Believing What The Lord Says (Mark 7:24–30)

By Kenneth W. Yates

[Editor, Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society]

I. Introduction

In much theological writing and preaching today, faith is seen as a complicated matter. A synonym of faith is belief. How do we know whether we believe something? Specifically, how can a person know whether he believes what the Lord says?

In the complicated theological environment in which many find themselves, it is impossible to answer that question. When it comes to saving faith, for example, one author states that it involves three aspects: knowledge, assent, and trust. A person must believe certain things about Christ, and this must lead to belief in Christ. This can be called “trusting in Him.” But this is only the initial part of faith. For faith to occur, there must be “continuing trust and faithfulness.”[1] Certainly, a layman would read this and ask: “What does all that mean?”

The same question would be asked when one reads that faith is both passive and active. It is said to be both receptive and energetic. The “whole soul” is involved. This involves active obedience and commitment to what is believed.[2] A faith that does not produce works or a changed life is not faith.[3] One is never told what that looks like or how much of a change needs to take place before it can be said that faith exists.

All these declarations make faith or belief appear to be something only a person with a PhD in philosophy could discuss. Fortunately, many have stated what the average person knows intrinsically: A person has faith—he believes—when he is convinced that what he hears is true. He is persuaded that it is true. It is no more complicated than that.[4]

Paul states this simple fact in a direct manner. Theologians would do well to pay heed to his words in Rom 10:17: “So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” The “word of God” here is the gospel that both Christ and Paul preached.[5]

Regarding saving faith, a person has that faith the moment he believes that Jesus gives him eternal life that can never be lost. The person is convinced that what Jesus says about this issue is true (John 3:16; 5:24; 11:25–26, etc.). Every person who is spiritually saved—every person with eternal life—has, at some point in his life, been persuaded of the truth of Christ’s offer. This is the case even if the person stops believing it later.

But this definition of faith holds true regarding other things one believes. Faith is always being convinced that something is true. Christ spoke of many things in addition to how to receive eternal life. He spoke of rewards in the world to come, the need for His disciples to forgive and serve one another, the coming Great Tribulation, and that those who suffer for Him are blessed, to name a few. When a person is convinced that something Jesus taught is true, he has believed what Jesus said.

It is clear that a person can believe some things the Lord said, but not others. All believers have believed in Him for eternal life. Not all believers, however, believe Him when He says that He will reward His children in His kingdom and that some will be greater than others. It is common to hear Christians say, “I don’t believe that.”

Often, people speak of faith’s growing. They will comment that a person can have a little faith, or not enough faith. Usually, this means that the person with “little” faith believes something, but needs to believe it more. If they do not believe in rewards, for example, they are told they need to grow, or mature, in their faith. They might be told that their faith is small.

But this is incorrect. Such a person does not have little faith. In that particular area, he has no faith. He is not convinced that what the Lord said is true. He may be a believer and have eternal life, but he does not believe something else the Lord taught. He needs to believe something new, something in addition to what he already believes.

When Christians read the Scriptures, they “hear” messages from the Lord. The question is: “Do you believe what you hear?” The more things you believe, the greater your faith.

In the Gospel of Mark, a Syro-Phoenician woman is an illustration of this. She has great faith because she believes many things she has heard from the Lord.

II. A Contrast

Immediately before recording the Lord’s encounter with the Syro-Phoenician woman, Mark describes an incident in which Christ taught His disciples (7:17–23). Jesus had just been challenged by the Pharisees and scribes about eating food with unwashed hands. The religious leaders taught that such a practice defiled a person. They had elaborate rules that governed how a Jew who wanted to please God should clean his hands before eating.[6] In their view, eating with clean hands was a way to be clean before the Lord. Christ, however, taught that these outward circumstances cannot make one clean or unclean before God (vv 14–16).

We are told that Jesus taught these truths to the “multitudes.” There would have been both believers and unbelievers in this crowd. What Jesus told them would benefit both. An unbeliever who thought he could earn his eternal salvation through the performance of outward ritualistic acts would see that this was not possible. The believers in the crowd, although not part of the inner circle of the Twelve, would have a clearer understanding of what was required of them if they wanted to follow Christ in discipleship. In the case of both believers and unbelievers, the traditions of the elders were not the answer. These traditions cannot provide eternal life. But neither are they the way to please God after one has eternal life by faith alone.

The disciples were also listening to what the Lord was teaching. Except for Judas, these men were believers. They had believed that Jesus was the Christ; they had eternal life in Him. They had been persuaded that these things were true (John 1:41; Luke 10:20). Now, however, the Lord was teaching them new and different truths. It is clear that they did not believe what He was saying about these matters.

A. New Things To Believe (7:14–16)

The Lord was teaching things that were revolutionary to the people in the multitude. As will be seen, this included His inner group of disciples. In other words, believers were challenged by what He said. Would they believe what they heard from Him?

Jesus challenged the status quo and the conventional religious wisdom about defilement. He had done it as well on other occasions in the Gospel of Mark (1:40–45; 2:13–17, 18–22).[7] As Jewish men, the disciples had grown up in a culture that taught that washing their hands before eating was a commandment of God. The OT taught that priests were to wash their hands before serving Him in the tabernacle (Exod 30:18–20). Wouldn’t a direct application be that His people should wash their hands as they serve Him in their daily lives, as the religious leaders said? All their lives, the disciples had heard this taught in their synagogues and from respected rabbis. At the very least, it seemed that washing one’s hands before eating was wise. Wouldn’t doing a wise thing be pleasing to the Lord?

In addition, how could the Lord say that nothing going into a man from the outside defiled him (v 15)? The OT was full of prohibitions about what could and could not be eaten. Jesus seemed to be saying that He had a greater authority than what had been written in the OT.[8] Did the disciples believe what Jesus was saying? It was hard for them to believe. It is clear that at this point in the ministry of Christ, they did not.

B. Understand And Hear

If believing in something means being convinced that it is true, it stands to reason that before a person can believe something, he must understand what he hears. You cannot believe something if you don’t understand what is being said.

Jesus told the multitude, including His disciples, to “understand” (v 14). A leading Greek lexicon defines this word as “challenging one’s way of thinking or to intellectually grasp what is being said.”[9] The Lord wanted them to understand what He was saying. Nothing that goes into a man defiles him. It is what comes out of a person that defiles. A person who eats with washed hands, but does so with pride in his heart, is not pleasing to God because the sin of pride is present within him.

It also stands to reason that before one can understand something that is said, he needs to hear it. Three times, the Lord told the disciples “to hear” (v 14; twice in v 16).

It is obvious that they physically heard what the Lord was saying. So, the Lord obviously meant that He wanted something else. He wanted them to believe what He was saying. He wanted them to be convinced that it was true. It is also obvious that they did not believe. When they were alone with the Lord, they asked Him about this new teaching (v 17). The Lord rebuked them for not understanding (v 18). They had not comprehended what He was saying.[10] By definition, they had not believed.

The disciples, who believed that Jesus is the Christ, did not believe what He said about eating with unwashed hands and about defilement. There may have been many reasons why this was the case. They needed time to ponder what the Lord had said. It challenged their traditions. It did not make sense. Maybe some thought that Jesus was picking a fight with the Pharisees and that, in this case at least, maybe the Pharisees had a point.

Some Christians may think it strange that the disciples did not believe what the Lord was saying. It seems illogical that a person could believe in Him for eternal life but not believe what He said about food. But it is clear that the Lord did, indeed, say things the disciples did not believe. Later, when Jesus told them that He would die, Peter spoke for the whole group and informed the Lord that He was wrong (Mark 8:32). They did not believe it, even though they heard the Lord plainly say it.

The same thing is true today. Believers who have eternal life and have thus believed in Him for this wonderful truth do not believe other things that He has taught.

The disciples heard what the Lord said about eating and washing one’s hands, but they did not believe what He was saying. Mark then tells his readers of another person who heard about the Lord and what He had said. She was also one who heard new things that challenged her. But, unlike the disciples, she understood and believed. She became an example for all of us.

