ix. 1. And he said unto them. This verse belongs to the preceding. It is by mistake that it has been made the beginning of a new chapter. The mal-arrangement has been due to taking the words ‘And he said unto them’ as the introduction to a new paragraph. Or it may have been occasioned by the idea that what Jesus said about his ‘coming’ had its fulfilment in the event of the transfiguration.taste of death. That is, experience it: cf. Job xx. 18; Ps. xxxiv. 8; Heb. ii. 9. The announcement recorded in this verse is given in all three Synoptists; most simply in Luke, who says only ‘till they see the kingdom of God’; more precisely in Matthew—‘till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom’; most definitely in Mark—‘till they see the kingdom of God come in (or, already come) with power.’ This is what some of ‘the bystanders’ are to see in their lifetime. How was this prediction fulfilled? Some say, in the coming of the Spirit and the first extension of the Gospel. Others, in the manifestation of the glory of the Son of man in the transfiguration. But the prophetic words seem to point beyond an event so immediate, one indeed that was to take place within a week. In the final Advent at the end of the world, according to others; or in the destruction of Jerusalem and the displacement of the ancient Jewish dispensation. This last interpretation suits sufficiently well both the nature of prophetic discourse (which sees the decisive event in preliminary events of the same kind) and the indication of time. [Salmond, 1906]

ix. 2–8. The Transfiguration. Cf. Matt. xvii. 1–13; Luke ix. 28–36. This exceptional event in our Lord’s ministry is recorded by all three Synoptists, and is referred to distinctly in 2 Pet. i. 16–18. The three evangelical reports give substantially the same account of the incident. They have much in common also in the terms. The resemblance between Matthew and Mark is particularly close, while the language of the third Gospel has more a character of its own. Each of the Evangelists also has something peculiar to himself. Only Matthew, e.g., tells us that the disciples fell on their faces when they heard the voice, and that Jesus came and touched them, and said, ‘Arise, and be not afraid.’ To Luke alone we owe the mention of the facts that Jesus ascended the mount to pray, and that it was while he was praying that he became transfigured. The same Evangelist is the only one who notices that Moses and Elijah talked of the Lord’s ‘decease which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem,’ and that ‘Peter and they that were with him were heavy with sleep.’ In the description of the garments Mark intensifies the sense of their glistering whiteness by adding the words ‘so as no fuller on earth can whiten them.’

2. after six days. So also in Matthew. But in Luke it is ‘about eight days’—a less precise statement, as is indicated by the ‘about,’ and one not inconsistent with the other.

Peter, and James, and John. The same select witnesses as were with him in the death-chamber and in the house of Jairus.

a high mountain. The ‘holy mount;’ cf. 2 Pet. i. 18. Luke does not identify the mountain. Tradition in one form connects the transfiguration with the Mount of Olives. But the mention of a ‘high’ mountain, the ‘privacy’ that, and the narratives place it in the north part of the Holy Land, as they shew Jesus was ministering in Galilee both before and after the event. A much more constant tradition makes it Mount Tabor. This meets the requirements of the case; and being followed by Cyril of Jerusalem, Jerome, and other ancient authorities, it became widely accepted. Tabor is of some height (about 1,700 or 1,800 ft.); it has a commanding position, rising as it does out of the plain of Esdraelon; and it is not at an impossible distance from the locality in which Jesus last was. But there are serious objections to it. It is not likely that Jesus could have found the solitude he sought; for there appears to have been at this time a fortified town or village on it (Josephus, Jew. War, iv. 1. 8, ii. 20. 6; Antiq. xiv. 6. 3). And further we see that Jesus was last in the parts about Cæsarea Philippi in the north, and we learn that after the Transfiguration he travelled through Galilee to Capernaum (Mark ix. 30, 33; Matt. xvii. 22, 24). But it is not probable that he should have gone all the way from Cæsarea Philippi to Tabor, passing Capernaum there and making his way back to that city after the event. Hence the best scholars now conclude in favour of Mount Hermon—a ‘high mountain’ indeed, for it rises over 9,000 ft.; near enough to Cæsarea Philippi to be easily reached from thence in a few days; and in all respects a fit scene for such an event.2. transfigured. The change came over him when he was praying (Luke ix. 29); as it was also when he was praying that the heavens opened, and the Holy Ghost descended on him at his baptism (Luke iii. 21). The change is described most definitely by Matthew and Mark as a ‘transformation’ (Luke says simply ‘the fashion of his countenance was altered’) or a change to the effect that he was ‘transfigured,’ as all the English versions from Wycliffe’s have agreed to render it. The O.T. has its parallel case in the shining of the face of Moses which was due to his speaking with the Lord on the Mount (Exod. xxxiv. 29). The face of Stephen was seen ‘as it had been the face of an angel’ (Acts vi. 15). And in instances less exalted there is at times a transfiguration of the countenance which is the effect of rapt communion with God. [Salmond, 1906]

glistering: the word does not occur again in the N.T., but elsewhere it is used of ‘the flashing of burnished brass or gold’ (2 Esdras viii. 52; 5 Esdras vii. 9). Dr. Swete notices, ‘of steel’ (Nahum iii. 3), or of sunlight (1 Macc. vi. 39).

