Verse-by-Verse Bible Commentary
Mark 15:15

Bridgeway Bible Commentary

156. Jesus before the people (Matthew 27:15-31; Mark 15:6-20; Luke 23:13-25; John 18:39-16)

Although assured that Jesus was innocent, Pilate felt it wise to give the Jews some satisfaction; for by this time a crowd had gathered and he did not want a riot to break out. He therefore offered to punish Jesus by flogging, and consider the matter finished (Luke 23:13-16).

But the people yelled for Jesus to be crucified. Pilate did not want the situation to get out of control, so made another offer. He agreed to accept the Jews’ accusation of Jesus’ guilt, but he offered to give Jesus the special pardon reserved for one criminal each Passover season (Matthew 27:15-18).

By this time the priests scattered throughout the crowd had the people under their power. They quickly spread the word that the prisoner they wanted released was not Jesus, but Barabbas, a rebel who had once taken a leading part in a local anti-Rome uprising (see Mark 15:7; Luke 23:19). Pilate, unaware of the influence of the priests in the crowd and thinking that Jesus had widespread support, agreed to allow the crowd to choose between the two, no doubt thinking they would choose Jesus. As he waited for them to make their choice, his wife sent him a warning not to condemn Jesus (Matthew 27:19-20).

If supporters of Jesus were in the crowd, they were a minority. People in general were more likely to support a nationalist like Barabbas. Finally, they succeeded in having Barabbas released and Jesus condemned to be crucified. They accepted responsibility for this decision and called down God’s judgment upon them and their children if they were wrong (a judgment that possibly fell on them with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70). Jesus was then taken and flogged as the first step towards crucifixion (Matthew 27:21-26; Luke 23:18-25; John 18:39-40; John 19:1).

While some soldiers were preparing for the execution, those in Pilate’s palace cruelly made fun of Jesus. They mocked him as ‘king’ by putting some old soldiers clothes on him for a royal robe and thorns on his head for a crown. They hit him over the head with a stick that was supposed to be his sceptre, and spat in his face and punched him as mock signs of homage (Matthew 27:27-31; John 19:2-3).

Pilate showed this pitiful figure to the crowd, apparently hoping it might make them feel ashamed and change their minds; but it only increased their hatred (John 19:4-6). Pilate became more uneasy when he heard that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. Maybe, thought Pilate, this man was one of the gods. He became even more anxious to set Jesus free when Jesus told him that God would hold him responsible for the way he used his authority. Pilate was guilty for condemning a man he knew was innocent, but Caiaphas and the other Jews who handed Jesus over to him were more guilty (John 19:7-11).

Again Pilate tried to release Jesus, but the Jews reminded him that he himself could be in danger if he released a person guilty of treason. This disturbed Pilate further, and after a final offer that the Jews rejected, he handed Jesus over to be crucified. The Jews’ declaration of loyalty to Caesar demonstrated their hypocrisy and confirmed their rejection of God (John 19:12-16).

Coffman's Commentaries on the Bible

And Pilate wishing to content the multitude, released unto them Barabbas, and delivered Jesus, when he had scourged him, to be crucified.

Mark here passed over a great deal of material, in all probability out of respect to the fact of its prior publication in Matthew. See the introduction to this chapter.

Scourged him … From the manner of the sacred authors' mentioning it, some have supposed that Jesus was scourged twice, but this is not true. As Bickersteth said:

Pilate anticipated the time of the scourging, in the vain hope that by this means he might save our Lord from capital punishment. A comparison of Mark with Matthew and John makes this clear; for they all three refer to one and the same scourging.E. Bickersteth, op. cit., p. 305.

Had scourged him … has the meaning of Pilate's having done so earlier in the trial.

Pilate's bumbling attempts to release Jesus and his obvious knowledge of Jesus' innocence resulted in the canonization of St. Pilate (!) by the Abyssinian church;A. Elwood Sanner, op. cit., p. 404. but the more accurate judgment of history has been preserved in the phrase from the Apostles' Creed, "Suffered under Pontius Pilate." There is no way that this weak and vacillating governor deserves anything except the infamy which fell upon his name. He knew Jesus was innocent; and, after announcing such a verdict, he should have had the guts to release Jesus and order the soldiers in the tower of Antonio to disperse the mob.

Smith's Bible Commentary

Let's turn to Mark's gospel chapter 15.

Jesus was arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane in the evening or late night, and immediately brought before Caiaphas the high priest and some of the rulers where they held an illegal night tribunal. And they tried to develop charges that they could bring against Jesus before the Roman court because they were determined that Jesus must be put to death. But they did not have the power of condemning a prisoner to death. That was Rome's power. So, their trial against Jesus was basically a religious trial. And they had many witnesses that came; none of them could agree together. And finally, the high priest said directly to Jesus, "I adjure you by the living God, tell us, are you the Son of God?" And Jesus answered in the affirmative and said, "Henceforth you're not going to see Me until you see Me in the right hand of power." And the high priest tore his clothes and he said, "What need we of any further witnesses?" In other words, "We don't need a witness. This guy has witnessed against Himself. What do you think of this?" And they all said, "It's blasphemy!" "What shall we do to Him?" "Let Him be put to death." Well, there's no way the Roman court is going to put a man to death for blasphemy against the Jewish religion. So they had to develop other charges when they brought Jesus before Pilate because their religious charges would not hold any credence in a Roman court. Now,

And straightway in the morning [this trial was at night,] the chief priests [they gathered together the whole council, verse one of chapter 15, and they] held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole council, and bound Jesus, and carried him away, and delivered him to Pilate. And Pilate asked him ( Mark 15:1-2 ),

Now, no doubt the charges that they brought against Jesus were charges of insurrection against Rome, claiming that He was a king. And they did throw in the charge, though it was a false charge that He said they should not pay taxes to Caesar. So basically, the only charges that they could bring against the Rome court against Jesus would be insurrection against Rome. And these would be capital offenses for which He could be put to death.

"Then Pilate asked Him,"

Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answering said unto him, Thou sayest it [You said it]. And the chief priests accused him of many things; but he answered nothing [but he did not make any defense for himself]. And Pilate asked him again, saying, Answerest thou nothing [Don't You answer anything to these charges]? behold how many things they witness against thee. But Jesus yet answered nothing; so that Pilate marveled. Now at that feast [that is the Feast of the Passover,] he released unto them one prisoner, whomsoever they desired [it was a custom of the Roman government to honor the feast by turning free a prisoner unto the people, a prisoner of their choice]. And there there was one [certain prisoner] named Barabbas, which lay bound with them that had made insurrection with him, who had committed murder in the insurrection. And the multitude crying aloud began to desire him to do as he had ever done unto them [as he was accustomed to do, on this particular day of the year, release a prisoner]. But Pilate answered them, saying, Will ye that I [do you want me to] release unto you the King of the Jews? For he knew that the chief priests had delivered him for envy. But the chief priests moved the people, that he should rather release Barabbas unto them. And Pilate answered and said again unto them, What will ye then that I shall do unto him whom ye call the King of the Jews? And they cried out again, Crucify him. Then Pilate said unto them, Why, what evil hath he done? And they cried out the more exceedingly, Crucify him. And so Pilate, willing to content the people, released Barabbas unto them, and delivered Jesus, when he had scourged him, to be crucified ( Mark 15:2-15 ).

So we find the account of Jesus before Pilate. For many years there were certain Bible critics that found what they felt to be a discrepancy in the scriptural record because of the reference to Pilate. And within the Roman records that have been discovered up to that point, there was no record of any man named Pilate ever being a governor over Judea. And so those Bible critics who are so willing and ready to find some discrepancy in the Bible began to aver with all of their scholastic pomp that the Bible was not a credible record at all because it listed people who never did exist, people whose names were absent from any other record or any other source. And because there was no other source naming Pilate as a Roman governor, then surely the Bible account has to be spurious and you cannot rely or trust in the Bible. And these men gained great notoriety by their proclamations and the papers were only too happy to publish them and their findings. However, when excavations were being done in Caesarea, they happened to cross an interesting stone that had the record of Pilate inscribed upon it, "The Governor of Judea," and telling a little bit about his office as governor. And so all of the scholars and all of their discrediting of the Bible was, of course, discredited itself and the Bible stood once more as an anvil, as the hammers that were beaten against it were worn out and tossed aside. And now it is thoroughly recognized and there has been much more discoveries by the archaeologists that have proved that Pilate did indeed live and govern over Judea. In fact, we know quite a bit about Pilate's history now. But it's interesting how that people are so ready to find fault with the Word of God, or so ready to discredit it. And how much publicity they can get on any statement discrediting the Bible. Yet when they found this stone of Pilate, very little was mentioned about it in the press. You know, the guys just sort of bow their heads and put their tail between their legs and slink away and hope that people will forget their asseverations that Pilate was not a real person.

Jesus is accused of being the King of the Jews. He's more than that. He's the King of Glory. But Jesus did not defend Himself. Now in Isaiah it said, "And as the sheep before her shearers is dumb, so He openeth not His mouth." It is possible that this crowd that had gathered before Pilate had not gathered on the account of Jesus. It is quite possible that the crowd that had gathered was drawn together by Fonda and Hayden in order to have this man Barabbas released. It could be that was the purpose of the crowd being there. Now we find the charge against Barabbas was insurrection. That would not be a bad or evil thing as far as the Jew was concerned. In fact, this was a common problem that Rome had with Judea, the many insurrections. For there were many zealots who hated that Roman occupation of their land. And they were constantly having uprisings against the Roman occupiers. And there was, of course, this man Barabbas. It could be that to the people he was a national hero because he dared to stand up against Rome. So that, it is quite possible that the crowd that was there was not actually there to witness the trial of Jesus, but were there for the purpose of getting the release of Barabbas, to put the pressure on that Barabbas might be released, as sort of a popular hero. And that this trial of Jesus was just something that was thrown upon them. But they themselves actually weren't too aware of Jesus or who He was. That is a possibility.

There are many times those who say, "Well, now look at the fickleness of the crowd; just the few days before they were saying 'Hosanna, hosanna! Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!' And now they're crying, 'Crucify Him!'" It could be that you're dealing with two entirely different crowds and not with a fickle condition of the multitude. But those that were there to really see the imposition of death upon Jesus were the high priests, the scribes, and that these other people were actually there and had gathered there on this day in order to help facilitate the release of their popular hero Barabbas. So that we so oftentimes hear Barabbas cast in an evil light, "How would they chose this man who was a murderer and insurrectionist and all?" Well, it's because he was an insurrectionist that they sort of admired him. And he could have been a real people's hero as far as insurrection against Rome was concerned. Nonetheless, however it may be, the people chose a lawless man over the law, over a man who was obedient to the law. Their choice was a sad choice indeed, and it so often reflects the attitude of people of choosing lawlessness over the law.

Pilate asked them a question that is a question that is very relevant to each one of us, "What will you then that I shall do unto Him whom you call the King of the Jews? What shall I do with this man?" That's something that every one of you have to determine in your own hearts. What are you going to do with Jesus who is called the King of the Jews? You see, you've got to do something with Him. He is a radical, and as a radical you cannot be neutral towards Him. You've got to have some kind of an opinion. You've got to do something with Him. And you see, you've got to either believe Him or not believe Him. You've got to receive Him or reject Him. Now, not to believe in Him is to not believe in Him. In other words, you can't be neutral; you've got to take a stand one way or the other. You either believe or you don't believe. You can't be neutral. Not to receive Him is to reject Him. Not to confess Him is to deny Him. And each of you must determine what you are going to do with this man Jesus who is called the King of the Jews. For you either confess or deny, you receive or you reject, you believe or you don't believe.

Pilate was the judge. He is asking the people to give him direction for his decision, a very unusual move on the part of the judge. But yet, in this case, it's a significant move because really, it's the people's choice. It's a personal choice. And each man must make the decision for himself; you can't leave it up to Pilate to make the decision for you. You make the decision for yourself and you are responsible then for that decision that you make.

In a sense, each of you stand as the judge of Jesus Christ. Was He really the Son of God, or was He a charlatan and a fake? Did He really die for the sins of the world? Was He really risen from the dead? Or is it all a farce, a hoax? And each of you must stand as judge of the facts of history to determine whether or not these are accurate or inaccurately reported to you. So you must finally decide and determine what you are going to do with this man Jesus, who is called the Christ, the King of the Jews. But the ironic twist of the whole thing...your being the person who must judge for yourself concerning Jesus Christ, the ironic twist is that your decision concerning Him has absolutely nothing to do with His destiny. Though you have to judge, you are not determining His destiny; but in reality, you are determining your destiny. To believe in Him, to receive Him, to confess Him is to receive eternal life. To not believe in Him is to receive eternal damnation. And thus, you as the judge are determining your own destiny when you make your determination concerning Jesus Christ. It's a very heavy thing. I am the judge, but yet it is my fate that is being determined by the judgment that I make. What Jesus is, He is. You can't change it. What He is He has always been and will always be. Your decision concerning Him will not affect Him at all. But it will determine where you spend eternity.

"Pilate, willing to content the people..." This is justice of convenience, which is not true justice. To give in to the will of the people, though you know it is wrong, to yield to the pressure of the crowd, though you know it is wrong, it's always a hard position to be in. In your heart you know what is true. In your heart you know what is right. In your heart you know what you ought to do. But there is this pressure against you, the pressure to make the wrong decision, to do the wrong thing. And how sad it is when a person yields to that pressure, rather than to stand up for that which he knows to be right and true. Pilate, in order to placate the people, freed Barabbas but delivered Jesus to be crucified.

"And he scourged Him..." Now, we have it only in one word: "scourged Him." Yet that scourging was one of the cruelest forms of punishment administered by Rome. In fact, it was such a horrible punishment that there was a law that no Roman prisoner being a Roman citizen could be scourged without first of all having a formal trial.

The purpose of scourging was to discover information. You've heard of the old third degree, which of course the supreme courts have outlawed now. You know, when they turn the hot lights on and they don't feed you and they keep asking you questions, and they wear you down mentally until finally you're ready to sign your confession and all. And where they take the pliers and pull out your fingernails and they pinch your ears and they slap your face...and you know, all of the old third degree thing to get a person to confess. Well, this was the "tenth degree" kind of an exercise of the Roman government, where they would tie the prisoner over a post so that his back was stretched out and exposed. And then they would use this leather whip with sharpened bits of lead and glass tied in it; and it would literally tear the prisoners back to shreds, as they would lay this lash over their back thirty-nine times.

They always had a scribe standing by who was recording the confessions that the prisoner would cry out. And the idea was, as the stripe was laid upon you, you would cry out a crime that you had committed. You confessed to some crime. And that way they would make the next lash a little easier and a little easier. And it was to help the Roman government solve a lot of the unsolved crimes prior to putting the man to death. It was to clear up the police blotter of a lot of the unsolved crimes in the community. And it was very effective. It was so painful that there are records of many men who went insane through the beating, and rarely would a man survive it. Usually, he would die from the loss of blood and just the horrible painfulness of this experience. And many prisoners died during the scourging, many went insane.

"As a lamb before her shearers is dumb, so He opened not His mouth." As they were scourging Him, He had nothing to confess. And of course, the idea was if there was no confession, then he lays the whip on a little harder and a little harder until you're forced to confess your sins, your crimes. Having nothing to confess, Jesus took the full brunt of that scourging. But it wasn't over; it was just the beginning.