III. A Great Faith

One would expect the Lord’s disciples to be the ones most likely to demonstrate great faith. If anybody heard new things from Him and was immediately convinced that what He was saying was true, it should have been each one of them. They had already believed that He was the promised Christ and that they had eternal life in Him. They travelled with Him and personally saw His miracles. They had the privilege of hearing His teachings, followed up with private and personal explanations of those teachings (v 17). They had even cast out demons and healed the sick by the authority Christ gave them (Mark 6:13). It would be logical that they would believe whatever they heard from His lips. The more new truths He taught, the more truths they should have believed. That is what “having a great faith” would mean. As has been demonstrated, however, they were sometimes not convinced that what He said was true. Their faith was not great.

Mark then gives an example of somebody who did have great faith. She is not one the reader would expect to be described in this way. She is thus a stark contrast when compared to the disciples.

A. An Unlikely Location (7:24)

The Lord had instructed the multitudes in Galilee, in the presence of Jewish religious leaders (7:1). These Jews and their leaders had a long history of studying the OT Scriptures. Jesus had come to their nation to teach them. They were a privileged group (Rom 3:1–2).

Christ was now in a completely different location. The people here were not as privileged.

In the Gospel of Mark, the Lord left the borders of Galilee on a couple of occasions (4:35; 6:32–44). Mark records that after the confrontation with the scribes and Pharisees, Jesus completely withdrew from the nation––the only such complete withdrawal recorded by Mark––and went to the region of Tyre and Sidon. These were two prominent cities on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea. This was the only time the Lord went to a place that was completely occupied by Gentiles.[11]

This was an area northwest of Israel. It does not say that He went into the cities themselves. In fact, it seems that He did not do so, because He entered a house and did not want anyone to know that He was in the region. This implies that He stayed in the countryside where there were no large crowds. This area would have been about 35 miles from the Galilean town of Capernaum from which He probably travelled.

Evidently, Christ wanted time alone with His disciples. This is reminiscent of earlier occasions in Mark’s Gospel when, for the same reason, Jesus wanted to get away from the crowds (1:45; 3:7; 6:32). He wanted to remove Himself and the Twelve from the opposition of the religious leaders. This move by the Lord indicated that the nation was going to reject Him. Bad times were coming for the disciples. This retreat would have given them an opportunity to rest, eat, and for Him to teach them. This would prepare them for what they were going to face. As the previous section showed, the disciples were not always open to believing what He taught them. He needed this time to focus on the things they needed to understand (v 18).

In the OT, Tyre and Sidon are presented as the enemies of Israel. The historian Josephus, writing in the first century, said that the people of Tyre were the Jews’ bitterest enemies.[12]

This connects this section with the previous one. The people of this region were unclean in the eyes of the religious leaders. These leaders washed their hands when they went to the market because they might have contact with a Gentile. Jesus was entering a region where almost everyone with whom He would come into contact was unclean. According to the Jewish leaders, the Lord was definitely defiling Himself by making this trip. This would have been part of the tradition of the elders that Jesus had just rejected (vv 6–13). In addition, the Lord’s actions declared all food clean (v 19). He would now go to a woman who was considered unclean. He would talk to her about eating food.

It would be very strange indeed if the Lord were to find great faith in this location and with this woman. He had not found it in Galilee with those who had believed in Him and were part of the privileged multitude. He had not even found it with His intimate disciples.

B. A Woman Who Had Heard

Even though the Lord desired to be alone with His disciples at this time, His presence in the area could not be hidden. The woman in this account is an example of why that was the case. She had “heard about Him.” In the immediate context, this means that she had heard that He was in the area. But, as will be seen, it means more.

At first glance, the very idea that she had heard about Him seems strange. This was the first time Jesus had visited this area, so it would be natural to ask how anybody there knew anything about Him, or why it would be of any concern that He was staying in a nearby home.

The answer is found in Mark 3:8–11. Even though Jesus had never been in their region, the people there had come to Galilee. These visitors from Tyre and Sidon had seen and heard Him. They were well aware of His ability to heal the sick and cast out demons. Teaching was a major part of Christ’s ministry in Galilee, so they had heard Him teach. Those who returned to Tyre and Sidon after visiting Galilee would have spread the word of what they had seen and heard about the Man from Nazareth.

The verb heard is the same word used in vv 14 and 16. This also connects this woman with the previous episode. The disciples had “heard” things from the Lord, but had a hard time understanding (vv 17–18). How would this woman respond to what she had been told about Him? It is possible that she was one of those who had visited Galilee and had personally seen and heard Him. Then she heard that He was visiting the region where she lived. But even if she was one who had only heard these things from other eyewitnesses, she had “heard” nonetheless. The things she had heard from Him were hard to understand. They were spectacular teachings that challenged her background. These were ideas that were new to her. The disciples struggled when confronted by such ideas (v 18). She would respond differently and would be a rebuke to the disciples.

C. The Woman Recognized His Authority

If the disciples were questioning the Lord’s authority to declare all food clean, or regarding the need to wash one’s hands before eating, this woman seems to have had no such difficulty when confronted with His authority and majesty.

She had a problem, and she recognized that only Someone with great authority could help her. She had a daughter at home who had an unclean spirit. This also connects this woman with the previous section. Jesus dealt with the topic of unclean things, such as unclean food and eating with unwashed hands. This woman lived in an unclean area, and her loved one was possessed by an unclean being.

Her situation was dire. But having heard of Jesus’ power to cast out demons, she came to Him and fell at His feet. This is not an indication that she recognized that Jesus was God. Nobody in the Gospels understood this wonderful truth. But it is clear that she had a profound respect for Him and a willingness to submit to His power and authority. She was humble before the Lord.

The woman’s act of submission reminds the reader of the woman with the issue of blood in Mark 5:33 and of Jairus in 5:22.[13] Both fell at the feet of Jesus, relying on Him for a healing miracle. Those two individuals were seen as people of faith.[14] This woman is, as well. She believes what she has heard about the Lord. She is convinced that it is true. In the case of the woman with the issue of blood and Jairus, they wanted a touch by the Lord. This woman will be different.

Mark wants to stress that this woman was not a Jew. She was a Greek. This does not mean that she was born in Greece, but that she was characterized as a woman influenced by Greek culture. She was a Gentile, which is also brought out by the comment that she was a Syro-Phoenician by birth. This means that she was from the area of Syria and Phoenicia on the pagan coast of the Mediterranean Sea.

If the Lord’s teachings about food and washing one’s hands were new to the disciples, one can only imagine how new to this woman were the things she had heard about Jesus. She had grown up in a pagan country and still lived there. She had heard that God had sent to her people’s enemy nation a Jewish Man with the power and authority to heal her daughter. This Man would have denounced the idols that she and the people of her country looked to for help. Her neighbors would have told her to consult these false gods in order to have the demon removed from her daughter. Jesus’ teachings certainly challenged what she had been taught. But it is clear that she believed what He had said. She believed He had authority and power that the pagan idols worshipped in Tyre and Sidon did not.

Her estimation of Christ’s authority and power is seen in her persistence. Since Jesus did not want people to know He was in the area, the woman had to seek Him out. She heard that He was in the house and came to Him. She “kept asking” that He would cast the demon out of her daughter. The word kept is in the imperfect tense; she repeatedly made the request of the Lord. The implication is that the Lord was not eager to help her, and that she exhibited perseverance in attempting to persuade Him to grant her request. She knew she was a Gentile and that He had come to the Jewish people. Her humility is exhibited here in the sense that she kept coming to Him for help, all the while realizing that He was not obligated to give it. She could only rely on His mercy and grace and had no right to demand action from Him.

D. She Was Humble Before Him

Hand in hand with her belief in His authority, this woman was humble before the Lord. The words Christ spoke to the woman seem cruel to modern readers. They are not. But they do reveal how the woman perceived herself before the Jewish Christ.

