vi. 1–6. Visit to Nazareth and Rejection there: cf. Matt. xiii. 53–58. See also Luke iv. 16–30. The difficulty here is as to the relations in which the three narratives stand to each other. Matthew’s narrative is in most respects a pretty close parallel to Mark’s. There are also resemblances between these two and the third narrative in Luke. So that not a few suppose all three to be versions of one and the same event. There are, however, noticeable differences between Luke’s account and the others. Luke places the visit which he records at the very beginning of our Lord’s ministry; he dwells upon the fierce wrath of the townsfolk; and he connects their murderous intentions with our Lord’s departure to Capernaum. Luke’s narrative, therefore, appears to refer to an earlier visit; while Matthew and Mark deal with a second visit, made perhaps with the twofold purpose of renewing his relations with his mother and his brothers and endeavouring again to commend himself to his fellow townsmen. Nor is there any improbability in the supposition that he should have made two visits to his old home, and that these should have had much in common as regards both his message and the reception given him.1. from thence: from the house of Jäirus, or from the city or district in which it was. Probably his wish was to get away from these hampering crowds. [Salmond, 1906]

began to teach. He came accompanied by his disciples, not as a private visitor, but as one with a mission to fulfil, and he took the first opportunity of delivering his message—in the synagogue on his first sabbath.

astonished. The impression made by his words on this occasion was different from that produced by the visit recorded in Luke’s Gospel. Amazement was the effect now, murderous fury the effect then.

mighty works: ‘powers,’ i.e. miraculous powers. The report had reached them of miracles done by his means. They are astonished at the change in him indicated by the teaching which they had listened to and by the works of which they had heard something. [Salmond, 1906]

the carpenter. The only occasion on which he is called explicitly ‘the carpenter.’ In Matthew he is ‘the carpenter’s son.’ Every Jew had to learn a trade. Jesus would naturally learn the one followed by Joseph, and would work in his shop at Nazareth. The Apocryphal gospels have much that is extravagant to say of him in this connexion. Justin Martyr tells us that in his time (the middle of the second century) rakes, harrows, and other articles were preserved which were said to have been made by Jesus. The Gospel of the Infancy represents him as setting Joseph right when he blundered in his work.

son of Mary. There is no reference to Joseph. Hence it has been inferred that Mary was now widowed. Joseph is mentioned, however, in Luke’s narrative of the earlier visit (iv. 22). He passes now out of sight, whether he had died in the interval or still survived.

brother of James. As to the brothers of Jesus see on iii. 31. Their names are given only here and in Matt. xiii. 55.
James: the head of the Church of Jerusalem, as appears from Acts xii. 17, xv. 13, xxi. 18; called by Paul ‘the Lord’s brother’ (Gal. i. 19); mentioned also as one of the three ‘pillars’ (Gal. ii. 9, 12); the probable author of the Epistle of James.
Joses: In Matthew ‘Joseph’ (xiii. 55).

Judas: The probable author of the Epistle of Jude. Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. iii. 20), quoting from Hegesippus, an historian of the second century, speaks of the ‘grandchildren of Judas, called the brother of our Lord,’ as living in the time of the Emperor Domitian (A.D. 81–96).

Simon. Mentioned also in the parallel passage in Matthew, but nowhere else. He is identified by some with Simon the Cananaean, and by others with the martyr Symeon, the head of the Jerusalem Church after the death of James; but in neither case on any sufficient basis of fact.

his sisters. Their names are never given. All that we know of them is that they lived in Nazareth, as the present passage indicates. This (with the parallel in Matt. xiii. 56) is the only mention of them in the Gospels, unless it be, according to one form of the text, in Mark iii. 32. In Acts i. 14 Mary and the brethren are noticed as among those who continued in prayer in Jerusalem. But nothing is said of the sisters.

offended in him. First ‘astonished,’ and then ‘scandalized.’ The difference between what his teaching and the ‘powers’ reported to be in his hands made him now to be, and what they knew him to have been, was too much for them. [Salmond, 1906]

A prophet is not without honour. Compare what is said of Jeremiah and the men of Anathoth (Jer. xi. 21). His use of this proverb was an indirect claim to the rank of a prophet.

