forgotten to bring bread; and they had only one loaf with them in the boat.

Jesus and his disciples have left the coastal town where the Pharisees argued with Jesus and sought to the test him. They Mark tells they are going to the opposite side of the Sea of Galilee, its quite the journey even by boat, they would need to eat eventually but they “had forgotten to bring bread” as if to say they “had forgotten to bring enough bread” the second part of the verse makes it clear they have at least one loaf between Jesus, the twelve and other disciples following Jesus around. Some see this as a contradiction but I think it is more plausible that they meant enough bread for them all, there is at least thirteen people here, one loaf is not enough. It seems silly for me to clarify this but you would be surprised at the amount of anti-christian scholars who have attempted to use this, of all things, as a “gotcha” moment.

15 And he cautioned them, saying, “Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod.”

As Jesus usually does, he uses takes the topic at hand and turns it into a parable, a teaching opportunity. They have bread on the mind so the moment is not squandered and Jesus refers to the leaven, the yeast that makes bread and other baked goods rise as an analogy for the false teachings and influence of the Pharisees and Herod Antipas. This would make the Jewish people a loaf and they should be aware of what causes the Judeans to “rise” in the sense that the Pharisees and Herod want.

Sometimes what is perceived as good in the eyes of the world, is not actually a good thing at all in the eyes of God. Many people perceived the Pharisees as a “good influence” and the political power of Herod and his alliance with the Romans as good as well. Neither is true, beware their influence, very simple.

16 And they discussed it with one another, saying, “We have no bread.”

17 And being aware of it, Jesus said to them, “Why do you discuss the fact that you have no bread? Do you not yet perceive or understand? Are your hearts hardened?

18 Having eyes do you not see, and having ears do you not hear? And do you not remember?

The disciples in their usual manner as well, fail to understand what Jesus was teaching completely. They are still focused on the material desires of food, whilst Jesus was trying to teach them something much more important. They, after discussing the matter, respond to Jesus with “We have no bread.”

Jesus realising that his teaching has not landed at all, going completely over their heads, just cuts to the point of their response. “Why do you discuss the fact that you have no bread?” They are unable to perceive the higher level of understanding that Jesus was trying to teach, beyond the simple desires of being hungry.

They are limited by their physical senses and Jesus adds on “Are your hearts hardened?” This phrasing should bring to mind that of Pharaoh whose heart was hardened, meaning his will/desire was sharpened at the cost of a soft open heart. The meaning being that when your heart is hardened as Jesus says, you will be limited in your perception. We all have desires and inclinations but something about our hearts being soft and open can negate the domination that our desires have on us and let us see the bigger picture.

He goes on to list their senses, eyes but cannot see, ears but cannon hear. My understanding of this, is that our physical body parts, obviously have a utility but that’s not their only purpose, they, like many things that God makes for us or asks us to make are living signs. Indicators that point to something else. Our sight should point us to the unseen and our ears should remind us of what can’t be heard. They are not perfect perception devices.

He then ends on asking if they remember.

19 When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?” They said to him, “Twelve.”

20 “And the seven for the four thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?” And they said to him, “Seven.”

21 And he said to them, “Do you not yet understand?”

Mark now recounts in summary the two distinct feeding miracles and their unique numerical synbolic components. For anyone else still believing that the Gospel authors “accidentally” wrote down the same story twice, these verses should correct that notion.

For the five thousand Jews, Jesus breaks five loaves, leaving twelve baskets full at the end of it. For the four thousand Gentiles, Jesus breaks seven loaves, leaving seven baskets full and the end. He is trying to explain to them that they are not wanting for food, they shouldn’t ever be worried about food, they have miraculous leader who can literally multiply bread. Their perception limitations are made rigid by an understanding of life in only a natural lens despite the fact that Jesus has demonstrated that the supernatural is very much possible and he has done it multiple times.