If the woman’s persistent request that Jesus heal her daughter showed that she recognized that she could not make any demands upon Him, the Lord’s initial response to her requests would seem to support that idea. He appeared reluctant to help her. He told her that it is necessary for the children to be filled first. With the emphasis on this woman’s being a Gentile, it is clear that the Jews are the “children.” Since she is not a Jew, she is not a child. The word for filled is the same verb used in 6:42, where––with the feeding of the 5000––Jesus fed His sheep. Jesus had come to minister to the Jews and to meet their needs.

He was their Shepherd and had not come for the Gentiles.[15] He had come to offer the kingdom of God to the Nation of Israel.

In this context, it is probable that Jesus had a particular group of Jews in mind. The Lord was in the house with the Twelve. He was wanting to feed them. They had much to learn, and even though they were slow to believe what He was telling them, they were His priority. He seemed to be saying that He did not have time for the woman. Her request was interfering with His ministry. It was not appropriate for the Shepherd to leave His sheep to feed one who was not part of His flock.

There was, however, a glimmer of hope for this woman. Jesus said He should feed the children “first.” In the parallel passage in Matt 15:26, the word first does not occur. In Mark’s account the word might indicate that after the children are fed, this woman and her daughter can be as well.

If the woman found comfort in this hint of help, the Lord’s next words could have put a damper on any enthusiasm she may have had. He said that it would not be good for Him to give the children’s bread to the dogs. These words seem especially harsh coming from the lips of the Lord. They seem to reflect the views of the religious leaders in the previous section. Those leaders would have seen this Gentile woman as being unclean and vastly inferior to the Jews, like a dog compared to a child. This comment by the Lord deserves our attention.

The word bread plays a vital role in this section of Mark. After Jesus fed the 5000 with bread (6:36–44), the religious leaders claimed that the disciples were unclean because they ate their bread with unclean hands (7:2, 5). In her conversation with the Lord, this woman wanted to be ministered to by the “bread” that Jesus had. She would have been unclean in the eyes of the Jews, and certainly not “clean” enough to eat the bread of the Jewish Christ. But she was asking for that bread. Jesus seems to be saying that the bread that He had was not for her, at least not at that time.

The word for dog is an interesting one. The word little does not occur in the Greek, but is in the translation because of an ending on the word dog. With this ending, we would say that the word refers to a house dog or pet. There was another word that would be used for a wild dog on the street.[16] Jesus was telling her that because she was a Gentile, she did not have the status of a child, but of a house pet. It is not a statement of her worth, but of practice in a home. People do not take food from the plate of a child and give it to the family pet. Because Jesus was feeding the disciples at this time, it was not appropriate for Him to meet her needs. It was not a question of worth, but of priority.

The entire account shows that the Lord was not being cruel to the woman. He was obviously testing her persistence. He also wanted to see what she believed. She responded well.

The woman took up the familial illustration that Jesus used. She pointed out that it is not necessary that the children eat first and the pet dog later. Neither is it necessary to deprive the children of their food by taking it and giving it to the dog. In the home, that is not how it works.

The woman answered Jesus by calling Him “Lord.” This is the only place in the Gospel of Mark where a person calls Jesus by that title. As mentioned above, it is highly doubtful that she recognized His deity. The term can simply be one of respect. This is a case where somebody says something that has a deeper meaning than they realize. This title and her falling at His feet indicate the esteem that she had for Him.

She pointed out that she could eat at the same time as the children. That is the way it is done, after all, alluding to His illustration. The pet dogs in a family lie under the table and eat the crumbs that the children drop. The children are not deprived in any way by the dogs’ sharing in the food at the same time.

In Jesus’ illustration, she was a pet dog. Her enemies were the children. The illustration came from the lips of Jesus of Nazareth. She was not offended, and acknowledged that the One who spoke those words spoke the truth.

One writer makes some interesting observations about this woman that add to the picture of her humility before the Lord. Tyre was a wealthy city, with certain wealthy citizens. The description of her as “Greek” probably refers to her cultural upbringing and indicates that she was one of the people in the upper class. The word for bed probably points to a more expensive kind of bedding. She lived in a region that despised the Jews, but she humbled herself before Christ, a Galilean peasant. If this is true, it is striking that she accepted the fact that the Jewish fishermen in the house with the Lord rightfully took precedence over her.[17]

E. What She Believed

In the Lord’s illustration using children and dogs, the “crumbs” are part of the bread that the children eat. Jesus was feeding the Jews, especially His disciples, this bread. This included His teaching and healing ministries. They were a blessed people. But she could share in that blessing. Her daughter could benefit from this bread. Her faith in His power and authority was so great that she believed that if she received only the residue of what He had, it would be enough for her daughter. In other words, she believed what many others did not. He was so great that even those for whom He did not come could experience great miracles with His “leftovers.”

She also believed that she did not need to be a priority. Anything He did for her would not impact the Jews. Just as the children at a table did not miss the crumbs the dogs ate, her receiving His blessing would not impact the disciples in any way. That is how great she believed Him to be. As will be seen, the greatness of her faith was also seen in her belief that He did not have to go to her home or touch her daughter in order for the girl to be healed.

Jesus was clearly impressed by this woman’s faith. Because of what she said to Him, He told her that she should go. The demon had been cast out of her daughter. The verb cast out is in the perfect tense. This means that the healing had already taken place.

This woman provides a model of faith to the reader of Mark. The verb go that Jesus uses with the woman is also used after the healing of the paralyzed man in 2:11, the demoniac in 5:19, and the woman with the issue of blood in 5:34. All these people are pictures of believers in the Gospel of Mark.[18]

Based upon these facts, it appears almost a certainty that Mark is presenting this woman as one who has believed that Jesus is the Messiah of the Jews. It is not unreasonable to conclude that she had not only heard of His ability to heal, but that she had also heard about His teachings. She believed that the crumbs of the Jewish Christ were enough to heal her daughter. Matthew makes this point explicitly. He records that the woman called Jesus by the Messianic title, “Son of David” (Matt 15:22). By recognizing that Jesus was the promised King of Israel, she believed something that most of the Jews and religious leaders in Israel did not.[19] Her faith, then, connects this account with the previous one. She is contrasted with the leaders who do not believe.[20]

The magnitude of her faith is also brought out in Matthew. Jesus speaks of this woman’s “great” faith (Matt 15:28). There are only two people in the Gospels whom Jesus says have great faith. They are the Gentile centurion (Matt 8:10) and this Gentile woman.

If the centurion in Matthew 8 is a picture of a believer, this woman is as well.[21] Both are Gentiles. Both come to the Lord so that somebody they love will be healed. Both are commended for their great faith and are contrasted with the faith that the Lord does not find in Israel. It would seem inconceivable that these two were unbelievers and that the Lord did not address their need for eternal life.[22]

The woman’s faith is also seen in the fact that this is the only miracle in Mark that is done over a distance (the same is true for the Gentile centurion in Matthew 8). The Lord simply told her that her daughter was healed. That was good enough for her. Many others believed that Jesus could heal and cast out demons. This woman believed that, and something else as well as. She believed that distance was no obstacle to His ability. Not surprisingly, the woman went to her house and found that it was just as the Lord had said.

IV. Conclusion

Mark tells us the Syro-Phoenician woman “had heard about” Jesus. In the immediate context, this means that she heard He had come to the region in which she lived. But it is also evident that she had heard about Him in the sense of who He is and what He could do.

What had she heard, and how did she hear it? Maybe she was one of the visitors from Tyre and Sidon who had heard Him teach and seen Him heal (Mark 3:8). Maybe she had been told by those who had.

Maybe she had heard some of these things about Him in the synagogue in either Tyre or Sidon.

But the account in Mark’s Gospel leaves no doubt about what she heard. Jesus was the Jewish Christ. If she was a believer, which seems evident, she heard that this Christ would establish His kingdom and that His throne would last forever (2 Sam 7:12–16).[23] She heard that Jesus could heal. He was obviously merciful.