and among his own kin. Mark alone inserts this—the sentence in which he names the sharpest pang in a bitter trial. [Salmond, 1906]

could … do no mighty work. Matthew says simply, ‘he did not many mighty works.’ The inability declared by Mark was a moral inability, not any physical arrest put upon his ‘powers.’ The moral conditions were wanting.

a few sick folk. There were, therefore, exceptions; some ‘hidden ones’ with a claim upon his compassion and with the inward preparation for the healing gift. [Salmond, 1906]

marvelled. It belonged to the integrity of his human nature that he was capable of real wonder as of real love and pity. ‘The surprises of life,’ says Dr. Swete, ‘especially those which belong to its ethical and spiritual side, created genuine astonishment in the human mind of Christ.’ The faith of the centurion (Matt. viii. 10), and the prejudiced unbelief of the men of Nazareth, were both among these ‘surprises of life’ to him. They are the only cases in which wonder is definitely attributed to him. [Salmond, 1906]

vi. 7–13. Mission of the Twelve: cf. Matt. ix. 35–x. 1, x. 5–xi. 1; Luke ix. 1–6. This mission is given at much greater length by Matthew than by Mark and Luke. His work being defeated in Nazareth by the prejudiced attitude of the people, he leaves the town, and begins a teaching tour among the villages. The extent of this tour is not distinctly indicated in any of the narratives, but there is no reason to suppose that it was confined to the immediate neighbourhood of Nazareth itself.

7. began to send them forth. The Twelve had an official position, and were originally destined for missionary service. He had been preparing them for that, and now he sends them forth on their first definite mission.

by two and two. Mark alone notices this arrangement. Each would thus help the other, and their testimony would be more telling. As they went forth in pairs, six different districts could be overtaken.

authority over the unclean spirits. From Matthew and Luke we see that their commission embraced also healing and preaching. [Salmond, 1906]

nothing … save a staff only. They were to be content with the simplest equipment. Usually journeys in the East were carefully prepared for. These men were to go forth promptly and as they were, taking neither bread, nor wallet, nor money, nor anything beyond the staff which every traveller carried. Matthew says ‘nor staff,’ and Luke ‘neither staff, nor wallet.’ Mark’s ‘save a staff only,’ is much the same as ‘at most a staff.’ The ‘wallet’ or ‘scrip’ (A. V.) was a leathern bag, swung over the shoulder, containing food for the journey. The ‘purse’ was the loose girdle, in the folds of which the money was placed. [Salmond, 1906]

shod with sandals: the simplest covering for the feet. Shoes also were worn by Jews, costly shoes, such as were in use among the Babylonians, furnished with upper leather.

two coats. As Mark puts it, it is the wearing of two coats on this journey that is forbidden; as Matthew and Luke express it, it is the possession of two coats that is in view. They were to encumber themselves with nothing that would be unsuitable for plain men going about among ordinary folk. The ‘coat’ or ‘tunic’ was the garment worn under the cloak. In the case of the poor it might be the only garment. [Salmond, 1906]

there abide till ye depart thence. They were not to gad about from house to house, but to continue with the family that received them so long as they remained in the place. [Salmond, 1906]

shake off the dust: a symbolical act of renunciation. It was a testimony to the inhospitable that they were put upon a level with the heathen. [Salmond, 1906]

should repent. The burden of their preaching, therefore, was that with which both the Baptist and the Master began. [Salmond, 1906]

anointed with oil. This was a common specific with Jewish physicians. Only once again in the N. T. is it referred to in connexion with healing, viz. in Jas. v. 14. Though the Twelve used unction, it is not said that Jesus himself employed it in any of his works. [Salmond, 1906]

vi. 14–16. Herod’s fear: cf. Matt. xiv. 1, 2; Luke ix. 7–9. The report of the miracles done by the Twelve reaches the tetrarch. He concludes that Jesus must be John risen from the dead.

14. king: here a title of courtesy only, the proper designation being tetrarch, as in Matthew and Luke. The ‘tetrarch,’ properly speaking, was the governor of the fourth part of a country or province. Under the Empire it was a title of tributary princes of less than regal rank. In the N. T. it is given to three rulers, the Herod of this passage, Herod Philip tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis (Luke iii. 1), and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene (Luke iii. 1).

