viii. 1–10. The feeding of the Four Thousand: cf. Matt. xv. 32–39.

In contrast with the fourfold narrative in the former miracle of feeding, we have in the present case only the twofold record. The question arises whether this narrative is only another form of that of the Five Thousand, or the report of a distinct occurrence. It is held by some that the narratives in Matthew and Mark are simply duplicate accounts, with some natural differences in the details, of one and the same work. Others think that there were two distinct incidents of miraculous feeding, much the same in character, but that in the primitive tradition the reports of these became to some extent assimilated. The chief reasons urged in support of the duplicate theory are the general resemblances of the two accounts, the difficulty felt by the disciples (viii. 4), and the fact that they betray no recollection of a previous work of the same kind. But there are weightier considerations on the other side. There are, e.g., several points of difference between the two narratives. The numbers fed in one case are 5,000, in the other 4,000. In the one case we have five loaves and two fishes, in the other seven loaves and a few fishes. In the one case twelve baskets were filled with the fragments, in the other seven. The particular kind of basket mentioned is also different in the two narratives. In the case of the Five Thousand it is the small wicker basket, in that of the Four Thousand it is the large rope-basket. Further, in the one the people concerned are the men of the coast-villages of the north, in the other they are the men of Decapolis and the eastern side. In the case of the Five Thousand the people were demonstrative and would have made Jesus a king (John vi. 15), but in that of the Four Thousand nothing is said of any such excitement. It may also be said that, as the works of Jesus were done for the relief of human ills and needs, and as these ills and needs met him in the same forms on different occasions, there could be no reason in the nature of things why the same miracle might not be wrought on more than one occasion. Here, too, Jesus was among a different people, and a people in a new mental attitude to himself. The Evangelist says simply and distinctly that there was ‘a great multitude, and they had nothing to eat,’ why should we not accept his statement? [Salmond, 1906]

three days. By which time they had consumed all the food they had brought. Their eagerness to be with Jesus was bringing them into straits, and his compassion was roused, all the more because some had far to go before they could reach their homes. [Salmond, 1906]

Whence shall one be able to fill these men with bread? The deficiencies of the disciples are never concealed. Their question betrayed their forgetfulness and the little they had yet learned. It is to be noticed also that it is not quite the same as their question on the previous occasion. Then their difficulty was about the large sum of money that would be needed to purchase provisions. Here it is the difficulty of finding anywhere in the sparsely-peopled district in which they were now a sufficient supply for such a multitude of mouths. [Salmond, 1906]

he commandeth the multitude to sit down. On this occasion he gives his instructions not to the disciples, but directly to the people themselves. Neither is there any reference now to the green grass. They are seated ‘on the ground.’ [Salmond, 1906]

seven baskets. The basket used on this occasion was a sort of hamper, a plaited basket of reeds or rope. It might be of considerable size, large enough indeed to hold a man. It was in a basket of this kind that Paul was lowered ‘down through the wall’ at Damascus (Acts ix. 25). [Salmond, 1906]

four thousand. As in the previous case Matthew adds ‘beside women and children.’ [Salmond, 1906]

Dalmanutha. This is the only passage in which this word occurs. Matthew says that Jesus ‘came into the borders of Magadan’ (xv. 39); where this reading of the R.V. is to be preferred to the Magdala of the A.V. But we know about as little of this Magadan as of Dalmanutha. The only place with a name at all like Dalmanutha is ed-Dâlhemîyeh. But that is some five miles to the south of the Lake, on the eastern bank of the Jordan and near its junction with the Yarmûk. Some identify Magadan with Magdala, and so with el-Mejdel at the south end of the Plain of Gennesaret. But that, too, is uncertain. [Salmond, 1906]

viii. 11–13. Further questions of the Pharisees: cf. Matt. xvi. 1–4.