Her actions and words when she came to Him reflect that she was convinced that all these things were true. She believed all of them. She called Him by a title of profound respect. She humbled herself before Him in various ways. She believed in His authority.

She had undoubtedly heard that Gentiles will be a part of His kingdom. His mercy will extend to her. She believed it, even if she were not His priority.

Perhaps she had heard how the servant of a Gentile centurion was healed over a distance (Matt 8:8–13). If she had not heard about that particular case, she still believed that He could do it. This faith sprang from what she had already become convinced of: The long-awaited King of the Jews, who will establish an eternal kingdom and who can heal all manner of disease, was not limited by space.

This woman is a model of faith. She is a stinging rebuke to the disciples. She believed many different truths about Jesus. These truths should have seemed incredulous to someone in her situation, but she was convinced that all of them were true.

Like the disciples, she believed that Jesus is the Christ. Like them, she knew she had eternal life. She and the disciples were the same in this regard. But they were different in another. The disciples were not convinced that eating with unwashed hands would not defile them, even after the Lord told them it would not. This woman, by contrast, was convinced that Jesus would be merciful to her, despite her national origin. He is so great that the even the crumbs of His power could do things that nobody else–even supposed gods–could. She was convinced that at His word a demon would be cast out of her daughter even though the girl was not present. That is why she had “great” faith.

Mark wants the reader of his Gospel to see her as an example. Every believer is challenged by certain things the Lord says in His Word. The message is clear. As believers we should believe what the Lord says, even if it challenges our traditions and seems difficult to believe. When reading Mark 7, our prayer should be that we will be like the Syro-Phoenician woman.

Notes

1. Brenda B. Colijn, “Saving Faith,” in Lexham Survey of Theology, ed. Mark Ward et al. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2018), 345.
2. John F. MacArthur, The Gospel According to Jesus: What Does Jesus Mean When He says, “Follow Me”? (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1988), 172; John H. Gerstner, Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids, MI: Soli Deo Gloria Pub., 2000), 225–26; William Burt Pope, A Compendium of Christian Theology: Being Analytical Outlines of a Course of Theological Study, Biblical, Dogmatic, Historical, vol. 2 (London: Beveridge and Co., 1879), 381–382.
3. Warren W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary, vol. 2 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1996), 354.
4. Zane C. Hodges, A Free Grace Primer (Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2018) 406; Joseph C. Dillow, The Reign of the Servant Kings (Hayesville, NC: Schoettle Publishing, 2006), 271. Hodges refers to the excellent discussion about the meaning of faith in Gordon H. Clark, Faith and Saving Faith (Jefferson, MD: The Trinity Foundation, 1983).
5. Zane C. Hodges, Romans: Deliverance from Wrath (Corinth, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2013), 309–10. Hodges argues that the word gospel in the book of Romans includes more than how a person receives eternal life. This verse, Rom 10:17, would then be exhorting people to believe more than one thing.
6. John Murray, “Christian Baptism,” Westminster Theological Journal 13, no. 2 (1950): 118.
7. James R. Edwards, “The Authority of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37, no. 2 (1994): 225.
8. Brian J. Vickers, “Mark’s Good News of the Kingdom of God,” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology Volume 8, no. 3 (2004): 28.
9. William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 972.
10. Ibid., 674. The Lord uses two different words. The disciples do not understand, which is directly connected with the verb in verse 14. They do not “perceive,” which means they have not comprehended what He means.
11. That does not mean that there weren’t Jews in the region, since Jews were scattered throughout the Roman Empire. But they would have been a minority. When Jesus went to the area of Gadara in chapter five, there would have been more of a mixture of Jews and Gentiles.
12. Josephus, Against Apion 1.70.
13. The exact same verb is used in 5:33, and a cognate (similar) verb is used in 5:22.
14. Barry K. Mershon, Jr., “Mark, in The Grace New Testament Commentary, ed. Robert N. Wilkin (Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2019), 86; William L. Lane, The Gospel according to Mark (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974), 194.
15. James A. Brooks, Mark, vol. 23, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1991), 109.
16. BDAG, 575.
17. Keldie Paroschi, “Following the Crumbs: Revisiting the Authenticity of Jesus’s Encounter with the Syrophoenician Woman,” JETS 64 (2021): 518–20.
18. The Lord forgives the sins of the paralyzed man. The former demoniac becomes an evangelist for the Lord. See, Lane, Mark, 187–88.
19. Hal M. Haller Jr., “The Gospel according to Matthew,” in The Grace New Testament Commentary, ed. Robert N. Wilkin (Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2019), 42.
20. Louis A. Barbieri Jr., “Matthew,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck, vol. 2 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 56.
21. Dillow, Reign, 349.
22. Theodore W. Jennings Jr. and Tat-Siong Benny Liew, “Mistaken Identities but Model Faith: Rereading the Centurion, the Chap, and the Christ in Matthew 8:5–13, ” Journal of Biblical Literature 123 (2004): 492.
23. John C. Hutchison, “Women, Gentiles, and the Messianic Mission in Matthew’s Genealogy,” Bibliotheca Sacra 158 (2001): 161.

Who Are Those On The “Outside”? (Mark 4:11)

By Kenneth W. Yates

[Editor, Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society]

I. Introduction

In Mark 4, Jesus begins to speak in parables to the Jews who come to hear Him. When the disciples ask Him why He has begun this practice, the Lord says that those on the “outside” will hear everything in parables, but that He will explain the meaning of this new form of teaching to His disciples (vv 10–11).

The immediate question that arises here is the identity of those on the “outside.” At first glance, the answer appears simple. However, a closer look at the immediate context, as well as at the Gospel of Mark as a whole, indicates that the group is larger than one might initially expect.

II. The Immediate Context

As indicated by Christ’s new method of teaching, Mark 4 is a turning point in the Gospel. At the end of Mark 3, religious leaders from Jerusalem have come to Galilee because they have heard about the Lord’s miracles and His authoritative teaching (1:22). Up to this point, Mark has not mentioned Jesus ministering in the capital city. However, we know from the Gospel of John that He had been there. A major event in Jerusalem at the beginning of the Lord’s ministry was His cleansing the temple (John 2:13).[1] This would help explain the scribes’ hostile attitude towards Him.[2] Without a doubt, news of Jesus’ ministry, power, and teaching in Galilee has also reached the capital city. In light of their view of Jesus, the scribes want to quell any enthusiasm the people in Galilee have towards Jesus’ words and actions. These leaders are well-aware that Jesus has followers. At least some of these people believe that He is the Messiah, which poses a threat to the religious leaders’ positions of power and influence within the nation.

These leaders conclude that Jesus is able to perform supernatural feats because He is empowered by Satan (3:22). If that is the case, He can’t be the Messiah. That would mean, of course, that His teachings are not to be believed.

This is not the first time in the Gospel that such leaders have opposed Christ. Others have accused Him of blasphemy (2:7). Another group of leaders points out that Jesus does not live by the religious laws handed down by the experts (2:24). How could the Messiah not adhere to these regulations? Still another group of these powerful men decides He must be killed (3:6).

The accusation that Jesus has been sent by Satan is an ominous sign. Eventually, these leaders will be the driving force in putting Jesus to death. Jesus came to offer the kingdom of God to that generation of Jews, with Himself as the long-awaited Christ. These men, acting as the official religious representatives of the nation, show that this offer, as well as Christ Himself, will be rejected.

Up to this point, Jesus has been speaking plainly in the synagogues of Galilee. Now, because of their willful blindness to the plain truths He has spoken, He will speak in parables. It is a form of judgment. But it is more. It is an act of grace. God holds people accountable for what they understand. When Jesus begins to speak in parables, those who do not believe will not understand what is being taught and will not be held responsible for the truths contained in the parables.