exceeding white. The A.V. adds as its own; appropriate to the appearance of Hermon, and perhaps suggested by it, but without sufficient documentary authority.

no fuller on earth can whiten them. Mark describes only the appearance of the garments, and this touch is peculiar to him. Matthew tells us that ‘his garments became white as the light,’ but notices also the change upon the person—‘his face did shine as the sun.’ [Salmond, 1906]

Elijah with Moses. Representatives of the two great stages of O.T. revelation, Prophecy and the Law. It was expected that Elijah was to come, but here another has come with him—Moses, of whose return the prophets said nothing. That is what surprised Peter, and through Peter’s recollections it has left its impression on Mark’s narrative.

talking with Jesus. Luke gives the subject (ix. 31). It was the event of which Jesus had just begun to speak openly. [Salmond, 1906]

Peter answereth. To the occasion, that is to say, or to words left unuttered or at least unrecorded. Peter is the spokesman in all three Synoptists. From Luke we gather that Peter broke in with his proposal that they should stay on just when Elijah and Moses were withdrawing (ix. 33).

Rabbi. Mark gives the original Aramaic address; for which Matthew gives ‘Lord,’ and Luke a word of his own, ‘Master,’ different from both and not conveying so definitely the idea of teacher.

and three tabernacles, or ‘booths.’ These were made by intertwining the branches of trees, and on the slopes of Hermon there would be brushwood enough for such a purpose. Perhaps Peter had in mind the Feast of Tabernacles (Lev. xxiii. 40, &c.); ‘He would anticipate it by a week spent on this leafy height in the presence of the three greatest masters of Israel’ (Swete). He spoke vaguely, with no very clear ideas beyond this, that it was ‘good’ for him and his brethren to be where they were, and for them to remain in the presence of these three. [Salmond, 1906]

he wist not what to answer. The same is said of the chosen three in the Agony of the Garden (xiv. 40). A scene so stupendous in his experience, so overwhelming with its unwonted glory and mystery, dazed Peter. He spoke he knew not what, blinded by the terror, in which also James and John shared—‘for they were sore afraid.’ [Salmond, 1906]

there came a cloud. Instead of an answer to Peter’s well-meant but only half-coherent proposal, a cloud, a bright cloud (Matt. xvii. 5), swept down and became an answer and a witness to all—not merely Jesus, and Elijah and Moses, but the disciples also; for ‘they feared,’ Luke tells us, ‘as they entered into the cloud’ (ix. 34). The cloud came while the words were yet on Peter’s lips—‘while he was yet speaking’ (Matt. xvii. 5), ‘while he said these things’ (Luke ix. 34). The overshadowing cloud recalls the cloud that ‘covered the tent of meeting,’ by reason of which Moses was not ‘able to enter’ (Exod. xl. 34, 35). Mention is made also of the ‘cloud’ in the case of the Ascension (Acts i. 9), and of the ‘clouds’ in the announcement of the Second Coming (Mark xiii. 26, xiv. 62; Rev. i. 7). In the O.T. the ‘cloud’ is associated with special manifestations of God, as in the wilderness (Exod. xvi. 10, xix. 9, x. 16, xxiv. 15; Lev. xvi. 2; Num. xi. 25), and at the dedication of the Temple (1 Kings viii. 10). The later Jewish writings indicate that there was a belief that it was to reappear in the time of the Messiah (2 Macc. ii. 8).

a voice out of the cloud. The voice was heard also at the Baptism of Jesus. There it was meant for Jesus himself; here it is addressed to the disciples. All three Synoptists report the addition—‘hear ye him.’ This ‘hear ye him’ spoke of a new duty and a new relation. The men of the old Israel had listened to Moses and the Prophets. Those who were to be the beginning of the new Israel were to listen to Christ, the final utterer of God’s mind (Heb. i. 1). In 2 Peter the voice is mentioned, and is described as having come ‘from the excellent glory,’ to have been ‘heard come out of heaven’ by the Apostles (i. 17, 18). Matthew adds that the disciples ‘fell on their face, and were sore afraid’ (xvii. 6). The terrors already kindled by the scene generally, and especially by the entering into the cloud, were brought to their height by the voice breaking out of the cloud. [Salmond, 1906]

suddenly looking round about, they saw no one. The awful scene ended as unexpectedly as it had begun. All vanished as at a touch, and only Jesus as they had known him was seen. It was only when Jesus touched them as they lay prostrate and whispered with tender, and spoke his own words of cheer, that they were relieved of their fears and lifted up their eyes again. The discovery was immediately made that the vision was gone, and things were again as they had been (Matt. xvii. 7, 8). The narratives manifest precision upon the coincident testimony of the three narratives, each with its own marks of independence, and together not only reproducing the recollections of an eye-witness, but reproducing them with such precision that they cannot be explained away as an imaginative version of merely natural phenomena, or as the highly-coloured record of mistaken impressions. Least of all can it be explained away as a mythical growth. For the idea of a suffering, dying Messiah was abhorrent to the Jew, and there was nothing in the popular Jewish conception of the great expected King that could form the nucleus on which the mythological faculty might work till it produced a story like this, having the ‘decease’ of Jesus as its heart. The event meant much for Jesus himself. This change was not the object with which he ascended the mountain, nor is anything said to suggest that he looked for it. His object was to pray, and thereby to prepare himself at this crisis of his ministry for the Passion that was before him. The glory came to him when he was so engaged, as angelic help came to him in the Temptation and in the Agony; and it strengthened him for his course. But the event meant much also for the Apostles. They, too, had reached a crisis in their calling. They had made their confession of their faith, and they had been staggered by the announcement of his way of suffering. They did not see all that happened on the mount; for Luke tells us that they were ‘heavy with sleep,’ and that it was only ‘when they were fully awake’ that ‘they saw his glory.’ But what they did see and hear was an important element in their training. They had a glimpse at least of the glory that was within and behind the lowliness of the Master; and it gave them the assurance, in after years of trial and separation, that they ‘did not follow cunningly devised fables’ when they looked for the ‘power and coming’ of Christ, and made the same known to others (2 Pet. i. 16). [Salmond, 1906]