11. the Pharisees. Matthew says also the Sadducees, who have not appeared as yet as parties in any meeting with Jesus. In neither of the Gospels are we told from whence, whether from their homes in the neighbourhood of Dalmanutha or from some more distant place, these Pharisees came forth. But Jesus had been away for a time out of their parts; and now that he is back they resume their former policy with him.

a sign from heaven. They ‘began’ this policy of entangling questions again by a demand for a ‘sign.’ Not satisfied with miracles as ‘signs,’ they ask him for a ‘sign’ of another kind—one from heaven, some audible or visible manifestation unmistakably from above, something different from those works which were wrought by Jesus on earth. They are not more explicit as to the kind of ‘sign;’ but they may have had in mind the standing still of sun and moon in Joshua’s case, the thunder and hail in that of Samuel, the rain in Elijah’s case (1 Kings xviii. 38; 2 Kings i. 10, &c.), or the manna (cf. John vi. 30, &c.), or perhaps the peculiar ‘sign,’ the Bath-Kol, the ‘daughter of the voice’ or ‘daughter-voice,’ of which much is made in the Rabbinical books—a heavenly voice which was supposed to have come after the cessation of O.T. prophecy, and which conveyed the testimony of heaven on special occasions. This incident is given by Luke in a different connexion (xi. 16, 29). Matthew introduces it in both connexions (xii. 38–41, xvi. 1–4).

tempting. That is, putting him to the test. [Salmond, 1906]

sighed deeply, or, ‘groaned deeply.’ An intense feeling of indignation and grief was here. What moved him thus painfully was the hardened attitude of these Pharisees, which betokened the final separation between them and him, and the results thereof. [Salmond, 1906]

he left them. He refused them the kind of sign they sought, and turned away from them, recognizing that his ministry could have no success with such as they.

to the other side. Our ignorance of the position of Dalmanutha leaves it uncertain whether this was to the eastern side or to the western. Only we see that they came by-and-by to Bethsaida (viii. 22). [Salmond, 1906]

viii. 14–21. Warning against the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod. Cf. Matt. xvi. 5–12.

14. they forgot to take bread. It was the duty of the disciples, and more particularly of Judas the purse-bearer, to see to the provision needed for a journey. But they had omitted to do so. Perhaps their forgetfulness was due to the haste of their departure. Matthew’s account might suggest that it was when they arrived that they overlooked this plain duty. It is only Mark who notices that all they had by them was a single loaf. [Salmond, 1906]

charged them. The tense in the original indicates either that he proceeded to do this while they were crossing, or that he did it once and again.

the leaven. The use of leaven during Passover and in connection with certain offerings (Lev. ii. 11) was strictly forbidden by the law. As a thing that was to be purged out, it readily became a figure of what was evil or corrupt. Only once in the N.T. is it used in the neutral sense, viz., in the Parable of the Leaven. Otherwise it is a figure of evil, and more particularly of secret, penetrating, insidious evil (1 Cor. v. 6, 7, 8; Gal. v. 9). The explanation given by Matthew (xvi. 12) suggests that what Jesus had specially in view on this occasion was the insidious influence of corrupt teaching.

of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod. The repetition of the word ‘leaven’ indicates that two distinct kinds of evil teaching are referred to. In Matthew it is leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees. But the leaven of Herod would be akin to that of the Sadducees. The leaven of the Pharisees would be the influence of their religious arrogance, their formalism, and the like, but here particularly that of their narrow, rigorous, unspiritual teaching. The leaven of Herod would be the pernicious influence of the worldliness and licence that go with unbelief. [Salmond, 1906]

reasoned. They kept talking with each other about the Lord’s warning, but took him to speak only of their neglect to have bread with them. [Salmond, 1906]

do ye not yet perceive, neither understand? There is a tone of reproach or censure in the question. Even after all that they had witnessed they had not yet learned to reflect and take in the real meaning of things. In Matthew (xvi. 8) it is the defect of their faith that is made prominent. What they had already seen him do in supplying need should have taught them to trust him more, and not to let their thoughts run as they had been doing on this lack of provision. [Salmond, 1906]