III. Those On The “Outside” In Mark 3

It is noteworthy that in Mark 3 Jesus mentions that there are those who are on the “outside” immediately after the religious leaders accuse Him of doing Satan’s work. The Lord is in a home (3:20), with a large group of disciples around Him. He is notified that His natural family, consisting of His mother, brothers, and sisters, is “outside,” wanting to speak with Him (3:31–32). It is the same word used a few verses later (4:11) when He refers to speaking in parables to those who are “outside.”In Mark 3:31–32, those who are “outside” are contrasted with those who are inside the house with the Lord. He refers to those who are inside as His true «brother, sister, and mother” (3:35).

It seems that Mark is making a connection between those who are inside the house with the Lord and those to whom He will explain the meaning of His parables. All others are on the “outside.”

There can be no doubt that the religious leaders who reject the Lord in Mark 3 are a part of the group that is “outside.” In very basic terms, they represent unbelievers. Those who do not believe that Jesus is the Christ are not inside with Him. The scribes who blaspheme the Spirit in 3:21 are not in the house, sitting as disciples at the feet of the Lord. Jesus will certainly not explain the meanings of the parables to them, either.

But in 4:11, Mark makes the connection between these unbelievers and those on the “outside” in another way. When the scribes say that Jesus is empowered by Satan, Mark says that He spoke to them in parables (3:23).[3] This is the first time that word is used in the Gospel of Mark. Jesus asks them, in a parable, how it would be possible that Satan would cast out Satan. The next time the word appears is in 4:2, when Jesus begins to teach the people in parables.

But those on the “outside” now include more than the religious scribes.

A. Jesus’ Natural Family Is On The “Outside”

While it is certainly correct to conclude that, because of their unbelief, the scribes are those who are “outside” in Mark 3, the reader is specifically told that Jesus’ family is, as well. In fact, Mark wants to make a connection between the scribes and Christ’s family. To do so, he uses a literary device.

This section of Mark (3:20–35) is an example of a literary device called a “sandwich.”[4] With this device, Mark begins a section with a story, but then interrupts the account. He then relates another story that is connected in some way to the first. Afterwards, he concludes the first story. Examples of this technique are seen in 5:21–43; 6:7–31; 11:12–26; 14:1–11, and 14:53–72.[5]

Here, the first story begins in 3:20–21, where Jesus’ family thinks He is crazy and comes to get Him. In 3:22–30, the religious leaders strongly oppose Him and claim He is possessed by Satan. Then, in 3:31–35, Mark concludes the story concerning Jesus’ family. It is clear that Mark wants to connect the two accounts. In verse 21 he reports what the family said about Jesus, and then, in verses 22 and 30, what the religious leaders said about Him.

What ties these two groups together is their opposition to the Lord. Both His family and the religious leaders oppose Him, although the degree of opposition is very different. They express their opposition by what they say about Him. Both groups are in agreement that He is not in His right mind. In the case of His family, Mark states that the family thought the Lord had lost His senses. In the case of the scribes, a man possessed by Satan would not have his proper mental faculties either.

The Lord’s family arrives in Capernaum from Nazareth. We are told that His brothers and His mother come to the home in which Jesus is teaching. There is a large crowd around the Lord. Evidently, since they stand outside and call for Him, His family wants to speak to Him privately. The picture is that they want Christ to come outside so that a conversation can take place between Him and His relatives. This could be due to the difficulty of getting into the house, the large number of people, or their simply wanting to spare Him any public embarrassment. They do not want others to hear them tell Him that they think He needs help with His mental acuity. It is their desire to meet with Him in private and keep it within the family.

If they do not want to embarrass Him, then there is a marked difference between the attitudes of the religious leaders and the family. While both the religious leaders and the family think Jesus is crazy, the leaders want to discredit Him in the eyes of the people. They want to embarrass Him. They keep telling people what they think about Him.[6] The family does not do that.

Still, there is an element of sadness in this account. The Lord’s family is on the “outside” of the house, while the disciples are inside. The disciples are close to Him. His family is not. The scribes are also not on the inside with the Lord. Christ’s family is associated with the scribes in this detail, as the “sandwich” indicates. France states that this account is the strongest negative reaction that Jesus’ family has about Him in any of the Gospels.[7]

Kuruvilla suggests that Mark is emphasizing just how much “outside” the Lord’s family is. This would include Mary. The account says that the family came “out” of their hometown to seize Him (3:21). The reason they did so is because He was “out” of His mind. In both cases, the preposition in Greek is the same as the adverb used to say they were standing “outside” (3:31). It is also the same word used in 4:11. The family is not with Him.[8]

The reader of Mark may see a contrast here between the family of Christ and the paralyzed man in Mark 2:1–12. That man, and his friends who carried him, were also confronted by a situation in which Jesus was in a crowded house and it was not possible to be close to Him. They, however, went to extraordinary lengths to be near Him.[9] The Lord’s relatives did not, since they thought He had lost His senses. Whatever He was teaching was not deemed important enough for them to make that effort.

B. The Disciples Are Inside

In contrast to the scribes and the Lord’s family, the disciples are inside with Him. This group would have included not only the Twelve, but also others who were following Christ and wanted to hear more of His teaching. Mark describes them as a multitude.

The picture here is one of intimacy with the Lord. These disciples are not only in the house with the Lord, they are sitting around Him (3:34). They are at His feet. Once again, Mark may want the reader to think of the paralyzed man in the crowded home in Mark 2. This man was placed at the feet of the Lord as well, and the Lord looked with favor upon his efforts to be there.[10]

It is also clear that these disciples are there to spend time with the Lord and to be taught by Him. That was only possible by being inside the house. In Mark 2:2, Mark directly states that those inside the crowded house were there for that purpose. They had heard the Lord teach and wanted to hear more.

The Lord makes a distinction between His natural family on the “outside” and these disciples on the inside. Word reaches the people inside that Jesus’ family is wanting to speak to Him and wants Him to come outside. In first-century Jewish life the family was important, so it was natural that the disciples would tell the Lord that His family wanted to speak with Him. Surely, it was expected that He would go out to meet them. The Majority Text adds that His sisters, as well, were outside with His brothers and mother (v 32).[11] Little is known about Jesus’ sisters.

The Lord’s response would have certainly shocked His disciples. He redefines what it means to be His mother or His brothers. Those who were closest to a person consisted of his or her biological family. But the Lord changes this way of thinking.

Mark states that Jesus looked around at the disciples who were sitting about Him. The Greek phrase “who (were) about Him” (v 34) is practically identical to the way His natural family is described in verse 21.[12] Jesus proclaims that the disciples at His feet––those inside and close to Him, listening to His teaching––are those who are closest to Him. They are His mother and brothers.

The Lord’s natural family was on the “outside.” To determine the identity of people on the “outside,” His family’s spiritual condition needs to be determined.

C. Were Jesus’ Family Members Spiritually Saved?

The Gospel of John tells us that the Lord’s brothers did not believe in Him during His lifetime.[13] It is not surprising that they are standing on the outside and are associated with the unbelieving scribes.

We know nothing about the spiritual condition of Jesus’ sisters. It would be tempting to conclude that they were like their brothers in this regard since they are on the outside, as well, and think that Jesus has lost His senses. However, that is not a necessary conclusion, as their mother’s presence indicates.

Mary, the mother of the Lord, shows that a believer can be on the “outside” and think the Lord is acting irrationally. She certainly believed that He was the Christ (Luke 1:32–55). However, in Mark 3 she was concerned about the way He was conducting Himself. He was not eating properly; she would have worried about His health and concluded that the crowds of people were taking advantage of Him (3:20–21). She probably thought He was being too fanatical in His actions and that He should, instead, be more reasonable. Maternal instincts would have compelled her to take Him away for a period of rest, at the very least.

It must also be remembered that Jesus was the eldest son of the family. Since Joseph is not mentioned in this account (v 32), most assume that he has died. In that case, Jesus was responsible for caring for His widowed mother and younger siblings.[14] Perhaps the family, including Mary, saw Him as shunning His responsibilities by His actions. It is probable that the family did not think Jesus was One who would voluntarily act in this manner. His busy schedule, lack of food, and lack of sleep had negatively changed His personality. For His own good, they needed to rescue Him.