ix. 9–13. Questions regarding the resurrection of the dead and the coming of Elijah: cf. Matt. xvii. 9–13. Of what passed as Jesus and the three were on their way down from the mountain Luke tells nothing. He simply remarks that these witnesses of the Transfiguration ‘held their peace, and told no man in those days any of the things which they had seen’ (Luke ix. 36).

9. as they were coming down. From Luke’s mention of ‘the next day’ (ix. 37) we may infer that the descent took place the day after the Transfiguration, and early in the day.

charged them. The injunction to silence which he had now laid on others who would have proclaimed his miracles is now laid on the three with regard to the thing revealed, not about or on himself. But in this case there is a limit—‘till he is risen.’ Of that event, his Resurrection, these were to be witnesses and preachers. [Salmond, 1906]

kept the saying. That is, they did not neglect this prohibition, but held fast to it. So Luke says ‘they held their peace.’

questioning among themselves. Though they were faithful to Christ’s charge and told no man, they had discussions among themselves about the rising of the dead. These could scarcely be about a resurrection of the dead generally; for the doctrine of a resurrection was nothing unfamiliar, being one of the chief tenets of the great Pharisaic party. They must have been about the strange idea of a resurrection in the case of Jesus, implying unwelcome and perplexing thoughts of the death of their Messiah. [Salmond, 1906]

they asked him. They had a further difficulty, which was suggested probably by the appearance of Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration. And on this they interrogate Jesus. The scribes (founding no doubt on Mal. iii. 1, iv. 5) taught them that Elijah was to come before the Messiah himself. But here was an appearance of Elijah after the Messiah’s advent, and furthermore Jesus had charged them to say nothing of it. What were they to make of this? [Salmond, 1906]

Elijah indeed cometh first. Jesus replies that it is true indeed as the scribes said, but that they did not give the whole truth. Elijah was to come before the Messiah; and he was to ‘restore all things,’ that is to say, to initiate a great moral renovation of Israel which would prepare the way for Messiah (Mal. iii. 2–4, iv. 6). But there was more in their Scriptures than this. They spoke not only of the prophet who was to precede Messiah, but also of suffering and rejection as destined for Messiah himself.

The title ‘the Son of Man.’ The N.T. says nothing of the origin of this great title, nor does it explain its meaning. There is much diversity of opinion, therefore, on the subject, and it cannot be said that, even after all the patient inquiry that has been expended on it, all things are clear.

The manner of the use of the term. It is enough to note that while there are certain instances in this matter between the O.T. and the N.T. In the O.T. the phrase ‘son of man’ is often used simply as a synonym for man—a member of the human family, and with special reference to the frailty and dependence of man (Num. xxiii. 19; Job xxv. 6, xxxv. 8; Ps. cxliv. 3; Isa. li. 12, &c.). But in the prophecy of Ezekiel it is used over ninety times as the name by which the prophet is addressed. Also in the Book of Daniel it appears in the description of the ‘one like unto a son of man,’ who receives ‘dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations, and languages should serve him’ (vii. 13, 14). In the N.T., again, its use is singular and of great interest. It is our Lord’s chosen designation of himself. With the exception of one occurrence in Acts (vii. 56), the quotation in Heb. ii. 6, and perhaps two passages in the Apocalypse (Rev. i. 13, xiv. 14) it is found only in the Gospels; and, with the exception of Stephen’s case in the passage in Acts, and these possible occurrences in the visions of John (Rev. i. 13, xiv. 14), it is never used directly of Christ but by himself. It occurs some eighty times in the Gospels, representing at least forty distinct occasions. Its application also is varied. Sometimes it is used with special reference to our Lord’s life or ministry on earth, particularly his humiliation, poverty, or sufferings; at other times with special regard to his exaltation, his glory, his return. Sometimes it is used in connexion with prerogatives exercised then on earth—such as, lordship over the sabbath, the forgiveness of sins; at other times in connexion with the prerogative of judgement in the future.