And the soldiers led him away into the hall, called the Praetorium; and they called together the whole band [of soldiers] ( Mark 15:16 ).

Now you're going to have some barracks fun. These Roman soldiers are going to take this man who has been condemned to die, the man who made claim to be the King of the Jews. And they're going to make fun of Him and have just a ribald type of a time as they mock and make fun of the prisoners.

And they clothed him with purple [the kingly color], and platted [they wove] a crown of thorns, and put it about his head ( Mark 15:17 ),

The King of the Jews, His only crown a crown of thorns. How significant! Where did thorns come from anyhow? Going back to the book of Genesis when Adam rebelled against God and God began to pronounce the curse upon man and upon woman, and God said, "Cursed be the ground; thorns and thistles shall it bring forth." Those thorns were the result of God's curse against sin. Here was Jesus ready to bear the curse of sin. How appropriate that they should crown Him with a crown of thorns.

And they smote him on the head with a reed [with a club] ( Mark 15:19 ),

They were just hitting Him on the head. Now, earlier He had been buffeted in the court of Caiaphas. They put a sack over his head and began to beat Him in the face with their fists, plummet Him and then to slap Him and say, "Prophesy! Who is it that hit You?" Now He is scourged, and now He is being hit over the head with a reed.

and did spit upon him, and bowing their knees [mock] worshipped him ( Mark 15:19 ).

You can almost see them; you can almost hear their laughter. They're not to be blamed too much; theirs isn't really hatred, theirs is just a big laugh, a lot of fun.

And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple from him, and put his own clothes on him, and led him out to crucify him ( Mark 15:20 ).

Having had their fun, now they get down to business.

And they compel one [a man whose name was] Simon a Cyrenian, who passed by, coming out of the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to bear his cross ( Mark 15:21 ).

Now, all a Roman soldier had to do is lay his spear on your shoulder, flat side on your shoulder, and tell you what to do, and you had to do it. If you were walking along the path and you came to a Roman soldier who was carrying his gear down the road, he could lay his spear on your soldier and say, "Carry this for me one mile." And the paths were all marked out with milestones by Rome and you can see these milestones even today. And legally, you were obligated to carry that load for that soldier one mile. He could force you to do it; that was the law of Rome. However, the law of Rome would only compel you to do one mile. You could carry it through one mile, then you could dump it and go. But he had the power to compel you to carry it one mile. Now, that is what Jesus was talking about when He said, "If they compel you to go one mile, go two." So, they laid the sword on Simon's shoulder flat side down and they said, "Carry this man's cross!"

Simon had no doubt come to Jerusalem for the Feast of the Passover. As the adult male Jews came from all over the world for this particular feast and he just happened to be there and just happened to be the man that the Roman soldier laid his spear on, so that he was forced to carry the cross of Christ. But there is interesting indication that though it is possible he never knew Jesus up to this point, that Simon actually became converted and became a very important part of the early church.

There's a reference in Act 13:1 to Simeon, who was called the Niger, indicating that he was from Africa, who was among the group of the ordaining elders that sent Paul and Barnabas on the first missionary journey. Rufus and Alexander, being his son's name, there are references in the Bible to Rufus. And it is quite possible that Mark tells us he is the father of Rufus and Alexander in order identify Simon who was well-known in the early church and became a very vital part of the early church. There are those bits of evidences and there are others in the New Testament that indicate that particular possibility, and it is interesting to speculate.

And they bring him unto the place Golgotha, which is, being interpreted, The place of a skull ( Mark 15:22 ).

Now, it is assumed that it was called the Place of the Skull today because across from the wall of Jerusalem between the Damascus gate and Herod's gate, there is a barren side of a cliff which was created from an ancient stone quarry, where, as the result of the stones being quarried from there and landslides and so forth, there is definitely the appearance of a skull as you look at the cliff. And it could be that the Golgotha got its name from the appearance of the face of that jagged cliff. It is also possible that it got its name, The Place of the Skull, from the fact that this was perhaps the place where the Romans crucified most of the prisoners. And when they were crucified, they were usually left there on the crosses until they died. And sometimes it took as many as six days for a person to die. He would die by exposure, malnutrition and starvation. And they'd leave them hanging until they died. And then they would oftentimes continue to leave them hanging, or they would just cut them down and the dogs and the birds would come and feed on the bodies. And so it could be that there were just a lot of skulls of men who had been crucified at that place around that had been left after the dogs and the birds had done their job on them. And it is possible that that's where it received the name The Place of the Skull. My personal opinion, and it is the first, as you go over there today, you can surely see that appearance of a skull on the face of the mountain or on the face of that hillside there. It's the top of Mount Moriah actually. And there's a very definite impression or face of the skull upon it. And I believe that that is the actual site of the crucifixion of Jesus.

And they gave him to drink wine mingled with myrrh: but he received it not [would not receive it] ( Mark 15:23 ).

There were a certain group, a society of ladies in Jerusalem, a society of mercy, who would make up this concoction of wine with myrrh that had the effect of an anesthesia and would stupefy the prisoners so that they would not experience so badly the suffering and the pain of crucifixion. And so they would come out when prisoners were ready to be crucified, and they would give them this stupefying drink, so that the person would sort of be out of their head and not experience as badly the terrible pain and suffering of crucifixion. And they offered it to Jesus. But to me it is significant that He refused it, in order that He might taste of death for very man and know what it was.

Many of His followers in time to come were to be crucified also for their belief in Jesus Christ. When Peter was condemned to die by crucifixion, Peter requested that he have the privilege of being crucified upside down, as he was not worthy to be crucified as his Lord. Jesus, no doubt knowing that many of His followers would be stoned to death, would be crucified, would be beaten to death, would be burned to death, refused that stupefying drink in order that He might know and be able to comfort those who later on would go through the same pain and torture for His sake.

And when they had crucified him, they parted his garments ( Mark 15:24 ),

Now, He would have had sandals, He would have had an inner robe, He would have had the sash that they tied their robe with, His turban. And then, that beautiful outer robe that was made by loving hands, a coat that was sewn or an outer robe that was woven without any seams. And so, they parted His garments. One fellow took the sandals and another the sash, another the inner robe, another the turban. But they cast lots for His robe, for they said, "There's no sense of tearing this thing up; it won't do anybody any good." So they threw dice to see who would get that outer coat.

And it was the third hour, [that is nine o'clock in the morning,] and they crucified him ( Mark 15:25 ).

The day began at six o'clock in the morning, the night watch began at six o'clock in the evening, and the day watch began at six o'clock in the morning. So at nine o'clock, the third hour, they crucified Him.

And the superscription of his accusation ( Mark 15:26 )

Now, when a prisoner was condemned to death, they made him, as a rule, carry his own cross to the place of execution. And they would have four Roman soldiers that would be marching with the prisoner in the middle. And one Roman soldier would go in the front with a sign that bore the charges against the prisoner. And they would never walk the shortest route to the place of execution, but would take the longest route through the city, making a lot of clamor and a lot of noise so that the people would have fears struck in their heart against rebelling against Rome or whatever. So the fellow in front would carry the wood with the accusation written, the reason why the prisoner was being crucified. And so they took Jesus through the streets, and finally, when they came to the place of the cross and nailed Him upon the cross and raised it up, they took the charges, "The King of the Jews," and they nailed it on His cross, the accusations that were made against Him. And so,

And the superscription of his accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS. And with him they crucify two thieves; the one on his right hand, and the other on his left. And the Scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors. And they that passed by railed on him, wagging their heads, and saying, Ah, thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, Save thyself, and come down from the cross ( Mark 15:26-30 ).

Jesus one day said to them when they asked for a sign, "Destroy this temple and I will build it in three days." And they thought that He was talking about the temple that Herod had begun construction on. They said, "Forty-seven years have we been building this temple, and You say that You're going to rebuild it in three days." But they didn't realize He was talking about the temple of His body. And they were indeed destroying the temple of His body, but in three days, He was going to raise it up; He was going to rebuild it. He said, "No man takes My life from Me; I give My life. I have power to lay down My life; I have power to take it up again."

"Wagging their heads..." Get now the mental picture, and you have to almost have visited the East to get the mental picture and to catch the fervor of these people and their temperaments, when you see them on the streets as they are bargaining or dealing with each other as they are expressing their views. They are very demonstrative people. When you go to the sheep market and watch the haggling for goats and sheep and all, you'll see them yelling at each other. They stomp, they wave their hands, they wag their heads, and they are just very demonstrative that way. And as you stand there listening to them, you swear that they're going to pull out knives and kill each other. Of course, you can't understand what they're saying as they're yelling at each other and stomping and shaking their heads and everything else. And finally you'll see them strike their hands and it means, "It's a deal!" They made a bargain. So the guy will take the goat and give the guy the money and walk off with it. And that's just a part of their culture, their temperament, their nature. And so you can visualize these fellows just full of emotion, shaking their heads as they yell these taunts at Jesus.

Likewise also the chief priests mocking said among themselves with the scribes, He saved others; himself he cannot save ( Mark 15:31 ).

Two statements: one of them was true; one of them was false. It is true He saved others, and they recognized that. It was an admission that they had to make. People all around them had been saved by Jesus. There were blind people who could see, there were lame people who were walking, there was Lazarus who was raised from the dead. He saved others, that they had to admit. They could not deny the evidence. "He saved others," an interesting confession of His enemies. The false statement was, "Himself He cannot save." That is wrong; He could have saved Himself. Actually, He could have appealed to Pilate. Pilate was doing his best to free Jesus. As you get into John's gospel, he points out even more clearly how anxious Pilate was to set Him free. But Jesus was not cooperative with Pilate at all. Jesus wouldn't answer him. He could have just said the right thing to Pilate and Pilate would have just said, "Well, you know, you Jews go your way." I think that Jesus probably could have appealed to the crowd. Emotions were high, but He could have just appealed to the crowd and saved Himself. Or, as He had said to Peter earlier, "Hey, Peter, put away your sword. Don't you realize that at this moment, I could call for ten legions of angels to deliver me from their hands? The cup that the Father has given Me to drink, shall I not drink it?" He could have saved Himself by calling on the angels to come and deliver Him out of the hands of these wicked men. He could have saved Himself, but He didn't save Himself.

Now, there's a bit of irony here. "He saved others; Himself He cannot save." The whole statement taken as a whole is true as a whole statement. Though a part of it is false, as a whole statement it is true. If He is to save others, He cannot save Himself. You see, if He saves Himself, then He can't save others. The only way He can save others is by not saving Himself. So, the statement as the whole is true. "He saved others; Himself He cannot save." You can't do both. You can't save yourself and others. You can only save others. He can only save others by giving Himself as a sacrifice.

They said,

Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him ( Mark 15:32 ).

Now Luke's gospel tells us that later on one of them had a change of heart, and we will get to that when we get to Luke's gospel.

And when the sixth hour was come ( Mark 15:33 ),

Six hours on the cross...remember it was nine o'clock, the third hour when they put Him on the cross? The sixth hour would be high noon.

there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour [three o'clock in the afternoon] ( Mark 15:33 ).

It became midnight at noon, darkness over the whole land. There is no particular phenomena that you can blame for the darkness. It could not have been an eclipse of the sun, for this was Passover and it was full moon. And the sun and the moon were opposite of each other during the Passover or during full moon, so it's impossible that it could have been an eclipse. It was as though heaven was veiling itself from this horrible crime that man was committing. This dark shroud covered the earth from the sixth hour, or from twelve o'clock noon until three o'clock in the afternoon.

And at the ninth hour [three o'clock in afternoon] Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? ( Mark 15:34 )

Mark gives the words of Jesus in the language that Jesus spoke them, and very rarely do we have the actual words of Jesus. We have the translation of the words of Jesus, and usually he translates it into Greek and then from Greek to English. But here he gives us the actual words in order that we might understand why some of those who were standing by thought that He was crying for Elijah. "Eloi, Eloi." They thought He was crying, "Elijah, Elijah." But in reality He was crying, "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" The answer to it is found in Psalm 22 , which begins, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Why art thou so far from the cry of my roaring? I cry unto thee in the daytime and thou hearest not; and in the night season and I am not silent. But thou art holy, O thou that inhabits the praises of thy people." It was because of the holiness of God that Jesus was forsaken of God. For sin always separates a man from God, and when the sins of the world were placed upon Jesus, that fellowship that He had experienced, that coexistence, that oneness with the Father was broken. He who had existed with God from the beginning, He who shared the glory of God before the world ever existed was forsaken of God when God laid on Him the iniquities of us all. He tasted of death for every man. He tasted of death for you. He experienced the consequence of sin, spiritual death, separation from God. And thus, the cry, "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" He was forsaken of God in order that you would never have to be forsaken of God.

God help you, that you never echo that prayer of Jesus. Those who live in sin, those who refuse Jesus as their Savior experience separation from God, spiritual death. And the Bible says, "They are dead while they yet live." But it will eventuate in eternal death, the second death, as Jesus said, "And I will say to those on my left hand, 'Depart from Me, ye workers of iniquity. Depart from Me.'" Separation from God. I Thessalonians Mar 1:9 speaks again of that eternal separation from God.

And some of them that stood by, when they heard it, said, Behold, he calleth Elias [Hey, he's calling for Elijah]. And one ran and filled a sponge full of vinegar, and put it on a reed and gave him to drink ( Mark 15:35-36 ),

They thought He was getting delirious, the one did. The others said,

[Hey,] let [Him] alone; let us see whether Elias [Elijah] will come to take him down ( Mark 15:36 ).

You know, this might be interesting, exciting.

And Jesus cried with a loud voice ( Mark 15:37 ),

And we are told in the other gospels, the cry was, "It is finished!"

and gave up the ghost ( Mark 15:37 ).

Or, He dismissed His spirit. As He said, "No man takes My life from Me; I give My life. I have the power to lay it down; I have the power to take it up." That is why it is so wrong that the church for so many years tried to blame the Jews for the crucifixion of Jesus. They're not responsible; we're responsible. Jesus gave His life. No man took His life from Him; He gave His life. "He bowed His head and dismissed His spirit."

And the veil of the temple was rent [torn] in twain [two] from the top to the bottom ( Mark 15:38 ).

At this point, God took the veil of the temple, which some say was eighteen inches thick, woven cloth, and God took the thing and just ripped it from the top to the bottom. What did the veil of the temple represent? The unapproachableness of God by man. Only the high priest dared to go in behind that veil, and he only one day of the year. God was unapproachable by man, by sinful man. But when the death of Christ was accomplished, God ripped that veil of the temple and was in fact declaring, "Now, we may come boldly unto the throne of grace to receive mercy, because Jesus has made the way to God for every man." God is no longer unapproachable. But you and I can come to God today through Jesus Christ. The veil has been rent; the way has been made. The approach to God is now possible for just the common person like us. Oh, how glorious that we can come into the presence of God through Jesus Christ! And we don't have to go through a lot of washings and sacrifices and everything else. There has been one sacrifice for all. It's so complete, it's so full that it satisfies for all of us and God is now approachable. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life; no man comes to the Father but by Me" ( John 14:6 ). But the glorious thing is, we can come to the Father through Him.

And when the centurion, which stood over against him [was standing by], saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost [was able to dismiss his spirit], he said, Truly this man was the Son of God ( Mark 15:39 ).