Having eyes, see ye not? The best arrangement of the clauses in verse 18, probably is this:—‘Having eyes, see ye not, and having ears hear ye not? And do you not remember, when I brake the five loaves among the five thousand, how many baskets full of fragments you took up?’ [Salmond, 1906]

baskets full. The narrative, in its references to the two miracles, carefully preserves the distinction between the five thousand and the four thousand, and between the five fishes and the seven, and (what is more remarkable) between the kinds of baskets used on the two several occasions, as brought out in the separate accounts already given. The R.V. calls attention to this last fact by rendering the ‘baskets full’ in verse 19 (with reference to the wicker basket in the case of the five thousand), and the ‘basketfuls’ in verse 20 (with reference to the larger basket or hamper in the case of the four thousand). Wycliffe’s rendering is better. He gives ‘coffins ful of broken mete’ in one case, and ‘lepis of broken mete’ in the other. [Salmond, 1906]

do ye not yet understand? Even after their experience of these two miracles they had remained obtuse, and had learned neither to trust him better nor to take in the real meaning of his words. Matthew’s account is more detailed and explanatory at this point. It gives the question of Jesus in a fuller form, and it states that at last the disciples did come to see that in speaking to them of the leaven he had the corrupt teaching of the Jewish sects in view, not the mere matter of bread (xvi. 11, 12). [Salmond, 1906]

viii. 22–26. Restoration of sight to a blind man at Bethsaida.
The second of the two miracles which are recorded only by Mark. In this case, as in the former (the healing of the deaf-mute in Decapolis), the miracle is done apart from the multitude, in a gradual way, and with the help of tangible means.

22. unto Bethsaida. They had come to ‘the other side’ from Dalmanutha. But as the position of Dalmanutha is unknown, the question is left so far open as to whether this Bethsaida is on the eastern side of the lake or on the western. As Jesus proceeded from this Bethsaida to ‘the villages of Cæsarea Philippi,’ it is probably Bethsaida Julias, on the north-eastern shore, that is meant. It is objected that Bethsaida Julias was a city, whereas this Bethsaida is called a ‘village.’ But the elevation of the north-eastern town to the rank of a city was of recent date, and the old familiar title may have survived among the people.

a blind man. So far as Mark’s record goes, this is the first case of the kind brought to Jesus. Mark also reports the case of Bartimæus (x. 46, &c.). Each of the Gospels selects one or more out of the number of such miracles for detailed narration. Matthew, e.g. records the instances of the two blind men in his house (ix. 27–31), and the two blind men near Jericho (xx. 30–34); Luke that of the blind beggar at Jericho (xviii. 35–43); John that of the man born blind (ix. 1–41). But that Jesus did many works of healing in the case of the infirmity of blindness that are not mentioned in the Gospels appears from the briefer account of the possessed man who was both blind and dumb (Matt. xii. 22), and the man who was blind and led to the temple (Matt. xxi. 14), and from the reference made by Jesus to the blind receiving sight as a sign in his answer to John’s disciples (Matt. xi. 5; Luke vii. 21).

Blindness and ophthalmia have always been commoner troubles in the East than in the West. The conditions of climate and life account for this. The Mosaic law had special provisions for the protection of the blind (Lev. xix. 14; Deut. xxvii. 18). The word ‘blind’ or ‘blindness’ occurs no less than thirty-six times in the literal sense in the N.T., not to speak of its figurative use. Sightless, blear-eyed, fly-infected, miserable men and women often confront one in Syrian towns and villages, and make one of the most distressing spectacles in Eastern life. [Salmond, 1906]

took hold. The deaf-mute was taken aside; the blind man is led by the hand.

out of the village. At this period of his ministry Jesus seems to have taken special precautions against a publicity which might prejudice his work or drive it to a premature issue. But in taking this man so carefully and deliberately apart from the noisy, excitable crowd he had regard also, as the injunction in ver. 26 suggests, to the man’s own mental condition.

spit on his eyes. As in the case of the deaf-mute. These are the only two occasions on which Jesus applies the moisture of his mouth in this way. ‘He links on his power’ (says Archbishop Trench) ‘to means already in use among men; working through these means something higher than they could themselves have brought about, and clothing the supernatural in the forms of the natural.’ Thus he did, for example, when he bade his disciples to anoint the sick with oil—one of the most esteemed helps for healing in the East.

laid his hands upon him. The appeal had been that he might touch him. To aid and stimulate the man’s faith, which may well have been dull and inert, he responds to the appeal and does even more. [Salmond, 1906]

looked up. The first and most natural thing to do when such a question is put to him. Instinctively he would raise his eyes.