As to its origin, it appears sufficiently clear that the title goes back to the figure of the ‘one like unto a son of man’ seen in the Danielic vision, and that is the figure of a man above the ordinary human measure—a glorious being, the sovereign of an everlasting and universal dominion. This figure, which appears to have originally represented the people of Israel in their ideal character and victorious destiny, was understood at a very early period to betoken the Messiah. Further, in looking for the origin of the title, regard must be had to the fact that in the non-canonical Jewish writings, especially in that section of the Book of Enoch which is known as the ‘Parables’ or ‘Similitudes,’ the ‘Son of Man’ is a designation of the Messiah, and of the Messiah in the character of a superhuman being, seated on the throne beside God ‘the Head of Days,’ and acting as judge of men. But in addition to what is there found also must be considered the use of the ‘Son of Man’ in Ps. viii., and probably in the enlargement of its meaning it meant something to include both the suffering servant of the Lord in Isaiah.

As regards its meaning, while the questions specially discussed as to whether a Messianic title in the proper sense, and if so definitely so, used by our Lord himself and understood by his hearers in that sense, are in the way in which the name is repeated on significant occasions in the N.T. (e.g. John xii. 34); the fact that our Lord disclosed his Messiahship only gradually; and the further circumstance that the title occurs repeatedly before Peter and the Apostles made their great confession that Jesus was the Christ, point to the conclusion that it was not a current and well-understood Messianic name, at least not one readily taken in that sense by the people generally, and that it was used by our Lord during his Galilean ministry to veil rather than to reveal his Messianic claims, and to present him in another character. It is the name by which he expresses the uniqueness of his personality in respect of his peculiar relation to men. On the one hand it identifies him with us, setting him before us as true man, and placing him on the plane of our common humanity. On the other hand it marks him off as different from us, not a ‘son of man’ simply, but ‘the Son of Man,’ beside whom there is none else—one in whom manhood is seen in its realized ideal, the perfect, representative man, like us and with us in all normal human qualities, but also above us and apart from us in the completeness of his humanity and in the prerogative and authority belonging to one in a unique relation to God as well as to us. [Salmond, 1906]

Elijah is come. And not only is it that the coming of Elijah was foretold. It has taken place (in the case of the Baptist), and who has observed it? His fate has been to have had ‘done unto him whatsoever men listed’—an indirect but expressive reference to Herod’s cruel and arbitrary action. So the Forerunner has come and has been killed. What of the Messiah himself, therefore, and the things he shall suffer at the hands of men?

as it is written of him. This refers to what Jesus has just said of the fate of the second Elijah. The three Apostles understand that Jesus identified Elijah with John, and Matthew expressly tells us that they did (xvii. 13). On an earlier occasion indeed Jesus had pointed to this identification (Matt. xi. 14). But where is it ‘written’ that Elijah was to suffer? It is not enough to say that Jesus spoke with reference simply to the statements made in the O.T. on the sufferings of prophets generally. For the ‘of him’ makes it clear that the particular case of Elijah is in view. What is meant, therefore, must be what is written in the O.T. regarding the treatment of Elijah by Ahab and Jezebel (1 Kings xix.). This was typical of the treatment of John by Herod and Herodias. [Salmond, 1906]

ix. 14–29. Healing of the Demoniac boy: cf. Matt. xvii. 14–20; Luke ix. 37–43. Mark’s narrative is most graphic and circumstantial. The narratives of Matthew and Luke are briefer but still contain highly significant signs of compression. Yet both Matthew and Luke give some particulars not mentioned by Mark.

14. came to the disciples. They had returned now to the place and the company they had left for the time. None of the Apostles had remained at the foot of the mountain. Jesus and the three found those from whom they had parted now in the midst of a crowded people, and engaged in a discussion with certain scribes. These scribes, who belonged probably to some synagogues in the district, seized an opportunity which presented itself for damaging the disciples of Jesus in the eyes of the public.

questioning with them. The incident of the discussion with the scribes is omitted both by Matthew and by Luke. Mark not only gives it, but indicates its occasion and its subject. The matter at issue was the failure of the disciples to effect a certain cure. This gave the scribes their opportunity to throw doubt on ‘the authority over unclean spirits’ (vi. 7) which Jesus was said to have given them. Their failure in this case may well have been a perplexity to the disciples themselves, raising questions in their minds and making it difficult for them to answer the scribes. [Salmond, 1906]

straightway all the multitude. As if with one impulse the crowd turned from the scribes to Jesus. It is not said that the scribes themselves shewed any such interest in his appearance.

greatly amazed. The word is very strong, and is found only in Mark. He uses it when he tells us that Jesus was ‘greatly amazed’ in his Agony (xiv. 33), and again when he reports how the women were ‘amazed’ when they entered the Lord’s tomb (xvi. 5, 6). The adjective connected with the verb occurs also in the description of the ‘amazement’ of the people when they saw the lame man walking and leaping (Acts iii. 10). What caused the ‘amazement’ of the multitude on this occasion? The lingering radiance left by the transfiguration on the face of Jesus, say some. They point to the analogy of the glory on the face of Moses when he came down from the Mount of Vision and Communion (Exod. xxxiv. 29, &c.). But there is nothing in the narrative to suggest that the appearance of Jesus was changed in any way; and while the O.T. says outright in the case of Moses that Aaron and the others were ‘afraid to come nigh him’ (Exod. xxxiv. 30), in this case the effect was that the people ran to Jesus and saluted him. The cause rather must be sought in the suddenness and opportuneness of his appearance. The multitude had a case before them in which they had failed to accomplish a cure, and had come to nothing, and Jesus himself was far away. When they were disconcerted by it and the disciples themselves were baffled, the Master, whom they thought to be out of reach to help them, unexpectedly comes upon the scene. All thoughts of the scribes and their objections, the disciples and their discomfiture, are lost in the sense of startled, glad surprise, and they run to welcome him. [Salmond, 1906]

he asked them. He took no notice of the scribes, but turned to the people, seeing they had some difficult matter in hand, and asking them what it was.