He saw that He had the power of just saying, "Okay, that's it; spirit, you can go now." And he marveled that the Man had the power to lay His life down.

There were also women who were looking on afar off [perhaps over on the city wall, which is not that far away, maybe two hundred feet]: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome ( Mark 15:40 );

Now His mother Mary was standing right there near the cross. She was close enough that Jesus could speak to her from the cross, which He did. John was standing with the mother of Jesus close by the cross. But these other Marys, Mary Magdalene (and she is always identified as that title, Mary Magdalene), a woman from whom Jesus had delivered from seven devils, and Mary the mother of James the Less, so not James and John, but James the Less and Joses, probably the wife of Cleophas, or Altheus. And so, you have in the disciples, James the Less, who is the son of Altheus. So, this is Mary, the wife of Altheus, the mother of James the Less and Joses and Salome.

Who also, when he was in Galilee, [these women] followed him, and ministered unto him; ( Mark 15:41 )

Now, you've probably not thought too much about when Jesus was traveling around the country with His disciples and all. They have to eat. If they rip their clothes, they've got to be sewn and all. And so, there were the group of women who went around and fixed the meals and ministered to those practical aspects of life, and took care of those things. And so these are three of the women who were following with the disciples and ministering unto Jesus.

and many other women which came up with him unto Jerusalem. And now when the even[ing] was come, because it was the preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath ( Mark 15:41-42 ),

Remember, it's three o'clock in the afternoon that Jesus dismisses His spirit. You have now three hours before the Sabbath begins, sundown. So, they had to prepare for the Sabbath, because you couldn't cook on the Sabbath Day. You had to get everything all set. So everybody is scurrying. Usually the businesses over there close down Friday afternoon at about one o'clock. And everybody goes home and starts to prepare for the Sabbath Day; get all the food cooked and everything all set, so that you get all the hot plates plugged in so you don't have to plug anything in on the Sabbath. And you get the whole thing set so you don't have to kindle any fires or anything on the Sabbath Day. So you have to prepare for the Sabbath. So, time is running out. They didn't want anybody hanging there on the Sabbath Day, so they had to get the whole thing over before sundown.

And so it was evening, it was the afternoon, preparing for the Sabbath.

Joseph of Arimathea, an honorable counselor, which also waited for the kingdom of God, came, and went in boldly unto Pilate, and craved [or begged for] the body of Jesus. And Pilate marveled if he were already dead ( Mark 15:43-44 ):

He couldn't believe that He was dead this quickly.

and calling unto him the centurion, he asked him whether he had been any while dead [if Jesus was already dead]. And when he knew it of [found out from] the centurion [that Jesus was dead], he gave the body to Joseph. And he bought fine linen, and took him down, and wrapped him in the linen, and laid him in a sepulchre which was hewn out of the rock, and rolled a stone unto the door of the sepulchre. And Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses [those who were afar off, they] beheld where he was laid ( Mark 15:44-47 ).

One of the gospel writers tells us that near the place where Jesus was crucified, there was a garden. And in the garden, there was a tomb that had never been used, and that it was this tomb where Jesus was laid. They have discovered right near Golgotha, in fact just over the edge of Golgotha, the remains of an ancient garden. There are the cisterns there that were used to water the garden. And in this garden, of course, there is a tomb. And it is my feeling, conviction, that this is the actual tomb where Jesus lay for three days and three nights. It's always a very moving experience to step in that tomb and to look at the slab that is there, and to realize that is probably the place where Jesus' body lay for three days and three nights. In front of this tomb, there is a track which they often had in front of the tombs, where they would roll these stones along the track and cover the opening into the tomb. There is no stone at this particular tomb, but there is the remains of the track where a stone once rolled.

We are told here that the tomb belonged to Joseph of Arimathea. He was a wealthy man. He begged the body of Jesus. He wrapped it in this fine linen and laid Him in the sepulchre. However, because of the timing, they did not have the opportunity to put the spices and all on the bodies, which they often did. But, He was wrapped carefully. And they wrapped bodies in a scientific way, wrapping around and around this shroud around the body.

"

Contending for the Faith

And so Pilate, willing to content the people, released Barabbas unto them, and delivered Jesus, when he had scourged him, to be crucified.

And so Pilate, willing to content the people, released Barabbas unto them: Pilate concludes the only politically expedient way to ease the tension of this dangerous situation is to release Barabbas to the people and to have Jesus crucified.

and delivered Jesus: Judas delivers Jesus to the guards, the guards to Annas, Annas to Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin, the Sanhedrin to Pilate, Pilate to Herod, Herod back to Pilate, and Pilate to the executioners. And all these details are part of God’s delivering His Son for the redemption of mankind (Plummer 348).

when he had scourged him: The word "scourged" is phragellosas and refers to being beaten with the dreaded flagellum, a short wooden handle to which several leather thongs are attached. Pieces of sharply pointed bone and metal are attached to the ends of the leather thongs so as to leave the beaten prisoner’s flesh hanging in bleeding shreds, sometimes leaving even entrails and inner organs exposed (Josephus 500). The prisoner is usually stripped and bound to a post or a pillar. Generally, two men would administer the scourging, one lashing the prisoner from one side, one from the other side. Roman law places no limit on the maximum number of strokes that could be given to the condemned prisoner; consequently, it is not uncommon for the prisoner to die while being scourged. Josephus reports that scourging is a customary prelude to crucifixion (485), but it could also be used as an independent means of punishment. Pilate is hopeful the mob will be satisfied by the scourging, and he can avoid having Jesus crucified (John 19:4-6). The scourging would also fulfill the prophecy in Isaiah, "But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed" (53:5).

to be crucified: Yielding to the mob’s incessant clamoring, Pilate eventually delivers Jesus to the soldiers to be crucified. According to Roman law, the mode of death has to be specified by the Roman prefect, thus Pilate specifies Jesus is to die by crucifixion. Lane says the conventional form of the sentence is, "You shall mount the cross" (ibis in crucem) or "I consign you to the cross" (abi in crucem) (558).

Dr. Constable's Expository Notes

2. Jesus’ Roman trial 15:2-20

During the Jewish trial Jesus had affirmed His messiahship and the Sanhedrin had condemned Him for blasphemy. During His Roman trial He affirmed His kingship and Pilate condemned Him for treason. The Roman trial, like the Jewish trial, had three stages: an interrogation before Pilate, an attempted interrogation before Herod, and an arraignment and sentencing before Pilate. [Note: For helpful insights into Roman law as it affected Jesus’ trial, see R. Larry Overstreet, "Roman Law and the Trial of Christ," Bibliotheca Sacra 135:540 (October-December 1978):323-32.]

Dr. Constable's Expository Notes

Jesus’ second appearance before Pilate 15:6-15 (cf. Matthew 27:15-26; Luke 23:13-25; John 18:39-19:16)

Mark’s brief account of Jesus’ arraignment and sentencing concentrates on Pilate’s offer to release Jesus or Barabbas.

Dr. Constable's Expository Notes

Pilate had had problems in his relations with the Jewish people that he governed (cf. Luke 13:1-2). He saw the present situation as an opportunity to gain popular support. This overrode his sense of justice and his wife’s warning.

Evidently Pilate flogged Jesus in the presence of the crowd hoping that that punishment would satisfy them. John recorded that after the flogging Pilate tried again to persuade the people against crucifixion (John 19:1-7). Flogging was not a necessary preparation for crucifixion. [Note: Wessel, p. 775.] Probably two soldiers stripped Jesus and tied His hands above him to a post. Then they beat Him with a leather whip with pieces of bone and or metal embedded in the leather strips. Victims of Roman floggings seldom survived. [Note: Ibid.]

"The heavy whip is brought down with full force again and again across Jesus’ shoulders, back and legs. At first the heavy thongs cut through the skin only. Then, as the blows continue, they cut deeper into the subcutaneous tissues, producing first an oozing of blood from the capillaries and veins of the skin, and finally spurting arterial bleeding from vessels in the underlying muscles. . . . Finally the skin of the back is hanging in long ribbons and the entire area is an unrecognizable mass of torn, bleeding tissue." [Note: C. Truman Davis, "The Crucifixion of Jesus. The Passion of Christ from a Medical Point of View," Arizona Medicine 22:3 (March 1965):185.]

Mark’s use of the phrase "delivered Him over" (NASB) or "handed Him over" (NIV) may be an allusion to Isaiah 53:6; Isaiah 53:12 where the same expression occurs in the Septuagint translation. This reminder of Jesus’ position as the Suffering Servant is the emphasis in Mark’s account of this aspect of His trial.

Barclay's Daily Study Bible

Chapter 15

THE SILENCE OF JESUS ( Mark 15:1-5 )

15:1-5 Immediately, early in the morning, the chief priests, together with the elders and the experts in the law--that is to say, the whole Sanhedrin--held a consultation. They bound Jesus and took him away and handed him over to Pilate. Pilate asked him, "Are you the King of the Jews?" Jesus answered, "It is you who say so." The chief priests made many accusations against him. Pilate again questioned him, "Have you no answer to make?" he said. "See how many accusations they have made against you." Jesus answered nothing further, and Pilate was amazed.

As soon as it was light, the Sanhedrin met to confirm the conclusions they had arrived at during their meeting in the night. They themselves had no power to carry out the death penalty. That had to be imposed by the Roman governor and carried out by the Roman authorities.

It is from Luke that we learn how deep and determined the bitter malice of the Jews was. As we have seen, the charge at which they had arrived was one of blasphemy, of insulting God. But that was not the charge on which they brought Jesus before Pilate. They knew well that Pilate would have had nothing to do with what he would have considered a Jewish religious argument. When they brought Jesus to him they charged him with perverting the people, forbidding them to give tribute to Caesar and calling himself a king ( Luke 23:1-2). They had to evolve a political charge or Pilate would not have listened. They knew the charge was a lie--and so did Pilate.

Pilate asked Jesus, "Are you the King of the Jews?" Jesus gave him a strange answer. he said, "It is you who say so." Jesus did not say yes or no. What he did say was, "I may have claimed to be the King of the Jews, but you know very well that the interpretation that my accusers are putting on that claim is not my interpretation. I am no political revolutionary. My kingdom is a kingdom of love." Pirate knew that perfectly well. Pilate went on to question Jesus more, and the Jewish authorities went on to multiply their charges--and Jesus remained completely silent.

There is a time when silence is more eloquent than words, for silence can say things that words can never say.

(i) There is the silence of wondering admiration. It is a compliment for any performance or oration to be greeted with thunderous applause, but it is a still greater compliment for it to be greeted with a hushed silence which knows that applause would be out of place. It is a compliment to be praised or thanked in words, but it is a still greater compliment to receive a look of the eyes which plainly says there are no words to be found.

(ii) There is the silence of contempt. It is possible to greet someone's statements or arguments or excuses with a silence which shows they are not worth answering. Instead of answering someone's protestations the listener may turn on his heel and contemptuously leave them be.

(iii) There is the silence of fear. A man may remain silent for no other reason than that he is afraid to speak. The cowardice of his soul may stop him saying the things he knows he ought to say. Fear may gag him into a shameful silence.

(iv) There is the silence of the heart that is hurt. When a person has been really wounded he does not break into protests and recriminations and angry words. The deepest sorrow is a dumb sorrow, which is past anger and past rebuke and past anything that speech can say, and which can only silently look its grief.

(v) There is the silence of tragedy, and that is silent because there is nothing to be said. That was why Jesus was silent. He knew there could be no bridge between himself and the Jewish leaders. He knew that there was nothing in Pilate to which he could ultimately appeal. He knew that the lines of communication were broken. The hatred of the Jews was an iron curtain which no words could penetrate. The cowardice of Pilate in face of the mob was a barrier no words could pierce. It is a terrible thing when a man's heart is such that even Jesus knows it is hopeless to speak. God save us from that!

THE CHOICE OF THE MOB ( Mark 15:6-15 )

15:6-15 At the time of the Feast, it was the custom for the governor to release to the people a prisoner, whom they were accustomed to choose. There was a man called Barabbas, confined with the revolutionaries, who had committed murder during the insurrection. The crowd approached Pilate's judgment seat and began to request that he should carry out the customary procedure for them. Pilate answered, "Do you wish me to release to you the King of the Jews?" For he knew that the chief priests had handed him over to him through sheer malice. The chief priests stirred up the mob to demand the release of Barabbas all the more. Pilate again asked them, "What shall I do to the man you call the King of the Jews?" Again they shrieked, "Crucify him!" Pilate said to them, "What harm has he done?" They shrieked the more vehemently, "Crucify him!" Pilate wished to please the mob, and he released Barabbas for them, and, when he had scourged Jesus, he handed him over to them to be crucified.

Of Barabbas we know nothing other than what we read in the gospel story. He was not a thief, he was a brigand. He was no petty pilferer but a bandit, and there must have been a rough audacity about him that appealed to the crowd. Perhaps we may guess what he was. Palestine was filled with insurrections. It was an inflammable land. In particular there was one group of Jews called the Sicarii ( G4607) , which means the dagger-bearers, who were violent, fanatical nationalists. They were pledged to murder and assassination. They carried their daggers beneath their cloaks and used them as they could. It is very likely that Barabbas was a man like that, and, thug though he was, he was a brave man, a patriot according to his lights, and it is understandable that he was popular with the mob.

People have always felt it a mystery that less than a week after the crowd were shouting a welcome when Jesus rode into Jerusalem, they were now shrieking for his crucifixion. There is no real mystery. The reason is quite simply that this was a different crowd. Think of the arrest. It was deliberately secret. True, the disciples fled and must have spread the news, but they could not have known that the Sanhedrin was going to violate its own laws and carry out a travesty of a trial by night. There can have been very few of Jesus' supporters in that crowd.

Who then were there? Think again. The crowd knew that there was this custom whereby a prisoner was released at the Passover time. It may well be that this was a crowd which had assembled with the deliberate intention of demanding the release of Barabbas. They were in fact a mob of Barabbas' supporters. When they saw the possibility that Jesus might be released and not Barabbas they went mad. To the chief priests this was a heaven-sent opportunity. Circumstances had played into their hands. They fanned the popular clamour for Barabbas and found it easy, for it was the release of Barabbas that that crowd had come to claim. It was not that the crowd was fickle. It was that it was a different crowd.

Nonetheless, they had a choice to make. Confronted with Jesus and Barabbas, they chose Barabbas.

(i) They chose lawlessness instead of law. They chose the law-breaker instead of Jesus. One of the New Testament words for sin is anomia ( G458) , which means lawlessness. In the human heart there is a streak which resents law, which desires to do as it likes, which wants to smash the confining barriers and kick over the traces and refuse all discipline. There is something of that in every man. Kipling makes the old soldier say in Mandalay:

"Ship me somewheres east of Suez, where the best is like the

worst,

Where there aren't no Ten Commandments an' a man can raise a

thirst."

There are times when most of us wish there were no Ten Commandments. The mob was the representative of men when it chose lawlessness instead of law.

(ii) They chose war instead of peace. they chose the man of blood instead of the Prince of Peace. In almost three thousand years of history there have been less than one hundred and thirty years where there has not been a war raging somewhere. Men in their incredible folly have persisted in trying to settle things by war which settles nothing. The mob were doing what men have so often done when they chose the warrior and rejected the man of peace.