Herod: that is, Herod Antipas, son of Herod the Great and Malthacé a Samaritan; tetrarch of Galilee and Peræa by his father’s will; married first to a daughter of Aretas, king of Arabia Petræa, and then to Herodias. He is the Herod to whom our Lord was sent by Pilate (Luke xiii. 6, &c.). In the Gospels he appears as a sensual, cunning, capricious, cruel, weak, unscrupulous, superstitious, despotic prince (Matt. xiv. 9; Luke iii. 19, xiii. 31, 32, &c.). He founded the city of Tiberias in honour of the emperor. Losing the favour of Caligula, he was condemned to perpetual banishment at Lyons and died in exile.

heard thereof: that is, of the miracles wrought by the Twelve. These latest events and others before them had made the name of Jesus widely known.

and he said, John the Baptist is risen from the dead: rather ‘the Baptizer.’ For the term used here is not the official name, but a designation more appropriate on the lips of Herod. The margin of the R.V. notices the ancient reading ‘they said,’ according to which it was the popular belief (which Herod, therefore, had accepted) that John had reappeared in Jesus.

therefore do these powers work in him. John did no miracle during his lifetime. But if he had indeed risen from the dead, it would not be strange that new powers, supernatural powers, should be active in him. [Salmond, 1906]

others said, It is Elijah. Various opinions were taken, however, of the extraordinary person called Jesus. If some took him to be John risen, others thought he must be the promised Elijah, while others still held him to be not indeed that great figure among the prophets, but at least ‘a prophet, even as one of the prophets,’ that is, a true prophet, like one of the recognized order of prophets. [Salmond, 1906]

John, whom I beheaded, he is risen. This is what Herod himself feels that Jesus must be. He speaks under the stress of an evil conscience—‘he whom I (the emphasis is on the I) beheaded, this man is risen.’ Whether Herod was a Sadducee or not, he was an utter worldling. But his guilty conscience drove him for the moment into belief in the resurrection of the dead, and into the conviction that of the different explanations given of Jesus the right one was that which identified him with John. [Salmond, 1906]

vi. 17–29. The Story of John’s Imprisonment and Death. An episode introduced in explanation of Herod’s view of Jesus. Cf. Matt. xiv. 3–12; also Luke iii. 19, 20. Luke gives only a brief statement of what led to John’s imprisonment. Mark’s account is the fullest.

17. For Herod himself. Mark represents the seizure of the Baptist as emphatically Herod’s own act. Where he arrested him, whether at Ænon (John iii. 23) or elsewhere, is not stated. But the circumstances that led him to take the fatal step are related at length.

in prison. According to Josephus (Antiq. xviii. 5. 2) the prison was the strong fortress of Machærus in Peræa, the modern Mkaur, known as the ‘diadem’ and the ‘black-tower’ or ‘black-fortress,’ some miles to the east of the northern end of the Dead Sea. It had been fortified at an early date, then demolished by Gabinius and fortified anew by Herod the Great. It was in the possession of the King of Arabia, according to Josephus (Antiq. xviii. 5. 1), in the time of Herod Antipas. How it came into the hands of the latter we are not informed. Canon Tristram found two dungeons among the ruins at Mkaur, still shewing in their masonry the holes in which staples of wood or iron once had been fastened. He thinks one of these may have been the prison-house of John. See his Land of Moab, chap. xiv.

Herodias. Daughter of Aristobulus, son of Herod the Great and Mariamne, the beautiful daughter of Simon the high priest. She was the sister of Agrippa I—the Herod who killed James with the sword, imprisoned Peter, and died by the horrible death reported in the N.T. (Acts xii. 1–3, 23). Her mother was Bernice or Berenice, daughter of Salome, Herod’s sister. Herodias was married first to Herod, one of the sons of Herod the Great, whom she left for Antipas. Ambition, it would seem, led her to enter into the union with Herod, who had become enamoured of her on one of his journeys to Rome. Her ambition also proved the ruin of Antipas.