What question ye with them? That is, with the disciples, not with the scribes. The multitude had turned with their questions to the disciples when they heard the scribes putting their difficulties. [Salmond, 1906]

one of the multitude answered. The reply to the interrogation of Jesus comes from an individual in the crowd, and from the one who could least keep silent. Matthew tells us how the man came to Jesus, ‘kneeling to him’ and addressing him as ‘Lord’ (xvii. 14, 15). Luke, taking the incident perhaps in its first stage, puts it as if the man had spoken from within the crowd—‘a man from the multitude cried’ (ix. 38).

Master. Here again in the sense of Teacher.

I brought unto thee my son. From this we infer that the father had come expecting to find Jesus himself there, but had had to be content with the disciples. Matthew refers only to the application to the disciples (xvii. 16). Luke tells us that the boy was the man’s ‘only child’ (ix. 38).

a dumb spirit. He could cry out (Luke ix. 39), but could not utter articulate sounds. It appears from our Lord’s word that the same spirit was also deaf (ix. 25). Cf. the case in Decapolis (vii. 32). What is said of the spirit describes what is the condition of the afflicted boy. [Salmond, 1906]

wheresoever it taketh him. The boy was the victim of fits, which were of extreme violence, frequent occurrence (‘oft-times,’ xvii. 22), and of a kind that might come upon him without warning. They were sudden and convulsive, recurrent, perhaps periodical seizures of an epileptic. So Matthew represents the father as saying the boy ‘is epileptic’ (xvii. 15).

dasheth him down. The combined accounts of the three Synoptists give a harrowing picture of the effects of these seizures—the sudden scream (‘he suddenly crieth out,’ Luke ix. 39), the hurling of the sufferer on the ground, the rolling convulsions, the foaming at the mouth, the wallowing, the grinding of the teeth, the pining, wasting form. The word used for this last-mentioned effect is the one used of the withering of the hand of the man in the synagogue (iii. 1), of the plant that had no root (iv. 6), of the grass (Jas. i. 11), and of the dryings up of the water of the Euphrates (Rev. xvi. 12).

I spake to thy disciples. In the belief that they had the power, having perhaps seen it used to good effect (vi. 12). So that he too would be surprised at the failure. [Salmond, 1906]

he asked his father. The interesting details given from this point on to the first half of verse 25 are peculiar to Mark. They shew at how early a stage in the boy’s life (‘from a child,’ from the time when he was quite a little boy) these seizures began, how frequent they were, and how dreadful—taking in point of fact, as the casting ‘into the fire and into the waters’ indicates, the form of suicidal frenzy. They also show how the father’s faith had been tried, and how nevertheless it could rise to the word of Jesus. [Salmond, 1906]

if thou canst do anything. The leper had said, ‘If thou wilt, thou canst’ (i. 40). But this man’s confidence in the Healer had suffered the shock given it by the unexpected powerlessness of the disciples of the Healer. [Salmond, 1906]

If thou canst! This is a repetition. Jesus takes up the father’s word and utters it again with a touch of compassionate rebuke; while he also corrects it by declaring how the question of the ability turns upon the question of the faith. ‘If thou canst, thou sayest: but it is to the believer that all becomes possible.’ So the question of the possibility of healing for the son is turned from what is in Jesus to what is in the father himself. [Salmond, 1906]

Straightway the father of the child cried out. The father understands how the Master’s word throws him back in the first instance upon himself, and upon the spiritual condition on his side for the efficient exercise of the power on the side of Jesus. Instantly he rises to a higher faith—a faith, too, which can declare itself openly, and at the same time recognizes its infirmity and petitions for help in it. The father’s faith is accepted, as in the case of the Syro-Phoenician woman, for the faith which the sufferer is not in a position to offer.

help thou mine unbelief. The help which is needed, he sees, is first for himself—for the faith which had been like to fail in him, for the unbelief into which he had been driven. Those who best believe best know the unbelief that lurks in their hearts. ‘There is no contradiction here, and scarcely even paradox, but only deep sincerity in the beginnings of faith, joined with the eagerness of strong desire for a special gift’ (Clarke). [Salmond, 1906]

when Jesus saw that a multitude came running together. In the father’s faith the condition on which the application of the healing power was suspended is now made good. There is no reason for further delay. There is an obvious reason for speedy action. For the crowd is becoming restless and excited. Jesus sees this, and at once speaks the word of expulsion for the unclean spirit and deliverance for the boy. He speaks it in his own name, with emphasis on the I—‘I command thee.’ [Salmond, 1906]

torn him much. The command had been uttered in a tone of particular authority and in very definite terms—‘come out of him, and enter no more into him.’ The case required this, for it was one of extraordinary severity. This was seen in its very last stages. Convulsions seized the boy again ere he obtained relief—convulsions so violent and protracted that they left him utterly exhausted, and as if the life had gone out of him. Most who saw him took him indeed for dead. [Salmond, 1906]