(iii) They chose hatred and violence instead of love. Barabbas and Jesus stood for two different ways. Barabbas stood for the heart of hate, the stab of the dagger, the violence of bitterness. Jesus stood for the way of love. As so often has happened, hate reigned supreme in the hearts of men, and love was rejected. Men insisted on taking their own way to conquest, and refused to see that the only true conquest was the conquest of love.

There can be hidden tragedy in a word. "When he had scourged him" is one word in the Greek. The Roman scourge was a terrible thing. The criminal was bent and bound in such a way that his back was exposed. The scourge was a long leathern thong, studded here and there with sharpened pieces of lead and bits of bone. It literally tore a man's back to ribbons. Sometimes it tore a man's eye out. Some men died under it. Some men emerged from the ordeal raving mad. Few retained consciousness through it. That is what they inflicted on Jesus.

THE SOLDIERS' MOCKERY ( Mark 15:16-20 )

15:16-20 The soldiers led Jesus away into the hall, which is the Praetorium, and they called together the whole company. They clad him in a purple robe, and they plaited a crown of thorns and put it on him, and they began to salute him, "Hail! King of the Jews!" And they struck his head with a reed, and they spat on him, and they knelt down before him and worshipped him. And after they had made sport of him, they took off the purple robe, and clad him in his own clothes. And they led him away to crucify him.

The Roman ritual of condemnation was fixed. The judge said Illum duci ad crucem placet), "The sentence is that this man should be taken to a cross." Then he turned to the guard and said, I, miles, expedi crucem, "Go, soldier, and prepare the cross." It was when the cross was being prepared that Jesus was in the hands of the soldiers. The Praetorium was the residence of the governor, his headquarters, and the soldiers involved would be the headquarters cohort of the guard. We would do well to remember that Jesus had already undergone the agony of scourging before this horse-play of the soldiers began.

It may well be that of all that happened to him this hurt Jesus least. The actions of the Jews had been venomous with hatred. The consent of Pilate had been a cowardly evasion of responsibility. There was cruelty in the action of the soldiers but no malice. To them Jesus was only another man for a cross, and they carried out their barrack-room pantomime of royalty and worship, not with any malice, but as a coarse jest.

It was the beginning of much mockery to come. Always the Christian was liable to be regarded as a jest. Scribbled on the walls of Pompeii, whose walls are still chalked with coarse jests to-day, there is a picture of a Christian kneeling before an ass and below it is scrawled the words, "Anaximenes worships his God." If ever people make a jest of our Christianity, it will help to remember that they did it to Jesus in a way that is worse than anything likely to happen to us.

THE CROSS ( Mark 15:21-28 )

15:21-28 And they impressed into service a man called Simon of Cyrene, who was passing by, on his way in from the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, and they made him carry his Cross. So they brought him to the place Golgotha, which means the place of a skull. They offered him wine mingled with myrrh, but he would not take it. They crucified him. And they divided out his garments, throwing dice for them to decide who should take what. It was nine o'clock in the morning when they crucified him. And the inscription of the charge against him was written on the Cross--"The King of the Jews." With him they crucified two brigands, one on his right hand and one on his left.

The routine of crucifixion did not alter. When the cross was prepared the criminal had himself to carry it to the place of execution. He was placed in the middle of a hollow square of four soldiers. In front marched a soldier carrying a board stating the crime of which the prisoner was guilty. The board was afterwards affixed to the cross. They took not the shortest but the longest way to the place of execution. They followed every possible street and lane so that as many as possible should see and take warning. When they reached the place of crucifixion, the cross was laid flat on the ground. The prisoner was stretched upon it and his hands nailed to it. The feet were not nailed but only loosely bound. Between the prisoner's legs projected a ledge of wood called the saddle, to take his weight when the cross was raised upright--otherwise the nails would have torn through the flesh of the hands. The cross was then lifted upright and set in its socket--and the criminal was left to die. The cross was not tall. It was shaped like the letter T, and had no top piece at all. Sometimes prisoners hung for as long as a week, slowly dying of hunger and of thirst, suffering sometimes to the point of actual madness.

This must have been a grim day for Simon of Cyrene. Palestine was an occupied country and any man might be impressed into the Roman service for any task. The sign of impressment was a tap on the shoulder with the flat of a Roman spear. Simon was from Cyrene in Africa. No doubt he had come from that far off land for the Passover. No doubt he had scraped and saved for many years in order to come. No doubt he was gratifying the ambition of a lifetime to eat one Passover in Jerusalem. Then this happened to him.

At the moment Simon must have bitterly resented it. He must have hated the Romans, and hated this criminal whose cross he was being forced to carry. But we may legitimately speculate what happened to Simon. It may be that it was his intention when he got to Golgotha to fling the cross down on the ground and hasten as quickly as he could from the scene. But perhaps it did not turn out that way. Perhaps he lingered on because something about Jesus fascinated him.

He is described as the father of Alexander and Rufus. The people for whom the gospel was written must have been meant to recognize him by this description. It is most likely that Mark's gospel was first written for the Church at Rome. Now let us turn to Paul's letter to Rome and read Romans 16:13. "Greet Rufus, eminent in the Lord, also his mother and mine." Rufus was so choice a Christian that he was eminent in the Lord. The mother of Rufus was so dear to Paul that he could call her his own mother. Things must have happened to Simon on Golgotha.

Now turn to Acts 13:1. There is a list of the men of Antioch who sent Paul and Barnabas out on that epoch-making first mission to the Gentiles. The name of one is Simeon that was called Niger. Simeon is another form of Simon. Niger was the regular name for a man of swarthy skin who came from Africa, and Cyrene is in Africa. Here it may well be that we are meeting Simon again. Maybe Simon's experience on the way to Golgotha bound his heart forever to Jesus. Maybe it made him a Christian. Maybe in the after days he was a leader in Antioch and instrumental in the first mission to the Gentiles. Maybe it was because Simon was compelled to carry the Cross of Jesus that the first mission to the Gentiles took place. That would mean that we are Christians because one day a Passover pilgrim from Cyrene, to his bitter resentment at the moment, was impressed by a nameless Roman officer to carry his cross for Jesus.

They offered Jesus drugged wine and he would not drink it. A company of pious and merciful women in Jerusalem came to every crucifixion and gave the criminals a drink of drugged wine to ease the terrible pain. They offered this to Jesus--and he refused it. When Dr. Johnson was ill with his last illness he asked his doctor to tell him honestly if he could recover. The doctor said he could not without a miracle. "Then," said Johnson, "I will take no more physic, not even opiates, for I have prayed that I may render up my soul to God unclouded." Jesus was resolved to taste death at its bitterest and to go to God with open eyes.

The soldiers diced for his clothes. We have seen how the prisoner was marched to the place of crucifixion amid the four soldiers. These soldiers had as their perquisite the clothes of the criminal. Now a Jew wore five articles of clothing--the inner robe, the outer robe, the sandals, the girdle and the turban. When the four lesser things had been assigned, that left the great outer robe. It would have been useless to cut it up, and so the soldiers gambled for it in the shadow of the Cross.

Jesus was crucified between two thieves. It was a symbol of his whole life that even at the end he companied with sinners.

THE LIMITLESS LOVE ( Mark 15:29-32 )

15:29-32 Those who were passing by hurled their insults at him, wagging their heads at him. "Aha!" they said, "you who are going to pull down the Temple and build it in three days, come down from the Cross and save yourself!" Even so the chief priests jested with each other, with the experts in the law. "He saved others," they said, "He cannot save himself. Let this Anointed One of God, this King of Israel, come down from the Cross, so that we may see it and believe." And those who were crucified with him flung their taunts at him.

The Jewish leaders flung one last challenge at Jesus. "Come down from the Cross," they said, "and we will believe in you." It was precisely the wrong challenge. As General Booth said long ago, "It is because Jesus did not come down from the Cross that we believe in him." The death of Jesus was absolutely necessary and the reason was this. Jesus came to tell men of the love of God; more, he was himself the incarnate love of God. If he had refused the Cross or if in the end he had come down from the Cross, it would have meant that there was a limit to God's love, that there was something which that love was not prepared to suffer for men, that there was a line beyond which it would not go. But, Jesus went the whole way and died on the Cross and this means that there is literally no limit to God's love, that there is nothing in all the universe which that love is not prepared to suffer for men, that there is nothing, not even death on a cross, which it will refuse to bear for men.

When we look at the Cross, Jesus is saying to us, "God loves you like that, with a love that is limitless, a love that will bear every suffering earth has to offer."

TRAGEDY AND TRIUMPH ( Mark 15:33-41 )

15:33-41 When it was twelve o'clock midday, there came a darkness over the whole earth, and it lasted until three o'clock in the afternoon. And at three o'clock Jesus cried with a great voice, "Eloi, Eloi lama sabachthani?" which means, "My God! My God! Why have you abandoned me?" When certain of the bystanders heard it, they said, "See! He is calling for Elijah!" Someone ran and soaked a sponge in vinegar and gave him a drink. "Let be!" he said, "till we see if Elijah is going to come and take him down." Jesus uttered a great shout--and died. And the veil of the Temple was rent in two from top to bottom. When the centurion who was standing opposite him saw that he died like this, he said, "Truly this man was the Son of God." There were some women watching from a distance, amongst whom were Mary of Magdala, and Mary the mother of James the little and of Joses, and Salome. They had accompanied him in Galilee and had attended to his needs. And there were many others who had come up with him to Jerusalem.

Here comes the last scene of all, a scene so terrible that the sky was unnaturally darkened and it seemed that even nature could not bear to look upon what was happening. Let us look at the various people in this scene.

(i) There was Jesus. Two things Jesus said.

(a) He uttered the terrible cry, "My God! My God! Why have you abandoned me?" There is a mystery behind that cry which we cannot penetrate. Maybe it was like this. Jesus had taken this life of ours upon him. He had done our work and faced our temptations and borne our trials. He had suffered all that life could bring. He had known the failure of friends, the hatred of foes, the malice of enemies. He had known the most searing pain that life could offer. Up to this moment Jesus had gone through every experience of life except one--he had never known the consequence of sin. Now if there is one thing sin does, it separates us from God. It puts between us and God a barrier like an unscalable wall. That was the one human experience through which Jesus had never passed, because he was without sin.

It may be that at this moment that experience came upon him--not because he had sinned, but because in order to be identified completely with our humanity he had to go through it. In this terrible, grim, bleak moment Jesus really and truly identified himself with the sin of man. Here we have the divine paradox--Jesus knew what it was to be a sinner. And this experience must have been doubly agonizing for Jesus, because he had never known what it was to be separated by this barrier from God.

That is why he can understand our situation so well. That is why we need never fear to go to him when sin cuts us off from God. Because he has gone through it, he can help others who are going through it. There is no depth of human experience which Christ has not plumbed.

(b) There was the great shout. Both Matthew ( Matthew 27:50) and Luke ( Luke 23:46) tell of it. John does not mention the shout but he tells us that Jesus died having said, "It is finished." ( John 19:30.) In the original that would be one word; and that one word was the great shout. "Finished!" Jesus died with the cry of triumph on his lips, his task accomplished, his work completed, his victory won. After the terrible dark there came the light again, and he went home to God a victor triumphant.

(ii) There was the bystander who wished to see if Elijah would come. He had a kind of morbid curiosity in the face of the Cross. The whole terrible scene did not move him to awe or reverence or even pity. He wanted to experiment while Jesus died.

(iii) There was the centurion. A hard-bitten Roman soldier, he was the equivalent of a regimental sergeant-major. He had fought in many a campaign and he had seen many a man die. But he had never seen a man die like this and he was sure that Jesus was the Son of God. If Jesus had lived on and taught and healed he might have attracted many, but it is the Cross which speaks straight to the hearts of men.

(iv) There were the women in the distance. They were bewildered, heart-broken, drenched in sorrow--but they were there. They loved so much that they could not leave him. Love clings to Christ even when the intellect cannot understand. It is only love which can give us a hold on Christ that even the most bewildering experiences can not break.

There is one other thing to note. "The curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom." This was the curtain which shut off the Holy of Holies, into which no man might go. Symbolically that tells us two things.

(a) The way to God was now wide open. Into the Holy of Holies only the High Priest could go, and he only once a year on the day of Atonement. But now, the curtain was torn and the way to God was wide open to every man.

(b) Within the Holy of Holies dwelt the very essence of God. Now with the death of Jesus the curtain which hid God was torn and men could see him face to face. No longer was God hidden. No longer need men guess and grope. Men could look at Jesus and say, "That is what God is like. God loves me like that."

THE MAN WHO GAVE JESUS A TOMB ( Mark 15:42-47 )

15:42-47 When it was now evening, since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath, Joseph of Arimathaea, a respected member of the council, and a man who was himself waiting for the Kingdom of God, ventured to go to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Pilate was amazed that he was already dead. He summoned the centurion, and asked if he had been long dead. And when he had learned the facts from the centurion, he granted the body to Joseph. And Joseph bought fine linen, and be took him down from the Cross and wrapped him in the linen, and put him in a tomb which had been hewn out of rock, and he rolled a stone against the door of the tomb. And Mary of Magdala and Mary the mother of Joses saw where he had been laid.

Jesus died at three o'clock on the Friday afternoon and the next day was the Sabbath. We have already seen that the new day started at 6 p.m. Therefore when Jesus died, it was already the time of preparation for the Sabbath, and there was very little time to waste, for after 6 p.m. the Sabbath law would operate and no work could be done.

Joseph of Arimathaea acted quickly. It frequently happened that the bodies of criminals were never buried at all, but were simply taken down and left for the vultures and the scavenging wild dogs to deal with. In fact it has been suggested that Golgotha may have been called the place of a skull because it was littered with skulls from previous crucifixions. Joseph went to Pilate. It often happened that criminals hung for days on their crosses before they died, and Pilate was amazed that Jesus was dead only six hours after he had been crucified. But when he had checked the facts with the centurion, he gave the body to Joseph.

Joseph is a curious study.

(i) It may well be that it is from Joseph that all the information came about the trial before the Sanhedrin. Certainly none of the disciples was there. The information must have come from some member of the Sanhedrin, and it is probable that Joseph was the one. If that is so he had a very real share in the writing of the gospel story.

(ii) There is a certain tragedy about Joseph. He was a member of the Sanhedrin and yet we have no hint that he spoke one word in Jesus' favour or intervened in any way on his behalf. Joseph is the man who gave Jesus a tomb when he was dead but was silent when he was alive. It is one of the commonest tragedies of life that we keep our wreaths for people's graves and our praises until they are dead. It would the infinitely better to give them some of these flowers and some of these words of gratitude when they are still alive.

(iii) But we cannot blame Joseph overmuch, for he was another of those people for whom the Cross did what not even the life of Jesus could do. When he had seen Jesus alive, he had felt his attraction but had gone no further. But when he saw Jesus die--and he must have been present at the crucifixion--his heart was broken in love. First the centurion, then Joseph--it is an amazing thing how soon Jesus' words came true that when he was lifted up from the earth he would draw all men to himself. ( John 12:32.)