his brother Philip’s wife. This member of the Herodian family is to be distinguished from the Philip who is referred to in Luke’s Gospel as the ‘tetrarch of the region of Ituræa and Trachonitis’ (iii. 1). The latter was the son of Herod the Great and Cleopatra of Jerusalem, and is described by Josephus as a prince ‘moderate and peaceful in his rule’ (Antiq. xviii. 4. 1). The former was Herod, called also Philip, as appears from this passage and Matt. xiv. 3, son of Herod the Great and Mariamne. This Herod or Philip spent a private, undistinguished life. The fact that he was the first spouse of Herodias has kept his name alive. [Salmond, 1906]

not lawful. Philip, the husband of Herodias, was still alive. Antipas’s wife, the daughter of Aretas, also was alive. She had been living with her husband, and fled to her father only when she heard of the determination of Antipas to have Herodias. Further, Herodias was niece to Antipas. [Salmond, 1906]

set herself against him. She was not content with seeing John cast into prison, but nursed her grudge against him and watched her opportunity to compass his death. [Salmond, 1906]

feared John. The Baptist’s character made itself felt. The voluptuary whom he had boldly rebuked had a salutary regard for him, and perhaps dreaded, too, what might happen if he made away with him.

kept him safe: better than the ‘observed him’ of the A.V. Herod protected John against the malign designs of Herodias. He even continued to hear him from time to time, and did so gladly. It is not said where this took place. It may have been in the fortress-palace occupied by Antipas near the prison at Machærus. Antipas also may have sent for John to Tiberias now and again; for the Baptist appears to have been a considerable time in prison, perhaps a year and a half, and he was visited by his disciples. These things are recorded to the credit of Antipas. They are the only favourable things said of him in the Gospels. Matthew says that Herod himself would have put John to death, but was restrained by his fear of the people (xiv. 5). Josephus also ascribes to Herod the intention to kill John (Antiq. xviii. 5. 2).

much perplexed: a better reading than the ‘did many things’ of the A. V. He was in a strait between his sense of the righteousness of John and the monitions of his conscience on the one hand, and the attractions and insistence of Herodias on the other. [Salmond, 1906]

lords, magnates, the most important civil officers; high captains, the military chiefs of the district, the military tribunes or colonels; chief men of Galilee, the provincials of highest rank. [Salmond, 1906]

the daughter of Herodias herself. Her name was Salome. To gain her fell purpose the great Herodias, the wife of a tetrarch and daughter of a king, stooped to send her child to take part in the voluptuous and degrading dances characteristic of such riotous feasts. The daughter of ‘Herodias herself’—none else was likely to take Herod on the yielding side. The margin of the R.V. notices a curious old reading which would make the dancing-girl a daughter of Antipas himself, bearing her mother’s name. [Salmond, 1906]

the half of my kingdom. So with Ahasuerus and Esther (Esther v. 3, vii. 2). [Salmond, 1906]

came in straightway. Thinking no doubt of her own advantage the girl went out to consult her mother. Herodias kept her not a moment. Her answer was sharp and short—her enemy’s head. Before Antipas could think twice of his rash promise the damsel was back with her demand.

I will that thou forthwith give me. Her request is peremptory and pert. John being in the prison at hand, she knew it could be at once made good, and was determined to have it so. She did this, ‘being put forward by her mother,’ as Matthew explains.

a charger. A plate or flat dish large enough to hold a joint of meat—an assiette. Homer uses it of the wooden trencher on which meat was placed. [Salmond, 1906]

exceeding sorry. His respect for John and his wish to protect him would make him genuinely and grievously vexed. But his sorrow could not prevail against his mistaken sense of honour and his false consideration for the opinion of his guests.

his oaths. He had repeated his promise, then, once and again, in the loud and swaggering terms, we may imagine, of the reveller. Too late he saw how rashly he had bound himself.