took him by the hand. So giving him matter of fact help in his collapse and raising him out of it; as he did in the previous cases of Peter’s wife’s mother (i. 31) and the daughter of Jâirus (v. 41). And the cure was complete—the sufferer who lay on the ground still and helpless as a corpse arose, and, as Matthew tells us, ‘the boy was cured from that hour’ (xvii. 18). Luke adds that Jesus ‘gave him back to his father’ (ix. 42). [Salmond, 1906]

his disciples asked him privately. Luke alone records the impression produced on the people by this miracle. They recognized ‘the hand of God in it’—‘they were all astonished at the majesty of God’ (ix. 43). Matthew and Mark notice what happened with the disciples themselves. The work being finished, Jesus leaves the excitable crowd and goes indoors. When the Twelve are in private with him, the nine ask him, as it was natural for them to do, why they had failed. [Salmond, 1906]

by nothing, save by prayer. The A.V. adds ‘and fasting.’ But the shorter reading of the R.V. is the better supported. With ‘this kind,’ that is to say, this kind of demons, such aggravated cases of possession, nothing availed but prayer. The cause of the inability of the disciples, therefore, was in themselves. Matthew reports Jesus to have told them in explicit terms that it was because of their ‘little faith.’ They had been trusting in their commission, and had thought but little of the moral conditions, of those of prayer and faith, on which the efficiency of their gift depended. [Salmond, 1906]

ix. 30–32. Second open Announcement of the Passion and the Resurrection. Cf. Matt. xvii. 22, 23; Luke ix. 43–45.

30. from thence. That is, from the foot of Hermon and the far north.

through Galilee. Thus by the west side of Jordan. On their way to Cæsarea Philippi or that they may have kept to the east side of the river all the way, or may have kept by the west side so far and have crossed at a point below ‘the waters of Merom.’ The route which they took was probably by ‘Dan across the slopes of Lebanon; thus escaping the publicity of the common high roads, and securing secrecy and seclusion’ (Maclear). [Salmond, 1906]

taught his disciples. Not on a single occasion, but repeatedly during the course of the journey. This teaching and training of the Twelve made his work then, and his chief subject was his Death and Resurrection. Luke adds that Jesus bade them let his words on these great topics sink into their ears (ix. 44).

delivered up. So too, in Matthew. A still clearer announcement than the former. [Salmond, 1906]

afraid to ask him. So, too, in Luke. Matthew says they were ‘exceeding sorry’ (xvii. 23). They had, therefore, some indistinct and painful sense of what he meant, but no proper comprehension of it; and they refrained from asking him. The awe of his words made them shrink from a closer acquaintance with their purport. They had seen also how Jesus could rebuke even Peter when he spoke rash words on the former occasion (Mark viii. 33). [Salmond, 1906]

ix. 33–37. Discussions about Precedence: cf. Matt. xviii. 1–5; Luke ix. 46–48. Immediately before this, Matthew, and he alone, introduces the narrative of the half-shekel in the mouth of the fish.

33. to Capernaum. Here he had begun his Galilean ministry, and here, so far as the Gospels shew, he closed it. After his Resurrection he may have been twice at least in the neighbourhood (Matt. xxviii. 16; John xxi. 1). But there is no reference to his being in the town itself from the time of this return onwards. His way now was to be to the south.

in the house. Perhaps Simon’s house, or Levi’s (ii. 29, iii. 15).

asked them. He had observed them disputing on the way, and perhaps had overheard them in part. [Salmond, 1906]

held their peace. Realizing now the impropriety of their dispute, they made no reply to the question as if it did not belong to their minds themselves. Matthew tells us that this begins perhaps, at a further point in our Lord’s address, came the question, ‘Who then is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?’ (xviii. 1). The discussion probably had its occasion in the selection of the three to be the companions of their Master on the mount. Did this mean that these three were greater than the rest of them? Were there to be such distinctions and preferences in the kingdom of the Messiah? [Salmond, 1906]

sat down. As a Jewish Rabbi did when he was about to teach.

the twelve. The entire Apostolic band. All had need to learn what true greatness was, and how it was to be attained in the new kingdom Jesus founded. The lesson was repeated on a later occasion (Matt. xxiii. 8, &c.; Luke xxii. 24, &c.).

If any man would be first. The lesson is given first in the form of deliberate, oral statement. The condition of greatness in his kingdom is the spiritual condition of humility—a humility that glories in service, the service not of a class but of all. [Salmond, 1906]

took a little child. The verbal lesson is followed up by an object-lesson which none could mistake. A child is looking on or amusing himself near by. He is unnamed. There is a tradition, of no small value, that he was the Ignatius who grew up to be the famous bishop and martyr. It is suggested that he may have been Peter’s child (cf. i. 30). Jesus calls the little one (Matt. xviii. 2) as he had called the disciples, and takes him beside himself (‘by his side,’ says Luke, ix. 47), and sets him in the heart of the company of the Twelve, and then lifts him up into his arms, and so repeats his lesson. Mark alone records the taking of the child into his arms. Matthew gives the words Jesus used on the same occasion at greater length (xviii. 3, &c.). Jesus had himself been taken as a babe into the arms of the aged Simeon (Luke ii. 28). [Salmond, 1906]

receive one of such little children. This child was now representative of the class of little children, and a type also of the order of true disciples—simple, trustful, unassuming.