-Barclay's Daily Study Bible (NT)

Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible

And so Pilate, willing to content the people,.... To satisfy and make them easy, who were become very noisy and tumultuous, and fearing the consequences of their resentment, should he not comply, of which he had formerly had experience; therefore to humour them, and keep in their favour, after he had washed his hands, to testify his innocence in the matter,

he released Barabbas unto them; the seditious person, robber, and murderer, as they desired:

and delivered Jesus when he had scourged him; or having scourged him; for this he had done before, hoping the Jews would have been satisfied with that, and not have insisted on any further punishment. The Arabic version very wrongly renders the words, "and delivered unto them Jesus, that he might be scourged": as if this was afterwards to be done by the Jews, or Roman soldiers; whereas he had scourged him before, and now delivered him

to be crucified, as they desired; in which he acted contrary to law and justice, to the violation of his own conscience, and merely to gratify the humour of the people; :-.

Henry's Complete Commentary on the Bible

      15 And so Pilate, willing to content the people, released Barabbas unto them, and delivered Jesus, when he had scourged him, to be crucified.   16 And the soldiers led him away into the hall, called Prætorium; and they call together the whole band.   17 And they clothed him with purple, and platted a crown of thorns, and put it about his head,   18 And began to salute him, Hail, King of the Jews!   19 And they smote him on the head with a reed, and did spit upon him, and bowing their knees worshipped him.   20 And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple from him, and put his own clothes on him, and led him out to crucify him.   21 And they compel one Simon a Cyrenian, who passed by, coming out of the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to bear his cross.

      Here, I. Pilate, to gratify the Jews' malice, delivers Christ to be crucified,Mark 15:15; Mark 15:15. Willing to content the people, to do enough for them (so the word is), and make them easy, that he might keep them quiet, he released Barabbas unto them, who was the scandal and plague of their nation, and delivered Jesus to be crucified, who was the glory and blessing of their nation. Though he had scourged him before, hoping that would content them, and then not designing to crucify him, yet he went on to that; for no wonder that he who could persuade himself to chastise one that was innocent (Luke 23:16), could by degrees persuade himself to crucify him.

      Christ was crucified, for that was, 1. A bloody death, and without blood no remission,Hebrews 9:22. The blood is the life (Genesis 9:4); it is the vehicle of the animal spirits, which connect the soul and body, so that the exhausting of the blood is the exhausting of the life. Christ was to lay down his life for us, and therefore shed his blood. Blood made atonement for the soul (Leviticus 17:11), and therefore in every sacrifice of propitiation special order was given for the pouring out of the blood, and the sprinkling of that before the Lord. Now, that Christ might answer all these types, he shed his blood. 2. It was a painful death; the pains were exquisite and acute, for death made its assaults upon the vitals by the exterior parts, which are quickest of sense. Christ died, so as that he might feel himself die, because he was to be both the priest and the sacrifice; so that he might be active in dying; because he was to make his soul an offering for sin. Tully calls crucifixion, Teterrimum supplicium--A most tremendous punishment: Christ would meet death in its greatest terror, and so conquer it. 3. It was a shameful death, the death of slaves, and the vilest malefactors; so it was accounted among the Romans. The cross and the shame are put together. God having been injured in his honour by the sin of man, it is in his honour that Christ makes him satisfaction, not only by denying himself in, and divesting himself of, the honours due to his divine nature, for a time, but by submitting the greatest reproach and ignominy the human nature was capable of being loaded with. Yet this was not the worst. 4. It was a cursed death; thus it was branded by the Jewish law (Deuteronomy 21:23); He that is hanged, is accursed of God, is under a particular mark of God's displeasure. It was the death that Saul's sons were put to, when the guilt of their father' bloody house was to be expiated, 2 Samuel 21:6. Haman and his sons were hanged,Esther 7:10; Esther 9:13. We do not read any of the prophets of the Old Testament that were hanged; but now that Christ has submitted to be hanged upon a tree, the reproach and curse of that kind of death are quite rolled away, so that it ought to be any hindrance to the comfort of those who die either innocently or penitently, nor any diminution from, but rather an addition to, the glory of those who die martyrs for Christ, to be as he was, hanged upon a tree.

      II. Pilate, to gratify the gay humour of the Roman soldiers, delivered him to them, to be abused and spitefully treated, while they were preparing for the execution. They called together the whole regiment that was then in waiting, and they went into an inner hall, where they ignominiously abused our Lord Jesus, as a king, just as in the high priest's hall his servants had ignominiously abused him as a Prophet and Saviour. 1. Do kings wear robes of purple or scarlet? They clothed him with purple. This abuse done to Christ in his apparel should be an intimation to Christians, not to make the putting on of apparel their adorning,1 Peter 3:4. Shall a purple or scarlet robe be matter of pride to a Christian, which was matter of reproach and shame to Christ. 2. Do kings wear crowns? They platted a crown of thorns, and put it on his head. A crown of straw, or rushes, would have been banter enough; but this was pain also. He wore the crown of thorns which we had deserved, that we might wear the crown of glory which he merited. Let us be taught by these thorns, as Gideon taught the men of Succoth, to hate sin, and be uneasy under it, and to be in love with Jesus Christ, who is here a lily among thorns. If we be at any time afflicted with a thorn in the flesh, let it be our comfort, that our high priest is touched with the feelings of our infirmities, having himself known what thorns in the flesh meant. 3. Are kings attended with the acclamations of their subjects, O king, live for ever? That also is mimicked; they saluted him with "Hail, King of the Jews; such a prince, and such a people, even good enough for one another." 4. Kings have sceptres put into their hand, marks of dominion, as the crown is of dignity; to imitate this, they put a reed in his right hand. Those that despise the authority of Jesus Christ, as not to be observed and obeyed, who regard not either the precepts of his word, or the threatenings of his wrath, do, in effect, put a reed in his hand; nay, and, as these here, smite him on the head with it, such is the indignity they do him. 5. Subjects, when they swear allegiance, were wont to kiss their sovereign; and this they offered to do, but, instead of that, spit upon him. 6. Kings used to be addressed upon the knee; and this also they brought into the jest, they bowed the knee, and worshipped him; this they did in scorn, to make themselves and one another laugh. We were by sin become liable to everlasting shame and contempt, to deliver us from which, our Lord Jesus submitted to this shame and contempt for us. He was thus mocked, not in his own clothes, but in another's, to signify that he suffered not for his own sin; the crime was ours, the shame his. Those who pretend subjection to Christ, but at the same time give themselves up to the service of the world and the flesh, do, in effect, the same that they did, who bowed the knee to him in mockery, and abused him with, Hail, king of the Jews, when they said, We have no king but Cæsar. Those that bow the knee to Christ, but do not bow the soul, that draw nigh to him with their mouths, and honour him with their lips, but their hearts are far from him, put the same affront upon him that these here did.

      III. The soldiers, at the hour appointed, led him away from Pilate's judgment-hall to the place of execution (Mark 15:20; Mark 15:20), as a sheep to the slaughter; he was led forth with the workers of iniquity, though he did no sin. But lest his death, under the load of his cross, which he was to carry, should prevent the further cruelties they intended, they compelled one Simon of Cyrene to carry his cross for him. He passed by, coming out of the country or out of the fields, not thinking of any such matter. Note, We must not think it strange, if crosses come upon us suddenly, and we be surprised by them. The cross was a very troublesome unwieldy load: but he that carried it a few minutes, had the honour to have his name upon the record in the book of God, though otherwise an obscure person; so that, wherever this gospel is preached; so that, wherever this gospel is preached, there shall this be told for a memorial to him: in like manner, though no affliction, no cross, for the present, be joyous, but grievous, yet afterward it yields a crown of glory to them that are exercised thereby.

Kelly Commentary on Books of the Bible

The transfiguration, as a matter of fact witnessed by the eyes of chosen witnesses, introduces naturally the great change that was about to be effected by the mighty power of God; for that wondrous scene was the passing vision of a glory that shall never pass away. Therein certain disciples were admitted to a sight of the kingdom of God coming with power, founded upon the rejection of Christ by man, and the maintenance and manifestation by-and-by of the power of that Jesus rejected of man, but glorified by God. Of course, our Lord's ministry had this double character. It was, as is everything in Scripture, presented to human responsibility before its result is established on God's part. There was every evidence and proof that man could ask; there was every moral manifestation of God; but man had no heart for it. Hence the only effect of such a witness was the rejection of Christ and of God Himself as thus morally represented here below. What, then, will God do? Surely He will make good His counsel by His own power; for nothing fails that is of Him, and every testimony of His must accomplish its aim. But then God waits; and, even before He lays the foundation for that great work of establishing His own kingdom and power, He gives a sight of it to those whom He is pleased to elect. Hence it is that the transfiguration was a kind of bridge, so to speak, between the present and the future, confronting men even now with God's plans! It is really the introduction, as far as a testimony and even a sample could go with believers, of that kingdom which should be set up and displayed in due time. Not that the rejection of Christ ceases after this, but, on the contrary, goes on up to the cross itself. But in the cross, resurrection, and ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ, we see, by faith, the issue complete; man's rejection on the one side, and God's foundation actually laid on the other. Notwithstanding a testimony to it was on this holy mount brought before the sight of the disciples according to the sovereign choice of our Lord, He takes even out of the chosen twelve a chosen few to be the witnesses of His glory. But this gives it a very important and emphatic place in the synoptic gospels, which bring before us the Galilean progress of Christ; more particularly in the point of view of ministry we have this in our gospel.

The Lord having then taken up James and John, as well as Peter, was transfigured before these disciples. The glorified men, Elias with Moses, are seen talking with Him. Peter lets out his lack of appreciation of the glory of Christ, and the more remarkably, because only in the scene immediately before Peter had in striking terms testified to Jesus. But God must show that there is but One faithful witness; and the very soul that stood out brightly, we may say, for a little moment in the scene that preceded the transfiguration, is the same that manifests the earthen vessel more than any other in the transfiguration. "It is good," says Peter, "for us to be here. Let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias." It is evident, that although he might put the Saviour at the head of the three, he counted the others to be in a measure on a level with Him. At once we see the cloud overshadowing, and hear the voice out of it which maintains supreme undivided glory for the Son of God. "This" (says the Father; for He it was who spoke) "this is my beloved Son: hear him."

You will observe that in Mark there is an omission. We have not here the expression of complacency. In Matthew this was made prominent, as we know. InMatthew 17:1-27; Matthew 17:1-27 it is, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased: hear ye him," I apprehend the reason was to set this in the most absolute contrast with His rejection by the Jewish people. So again, in the gospel of Luke, we have the testimony of Christ being God's Son on the ground of hearing Him rather than Moses or Elias. "This is my beloved Son," he says: "hear him," omitting the expression of the Father's complacency in Him. Assuredly He was always the object of the Father's delight; but still there is not always the same reason for asserting it. Whereas, on comparing the testimony in 2 Peter 1:1-21, there is an omission of "hear him" found in the three gospels. "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." It is evident that the superiority of the Lord Jesus Christ over the law and the prophets is not the point in Peter. The reason, I think, is obvious. That question had been already decided: Christianity had come in. It was not the point here to claim for Christ a place above the law and the prophets, but to show simply the glory of the Son in the eyes of the Father, and His delight or loving satisfaction in Him; just as afterwards he makes it plain that in all the word of God the one object of the Holy Ghost is Christ's glory; for holy men of old spake as they were moved of Him. Scripture was not written by man's will; rather, God had a great purpose in His word, which was not met by the transient application of certain parts of it to isolated facts, to this person or to that. There was one grand uniting bond throughout all prophecy of Scripture. The object of it all was this the glory of Christ. Separate prophecy from Christ, and you divert the stream of the testimony from the person of Him to whom that testimony is most due. It contains not mere warnings about peoples, nations, tongues, or lands; about facts providential, or otherwise; about kings, empires, or systems in the world: Christ is the Spirit's object. So on the mount we hear the Father there witnessing to Christ, who supremely was the object of His delight. The kingdom was ensampled there; Moses also, and Elias; but there was One object pre-eminently before the Father, and that object was Jesus. "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." The point was not exactly hearing Christ, but hearing the Father about Him, so to speak. Such was the emphatic object here; and therefore, as I believe, are the words "hear him" omitted. In Matthew we have the fullest form of all, which the more enforces the call to hear Him. Luke gives the "hear him," but the expression, both in Mark and Luke, of personal complacency was not so much the ruling aim. Of course, there were common points in all, but I just notice this for a little passing moment to illustrate their differences.

Then we find, without dwelling upon all the particulars, that our Lord tells the disciples that the vision was to be kept hid till the rising from the dead. His own resurrection would introduce an entirely new character of testimony. Then it was that the disciples could make manifest, without hindrance, this great truth. The Lord was thus teaching them their total incapacity, until that great event brought in a new work of God, the basis of a new and unrestricted testimony, old things being passed away, and all things made new to the believer.

This, I think, was very important, if we look at the disciples here as called to service. It is not in man's power to take up the service or the testimony of Christ as he will. From this is evident the weighty place that the rising from the dead holds in Scripture. Outside Christ sin reigned in death. In Him was no sin; but, until the resurrection, there could not be a full testimony rendered to His glory or His work. And so in point of fact it was. After this follow, passingly, a notice of the difficulties, which shows how truly our Lord had measured their incapacity; for the disciples were really under the influence of the scribes themselves at this time.

At the foot of the mountain another scene opens. At the top we have seen, not the kingdom of God only, but the glory of Christ; and, above all, Christ as the Son, whom the Father proclaimed now as the One to be heard beyond the law or the prophets. This the disciples never did understand till the resurrection; and very manifest is the reason, because the law had naturally its place till then, and the prophets came in as corroborating the law and maintaining its just authority. The raising from the dead does not in any wise weaken either the law or the prophets, but it gives occasion to the display of a superior glory. However, at the foot of the mountain there is an awful evidence to present facts, just after the sample of what is to come. Meanwhile, before the kingdom of God is established in power, who is the potentate that influences men and that reigns in this world? It is Satan. In the case before us most manifest was his power a power that the disciples themselves could not eject from the world because of their unbelief. Here, again, we see how manifestly service is the great thought all through this gospel. The father is in distress, for it was an old story; it was no new thing for Satan to exercise this power over man in the world. From his childhood such was the case; even as from the earliest day it was the history of man. In vain had the father appealed to those that bore the name of the Lord in the world; for they had wholly failed. This drew out from our Lord Jesus a severe reproof of their unbelief, and especially for the reason that they were His servants. There was no straitness in Him; no stint of power on His part. It was really unbelief in them. Hence He could only say, when this manifestation of the weakness of the disciples was brought before Him, "O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him unto me. And they brought him unto him: and when he saw him, straightway the spirit tare him; and he fell on the ground, and wallowed foaming." For the Lord would not hide the full extent of the power of Satan, but allows the child to be torn by his power before their eyes. There could be no question that the spell was unbroken up to this. The disciples had in no way subdued, suppressed, or crushed the power of Satan over the child. "And he asked his father, How long is it ago since this came unto him? And he said, Of a child." It was really the history of this world in contrast with the new creation. Of the world, or rather kingdom, of God, a vision at least had just been seen in the transfiguration.