Mary is a believer who thinks she knows better than her Son how He should be conducting Himself. She is more worried about His physical welfare than about hearing Him teach. In fact, she thinks He should stop teaching and come home for a while.

Whether the Lord’s sisters are believers or not, the truth remains. In the context of Mark 3, a believer can be on the “outside.”[15] Since it is not possible for a believer to lose eternal life, being on the “outside” here is not the same as being an unbeliever.

This raises the question as to what Jesus means by the phrase, “whoever does the will of God” (v 35). Those on the inside, sitting at His feet, are those doing the will of God.

D. The Will Of God

In John 6:40, Jesus says that everyone who believes in Him for eternal life has done the will of the Father. John, the only book in the NT written to unbelievers, tells the unbelieving reader that this is the will of God for him. No works are involved, simply faith.

If we take the phrase to have the same meaning in Mark 3:35, Jesus is saying that those who believe in Him for eternal life are His real family. All believers are on the inside.

The examples of Mary and possibly the Lord’s sisters would cause us to question that interpretation. The Gospel of Mark was not written to unbelievers. It was written to those who already have eternal life.[16] It is at least a possibility that the mention here of those who do the will of God is to be understood as a statement directed towards believers.

Luke’s parallel account of Mark 3:35 bears this out. There, Jesus defines what the will of God is. It is hearing the word of God and doing it (Luke 8:21). There is a way in which doing the will of God involves doing works. This is entirely appropriate if one is addressing believers.[17]

For believers, then, doing the will of God requires obeying Him. The disciples at Jesus’ feet were doing just that. They were listening to Him and paying attention to what He was teaching. That is what He was telling those who had believed in Him to do. Through this teaching, He was also telling them what would be required of them in order to be His disciples. Unlike Mary, these believers did not think He was out of His mind.

Here, being a brother, sister, or mother of the Lord is not the same as being a believer. When we believe in Jesus for eternal life, we become a child of God (John 1:12; 1 John 3:1). The relationships spoken of in Mark 3 are different. A child is one who is born into a family. Being a sister, brother, or mother of the Lord speaks of close familial intimacy. Those who are closest to the Lord are those believers who walk in obedience to what He teaches. Those believers at Jesus’ feet—those who were inside—were doing that. Mary was not.

Not all believers, then, do the will of God in the sense that Jesus means here. Not all believers listen to and obey the teachings of Christ. In the case of Mary, and perhaps some of His sisters, the Lord is not saying that they are not believers. He is saying that the believers sitting at His feet, learning from Him in order to do what He teaches, are closer to Him than any member of His natural family. This is true even if some of those family members believe He is the Christ.

Obviously, the Lord is not teaching that one’s physical family is not important. Jesus loved and cared for His mother until the end of His life (John 19:27). Instead, He is teaching about the radical nature of discipleship. There is a difference between being a disciple and being a believer. A disciple is a believer who obeys what the Lord teaches. Receiving eternal life is free. Being a disciple is costly. For the disciple, Jesus is more important than his family relationships. Not all believers have this point of view. Not all believers are disciples.[18]

At this point in the Gospel of Mark, there is a shift. Jesus has gone to the nation of Israel to offer it the kingdom of God. The religious leaders from Jerusalem, who are representatives of the nation, have made their decision concerning Him and have rejected Him. The handwriting is on the wall. Things are going to change, and the Lord begins to teach about that change. People are going to respond in different ways. This is true even among believers. Like Mary and the disciples in the house, different believers are going to respond differently to what the Lord has to say. As has already been seen, this impacts who is inside with the Lord.

IV. Four Responses To The Lord’s Teachings

When the Lord begins teaching in parables, He uses a well-known farming practice in everyday Israel to illustrate how people will respond to His teachings now that the nation will reject Him. He does this through the Parable of the Four Soils in Mark 4:1–9. The interpretation is given in vv 13–20.

In this parable, a farmer sows his field with seed for a crop. The seed falls upon four kinds of soil. The seed that the Sower sows is the word of God concerning the coming kingdom. But, as this parable makes clear, the message involves much more than how a person is able to enter into the kingdom. The word about the kingdom also involves how to be great in that kingdom—how to be fruitful and have a great harvest in the reign of Christ.

Jesus is certainly the One who sows this word. But those who sow would also include any disciple who proclaims the same message that the Lord preached.

The first soil, the hardened path, is the only type of soil in which there is no life. This represents people who will hear the word about the coming kingdom but will not believe it. In the parable, the birds who eat up the seed are seen as agents of Satan. The message was heard by the preaching of the word, but Satan took the seed away.

While Mark’s account is clear enough, the parallel passage in Luke explicitly states the meaning: Satan snatches the word from the hearts of these people with the result that they do not believe and thus are not saved (Luke 8:12). Entrance into the kingdom of God requires that one believe in Jesus for eternal life. These people do not.

It is clear that the four soils represent the hearts of the people who hear the word about the coming kingdom of God. The word is proclaimed, and the issue is: What kind of heart will each person who hears the message have? Regarding the first soil, the religious leaders are the clear example. Their hearts are hardened to what Jesus was doing and saying. They do not believe in Jesus as the Christ and even conclude that He is possessed by Satan (3:22). There is irony here, of course. They had accused Jesus of doing the work of Satan. But in their unbelief towards Christ, Satan had accomplished a work in them. The mention of Satan here (v 15) connects the first soil in the parable with the scribes in chapter three.

A major mistake that is made in interpreting this parable is failing to recognize that the first soil, the hardened path, is the only soil that does not bring forth life. It is the only soil that represents an unbeliever.[19] The issue with the rest of the soils is not whether the seed produces life, because seed always produces life when it germinates, regardless of the soil. The issue is the kind of fruit that will be produced by that life.

The word of the kingdom includes a call to fruitfulness. The Sower does not just desire people to believe in Him and gain everlasting life; He also wants those who believe to produce much fruit and have a great harvest in the kingdom of God. To produce this fruit, the disciple must continue to follow Jesus and take heed to His words. That is why Jesus tells the disciples to “listen” (vv 3, 9). That is the only way to bear fruit. They need to be on the inside, listening to Him teach.

The last three soils represent believers, and thus indicate that there are different kinds of believers.

The second soil, the rocky soil, pictures believers who fall away from the Lord (“they stumble,” v 17, and “it withered away,” v 6) because of persecution or difficult times (v 18).

The third soil, the thorny soil, is an illustration of those believers who do not fall away, but who “are unfruitful” (v19) because of various allurements of the world. In Luke 8:14, the Lord says this soil does not bear fruit to “maturity.” There is probably a difference between the second and third soils. The second soil is a believer who gives up. The third soil is one who continues in the faith but is a poor example of a disciple. If that is the case, once again the reader sees there is a difference between believers. They “listen” to what the Lord says in different degrees.

The fourth soil, the good ground, represents those believers who obey the things the Lord has taught. While all those represented by the last three soils will be in the kingdom, only the believers described by the fourth soil will be greatly rewarded in it.[20]

V. Disciples Listen And Are Taught

The Lord speaks to a large group of people when He teaches in parables. Mark calls it a “great multitude” (4:1). This group would have consisted of all kinds of listeners. As in the Parable of the Four Soils, the people would have responded in different ways. There would have been both believers and unbelievers. Among believers, there would have been different kinds of responses.

Among this large crowd, there was a distinct, smaller, group. This smaller group included those around Christ (v 10). This phrase is practically identical in Greek with the phrase in 3:32, 34, which refers to those who were sitting with Jesus in the house. It is also noteworthy that in 4:10 He was “alone” with them. This reminds the reader of when, in chapter three, the Lord was with this intimate group in the house. At that earlier event, those sitting at Jesus’ feet were also part of a much larger group (3:20).

Jesus had earlier called this smaller group His mother, sister, and brother. They were disciples of the Lord who wanted to be close to and learn from Him, and who wanted to do the will of God. These who were seeking to listen to the Lord’s teaching were rewarded with His explanations. This is one of the benefits of discipleship.