in my name: lit. ‘on my name,’ i.e., ‘on the ground of what I am,’ or ‘for my sake.’ The name is the sum of the character, the revelation, and the doings. The ‘name’ of Christ is all that he has revealed to us in dignity, character, authority, and deed receiveth… him that sent me. True greatness is found not in the assertion of self above others, but in lowly self-denying service for others. The note of true discipleship is the possession of the spirit of a child, which is the spirit of Christ. To recognize this spirit and receive the humble disciple in whom it is seen, is to recognize and receive Christ himself. Nor is this the end of all. So to receive Christ is to receive God himself. For Christ is in the world, not of himself, but as sent by God and representing God. [Salmond, 1906]

ix. 38–40. John’s report of a case of interference with the work of one outside the circle of disciples: cf. Luke ix. 49, 50.

38. John said. John seldom appears in any prominent way in the Synoptical narratives, and only on this one occasion is he spokesman. He is coupled with James in the ambitious request for the chief places in the kingdom (x. 35), and with Peter and James and Andrew in the question about the time of the end (xiii. 3).

we saw one casting out devils (‘demons’) in thy name. The Master’s word just uttered about receiving one in his name recalls an incident in the work of the disciples, and John is not the man to keep it back. Where or when the incident took place is not told. Probably it was during the mission in Northern Galilee on which they had already reported.

we forbade him: or rather, ‘tried to forbid him.’ They had seen one, who had not the right that comes from discipleship and the possession of a commission, taking a liberty, as they judged it, with the name of Jesus in the work of exorcism, and they tried to stop him. John is uneasy about this. Were they right in doing so? Was this in accordance with the Master’s mind? Jesus had spoken of doing something in his name, but it was receiving, not exorcism.

because he followed not us. But Luke says, ‘because he followeth not with us’ (ix. 49). They had a reason for their action, and John states it. It was the fact that the man was not one of themselves, not in their company. The narrative suggests, especially in Christ’s reply, that the man, though he had not joined in the circle of professed disciples, acted in sincerity and believed in some sense in Jesus, and the power of his name. [Salmond, 1906]

Forbid him not. The answer of Jesus to the implied question of John was direct and definite. It meant that they had erred by excess of zeal. To such a man their attitude had best been one of neutrality, or sufferance, not of positive repudiation. Compare the case of Joshua and the reply of Moses (Num. xi. 28, 29).

speak evil of me. Jesus, too, gives his reason. There was nothing to fear from leaving such a case alone. A man who, though yet outside, had faith enough in the power of the name of Jesus to think of using it in casting out demons, was not likely to prove an enemy. Rather might he be gained as a friend. [Salmond, 1906]

For he that is not against us is for us. On another occasion, but also in connexion with a case of possession, Jesus said—‘He that is not with me is against me’ (Matt. xii. 30). The cases are different, and the two sayings are in principle the same. It is the simple principle that we cannot be for and against, friend and foe, at the same time. One cannot be against Christ if he has faith, however imperfect, in his name. One cannot be the friend of Christ if he has so little faith in him as to think that his works are works of Satan. The one saying does not negative the other, but supplements it. The one deals with our conduct towards others, of whose acts we are partial judges; the other with our inner attitude to Christ. [Salmond, 1906]

ix. 41–50. Resumption of our Lord’s teaching on discipleship. The question of offences. Cf. Matt. xviii. 6–9; Luke xvii. 1, 2.

41. because ye are Christ’s. The sentence means literally, as it is given in the margin of the R.V., ‘in name that ye are Christ’s,’ that is, on the ground that ye belong to Christ. Hence the great Pauline phrase (1 Cor. iii. 23; 2 Cor. x. 7; cf. also Rom. viii. 9; 1 Cor. i. 12). At this point the teaching, which had been broken up by John’s report, is resumed. The subject remains the same, and Jesus proceeds to speak first of the worth of the smallest service rendered in his spirit to the spirit of a disciple, as simple an act as giving a disciple a cup of cold water—a thing that even these hot lands would prompt to do—if done for Christ’s sake, has a certain and enduring reward. The use of the word ‘term a Christ’ in place of ‘the Christ’ should be noticed here. It seems definite, as if the Messianic claims of Jesus are to be made openly and definitely. [Salmond, 1906]

cause… to stumble. On the other hand an injury (it is a spiritual injury that is in view) done to a disciple, however lowly, brings heavy penalty to the wrongdoer. The infirm ones, who can be so easily hurt, ought to have special consideration. On this principle Jesus himself acted, even in the case of those outside (cf. Matt. xvii. 27). This principle of patient regard for the weak has a large place also both in the teaching and in the practice of Paul (Rom. xiv. 21; 1 Cor. viii. 13; 2 Cor. xi. 29).