Thus the chapter is first of all founded upon the announced death of Christ in utter rejection, and the certainty of God's introducing His kingdom of glory for the Christ rejected of men. In the next place, the uselessness or impossibility of testifying the transfiguration till the rising from the dead is affirmed: then it would be most timely. Lastly follows the evidence of what the power of Satan really is before the kingdom of God finally comes in power, where the testimony of it even was unknown. The fact is, that under the surface of this world viewed by the disciples, and brought to light by the presence of our Lord Jesus, there is this complete subjection of man from his earliest days, as it is said. The power of Satan over man is too plain, and the servants of the Lord only proved how powerless they were, not from any defect of power in Christ, but because of their own lack of faith to draw it out. The Saviour at once proceeds to act, letting the man see that all turns on faith. In the meantime, what Christ brings into evidence is the power that deals with Satan before the kingdom is established. Such is the testimony at the foot of the mountain. The kingdom will surely in due time be established, but meanwhile faith in Christ defeats the enemy's power. It is beyond doubt that this was the true want and only remedy. Faith in Him alone could secure a blessing; and so, accordingly, the father tremblingly appeals to the Lord in his distress. "Lord," he says, "I believe; help thou mine unbelief." "When Jesus then saw the people running together, he rebuked the foul spirit, saying unto him, Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I charge thee come out of him, and enter no more into him." The work was done. Apparently the child was no more; but the Lord "took him by the hand, lifted him up, and he arose." In the house He gave the disciples another profitable lesson in the way of ministry.

Such, then, it is easy to see, is the point that comes out here. The Lord shows that, along with the unbelief, is the lack of the sense and confession of dependence on God. This alone also judges the energy of nature, "This kind," he says, "goes not forth, but by prayer and fasting." While the power is in Jesus, faith alone draws it out; but that faith is accompanied by the sentence of death upon nature, as well as the looking up to God, the only source of power.

Next, we have another lesson, still connected with the service of the Lord, while the power of Satan is at work in the world, before the kingdom of God is established. We must learn the state of these servants' own hearts. They desire to be something. This falsifies their judgments. They departed thence, and passed into Galilee; and He would not that any man should know it. For He taught His disciples, and said unto them, "The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day. But they understood not that saying." At first sight how singular, yet how frequent, is this lack of ability to enter into the words of Jesus! To what is it owing? To self unjudged. They were ashamed to let the Lord know what the true reason was; but the Lord brings it out. He came to Capernaum, and being in the house He asked them, "What was it that ye disputed among yourselves by the way?" "But they held their peace; for by the way they bad disputed among themselves, who should be the greatest." No wonder there was little power in the presence of Satan; no wonder there was little understanding in presence of Jesus. There was a dead weight behind this spirit of thinking of themselves, of desiring some distinction to be seen and known of men now. It was evident unbelief of what God feels, and is going to display, in His kingdom. For there is but one thought before God He means to exalt Jesus. They were thus quite out of communion with God about the matter. Not only had those failed who were not on the mount, but just as plainly James, Peter, and John, all had failed. How little has special privilege or position to do with the humility of faith! This, then, is the true secret of powerlessness, either as against Satan, or for Jesus. Further, the connection of all this with the service of the Lord must, I think, be manifest.

But there is another incident, too, peculiar to Mark, of which we hear directly after this. The Lord rebukes them by taking a child, and thence reading them humility. What a withering censure of their self-exaltation! Even John proves how little the glory of Christ, which makes one content to be nothing, had entered into his heart now. The day is coming when it would all take deep root there when they would really gather everlasting profit from it; but for the present it was the painful demonstration that there is something more needed than the word even of Jesus. So it is, then, that John immediately after this turns to our Lord, complaining of some one that was casting out demons in His name the very thing they had failed to do. "Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name." Was not this, then, a matter for thankfulness of heart to God? Not a bit of it! Self in John took fire at it, and became the mouthpiece of the strong feeling which animated them all. "Master, we saw" not "I" merely; he spake for all the rest. "We saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followed not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us." It is evident, then, that no previous reproof had in any way purged out the self-exalting spirit, for here it was again in full force; but Jesus said, "Forbid him not." Another most weighty lesson in the service of Christ is this. The question here is not one of dishonour done to Christ. None in this case contemplates or allows any act whatever contrary to His name. On the contrary, it was a servant going forward against the enemy, believing in the efficacy of the Lord's name. Had it been a question of enemies or false friends of Christ, overthrowing or undermining His glory, he that "is not for him is against him; and he that gathereth not with him scattereth abroad." Wherever it is a question of a true or a false Christ, there cannot be a compromise of one jot of His glory. But where, on the contrary, it was one who may have been unintelligent, perhaps, and who certainly had not been so favoured in point of circumstances as the disciples, yet who knew the value and efficacy of His name, Jesus graciously shields him. "Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part." He certainly had faith in the Lord's name; and by faith in that name he was mighty to do what, alas! disciples were feeble to do. It was evident that there was a spirit of jealousy, and that the power which manifestly wrought in one who had never been so privileged outwardly as they, instead of humbling the disciples to think of their own shortcoming and lack of faith, led even John to cast about for some fault to find, some plea for restraining him whom God had honoured.

Hence, our Lord here brings out an instruction, not of course at variance with, but totally different from what we had in Matthew 12:30. Their distinctive use in the right time and circumstances, I cannot but hold to be by no means unimportant. Mark's, you will remember, is the gospel of service; and it is the question of ministry here. Now the power of God in this does not depend upon position. No matter how right (that is, according to God's will) the position may be, that will not give ministerial power to the individuals who are in the truest position. The disciples, of course, were in an unimpeachable place as following Christ there could be nothing more certainly right than theirs; for it was Jesus that had called them, gathered them round Himself, and sent them out clothed with a measure of His own power and authority. For all that, it was evident that there was weakness in practical manifestation. There was a decided want of faith in drawing upon the resources of Christ, as against Satan. They were, then, quite right in cleaving to Christ, and in following none other; they were right in abandoning John for Jesus; but they were not right in letting any reason hinder their acknowledgment of God's power, which "ought in another who was not in that blessed position which was their privilege. Accordingly our Lord rebukes this narrow spirit sternly, and lays down a principle seemingly counter, but really harmonious. For there is no contradiction in the word of God here, or anywhere else. Faith may rest assured that nothing in Matthew 12:1-50 opposes Mark 11:1-33. No doubt at first sight there might appear to be such a difference; but look, read again, and the difficulty vanishes.

In Matthew 12:30 the question was totally different. "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad." There it was a question of Christ Himself of the glory and the power of God in Jesus here below. The moment it comes to be a question of His person, assailed by adversaries, then he that is not with Christ is against Christ. Do persons allow anything to lower His person now? All questions are secondary in comparison with this, and any one who is indifferent to it would deliberately take the part of the enemy against Christ. He who would sanction the dishonour of Jesus proves, no matter what his pretensions may be, that he is no friend of the Lord, and that his work of gathering can but scatter.

But in the mind of the Lord given in Mark, wholly different matter was before them. Here it was a question of a wan who was exalting Christ according to the measure of his faith, and certainly with no inconsiderable power. The disciples, therefore, in this case ought to have acknowledged and delighted in the testimony to Christ's name. Granted that the man was not so favoured as they; but surely the name of Christ was exalted in desire and in fact. Had their eye been single, they would have owned that, and thanked God for it. And here, therefore, the Lord impresses on them a lesson of another kind altogether: "He that is not against me is for me." Thus, wherever it is a question of the Spirit's power put forth in Christ's name, it is evident that he who is thus used of God is not against Christ; and if God answers that power, and uses it for the blessing of man and the defeat of the devil, we ought to rejoice.

Need I say how applicable both these lessons are? We know, on the one hand, that in this world Christ is rejected and despised. Such is the main groundwork of Matthew. Accordingly, in Matthew 12:1-50, we have Him not merely the object of loathing, but this even to those who had the outward testimony of God at that time. Hence, no matter what way be the reputation, the traditional respect or reverence of men; if Christ be dishonoured, they that prize and love Him can have no fellowship for an instant. On the other hand, take the service of Christ, and in the midst of all that bears the name of Christ around, there may be those whom God employs for this or that important work. Am I to deny that God makes use of them in His service? Not for an instant. I acknowledge the power of God in them, and thank Him; but this is no reason why one should abandon the blessed place of following Jesus. I say not, "following us," but "following Him." It is evident that the disciples were occupied with themselves, and forgot Him. They were wishing ministry to be their monopoly, instead of a witness to Christ's name. But the Lord puts everything in its place; and the same Lord who in Matthew 12:1-50 insists on decision for Himself, where His enemies had manifested their hatred or contempt of His glory, is no less prompt in the gospel of Mark to indicate the power that had wrought in the ministry of His unnamed servant. "Forbid him not," says He. "for he that is not against me is for me." Was he against Christ who used, on John's own showing, His name against the devil? The Lord thus honours, in any quarter or measure, the faith that knows how to make use of His name, and gain victories over Satan. Hence, therefore, if God employs any man say, in winning sinners to Christ, or delivering saints out of the bondage of wrong doctrine, or whatever else the snare may be Christ owns him, and so should we. It is a work of God, and homage to Christ's name, though not a around, I repeat, for making light of following Christ, if He have graciously accorded such a privilege. It is a most legitimate ground, no doubt, for humbling ourselves, to think how little we do as entrusted with the power of God. Thus we have to maintain Christ's own personal glory, on the one hand, always holding that fast; we have, on the other hand, to acknowledge whatever ministerial power God is pleased in His own sovereignty to employ, and by whomsoever. The one truth does not in the slightest degree interfere with the other.

Further: let me draw your attention now to the appropriateness of the place of, the incident in this gospel. You could not transpose either it or the solemn word in Matthew. It would altogether mar the beauty of the truth in both. On the one hand, the day of despising and rejecting Christ is the day for faith to assert His glory; on the other hand, where there is the power of God, I must acknowledge it. I may have been myself rebuked for my own lack of power just before; but, at least, let me own God's hand wherever it is manifest.

Our Lord follows this up with a remarkably solemn instruction, and in His discourse shows that it was no question merely of "following us," or of anything else, for a time. Now, no doubt, the disciple follows Him through a world where stumbling-blocks abound, and dangers on every side. But more than that, it is a world into the midst of whose snares and pitfalls He deigns to cast the light of eternity. Hence it was not a mere question of the moment; it was far beyond the objects of party strife. Our Lord, therefore, strikes at the root of what was at work in the mistaken disciples. He declares that whosoever gives a cup of water in His name the smallest real service rendered to need "because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward." Yet more, it was not merely a question of rewards on the one side, but of eternal ruin on the other. They had better look to themselves while they yet may. Flesh is a bad and ruinous thing. No matter who or what the person may be, man is not safe in himself, especially, let me add, when in the service of Christ. There is no ground where souls are more apt to get astray. It is not merely in questions of moral evil. There are men that pass us, and. that, so to speak, run the gauntlet of such seductions unscathed; but it is quite another and a very much more dangerous thing, where, in the professed service of the Lord, there is the nursing of that which is offensive to Christ, and grieves the Holy Ghost. This lesson comes out, not merely for saints, but also for those that are still under sin. "If thy hand offend thee, cut it off: if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out." Deal unsparingly with every hindrance, and this on the simplest moral ground; most urgent, personally, and imminent is the peril they entail. These things would test a man, and sift whether there be anything in him Godward.

The end ofMark 9:1-50; Mark 9:1-50 reminds one of the end of1 Corinthians 9:1-27; 1 Corinthians 9:1-27, where the apostle Paul, no doubt also speaking about service, deepens in his tone of warning, and intimates that service may often become a means of detecting not state only, but unreality. There may not be open immorality in the first instance, but where the Lord is not before the soul in constant self-judgment, evil grows apace out of nothing more than ministry, as, indeed, the fact proved among the Corinthians; for they had been thinking much more about gift and power than about Christ; and with what moral results? The apostle begins by putting the case in the strongest way to himself; he supposes the case of his own preaching ever so well to others, but abandoning all care about holiness. Occupied with his gift and others, such an one yields without conscience to that which the body craves after, and the consequence is total ruin. Were it Paul, he must become a castaway, or reprobate ( i.e., disapproved of God). The word is never used for a mere loss of reward, but for absolute rejection of the man himself. Then, in 1 Corinthians 10:1-33, he applies the ruin of the Israelites to the danger of the Corinthians themselves.

Our Lord in this very passage of Mark similarly warns. He deals with the slight which John put upon one that was manifestly using the name of Christ to serve souls, and defeat Satan. But John had unwittingly ignored, if not denied, the true secret of power altogether. It was really John that needed to take care holy and blessed man as he was. There was an evident mistake of no ordinary gravity, and the Lord proceeds from this to the most solemn warning that He ever gave in any discourse that is recorded of Him. No other sets eternal destruction more manifestly before us in any part of the gospels. Here, above all, we are admitted to hear continually ringing in our ears the awful dirge, if I may so call it, over lost souls: "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." On the other hand, our Lord turns the occasion also to the profit of His own, though this too be a solemn warning. Hence observe, before the subject closes, how He lays down grand principles that involve the whole of this question. Thus we are told, "Every one shall be salted with fire." It is well to remember that grace does not hinder this universal test of every soul here below. "Every one," says He, "shall be salted with fire;" but besides that, "Every sacrifice shall be salted with salt." These are two distinct things.

No child of man, as such, can escape judgment. "It is appointed unto man once to die, but after that the judgment." The judgment, in one form or another, must be the portion of the race. Whenever you look at what is universal, man, being a sinner, is an object for divine judgment. But this is far from the whole truth. There are those here below who are delivered from God's judgment even in this world who have even now access into His favour, and rejoice in hope of His glory. What then of them? They that hear Christ's word, and believe Him who sent the Saviour, have eternal life, and enter not into judgment. But are they not put to the proof? Assuredly they are; but it is upon another principle altogether. "Every sacrifice shall be salted with salt" It is clearly not a question there of a mere sinful man, but of that which is acceptable to God; and, therefore, not salted with fire, but salted with salt. Not that there is not that Which tests and proves the ground of the heart in those that belong to God; but even so their special nearness to Him is borne in mind.

Thus, whether it be the general dealing in a judicial manner with man, with every soul as such; whether it be the special case of such as belong to God (i.e., every sacrifice acceptable to God, as brought in by Christ on the foundation of His own great sacrifice), the principle is as clear as it is comprehensive and sure for every one; not only for every sinner, but for every believer, however truly acceptable to God by Jesus Christ our Lord. With the glorified saints, although it be not, of course, the judgment of God, certainly there is no concealment of the truth, though there is that also which God in His grace makes to be mighty to preserve; not pleasant, it may be, but the preservative energy of divine grace with its sanctifying effects. This, I think, is what is meant by being "salted with salt." The figure of that well known antiseptic does not leave room for the pleasant things of nature with all their evanescence. "Salt," says our Lord, "is good." It is not an element which excites for a moment, and passes away; it has the savour of God's covenant. "Salt is good; but if the salt have lost its saltness, wherewith will ye season it?" How fatal is the loss! How dangerous to go back! Have salt in yourselves, and have peace one with another; "that is, have purity first, then peace mutually, as the apostle James, too, exhorts in his epistle. Purity deals with nature, and resists all corruption it preserves by the mighty power of God's grace. Following this, but of no worth without it, is "peace one with another." May we possess this peace also, but not at the cost of intrinsic purity, if we value God's glory!

This closes, then, our Lord's ministry the connection of ministry, as it appears to me, with the transfiguration. That manifestation of the power of God could not but impress a new and suited character upon those concerned.