In both of these smaller groups, in chapter three and chapter four, the Lord invests His time and teaching. It is to this smaller group that the Lord explains the meaning of His parables. Those in this group are His disciples.

While Jesus will explain these things to the disciples, He will speak in parables to those who are “outside.” They will not have things explained to them. Certainly, those on the “outside” include the religious leaders who have rejected the Lord. In light of the use of the same word in 3:31, 32, those “outside” would also include the Lord’s unbelieving brothers. The emphasis here is that unbelievers are on the “outside.”

However, it also seems that we could, in one sense, even apply the term “outside” to some believers. Mary, the mother of the Lord, was a believer, but is also “outside” in 3:31, 32. In the large crowd of people that came to hear the Lord teach in 4:1, there were certainly others who believed in Him but did not devote the time needed to be near Him when He was alone with His disciples. They were believers but not disciples. They were not willing to pay the price to follow the Lord and learn from Him. They missed out on the Lord’s explanation of the parables He taught. We see an example of such believers in John 2:23–25. They did not want to put forth the effort to be near the Lord.[21]

A believer grows in his knowledge of the Lord if he is willing to spend time to learn from Him. Jesus does that with the group of disciples here. This is one of the benefits of becoming a disciple of the Lord after believing in Him for eternal life. Receiving eternal life happens through faith, in an instant. Discipleship takes time and involves a learning process (vv 24, 34). During this process, the disciple learns what the will of God is so that he can do it (3:35). It is a process of spiritual maturity. This process takes time and diligence.

This is why the Lord repeats the word listen in these parables (4:3, 9). As the Lord explains His teaching, the disciple is to meditate on His words. As he does, the Lord will give Him more revelation through His word. The disciple will understand more and more spiritual truth.

The reason Jesus speaks to the unbelieving Jews––most clearly demonstrated by the religious leaders of Mark 3:22–30––in parables is so that, “Seeing they may see and not perceive.” Even though they hear, they don’t understand. In 3:22–30, these leaders had seen the Lord’s miracles. They had heard His clear teaching. However, they rejected what was right before their eyes and claimed that Satan was at work in Jesus’ words and actions.

Because they have refused to believe what was clearly stated, the Lord will now speak to them in parables, and they will not receive the interpretation of these parables that the disciples will receive.

In verse 12, the Lord quotes from Isa 6:9–10. In that passage, Isaiah tells the nation of Israel that judgment is coming upon them because of their unwillingness to listen to what God has said to them through the prophets. The Lord tells Isaiah to go to them and proclaim the truth even though they will not listen. The nation would not repent of its sin.

The Lord is applying these verses to the nation of His day. They also will not respond. Because of their unwillingness to listen, they also will not turn, that is, repent of their sin (1:15). Repentance would have prepared them to believe in Jesus as the Christ and thus receive eternal life. This repentance would have resulted in their sins as a nation being forgiven as well. The blessing of the kingdom of God would then have come to that generation of Jews.

The context of the Isaiah passage is also instructive. In the following verse (Isa 6:11), Isaiah speaks of judgment coming upon the nation as a result of its unwillingness to accept the truth plainly spoken by the prophet. The same is true for the nation in Jesus’ day. The leaders, representing the nation, have also rejected the truth plainly spoken. Judgment is coming to them. The kingdom will not come to them. The parables that the Lord presents in Mark 4 speak of this development. As the Gospel of Mark unfolds, this subject of judgment upon Israel will become more pronounced in the Lord’s teachings (Mark 11–13). This lends support to the idea that the kingdom of God is something that pertains to the nation of Israel.

The forgiveness of sins, then, is not the same thing as being saved from the lake of fire. Forgiveness results in fellowship with God. The nation is being offered the forgiveness of sins. An individual listener could believe in Jesus for eternal life but not turn from his or her sins. The context of Isaiah 6 bears this out. Not all the Jews who fell under the judgment of God in Isaiah’s day were unbelievers. Some were believers. This supports the idea that in Mark 4, some on the “outside” were believers as well. They were believers, but not disciples. They were not doing what the Lord wanted them to do. They were not doing the will of God (3:35). Like Mary in the previous section, they are associated with the unbelieving scribes in this regard.

The Parable of the Four Soils bears this out as well. The second and third soils are illustrations of such believers. They do not listen to what the Lord has taught and act upon it, at least not to the degree that should. Jesus emphasizes the need for all to “listen” to what He is teaching (4:3, 9). The Lord is clearly telling them that they need to do more than hear. They need to act upon what they hear. But they would obviously have to hear first. This was a message for the disciples.

In fact, Mark 4:21–25 has special relevance to the disciples. The words to them in verses 21 and 24 refer to the disciples; they were those who were alone with Him and being taught by Him. He tells them of the need to hear (v 23). In the MT, the verb hear occurs four times in verses 23–24.[22]

In speaking to the disciples, He gives a warning. He tells them to “Look out!” The verb is literally to see and is often translated take heed (v 24). They are to be careful about how they “hear” the words of the Lord. No doubt, there is a connection with the Parable of the Four Soils. The good soil is the one that “hears” the Lord’s words, obeys them, and bears a large crop (v 20). The disciple who listens and obeys the word of the Lord will be given more.

This concept is directed to the believing disciples. The disciple who pays attention and acts upon the words of the Lord will be given more. This would include more revelation. It would result in spiritual maturity.[23]

The author of Hebrews speaks of this principle. He says that a new believer takes in the Word of God and that the Word is like milk. But as he puts it to use in his life, he is able to take in more substantive teaching. This more-advanced teaching is compared to eating meat. Through this process, he matures and is trained to understand doctrinal issues (Heb 5:14).[24]

But there is another possibility for the believer. He can choose not to listen to what the Lord is saying. Jesus says that the believer who does that will not be given more, but “even what he has will be taken away.” This means that he will not be given more revelation from the Lord.

Such a believer would be one who is not alone with the Lord, sitting at His feet and learning from Him. The unbelieving Jews were certainly on the outside and not benefiting from what the Lord was saying (4:11–12). But believers can act in a similar way. Like Mary, they can be on the outside looking in.[25] Kuruvilla agrees and says that those on the outside include unbelievers. However, it is also a warning to the disciples. They are encouraged to keep their eyes and ears opened, so as not to become like the unbelieving scribes and the unbelievers in the crowd.[26] The parables spoken by the Lord here, as well as the interpretations He gives, will be of benefit to them. But the disciple must continue to listen.

Mark wants to make a connection between those believers who are close to the Lord and listening to Him and believers who are not. Those who are not on the outside are given the meaning of the parables as they pay attention to the Lord (v 11). The verb given appears twice in verses 24 and 25. Disciples on the inside are given the meaning of the parables. Those who continue doing so are given more.

Figuratively speaking, a believer can choose to go outside. He can choose not to listen to and obey the Lord. Only believers who are with the Lord will have the meaning of the parables explained to them. Those believers on the outside will not.

VI. The Example Of The Twelve

Later, the Lord’s twelve disciples provide the reader of Mark with an example of the Lord’s warning to believers in 4:10–12. The example is found in Mark 8:17–21.

In Mark 6:30–44, Jesus feeds the 5000. In Mark 8:1–9, He does the same for a group of 4000.[27] In both instances the Lord is teaching the disciples who He is. His miracles show that He is able to meet all their needs.[28]

Immediately after the second miraculous feeding, the Lord rebukes the religious leaders. This, of course, has parallels with His rebuke of the leaders in 3:23–30. Christ then tells the disciples to beware of the leaven of these men (8:15).

The disciples interpret that to mean that they have forgotten to bring bread with them (8:16). This causes he Lord to rebuke them. He asks them how they can still have hardened hearts. How is it that they cannot see, hear, or remember?

The Lord spells out what they should remember. If they remembered how He had miraculously fed two large groups with just a little bread, how could they worry about not having enough bread? They had seen the miracles with their own eyes.