reject her. Rather, ‘refuse her,’ or ‘break faith with her.’ [Salmond, 1906]

a soldier of his guard. The original term is a Latin term, designating a scout. In the times of the Empire it became the name of a member of the Roman Emperor’s bodyguard. One of the duties of these guards was to carry out orders of execution. Antipas followed the Roman custom. ‘Straightway,’ says Mark, the King dispatched the soldier. We can picture to ourselves what passed. Antipas, chagrined and vexed, would give the command in a gruff sentence. The soldier would at once march from the banquet-hall to the dungeon, and in a trice the bloody deed would be done. The prisoner would have neither warning of his end nor time for any farewell. Swift, tragic, staggering close to a life of high service and fearless rectitude! [Salmond, 1906]

gave it to her mother. The daughter knew it to be the mother’s triumph and the mother’s possession. ‘The Cathedral Church of Amiens claims to be in present possession of the head’ (Swete). [Salmond, 1906]

in a tomb. We know not where, but it was probably in the immediate neighbourhood of Machærus. Matthew adds that John’s disciples, after they had paid their last sad tribute of honour to him by burying him, ‘went and told Jesus’ (xiv. 12). Some had joined Jesus before. Others, who had kept by John, would have the more reason now to attach themselves to Jesus. [Salmond, 1906]

vi. 30-33. Return of the Twelve. Cf. Matt. xiv. 13 ; Luke ix. 10, 11; John vi. 1–3. This brief paragraph is one of deep and varied interest. It introduces the narrative of the great miracle of the Five Thousand. It marks the point at which the narrative of the four Gospels coincides for a time. It is remarkable also for the insight it gives us into the Lord’s thoughtful care for the Twelve.

30. the apostles gather themselves together unto Jesus. The death of the Baptist and the return of the Twelve took place in spring, as we infer from John’s reference to the Passover as at hand (vi. 4). There would be only about a year of our Lord’s public ministry yet to run. The place to which the Twelve returned is not stated. Probably it was Capernaum or its neighbourhood. The Twelve have here the official name of ‘Apostles.’ This is the only occasion on which Mark gives them the title. It has a special appropriateness here in the report of their return from their first official mission. Usually Mark employs the less specific name ‘disciples.’

told him all things. They gave a full report both of their teaching and of their works. Nothing is said, however, either of their success or of their Master’s estimate of their labours. [Salmond, 1906]

Come ye yourselves apart. His concern was that they should have the privacy and rest which they needed after the novel experiences and the exertions of their mission.

into a desert place. Mark does not identify the place. Luke says ‘to a city called Bethsaida’ (ix. 10); which may mean simply in the direction of a city so named. There were many quiet, unfrequented spots in the neighbourhood of the lake, especially on the eastern side and at the northern end, but also on the western side.

many coming and going. Rest was not to be had, if they remained at the head quarters of their Master’s ministry for the time. Streams of visitors, drawn thither by the fame of his works, and increased by the approach of the great Jewish festival (John vi. 4), kept them ever in movement and broke in even on their meals. These details are given only by Mark. [Salmond, 1906]

in the boat: this indicates that they were not far from the lake.

to a desert place apart. Their course seems to have been eastwards by the end of the lake, and the place where they landed for retirement cannot have been far from Bethsaida, the scene of the miracle that followed. [Salmond, 1906]

ran … together on foot. The disciples did not get the rest which Jesus sought for them. Jesus and his party were recognized, the course of the boat was seen, and the eager people made their way by the shore to the expected place of landing.

outwent them. They were there indeed before those in the boat themselves. This was possible enough. The distance across the lake might be some four miles indeed, while by land it might be more than twice as much. But good walkers could beat the boat, if the wind was either adverse or insufficient. Mark alone mentions this. [Salmond, 1906]

vi. 34–44. The Miracle of the Feeding of the Five Thousand. Cf. Matt. xiv. 14–21; Luke ix. 12–17; John vi. 4–13. Here, too, we have the conjoint narrative of the four Gospels. This is the only miracle recorded by all the four. Of all the miracles reported in the Gospels, this, too, is the one that was witnessed by the largest gathering of spectators and in which the largest number of people took part.