In the next chapter our Lord introduces other topics, and very strikingly, because it might be hastily gathered, that if all is founded upon death and resurrection, and is in view of the coining glory, such a ministry as this must take no account of relationships which have to do with nature. The very reverse is the case. It is precisely when you have the highest principles of God brought in, that everything God has ever owned on the earth finds its right place. It was not when God gave the law, for instance, that the sanctity of marriage was vindicated, most. Every one ought to know there is no relationship so fundamental for man on earth there is nothing that so truly forms the social bond as the institution of marriage. What is there naturally in this world so essential for domestic happiness and personal purity, not to speak of the various other considerations, on which all human relationships so much depend? And yet it is remarkable that, during the legal economy, there was the continual allowance of that which enfeebled marriage. Thus, the permission of divorce for trivial reasons, I need not say, was anything but a maintenance of its honour. Here, on the contrary, when in Christ the fulness of grace came, and, more than that, when it was rejected, when the Lord Jesus Christ was announcing that which was to be founded upon His approaching humiliation unto death, and when He was expressly teaching that this new system could not be, and was not to be, proclaimed until His own rising from the dead, He also insists on the value of the various relations in nature. I admit the connection with the resurrection is only shown in Mark; but, then, this points out the true import of it, because Mark naturally indicates the importance of that epoch and glorious fact, for the service of Christ in testimony, for bringing the truth out to others.

Here, however, the Lord having disposed of that which was eternally momentous, having traced it up to the end of all this passing scene, having shown the results for those that have no part nor lot in the matter, as well as for such as enjoy the grace of God in its preservative force, namely, those that belong to Christ, now takes up the relation of these new principles to nature, to what God Himself acknowledged in what you may call the outside world.

The Lord here, then, stands up as the vindicator, first of all, of the relationship of marriage. He teaches that in the law, important as it was, Moses did not assert the vital place of marriage for the world. On the contrary, Moses permitted certain infractions of it because of Israel's state. "For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female For this cause shall a man leave his father and his mother." That is, even the nearest other relationship, so to speak, disappears before this relationship. "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What, therefore, God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." To this it came; but for this most simple yet thorough. exposition of God's mind, we are indebted to the Lord Jesus, the great witness of grace, and of eternal things, now connected with His own rejection and the kingdom of God coming with power, and the setting aside of the long spell of the devil. It is the same Jesus who now clears from the dust of ruin God's institutions even for the earth.

A similar principle runs through the incidents that follow here. "They brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them." Had His followers drank deeply into that grace of which He was full, they would, on the contrary, have estimated very differently the feeling that presented the infants to their Master. The truth is that the spirit of self was yet strong; and what so petty and narrow? Poor, proud Judaism bad tinctured and spoilt the feelings, and the little ones were despised by them. But God, who is mighty, despiseth not any; and grace, understanding the mind of God, becomes an imitator of His ways. The Lord Jesus rebuked them; yea, it is said, "He was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God." In both these particulars, so all-important for the earth, we find the Lord Jesus Christ proving. that grace, far from not giving nature its place, is the only thing that vindicates it, according to God.

Another lesson follows, in a certain sense even more emphatic, because more difficult. It might be thought that God's mercy occupies it specially with a child. But let us suppose an unconverted man, and one, too, living according to the law, and in great measure satisfied with his fulfilment of its obligations, what would the Lord say of him? How does the Lord Jesus Christ feel about such a one? "When he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God." The man was totally in the dark; he had no saving knowledge of God; he had no knowledge really of man; he had no sense of the true glory of Christ; he did honour Him, but merely as one differing in degree from himself. He owned Him to be a good Master, and he wanted to glean what he could from Him as a good disciple. He put himself, therefore, so far on a level with Jesus, assuming his competency to carry out the words and ways of Jesus. It is evident, therefore, that sin was unjudged, and that God Himself was unknown in the heart of this young man. The Lord, however, brings out his state fully. "Thou knowest the commandments," He says, putting expressly forward those duties that touch human relations. "He answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth." The Lord does not refuse his statement raises no question how far he had fulfilled the second table. On the contrary, it is added, that "Jesus, beholding him, loved him." Many find a serious difficulty in that assertion of the Spirit of God. To my own mind it is as instructive as it is beautiful. Not that the man was converted, for he was clearly not; not that he knew the truth, for the difficulty arises from the fact that he was a stranger to it; not that the man was following Jesus, for, on the contrary, we are told that he went away from Jesus; not that his heart was made happy in God's grace, for in truth he turned back sorrowing. There was the deepest reason, therefore, to regard him with pain and anxiety, if you judged the man according to what was eternal. Nevertheless, it remains true that Jesus looked upon him, and beholding him, loved him.

Is there nothing in this which traverses ordinary evangelicalism? An important lesson for us, I cannot doubt. The Lord Jesus, from the very fact of His perfect perception of God and His grace, and the infinite value of eternal life before His Spirit, was free enough, and above all that crowds human judgment, to appreciate character and conduct in nature, to weigh what was conscientious, to love what was lovable in man simply as man. So far from grace weakening, I am persuaded it always strengthens such feelings. To many, no doubt, this might seem strange; but they are themselves the proof of the cause that hinders. Let them examine and judge whether the word does not reveal what is here drawn from it. And let it be noted that we have this emphatic statement, too, in the gospel which reveals Christ as the perfect servant; which gives us, therefore, to know how we are to serve wisely as we follow Him. Nowhere do we see our Lord bringing it out so distinctly as here. The same truth substantially is given in Matthew and in Luke; but Mark gives us the fact the He "loved him." Nor do Matthew and Luke say a word about there being the perception of the reason why the Lord thus loved the young man: only Mark tells us that, "beholding him," Christ loved him. Of course, that is the great point of the case. The Lord did admire what there was naturally lovely in a man that had been preserved providentially from the evil of this world, and sedulously trained in the law of God, in which he had hitherto walked blamelessly, even desiring to learn from Jesus, but without divine conviction, of his own sinful lost estate. Certainly the Lord did not deal with either the narrowness or the roughness which we so often betray. Indeed we are, alas! poor servants of His grace. The Lord far better knew, and far more deeply felt than we, the state and danger of the young man. Nevertheless there is much for us to weigh in this, that Jesus, beholding him, loved him.

But, further, "He said unto him, One thing thou lackest." But what a thing it was! "One thing thou lackest." The Lord denies nothing that he could in any way or ground commend; He owns everything that was naturally good. Who could blame, for instance, an obedient child? a benevolent and conscientious life? Am I, therefore, to attribute all this to divine grace? or to deny the need of it? No! these things I own as a boon belonging to man in this world, and to be valued in their place. He that says they have no value whatever slights, to my mind, evidently, the wisdom of the Lord Jesus Christ. At the same time, he who would make this, or any thing of the sort, a means of eternal life, evidently knows nothing as he ought to know. Thus the subject calls, no doubt, for much delicacy, but for what will find a true recognition in Jesus, and in the blessed word of God, and nowhere else. Our Lord therefore says, "One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor." Is not this what Jesus had done, though in an infinitely better way? Certainly He had given up all things, that God might be glorified in the salvation of lost man. But if He had emptied Himself of His glory, how infinite were the results of that humiliation unto death itself?

The young man wanted to learn something of Jesus; but was he prepared to follow even in the earthly path of the Crucified? was he willing only to have the thing he lacked supplied? to be a witness of divine self-renunciation in grace to the wretched? to abandon treasures on earth, content to have treasure in heaven? If he had done this, however, Christ could not but ask more; even as here He adds, "And come, take up the cross, and follow me." The Saviour, as we may thus see, goes not before the light of God; He does not anticipate what would be brought out in a day that was at hand. There is no premature announcement of the astonishing change which the gospel in due time made known; but the heart was fully tested. Man in his best estate is proved to be lighter than vanity, compared with Him who alone is good; and this revealed in Christ, His only adequate image and expression. Yet could He who thus (not to speak of the unfathomable depths of His cross) distanced man look on this young man with love, as He beheld him spite of evident shortcoming. Still, whatever he was, this did not in the smallest degree take the man out of the world. His heart was in the creature, yea, even in the unrighteous mammon: he loved his property, i.e., himself, and the Lord in His test dealt with the root of the evil. And so the result proved. For it is said, "He was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions." Now, it appears to me that our Lord's way of dealing is the perfect pattern; and first in this, that He does not reason from that which was not yet revealed by God. He does not speak of His own bloodshedding, death, or resurrection. They were not yet accomplished, and it would have been quite unintelligible. Not one of the disciples themselves knew anything really, though the Lord had repeatedly spoken of it to the twelve. How was this man to understand? Our Lord did what was of all importance He dealt with the man's own conscience. He spread before him the moral value of what He had done Himself, giving up all that one had. This was the last thing the young man thought of doing. He would have liked to have been a benefactor a generous patron; but to give up everything, and to follow Christ in shame and reproach, he was in no way prepared to do. The consequence was, that on his own ground the man was left perfectly convicted of stopping short of good brought before him in the good Master to whom he had appealed. What the Lord may have done for him afterwards is a matter for the Lord to tell. As it is not revealed in the word, it is not for us to know; and it would be vain and wrong to conjecture. What God has shown us here is, that no matter what the extent of moral following the law, even in a most remarkable case of outward purity and of apparent subjection to the requirements of God, all this does not deliver the soul, does not make a man happy, but leaves him perfectly miserable and far from Christ. Such is the moral of the rich young ruler, and a very weighty one it is.

Next, our Lord applies the same principle to the disciples; for now He has done with the outward question. We have seen nature in its best estate seeking Christ in a sense; and here is the result of it: after all the man is unhappy, and leaves Jesus, who now looks upon His disciples in their utter bewilderment, and enlarges on the hindrance of wealth in divine things. Alas! this they had thought to be an evidence of God's blessing. And if they were only rich, how much good might they not do! "How hardly," says Christ, "shall they that have riches enter the kingdom of God!" He further says to them, already astonished, "Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God. It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." The Lord insists only the more solemnly on this lesson, so little understood even by disciples. They, beyond measure surprised, say among themselves, "Who, then, can be saved?" which gives the Lord the opportunity to explain what lies at the bottom of the whole question; that salvation is a question of God, and not of man at all. Law, nature, riches, poverty no matter what, that man loves or fears has nothing in the least to do with the saving of the soul, which rests entirely on the power of God's grace, and nothing else: what is impossible for man is possible with God. All turns, therefore, on His grace. Salvation is of the Lord. Blessed be His name! with God all things are possible: otherwise how could we, how could any, be saved?

Peter then begins to boast a little of what the disciples had given up, whereon the Lord brings in a very beautiful word, peculiar to Mark. "There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake and the gospel's, but he shall receive a hundredfold." Be it noted that only Mark mentions "and the gospel's." It is service that is so prominent here. Others may say, "for His sake;" but here we read, "for my sake, and the gospel's." Thus the value of Christ personally is, as it were, attached to the service of Christ in this world. Whosoever, then, is thus devoted, He says, "shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life." It is a wonderful conjunction, but most true, because it is the word of the Lord and the reckoning of faith.

All things that Christ possesses are ours who believe in Him. No doubt such a tenure does not satisfy the covetous heart; but it is a deep and rich satisfaction to faith, that, instead of wanting something to distinguish self by, one has the comfort of knowing that all the Church of God possesses on the earth belongs to every saint of God on the earth. Faith does not seek its own, but delights in that which is diffused among the faithful. Unbelief counts nothing its own, save what is for selfish use. If, on the contrary, love be the principle that animates me, how different! But then there is an accompaniment "with persecutions." These you must have somehow, if you are faithful. They that will live godly cannot escape it. Am I only to have it in that way because they have it? It is better to have it myself in the direct following of Christ. In His warfare, what eau be so honourable a mark? But it is a mark that is found especially in the service of Christ. Here, again, we see how thoroughly Mark's character is preserved throughout. "But many that are first shall be last, and last first," we find solemnly added here as in Matthew. It is not the beginning of the race that decides the contest; the end of it necessarily is the great point. In that race there are many changes, and withal not a few slips, falls, and reverses.

The Lord then goes on to Jerusalem, that fatal spot for the true prophet. Man was wrong in averring that never a prophet had arisen in Galilee; for, indeed, God left Himself not without witnesses even there. But, assuredly the Lord was right, that no prophet should perish out of Jerusalem. The religious capital is exactly the place where the true witnesses of God's grace must die. Jesus, therefore, in going up to Jerusalem was well understood by the disciples, and so, amazed, they follow Him. Little were they prepared for that course of persecution which was to be their boast in a day that was coming, and for which they would be surely strengthened by the Holy Ghost. But it was not so yet. "Jesus went before them: and they were amazed; and as they followed, they were afraid. And he took again the twelve, and began to tell them what things should happen unto him, saying, Behold, we go up" (how gracious! not only "I," but "we," go up) "to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests, and unto the scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles." Then we have the persecution unto death (and what a death 1) fully laid before us. James and John at this critical time show how little flesh, even in the servants of God, ever enters into His thoughts. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh," no matter in whom. Again, it was not in obscure ones, but in those that seemed to be somewhat, that the ugliness of the flesh especially betrayed itself; and therefore it is these who furnish the lesson for us. "Master, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall desire." Their mother appears in another gospel in the gospel where we might expect such a relationship after the flesh to appear; but here, alas! it is the servants themselves, who ought to have known better. As yet their eyes were holden. They turned the very fact of their being servants into a means of profiting the flesh even in the kingdom of God itself. They seek to gratify the flesh here by the thought of what they would be there. So the Lord brings out the thought of their heart, and answers them with a dignity peculiar to Himself. "Ye know not," He says, "what ye ask: can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with. the baptism that I am baptized with? And they said unto him, We can. And Jesus said unto them, Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized: but to sit on my right hand and on my left hand is not mine. to give; but [it shall be given] to them for whom it is prepared." He is the servant; and even in view of the time of glory He preserves the same character. A high place in the kingdom is only for those "for whom it is prepared."

But it was not merely that these two disciples betrayed themselves; the ten made the secret of their heart manifest enough. It is not alone by the fault of one or another that the flesh becomes apparent; but how do we behave ourselves in presence of the displayed faults of others? The indignation which broke out in the ten showed the pride of their own hearts, just as much as the two desiring the best place. Had unselfish love been at work, their ambition would assuredly have been a matter for sorrow and shame. I do not say for lack of faithfulness in resisting it; but I do say, that the indignation proved that there was a feeling of self, and not of Christ, strongly at work in their hearts. Our Lord, therefore, reads a rebuke to the whole, and shows them that it was but the spirit of a Gentile that animated them against the sons of Zebedee; the very reverse of all He, could not but look for in them, even as it opposed all that was in Himself. Intelligence of the kingdom leads the believer into. contentedness with being little now. The true greatness of the disciple lies in the power of being a servant of Christ morally, going down to the uttermost in the service of others. It is not energy that ensures this greatness in the Lord's estimate now, but contentedness to be a servant, yea, to be a slave in the lowest or least place. As for Himself, it was not merely that Christ did come to minister, or be a servant; He had that which He alone could have the title, as the love, to give His life a ransom for many.

From Mark 10:48 comes the last scene the Lord presenting Himself to Jerusalem, and that too, as we are all aware, from Jericho. We have His progress to Jerusalem, beginning with the cure of the blind man. I need not dwell on the details, nor on His entrance on the colt of the ass into the city as the King. Neither need I say more about the fig tree (one day cursed, the next day seen to be thoroughly withered up), nor the Lord's call to faith in God, and its effect in and on prayer. Nor need we enter particularly into the question of authority raised by the religious leaders.