I see men; for I behold them as trees, walking. This rendering of the R.V. is better than that of the A.V., ‘I see men as trees walking,’ which overlooks the ‘for.’ Better still is the rendering, ‘I see the men, for like trees I perceive persons walking about’ (Meyer), or ‘I see men, for I perceive objects in motion as walking’ (Swete). His answer to the question was prompt. It may not have been that his sight had gone hazy from illness or injury; rather that he could discern large objects in motion.

He judged they must be men, though they looked like trees, because they were walking about. But his vision was yet imperfect. He did not see things distinctly and in their real proportions. ‘Certain moving forms he saw about him, but without the power of discerning their shape or magnitude—trees he should have accounted them from their height, and men from their motion’ (Trench). Even in Mark’s narrative there is nothing more life-like, no more truthful, realistic reproduction of a scene than this. The experience of the healed man, the first rawness and uncertainty of his vision, the appearance of things in unnatural dimensions and indistinct outline, are all true to nature and to medical testimony. It is not said whether the man was blind from birth or had lost his sight. The description corresponds better perhaps with the case of one born blind. On the other hand, what the man says about trees and men and the use of the word restored might suggest that once he had seen, and that he still had some vague recollections of the look of things. [Salmond, 1906]

again he laid his hands upon his eyes. It required two applications of the hands before the cure was complete. So gradual was the work of restoration. It needed time, and touch, and concentrated attention on the part of the subject to interpret the new sensations. Archbishop Trench refers to Cheselden’s account of the cure of a man who had been blind from birth—‘When he first saw,’ the report proceeds, ‘he knew not the shape of anything, nor any one thing from another, however different in shape or magnitude; but being told what things were, whose forms he before knew from feeling, he would carefully observe, that he might know them again.’

he looked stedfastly. The term here is the one which is rendered ‘see clearly’ in our Lord’s charge regarding the beam and the mote (Matt. vii. 5; Luke vi. 42). It describes the act of fixing one’s eyes on an object with the view of discerning distinctly what it is.

saw all things clearly. This word ‘clearly,’ of which this is the only occurrence in the N.T., conveys the idea of distance. The cure was now complete. It was so perfect that the man could see things near and far distinctly. [Salmond, 1906]

Do not even enter into the village. The man did not belong to the village. He had been brought to it and Jesus had led him out of it. The Healer now will have him return to his home at once, without mixing with the people of the village or so much as putting foot within the place. So should he have the opportunity for reflection; while the risk of public excitement and agitation, which might be hurtful to the real objects of Christ’s ministry, would also be avoided. [Salmond, 1906]

viii. 27–30. Visit to the neighbourhood of Cæsarea Philippi. Cf. Matt. xvi. 13–20; Luke ix. 18–21. Here again we have the advantage of the triple narrative. And the journey was a momentous one. It took Jesus to a remote and retired part of the country, which he had not yet visited in the course of his ministry, and in which he could have the retirement which he had sought in vain elsewhere. It was undertaken when opposition was sharpening and the crisis of his life was drawing on. ‘It gave him opportunity also to bring matters to a point with his disciples with regard both to his Person and to his Passion. His way took him northwards along the course of the Jordan, as far almost as its sources, beyond the waters of Merom and twenty-five miles or thereby above the Sea of Galilee. It brought him into one of the most remarkable parts of the Holy Land—a region of deep solitudes, where Nature also is seen in her grandest and fairest forms.

27. Cæsarea Philippi. So called to distinguish it from another Cæsarea, the Cæsarea Palæstine, or the Cæsarea on the Sea, the city north of Jaffa in which St. Paul was imprisoned. *‘It got the name Cæsarea in honour of the Emperor Augustus Cæsar, and the Philippi was added in honour of Philip the tetrarch of Trachonitis, who had rebuilt it and had made it splendid with altars, and statues, and votive images. In remote antiquity the site had been occupied, it is thought, by a city which is identified by some with the Baal-Gad of Joshua (xi. 17, xii. 7; xiii. 4), by others with the Baal-Hermon of Judges (iii. 3) and 1 Chronicles (v. 23). Later it was occupied by a town known as Paneas (the modern Banias) from the Paneion, a sanctuary of Pan in a deep cavern of the neighbourhood (Josephus, Antiq., xv. 10. 3). Planted at the foot of the Lebanon on a terrace 1,150 feet above sea-level, surrounded by groves of oaks and poplars, with fertile plains below and around it, it was a town where, ‘from the north-east, east, and grand, romantic beauty beyond any other town in the Holy Land’ (Sir S. V. Tristam), is Dean Stanley’s description.