34. he came forth and saw. Not till he got out of the boat did Jesus become aware of the state of things. His expectation of quiet was defeated, but instead of giving way to the sense of disappointment, he thought only of the needs of the people. Luke tells us that he even ‘welcomed them’ (ix. 11).

as sheep not having a shepherd. The same phrase occurs in Matt. ix. 36 (cf. also Num. xxvii. 17; 1 Kings xxii. 17; 2 Chron. xviii. 16). His compassion was stirred by the spectacle of the eager interest of those crowds who had been left so uninstructed in the things of the kingdom of God by the recognized teachers of the law.

began to teach them. And not only so, he also healed their sick, as both Matthew and Luke tell us. [Salmond, 1906]

when the day was now far spent. Another interesting note of time, indicating that the miracle took place shortly before sunset, which at that season would be about six o’clock.

his disciples came unto him, and said. According to John (vi. 5), Jesus himself said to Philip, ‘Whence are we to buy bread, that these may eat?’ The concern now expressed by the disciples for the physical wants of the multitude may have been prompted by the Lord’s considerate question previously addressed to one of them. [Salmond, 1906]

Give ye them to eat. The disciples would have had him dismiss them and let them provide for themselves. He will have them remain, and be provided for by the disciples.

Shall we go and buy. The Lord’s prompt word, ‘Give ye them to eat,’ may well have seemed to them a direction to attempt the impracticable. They think of their resources, and of what might be required.

two hundred pennyworth of bread. A hasty, indeterminate estimate, but one pointing to a considerable sum. Only Mark and John mention the quantity of bread or the sum of money, and John refers to the money only to declare it inadequate. Luke omits this, and Matthew passes over the suggestion to purchase. The ‘penny’ is a misleading rendering of the coin in question—the denarius—all the more that, as has been noticed, in most of its occurrences in the N.T. it suggests the idea of a liberal sum. It varied in value from about 8½d. to 7½d. It was the stated day’s wage for a labouring man (Matt. xx. 2, &c.). ‘Shilling’ would be a better rendering than ‘penny.’ Two hundred denarii might represent something over £7 of our money. It is not likely that the disciples had so much with them. But even such a sum, distributed among 5,000 men, would mean only about a third of a penny for each. [Salmond, 1906]

How many loaves have ye? Only Mark tells us that the disciples were sent to find this out. John introduces Andrew here, and tells us that there were five loaves and two fishes in the hand of a lad who was present (vi. 8, 9). [Salmond, 1906]

sit down by companies. The instruction that they should be so arranged was given through the disciples, as we learn from Luke and John. Provision was thus made for an orderly disposition of the crowd.

upon the green grass. Both Matthew and John mention that they were seated on grass, on which they could recline at ease, as Jews were accustomed to do on couches at table. John notices also that there was much grass in the place. Only Mark notices its greenness. In early spring the grass would be peculiarly fresh and attractive. Later it would become scorched and brown. [Salmond, 1906]

they sat down. That they acted at once on the instruction of the disciples meant that they trusted them and looked for something to happen.

in ranks: lit. “in garden beds.” This has been taken to mean in parterres, as if the point of comparison was the flower-bed, and the idea that the picturesque appearance presented by the people thus arranged in sets with the bright variegated colours of their clothing. But the word is used ordinarily of the beds of garden herbs, and the idea seems to be the simple one of the regular rectangular arrangement in groups of fifties and hundreds. Order would thus be preserved, and the matter of distribution as well as of counting made easy. Matthew and John do not mention the sizes of the ranks. Luke notices only the arrangement in companies, about fifty each. [Salmond, 1906]

he took the five loaves and the two fishes. Jesus was recognized as the Master and Host, and the provisions were brought to him as such.

looking up to heaven. That is, in the attitude of prayer. See also in the O.T., Job xxii. 26, and in the Gospels Mark viii. 34, John xi. 41.

blessed: that is, gave thanks. In John it is having given thanks (vi. 11). [Salmond, 1906]

were filled. The word is a strong one, indicating that the provision made was large enough to give each as much as he wished, even of the fishes. So John puts it—likewise also of the fishes as much as they would (vi. 11). [Salmond, 1906]

twelve basketfuls: it was by the direction of the Master that the broken pieces left over were carefully gathered (John vi. 12). The quantity taken up shewed the liberal measure of the provision. The word for basket here is the same in all the four narratives, and is different from that mentioned in the subsequent narrative of the Four Thousand. This denotes the common wicker basket which a Jew took with him for the purpose of carrying his provisions. It has been suggested that the twelve baskets used on this occasion may have been those in which the Twelve Apostles had carried the food which they required on their missionary journey recently finished. [Salmond, 1906]

five thousand men. That is men as distinguished from women and children. Matthew says expressly ‘beside women and children’ (xiv. 21). These would not sit down with the men.