The parable of the vineyard, with whichMark 12:1-44; Mark 12:1-44 opens, is very full on that which concerns the servants responsible to God. Then we hear of the rejected stone that was afterwards made the head of the corner. Again, we have the various classes of Jews coming before Him with their questions. Not that there are not important points in every one of these scenes that pass before our eyes; but the hour will not permit me to touch upon any of them at length. I therefore pass by advisedly these particulars. We have the Pharisees and the Herodians rebuked; we have the Sadducees refuted; we have the scribe manifesting what the character of the law is; and, indeed, in answer to his own question, the Lord shed the full light of God upon the law, but at the same time accompanied by a remarkable comment on the lawyer. "When Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God." It is a beautiful feature in our Lord's service this readiness to own whatever was according to truth, no matter where He found it. Then our Lord puts His own question, as to His own person, according to the Scripture, gives a brief warning as to the scribes, and marks in contrast the poor blessed widow, His own pattern of true devotedness and of real faith in this most spiritually destitute condition of the people of God on earth. How He passes completely by the wealth that merely gave what it felt not, to single out, and for ever consecrate, the practice of faith where it might be least expected! The widow that had but the two mites had cast in all her living into the treasury of God, and this at a time decrepit and selfish beyond all precedent. Little did that widow think that she had found even upon earth an eye to own, and a tongue to proclaim, what God could form for His own praise in the heart and by the hand of the poorest woman in Israel!

Then our Lord instructs the disciples in a prophecy strictly conformed to the character of Mark. This is the reason why here alone, where you have the service of the Lord, the power by which they could answer in times of difficulty is introduced into this discourse. Hence our Lord passes by all distinctive reference to the end of the age an expression which does not here occur. The fact is that, although it be the prophecy which in Matthew looks to the end of the age,, still the Spirit does not so specify here; and for the simple reason, that a prophecy which was forming them for their service accounts for what is left out and what is put in, as compared with Matthew. Another thing I may notice is, that in this prophecy alone He says, that not only the angels, but even the Son does not know that day (Mark 13:32). The reason of this peculiar, and at first sight perplexing, expression seems to me to be, that Christ so thoroughly takes the place of One who confines himself to what God gave to Him, of One so perfectly a minister not a master, in this point of view that, even in relation to the future, He knows and gives out to others only what God gives Him for the purpose. As God says nothing about the day and the hour, He knows no more. Remark also how characteristically here our Lord describes both Himself, and the workmen, and their work. There is no such dispensational description, as in Matthew's parable of the talents, but simply this: "The Son of man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch." The features of difference in Matthew are plain. There is far greater augustness. He who goes a long way provides as it were for the length of His absence. Here, no doubt, He goes; but He gives "authority to His servants." Who can fail to note the suitability for the purpose of Mark? Again, He gives "to every man his work." Why, may we not ask, are these expressions found here? Surely, because in Mark it is the very subject-matter of the gospel all through; for even in a prophecy the Lord would never abandon the great thought of service. Here it is not so much the question of giving gifts or goods as of work to be done. Authority is given to His servants. They wanted it. They do not take it without a title. It is doing His will, rather than trading with His gifts. We find this last most appropriately in Matthew; because the point in the earlier gospel was the peculiar chance to follow the Lord's leaving the earth, and the Jewish hopes of Messiah, for the new place He was going to take on ascending to heaven. There He is the giver of gifts a thing quite distinct in its character from the ordinary principle of Judaism; and the men trade with them, and the good and faithful enter finally into the joy of their Lord. Here it is simply the service of Christ, the true servant.

In Mark 14:1-72 come the profoundly interesting and instructive scenes of our Lord with the disciples, not now predicting, but vouchsafing the last pledge of His love. The chief priests and scribes plot in corruption and violence for His death; at Simon's house in Bethany a woman anoints His body to the burying, which discerns many hearts among the disciples, and draws out the Master's, who next is seen, not accepting an offering of affection, but giving the great and permanent token of His love the Lord's Supper. The state of Judas's heart appears in both cases conceiving his plan in the presence of the first, and going out to accomplish it from the presence of the last. Thence our Lord goes forth; not yet to suffer the wrath of God, but to enter into it in spirit before God. We have seen all through the gospel that such was His habit, to which I merely call attention now in passing. As the cross was of all the deepest work and suffering, so most assuredly the Lord did not enter upon Calvary without a previous Gethsemane. In its due season comes the trial before the high priest and Pilate.

The crucifixion of our Lord is in Mark 15:1-47, with the effect upon those that followed Him, and the grace that wrought in the woman men betraying their abject fear in the presence of death, but women strengthened, the weak truly made strong.

Finally, in Mark 16:1-20, we have the resurrection; but this, too, strictly in keeping with the character of the gospel. Accordingly, then we have the Lord risen, the angel giving the word to the women "Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter" a word found only in Mark. The reason is manifest. It is a mighty consideration for the soul. Peter, despising the word of the Lord really, though not intentionally; Peter, not receiving that word mixed with faith into his heart, but, on the contrary, trusting himself, was pushed into a difficulty where he could not stand, even before man or woman, because he had never borne the temptation upon his spirit before God. So it was then that Peter broke down shamefully. From the Lord's look he began to feel his conduct acutely; but while the process went on he needed to be confirmed, and our Lord therefore expressly named Peter in His message the only one who was named. It was an encouragement to the faint heart of His fallen servant; it was an acting of that same grace which had prayed for him even before he fell; it was the Lord effecting for him a thorough restoration of his soul, which mainly consists of the application of the word to the conscience, but also to the affections. Peter's was the last name, according to man, that deserved to be then named; but it was the one who needed most, and that was enough for the grace of Christ. Mark's gospel is ever that of the service of love.

On the cross and resurrection, as here presented, I need not speak now. There are peculiarities both of insertion and of omission, which illustrate the difference in scope of what is here given us from that which we find elsewhere. Thus we have the reviling of the very thieves crucified with Him, but not the conversion of one. And as in the seizure of Jesus we hear of a certain young man who fled naked when laid hold of by the lawless crowd that apprehended the Saviour, so before the crucifixion they compel in their wanton violence one Simon a Cyrenian to bear His cross. But God was not forgetful of that day's toil for Jesus, as Alexander and Rufus could testify at a later day. Not a word here of the earth quaking, either at the death of Christ, or when He rose; no graves are seen opened; no saints risen and appearing in the holy city. But of the women we hear who had ministered to Him living, and would have still ministered when dead, but that the resurrection cut it short, and brought in a better and enduring light, the Lord employing angelic ministry to chase away their fright by announcing that the crucified Jesus of Nazareth was risen. How admirably this is in keeping with our gospel need scarcely be enlarged on.

I am aware that men have tampered with the closing verses (Mark 16:9-20) ofMark 16:1-20; Mark 16:1-20, as they have sullied with their unholy doubts the beginning ofJohn 8:1-59; John 8:1-59. In speaking of John, it will be my happy task to defend that passage from the rude insults of men. Assured they are wrong, I care not who they may be nor what their excuses. God has given the amplest array of external vouchers; but there are reasons far weightier, internal grounds of conviction, which will be appreciated just in proportion to a person's understanding of God and His word. Impossible for man to coin a single thought, or even a word fit to pass. So it is in this scene.

I also admit that there are certain differences between this portion and the previous part of chap. 16. But, in my judgment, the Spirit purposely put them in a different light. Here, you will observe, it is a question of forming the servants according to that rising from the dead for which He had prepared them. Had the gospel terminated without this, we must have had a real gap, which ought to have been felt. The Lord had Himself, before His resurrection, indicated its important bearing. When the fact occurred, had there been no use made of it with the servants, and for the service, of Christ, there had been, indeed, a grievous lack, and this wonderful gospel of His ministry would have left off with as impotent a conclusion as we could possibly imagine. Chapter 16 would have closed with the silence of the women and its source, "for they were afraid." What conclusion less worthy of the servant Son of God! What must have been the impression left, if the doubts of some learned men had the slightest substance in them? Can any one, who knows the character of the Lord and of His ministry, conceive for an instant that we should be left with nothing but a message baulked through the alarm of women? Of course, I assume what is indeed the fact, that the outward evidence is enormously preponderant for the concluding verses. But, internally also, it seems to me impossible for one who compares the earlier close with the gospel's aim and character throughout, to accept such an ending after weighing that which is afforded by the verses from 9 to 20. Certainly these seem to me to furnish a most fitting conclusion to that which otherwise would be a picture of total and hopeless weakness in testimony. Again, the very freedom of the style, the use of words not elsewhere used, or so used by Mark, and the difficulties of some of the circumstances narrated, tell to my mind in favour of its genuineness; for a forger would have adhered to the letter, if he could not so easily catch the spirit of Mark.

I admit, of course, that there was a particular object in the earlier verses as they now stand, and that the providence of God wrought therein; but surely the ministry of Jesus has a higher end than such providential ways of God. On the other hand, if we receive the common conclusion of the gospel of Mark, how appropriate all is! Here we have a woman, and no ordinary woman, Mary Magdalene, out of whom Jesus, who was now dead and risen, had once cast seven devils; and who, therefore, so fit a witness of the resurrection-power of God's Son? The Lord had come to destroy the works of the devil; she knew this, even before His death and resurrection: who then, I ask, so suitable a herald of it as Mary of Magdala? There is a divine reason, and it harmonizes with this gospel. She had experimentally proved the blessed ministry of Jesus before, in delivering herself from Satan's power. She was now about to announce a still more glorious ministry; for Jesus had now by dying destroyed Satan's power in death. "She went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept." This was untimely sorrow on their part: what a thrill of joy that ought to have sent to their hearts. Alas! unbelief left them still sad and unbiassed. Then "he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them." Here was an important practical element to remember in the service of the Lord the dulness of men's hearts, their consequent opposition and resistance to the truth. Where the truth does not concern men much, they slight without fear, hatred, or opposition. Thus, the very resistance to the truth, while it shows in a certain sense, no doubt, man's unbelief, demonstrates at the same time that its importance leads to this resistance. Supposing you tell a man that a certain chief possesses a great estate in Tartary; he may think it all very true, at any rate he does not feel enough about the case to deny the allegation; but tell him that he himself has such an estate there: does he believe you? The moment something affects the person, there is interest enough to resist stoutly. It was of practical moment that the disciples should be instructed in the feelings of the heart, and learn the fact in their own experience. Here we have it so in the case of our Lord. He had told them plainly in His word; He had announced the resurrection over and over and over again; but how slow were these chosen servants of the Lord! what patient waiting upon others should there not be in the ministry of those with whom the Lord had dealt so graciously! There again we find, that if it be of moment, it is most especially so in the point of view of the Lord's ministry.

After this the Lord appears Himself to the eleven as they sat at meat, and "upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them Which had seen him after he was risen." Yet a most gracious Master He proves Himself one that knew well how to make good ministers out of bad ones; and so the Lord says to them, immediately after upbraiding them with their incredulity, "Go ye into all the world, and. preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." There is the importance not only of the truth, but of its being openly and formally confessed before God and man; for clearly baptism does symbolically proclaim the death and resurrection of Christ; that is the value of it. "He that believeth and is baptized." Do not you pretend that you have received Christ, and then shirk all the difficulties and dangers of the confession. Not so: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." There is not a word about baptism in this last case. A man might be baptized; but without faith, of course it would not save him. "He that believeth not shall be damned." Believing was the point. Nevertheless, if a man professed ever so much to believe, yet shrank from the publicity of owning Him in whom he believed, his profession of faith was good for nothing; it could not be accepted as real. Here was an important principle for the servant of Christ in dealing with cases.

Further, outward manifestations of power were to follow: "These signs shall follow them that believe: in my name shall they cast out devils." By-and-by the power of Satan is to be shaken thoroughly. This was only a testimony, but still how weighty it was! The Lord in this case does not say how long these signs were to last. When He says, "Teach [make disciples of] all nations [or the Gentiles], baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them all things whatsoever I have commanded you," He adds, "And, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world [or age]." That is, He does connect His continuance with their discipling, baptizing, and teaching all the Gentiles what He had enjoined. This work was thus to go on till the end of the age; but as for the signs ofMark 16:1-20; Mark 16:1-20, with marvellous wisdom He omits all mention of a period. He does not say how long these signs were to follow them that believe. All He said was, that these signs were to follow; and so they did. He did not promise that they were to be for five, or fifty, for a hundred, or five hundred years. He simply said they were to follow, and so the signs were given; and they followed not merely the apostles, but them that believe. They confirmed the word of believers wherever they were found. It was but a testimony, and I have not the slightest doubt, that as there was perfect wisdom in giving these signs to accompany the word, so also there was not less wisdom in cutting the gift short. I am assured that, in the present fallen state of Christendom, these outward signs, so far from being desirable, would be an injury. No doubt their cessation is a proof of our sin and low estate; but at the same time there was graciousness in His thus withholding these signs towards His people when their continuance threatened no small danger to them, and might have obscured His moral glory.

The grounds of this judgment need not be entered into now; it is enough to say that undoubtedly these signs were given. "They shall cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." Thus there was a blow struck at the prolific source of evil in the world; there was the expression of God's rich grace now to the world; there was the active witness of the beneficence of divine mercy in dealing with the miseries everywhere occurrent in the world. These are, I think, the characteristics of the service, but then there remains a striking part of the conclusion, which I venture to think none but Mark could have written. No doubt the Holy Ghost was the true author of all that Mark wrote; and certainly, the conclusion is one that suits this gospel, but no other. If you cut off these words, you have a gospel without a conclusion. Accepting these words as the words of God, you have, I repeat, a termination that harmonizes with a truly divine gospel; but not merely that here you have a divine conclusion for Mark's gospel, and for no other. There is no other gospel that this conclusion would suit but Mark's; for observe here what the Spirit of God finally gives us. He says, "After the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven." You might have thought, surely, that there was rest in heaven now that Christ's work on earth was done, and so perfectly done; more particularly as it is here added, ,and he sat on the light hand of God." If there is such a session of Christ spoken of in this place, the more it might be supposed that there was a present rest, now that all His work was over; but not so. As the gospel of Mark exhibits emphatically Jesus the workman of God, so even in the rest of glory He is the workman still. Therefore, it seems written here that,, while they went forth upon their mission, they were to take up the work which the Lord had left them to do. "They went forth and preached everywhere " for there is this character of largeness about Mark. "They went forth and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following." Thus Mark, and no one else, gives us the picture most thoroughly, the whole consistent up to the last. Would a forger have kept up the bold thought of "the Lord working with them," while every other word intimates that He was then at least quiescent?

Thus have we glanced over the gospel of Mark, and have seen that the first thing in it is the Lord ushered into His service by one who was called to an extraordinary work before Him, even John the Baptist. Now, at last, when He is set down at the right hand of God, we find it said that the Lord was working with them. To allow that verses 9 to the end are authentic scripture, but not Mark's own writing, seems to me the lamest supposition possible.

May He bless His own word, and give us here one more proof that, if there be any portion in which we find the divine hand more conspicuous than another, it is precisely where unbelief objects and rejects. I am not aware that in all the second gospel there is a section more characteristic of this evangelist than the very one that man's temerity has not feared to seize upon, endeavouring to root it from the soil where God planted it. But, beloved friends, these words are not of man. Every plant that the heavenly Father has not planted shall be rooted up. This shall never be rooted up, but abides for ever, let human learning, great or small, say what it will.