in the way he asked his disciples. He draws from them the confession he wanted. It is the first time he has put the question to the Twelve directly about himself. The occasion is one of the most momentous in his life; it prepared him for what followed immediately after from Luke (ix. 18). So had he done also before he went on his first circuit among the synagogues of Galilee (Mark i. 35), and before he chose the Twelve (Luke vi. 12).

Who do men say that I am? His first question was about the opinions of others. The reply of the disciples shewed how various these were, and how different were the impressions produced by his works. [Salmond, 1906]

And they told him. The Baptist risen from the dead, the Elijah who was to return, one of the line of the prophets—these were some of the estimates formed of him. Matthew adds Jeremiah, the prophet who had come to be regarded as in some respects the greatest of all. But it is not said that any of the people took him to be the Messiah. Compare the similar explanations recorded in vi. 14–15. [Salmond, 1906]

But who say ye that I am? Now he will have their own view—But ye—who say ye that I am, as the order of the words puts it.

Peter answereth. All three Synoptists make Peter the spokesman.

Thou art the Christ. In Matt. it is ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God’ (xvi. 16), and in Luke it is ‘The Christ of God.’ But the confession is the same, though the reports differ slightly as to the precise terms. It is to be observed also that according both to Matthew and to John there had been earlier confessions by the disciples of Jesus as ‘the Son of God’ (Matt. xiv. 33), and ‘the Holy One of God’ (John vi. 69); and that the Fourth Gospel indeed speaks of Simon as recognizing Jesus to be the Messiah when he first followed him (John i. 41). The confession is now made by Peter in name of the disciples, in response to their Master’s own question and in more explicit terms. It was the solemn, formal, convinced acceptance of him as the Messiah; and the fact that this momentous declaration was in the neighbourhood of a heathen city dedicated of old to Pan, and in Christ’s time to the deified Augustus. Mark omits the benediction pronounced on Peter and the promise made him, which Matthew records (xvi. 17–19)—proof sufficient that the Second Gospel was not written with a Petrine tendency or in the interests of Peter and his following him. [Salmond, 1906]

charged them. A strong word, usually conveying the idea of rebuke. The silence was enjoined because the times were not yet ripe for a public and general declaration of his Messiahship. It was possible to do that prematurely, and at the cost of disaster. [Salmond, 1906]

viii. 31–33. The Announcement of the Passion and the Rebuke of Peter; cf. Matt. xvi. 21–23; Luke ix. 22. The confession has been made. The time will come, though it is not yet, for the proclamation of the claims thus recognized. What is involved in that confession is from this time forth disclosed to the disciples as they were able to receive it.

31. began to teach them: this marks the occasion as one that made an important turning-point in Christ’s work. He was to give now a new direction to his training and instructing of the Twelve.

must: the word expresses the moral necessity, the Divine plan, in his career. It is used also on other decisive occasions in his life, as Luke specially notices, e.g. when the consciousness of his peculiar relation to God first expresses itself (Luke ii. 49), at the beginning of his ministry (Luke iv. 43), after his resurrection (Luke xxiv. 26); cf. also John ix. 4.

suffer many things: so in Matt. xvi. 21; Mark ix. 12; Luke ix. 22, xvii. 25.

rejected: perhaps with reference to Ps. cxviii. 22. The word means properly an official rejection—a rejection after trial.

elders: here in the official sense of members of the Sanhedrin, the supreme ecclesiastical court or council in Jerusalem—those members of that body who were neither chief priests nor scribes. They might be either laymen or priests.

chief priests: the most distinguished representatives of the Jewish priesthood, and the leading members of the supreme court. They belonged to the sacerdotal aristocracy, and were mostly, though not exclusively, of the party of the Sadducees.