better for him if a great millstone. The word means literally ‘an ass-millstone,’ that is one turned by an ass. What is meant by this? The ordinary hand-mill, as it may be seen in the East to-day, consisted of two circular stones one above the other, the upper one being the one that did the grinding. It was worked by women, female slaves, and others (Exod. xi. 5; Judges ix. 53). This upper stone was sometimes called the ‘ass,’ and so some think this is what is in view here. But it is only in classical Greek that the word ‘ass’ is so used. Hence the reference is to another kind of millstone, the tâhâneth, which was large enough to require an animal to work it. A strong figure expressing utter loss, a penalty from which there is no escape. [Salmond, 1906]

if thy hand cause thee to stumble. Jesus carries this serious question of offences now from the case of injuries inflicted on others to that of wrongs done to ourselves. Spiritual hurt may come to a man from himself, from some part of his nature which he suffers to become his wrongdoer. What he does injuriously or inconsiderately to others may also mean injury to himself. It is his wisdom, therefore, to cut off the occasion at whatever cost and wherever it may lie, whether in hand, in foot, or in eye. In the personal life, too, such is the need for self-sacrifice.

into life. Life, that is, in the sense not of mere existence, but the good joy of life—‘life that is life indeed’ (1 Tim. vi. 19).

into hell. That is, ‘into Gehenna.’ This word Gehenna, so common and oft-noted in the Fourth Gospel, occurs eleven times in the Synoptists. It represents the O.T. Ge Hinnom, ‘the valley of the son of Hinnom,’ the valley of Hinnom (Neh. xi. 30; Joshua xv. 8, xviii. 16; 2 Chron. xxviii. 3; Jer. vii. 32; 2 Kings xxiii. 10); the name given to a gorge in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem where in ancient times idolatrous Israelites practised the horrid rites of Moloch. The Topheth in it, which was associated with the sacrifices of children, was defiled by Josiah, and the place became a receptacle for the dead bodies of animals and refuse of all kinds. The horrors associated with the name made it a natural figure for the place of future punishment, and that sense it bears in the later Jewish books, the Book of Enoch (xxvii. 1), the Sibylline Oracles (i. 103), 4 Esdras (ii. 29), &c. Our Lord uses it here and elsewhere, in his most solemn utterances, in this sense of the final place or condition of retribution.

into the unquenchable fire. Another figure of speech, recalling the closing words of the second Isaiah (lxvi. 24). It is taken perhaps from the fires that burned in the ancient Ge Hinnom. The existence of these fires, however, which are alleged to have been kept burning perpetually for the consumption of the offal deposited in the ravine, is not certain. In any case it is the figure of a lasting spiritual penalty. Verses 44, 46, which appear in the A.V., are rightly omitted by the R.V. as being insufficiently attested. [Salmond, 1906]

the kingdom of God. The phrase is used here as an equivalent to the ‘life,’ which in the previous verses expresses one of the two final issues of our doings with others and with ourselves. [Salmond, 1906]

where their worm dieth not. Yet another strong figure, again recalling Isa. lxvi. 24, and expressing a future, spiritual penalty that does not exhaust itself. It is ‘a figurative designation,’ says Meyer, ‘of the extremely painful and endless punishments of hell (not merely the terrors of conscience).’ [Salmond, 1906]

every one shall be salted with fire. The clause added by the A.V., ‘and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt,’ has no considerable support, but not enough to be retained as part of the text. This declaration about being salted with fire is unique and occurs only in the Gospels. Its meaning and its particular point here are not easy to grasp. It is introduced in explanation or enforcement of the preceding solemn statement, which inculcates the wisdom of sacrificing hand, foot, or eye rather than risk endless loss. It seems to be connected with the immediately preceding mention of a fire that is not quenched, as if the words had run thus—‘Yes, the fire, I say, is not quenched, for it is with fire all are to be salted.’ The key to its meaning is found probably in the Levitical regulation which provided that all with oblations salt was to be offered (Lev. ii. 13). Salt was used in connexion with the making of covenants, and the sacrificial salt of the Levitical offerings was the symbol of the covenant-relation between God and Israel. But that covenant had its responsibilities and its retributive side to the faithless, as well as its gracious side to the true. So the disciples of Christ are in a covenant-relation, and there is a test of their attitude to it by which each of them shall be tried. That test is a Divine fire, the fire of the Divine holiness, which has a twofold action, as the covenant-relation has a twofold aspect. In the case of the true it will preserve and purify and bring reward; in the case of the false, who enter Gehenna, it will burn and bring penalty. Hence the necessity for the practice of the sacrifice of self, that that reward may be gained and this loss escaped. [Salmond, 1906]

lost its saltness. The sweeping out of salt that has lost its virtue and become useless or hurtful, travellers tell us, is still a common sight in Palestine.

wherewith will ye season it? Salt once spoilt can never have its saltness restored. So if the qualities which make the true disciple—fidelity to his covenant-relation, consideration for the weak, self-abnegation, and the like—are turned to faithlessness and selfishness, what remains of the discipleship, and what can restore the loss?

Have salt in yourselves. Be true to your covenant obligations, to all that makes your discipleship.

and be at peace one with another. Let this fidelity to your relation to Christ fulfil itself in brotherly relations with one and another. So the words bring us back to the disputing of the disciples (ix. 33) which had been their occasion. Selfish claims for the chief places, wranglings about precedence—such things spoil the spirit of the disciple. [Salmond, 1906]