From Luke (ix. 10) we gather that the scene of this stupendous and most humane miracle was at or near ‘a city called Bethsaida.’ That is the Bethsaida which is known to have been planted on the northern shore of the Sea of Galilee, east of the Jordan, in the district of the Lower Gaulonitis, near where the river enters the Lake. It was raised from the rank of a village to that of a ‘city’ by Philip the Tetrarch, who also attached to it the name Julias in honour of Julia, the daughter of Augustus. Its site is supposed by modern travellers to be found at et-Tell near where the Jordan enters the green, grassy plain called el-Baṭeihah, or Mas’adîyeh in the same plain, but nearer the Lake and at the river’s mouth. [Salmond, 1906]

And straightway he constrained his disciples. The occasion of this is found in John’s Gospel. It alone informs us that the impression produced by the miracle of the Five Thousand, was great and immediate. The people confessed Jesus to be ‘of a truth the prophet that cometh into the world.’ They would have taken him by force and made him a king (vi. 14, 15). This caused him to withdraw ‘into the mountain himself alone’ (vi. 15). He at this time also resolved to send the disciples on before him, to the other side, while he himself dismissed the multitude. The disciples no doubt required to be constrained. For it could not but seem strange to them that he should separate himself from them, and send them away from the neighbourhood of the very place he had chosen with a view to giving them rest.

unto the other side to Bethsaida. Matthew says simply ‘to the other side,’ without mentioning Bethsaida (xiv. 22). John says ‘over the sea unto Capernaum’ (vi. 17). Their way, therefore, was westward across the Lake. Matthew and Mark both state explicitly that they came at last to Gennesaret (Matt. xiv. 34; Mark vi. 53). Were there then two Bethsaidas, one on the eastern side of the Lake, and another on the western? To say that there were two is the simplest explanation, though we have no evidence of the western Bethsaida as we have of Bethsaida Julias. Some suppose that there was but one city of the name, but that it was divided by the Jordan into an eastern part and a western. Others think that all that is meant by the phrase ‘to the other side’ is ‘to the opposite side of the little bay which lay between the sloping ground where the miracle was wrought and Philip’s new city’ (so Swete). But it is difficult to adjust the different particulars of the narratives, the natural sense of ‘the other side,’ the express mention by Luke of Bethsaida, and to adhere to these explanations or to any other supposition than that of the existence of a Bethsaida on the western shore. [Salmond, 1906]

taken leave. The words are used of taking farewell of friends. It was, therefore, a kindly, though decided, dismissal.

into the mountain. He had been on the height before (John vi. 3), and had returned to its solitude. The act of John and the attitude of the people made another crisis in his career, which required prayer and thought. [Salmond, 1906]

when even was come. The miracle had taken place not long before sunset. It was now dark, as John states (vi. 17), and the wind had risen to a storm, and they were alone on the lake, for their Master was on the mountain.

in the midst of the sea. They had rowed, says John (vi. 19), ‘about five and twenty or thirty furlongs’—little more than halfway across. [Salmond, 1906]

the fourth watch. From the height Jesus had watched their distress, and in due time went to their relief. The ‘fourth watch’ was from 3 to 6 a.m. The Jews reckoned by three watches, the first or beginning of watches (sunset to 10 p.m.), the middle watch (10 p.m. to 2 a.m.), and the morning watch (2 a.m. to sunrise). The Romans reckoned by four watches, and this was followed by the Jews of our Lord’s time. And so it is in Matthew and Mark.

would have passed by them: cf. Luke xxiv. 28. This is reported only by Mark, and it means that it was the deliberate purpose of Jesus to pass by them—no doubt to test them and instruct their faith. [Salmond, 1906]

an apparition. Better than ‘a spirit’ as in the A.V.; cf. Job iv. 15, &c., xx. 8. It is ‘spirit,’ not ‘apparition,’ on the other hand in Luke’s narrative of the appearance of the risen Lord (xxiv. 37, 39).

cried out. Their faith failed them. They did not recognize Jesus, nor did the thought suggest itself that he was likely to come to them in their need. The figure looked spectral and unsubstantial as it moved on the water, and they were terror-stricken. [Salmond, 1906]

all saw him. It was not the delusion, therefore, of one heated brain or perverted eye.