scribes: the professional lawyers, mostly, though not exclusively, Pharisees. See on chap. i. 22 above. These were the three distinct classes that made up the membership of the Sanhedrin. In most cases where they are named together in the N.T. the chief priests are mentioned first. There are a few cases in which this order is not kept (Matt. xxvi. 57; Luke ix. 22, xx. 19, in addition to the instance here in Mark), and only two in which the chief priests are not named at all (Matt. xxvi. 57; Acts viii. 12). The Sanhedrin was made here in a form that excluded either of these three parties in the Sanhedrin as a whole, but revealed in the acts referred to.after three days: so again in ix. 31, x. 34. Matthew says ‘the third day’ (xvi. 21). But that the two expressions mean the same thing is shewn by Matt. xxvii. 64… cf. Hosea vi. 2. [Salmond, 1906]

openly: that is in plain terms, not in parable or indirectly, and in presence of all. Cf. John xi. 14. This statement is given only by Mark. Jesus had not been wholly silent on these things before, but had spoken with reserve and by figure or suggestion, as is seen e.g. from John ii. 19, iii. 12–16, vi. 47–56, and in the mention of the bridegroom (Matt. ix. 15; Mark ii. 20).

took him: put his hand on him and took hold of him so as to take him aside. The idea of suffering, of what betokened failure, in the case of him who he had just confessed to be the Christ was still strange to Peter; and that Jesus should speak of it with such frankness and publicity was more than he could bear. He will take him apart, out of the hearing of others, and remonstrate with him.

rebuke him: the words of the remonstrance are given by Matthew (xvi. 22). [Salmond, 1906]

turning about: cf. v. 30; John xxi. 20; Acts ix. 40; Rev. i. 12. Another of Mark’s vivid strokes. At Peter’s touch and speech Jesus turns sharply round as if to address him. In doing so his eye rests on the disciples watching what was passing. He directs his rebuke to Peter, but to him as the spokesman for all. Matthew and Mark both mention that it was Peter who was reproved. Mark who omits the honour done to Peter by Jesus on the occasion of his confession, does not fail to tell of the sharp reproof that followed so soon.

Get thee behind me, Satan: the very words used by Jesus in the temptation (Matt. iv. 10; Luke iv. 8). In Peter’s remonstrance Jesus saw a repetition of the temptation of the wilderness by courses by which Satan had tried him in the wilderness. Behind me is better than the A.V. ‘savourrest,’ an old English word, derived from the Latin through the French, meaning to ‘have a relish.’ Peter’s hasty and abrupt act betokened a lack of spiritual understanding and liking—a mind far away yet from his Master’s. [Salmond, 1906]

viii. 34—ix. 1. Declaration of self-denial even unto death as the law of discipleship, and the secret of the gain of life. Cf. Matt. xvi. 24–28; Luke ix. 23–27.

34. the multitude: even in these remote, heathen parts, Jesus had crowds of curious spectators and listeners. He turns now from the disciples and from the mystery of his own Passion to the mass of the unattached and to another subject. He even calls them to him and addresses them to words of larger meaning suited to all.

take up his cross: Luke adds ‘daily.’ Probably Jesus had spoken of the cross before this to his disciples (Matt. x. 38), but not, as far as appears, to those outside. Neither then nor now did he speak of the cross as the way of death for himself, nor has he yet spoken of suffering at the hands of any but Jews. Crucifixion was the Roman mode of capital punishment. The word about taking up the cross must have carried with it repellent, terrifying ideas. It expressed the call to a denial of self that meant the utmost conceivable pain. It has been asserted by some that only now did our Lord clearly foresee his own Passion. But apart from the proper reference of his words on this occasion, we have testimonies in the Gospels to the fact that he had spoken of it, at least in terms foreshadowing it, before this, as e.g. in the hidden saying about the temple of his body (John ii. 20, 21); the words to Nathanael about the destiny of the Son of man to be ‘lifted up’ (John iii. 14); the declaration about the giving of his flesh and blood (John vi. 51–56); and the statement about the bridegroom being ‘taken away’ which is given in all the three Synoptists (Matt. ix. 15; Mark ii. 20; Luke v. 35). [Salmond, 1906]

life: or ‘soul,’ as in the margin of the R.V. The word rendered ‘soul’ (psyche) is different from that rendered ‘spirit’ (pneuma). Soul is the term used in Scripture to designate the self, the conscious personal life. It means life as embodied, as the seat of life, one animated. ‘Spirit is life as coming from God; soul is life as constituted in man. Consequently, when the individual life is to be made emphatic, ‘soul’ is used’ (Laidlaw, The Bible Doctrine of Man, p. 69). Thus, too, in connexions like the present, the latter term may express the self’s view of different aspects of a lower and a higher, or the life as mere life, and as the good of life—life worth living. It is to be observed also that this is not the only time that this far-reaching declaration about ‘saving and losing’ one’s life was made by our Lord, according to the Gospel records. See Matt. x. 39; Luke xvii. 33; John xii. 25. It is evident that here it is repeated, and that it might be called forth by more than one occasion.

for my sake: words spoken simply and calmly, but revealing his consciousness of a supremacy beyond the highest human measure, making devotion to himself the first of duties and the life which is a gain worth any cost.

and the gospel’s. It is only Mark who uses the word ‘gospel’ thus without any addition or definition. [Salmond, 1906]

gain the whole world. The contrast passes now from the life saved and the life lost to the world gained and the life forfeited. The term ‘world’ here has not the deep, mystical sense it has in the writings of John. It is the ‘world’ in the common sense of the word; the material, visible world or system of things with all it has to offer. In the experiences of the wilderness, Jesus himself had been tempted to gain the world by forsaking his proper mission and forgetting his relation to God. ‘Forfeit’ is the proper rendering here in the clause ‘forfeit his life.’ For the word expresses not mere loss, but loss coming by penalty inflicted. [Salmond, 1906]

For what should a man give in exchange of, or ‘as an exchange.’ It is an argument for the profitlessness of the gain of the whole world from the fact that it is at the cost of a loss which cannot be repaired. Once the life is gone, nothing can buy it back. [Salmond, 1906]

For whosoever shall be ashamed. The statement becomes yet more definite, and points to yet larger claims on the part of the speaker. It brings the question of loyalty to Christ to the final test of his own judicial prerogative. When that test is applied the just equalities of things will be seen. Then shame shall be met by shame, and he who disowns shall also be disowned.

when he cometh: the N.T. speaks of a ‘coming’ or ‘presence’ of Christ, which it describes as an objective event of the future, a visible return of Christ which is connected with the raising of the dead, the last judgment, and the establishment of the kingdom of God in its final completeness and glory (Matt. xxiv. 30, 37, 39; 1 Thess. ii. 19, iv. 15, v. 23; 2 Thess. ii. 8; 1 Cor. i. 7, xv. 23; Jas. v. 7; 2 Pet. i. 16, iii. 4; 1 John ii. 28, &c.). It also speaks of the kingdom of God, of the day of the Lord, and of the Lord himself as ‘coming’ (Matt. x. 28, xxiv. 30, 42; Luke xvii. 20, xxii. 18; John xxi. 22; Acts ii. 20; 1 Cor. xi. 26, &c.). This ‘coming’ is associated with the end of the world, but also, as it appears, e.g. in Matt. xxiv, xxv, with the destruction of Jerusalem. The prophecies of the O.T. brought events together which the course of history proved to be separated from each other in time. They looked forward to the judgements of the near future, and saw in these preliminary and partial acts of judgement on the nations the coming of the kingdom of God, which was at last to be supreme. So in the intimations made by the N.T. on the subject of the Last Things, judicial acts or redemptive acts of decisive significance, like the destruction of the Temple or the presence of the Lord in the special gift of the Holy Spirit, are described as ‘comings’ of the Lord, and are identified with that final Advent to which in principle they belonged. See also on chap. xiii.

in the glory of his Father with the holy angels. Matthew attaches the definite statement of judgement as well as glory—‘then shall he render unto every man according to his deeds’ (xvi. 27). The glory which the Son of man sees before him is given by Luke as ‘his own glory, and the glory of the Father’ (ix. 26). [Salmond, 1906]