Be of good cheer: it is I; be not afraid. The words are the same as reported also by Matthew and by John, except that the latter omits the ‘Be of good cheer.’ Here again we have in Mark’s Gospel tokens of a narrative founded on the testimony of eye and ear. The assuring word was spoken without delay. The voice was recognized, though the figure was not, and the terrors of the disciples were relieved. [Salmond, 1906]

went up unto them into the boat. John does not speak of his having actually gone on board, but refers to the disciples as purposing to take him in, and straightway the boat was mysteriously brought to the land. As another incident in the miracle, Mark adds ‘the wind ceased.’

sore amazed in themselves. They were profoundly moved and staggered, so much so that they did not or could not give expression to their thoughts. Matthew adds that they worshipped him. [Salmond, 1906]

understood not concerning the loaves. What they had seen in connexion with the immediately preceding miracle should have made this further miracle less of a difficulty to them. But it was not so, and the reason for it was that ‘their heart was hardened.’ That is, they were not in a state of mind to receive the proper impression. The heart, according to Hebrew ideas, was the seat of the intelligence, and not of the affections only.

Matthew attaches to this narrative the incident of Peter stepping from the boat into the sea and essaying to walk on the water to Jesus (xiv. 28–33). It is impossible to explain this miracle away by saying that Jesus only walked upon the shore and was taken by the disciples, panic-stricken and in the dark as they were, for a spectre moving on the sea. The careful mention of the distance they had rowed (25 or 30 furlongs) and the point they had reached (‘in the midst of the sea’), and other particulars in the narrative, put that out of the question. It belongs to the class of nature-miracles, and is one of the strangest of these, as the feeding of the Five Thousand is one of the most stupendous. [Salmond, 1906]

v. 53–56. The ministry of Jesus in the Plain of Gennesaret: cf. Matt. xiv. 34–36. This brief paragraph, which has no parallel in Luke or in John, is one of the most graphic of all Mark’s descriptions. It bears in every line the marks of a transcript from the report of a keen and interested eye-witness.

53. And when they had crossed over, they came to the land unto Gennesaret. It may also be, as it is given in the margin of the R.V., ‘and when they had crossed over the land, they came unto Gennesaret.’ So the place where they landed at last is recorded by Mark to have been neither the Bethsaida to which Luke tells us Jesus had withdrawn with the disciples (ix. 10), nor the Capernaum to which John tells us they were going over the sea (vi. 17), but a place some miles south of both. They had been driven so far out of their course. This Gennesaret, from which the lake seems to have taken one of its names, is supposed to be the modern el-Ghuweir, a charming plain on the western side, some two-and-a-half or three miles long and little more than one broad. ‘Such is the fertility of the soil,’ says Josephus, ‘that it rejects no plant, and accordingly all are here cultivated by the husbandman, for so genial is the air that it suits every variety. The walnut, which delights beyond other trees in a wintry climate, grows here luxuriantly, together with the palm which is nourished by the heat, and near to these are figs and olives to which a milder atmosphere has been assigned.’ He speaks also in glowing terms of the ‘fruits of opposite climes,’ of which it ‘maintains a continuous supply.’ ‘Thus it produces,’ he proceeds, ‘those most royal of all, the grape and the fig, during ten months, without intermission, while the other varieties ripen the year round; for besides being favoured by the genial temperature of the air, it is irrigated by a highly fertilizing spring, called Capharnaum by the people of the country’ (Jewish War, iii. x. 8).

moored: the only occurrence of this word in Scripture. [Salmond, 1906]

beds: that is, pallets. [Salmond, 1906]

border of his garment: see on ch. v. 27.

The paragraph gives a vivid picture of the rapidity with which the news of the coming of Jesus spread, the intense faith of the people in his power to heal, and the eagerness with which he was welcomed alike in town and country. [Salmond, 1906]