In this sense, they were like the scribes in Mark 3:22. Those scribes did not learn the clear lesson of what they had seen. The scribes should have seen that Jesus was not empowered by Satan. The evidence was overwhelming. The disciples should have seen that the Lord could provide all their needs. That evidence was overwhelming, too.

But there are other connections between the scribes in chapter three and the disciples in chapter 8. Those scribes were on the outside and were not able to understand what they had seen and heard. Now the disciples are not paying attention to what the Lord is showing and teaching them, so they do not understand, either (4:12; 8:17).[29]

When the Lord describes those who are on the “outside,” He says that they are able to see physically, but cannot see. They are able to hear physically, but are not able to hear (4:12). He says the disciples are in the same situation. They have eyes, but cannot see, and ears, but cannot hear (8:18).[30]

The reference to the hardened hearts of the disciples also reminds the reader of Mark of the unbelieving religious leaders. Prior to one group’s accusing the Lord of being possessed by Satan, He is grieved by the hardened hearts of another group of these unbelieving men (3:5). Even though the term hardened heart is not used, the Parable of the Four Soils teaches that the unbeliever has a hardened heart. The seed that does not produce life falls on ground that is hard (4:15).

Even though the disciples are believers, they are clearly acting like unbelievers in some ways. They are acting like those on the “outside.” They are neither listening to what the Lord is teaching nor observing what He is doing. They have ignored what Jesus has taught them (4:9, 24–25). In practical terms, they may as well be sitting on the “outside” when the Lord is teaching those who are sitting at His feet. No wonder Christ tells the disciples to beware. They could become like the Pharisees (8:15).

VII. Conclusion

There is a vast difference between the believer in Jesus Christ and the non-believer. The believer has eternal life and is a child of God. The unbeliever does not have life.

When the Lord speaks of those who are “outside,” He speaks of those who do not listen to and obey His word. At the same time, it refers to those who are not close to Him. By definition, this is true of all unbelievers. In Mark 3–4, the unbelieving religious leaders are described in this way.

All disciples are believers, but not all believers are disciples. A disciple is a believer who learns from the Lord. He listens to His teaching and desires to be obedient to what he hears. The disciple is the one who sits at the feet of the Lord to hear what He has to say. As pictured in Mark 3, he is inside the house with Christ. In this picture, the disciple is one who is close to the Lord.

In one sense, the believer who does not listen to and obey the Lord’s words is like the unbeliever. He is not sitting at His feet. He is on the “outside” looking in. Mary is an illustration of such a believer. The unbeliever does not hear what the Lord is saying. He does not understand. He does not learn or obey. The believer can be like that. He can harden his heart to what the Lord is teaching and remove himself from the privilege of learning from the Teacher. The disciples were in danger of doing that very thing (Mark 8:15–18).

Of course, such a believer is still a child of God. He still has eternal life. But his intimacy with the Lord is negatively impacted. His fruitfulness is as well. If he continues being on the “outside,” he will suffer the loss of eternal rewards. He is like the stony or thorny soil in the Parable of the Four Soils.

These truths are not taught only in the Gospel of Mark. The Gospel of John teaches them as well. John uses a different word to describe believers who are inside with the Lord. That word is abide. In John 8:31–32, the Lord tells new believers to “abide in His word.” In John 15:4–7, Jesus tells the disciples to abide in His word in order to bear much fruit.

It is clear that the believer can remove himself from abiding with Christ. He can quit listening to His word. As Hodges puts it, he can lose the “disciple/Teacher relationship.”[31] In the account in Mark 3, this would be the believer who does not enter the house and learn from the Master. In the crowds that followed Jesus there would have been people who had believed in Him for eternal life but did not do what was necessary to be close to and learn from Him. Like the thorny soil, such believers would include those who love the pleasures of this world and do not see the value of devoting time to learning from and obeying Him. Like the rocky soil, other believers would not have been willing to endure persecution because of their association with Him.

The NT also uses a reversal of the metaphor of being “inside” and “outside” with regard to the believer’s closeness to the Lord. In Heb 13:14, the author encourages his believing readers to suffer with Christ. He writes that Christ was crucified “outside” the city. The Lord was considered to be outside religious and polite Jewish society. It was a shameful place and a shameful death. The readers are commanded to go outside with Him.[32] They were in danger of being like the rocky soil. The same idea is expressed in Mark 3–4. The disciple is found wherever the Lord is.

The same illustrative theme is used in Rev 3:20, with a strange twist. The church at Laodicea is filled with believers who are not disciples. They love the riches and pleasures of the world (Rev 3:17). As a result, they are not near the Lord. He is seen outside the church, while they are inside. While outside, He is knocking at the door, asking to join them in fellowship. Ironically, He wants to be inside with them.

It is not just Free Grace writers who maintain that believers can be on the “outside.” France says that the disciples, who cannot see or hear, are clearly associated with those unbelievers who are on the “outside” and who suffer from the same spiritual disabilities (4:12; 8:17–18).[33] Bock takes the same position, adding that the hardened hearts of the disciples also point to their inability to understand (4:13).[34] Lane simply states that the Twelve, in 8:17–18, appear no better than the crowds who are outside in 4:11–12.[35]

Bock also maintains that those who are on the outside in 4:11–12 include all who are not described by the fourth––the good––soil in the parable. This was argued above as well. If the second and third soils are believers, then there are believers who are on the outside when it comes to intimacy with the Lord. Those on the outside include everyone who is not open to what the Lord is saying.[36] This would include disobedient believers.

Kuruvilla rightly states that the Lord applies Isa 6:9–10 (Mark 4:11–12) to the apostles in Mark 8:17–21. It is clear that those who are inside and outside regarding the Lord are “fluctuating” groups. Every disciple runs the risk of becoming an “uncomprehending outsider” and needs to guard against it.[37]

It makes perfect sense that a book like Mark, written to believers, would warn them about the importance of listening to and obeying the words of the Lord. Jesus is in the house. As believers, we can go inside and learn from Him. We can sit at His feet. He gives us the things we need in order to bear fruit in this life and in the world to come.

What a privilege believers have. However, they can refuse to take advantage of this privilege. They can quit listening. They still have eternal life. But they have stepped outside the house. Once outside, they find themselves standing with the scribes and Mary.

Notes

1. This means that Jesus cleansed the temple in Jerusalem twice during His ministry, once at the beginning and once at the end (Mark 11:15–17).
2. Allan Chapple, “Jesus’ Intervention in the Temple: Once or Twice?,” JETS 58 (2015): 545–69.
3. We see here that the word parable in Greek has a wide range of meanings. It can be used to describe a riddle that points out the ridiculous conclusion at which a person has arrived. Sometimes a proverb, or a figure of speech, is described as a parable. It can also mean what we usually understand it to mean, which is a story from everyday life that teaches a deeper point. See Rick Brannan, ed., Lexham Research Lexicon of the Greek New Testament (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2020), 278.
4. R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark, NIGTC (Grand Rapids, MI; Eerdmans, 2002), 164.
5. William L. Lane, The Gospel According to Mark (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974), 189–90.
6. The tense of the verb in verse 22 indicates that the scribes “were saying” that Jesus was possessed by Satan. They were doing it repeatedly to different people. Their aim was to discredit Him in eyes of their countrymen.
7. France, Mark, 164.
8. Abraham Kuruvilla, Mark: A Theological Commentary for Preachers (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2012), 70.
9. Ibid., 125–26
10. John D. Grassmick, “Mark,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, eds. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1983), 112.
11. The Critical Text is divided on the issue.
12. BDAG, 756.
13. After the Lord’s resurrection, at least some of them believed. These included the authors of the NT books Jude and James.
14. M. J. Wilkins, “Unique Discipleship to a Unique Master: Discipleship in the Gospel according to Mark,” The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, vol 8 (2004): 57.
15. Darrell L. Bock, Mark (Cambridge, ENG: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 167. Bock says that the “sandwich” technique puts Mary in this bad company.
16. This is supported by the idea that there is no clear presentation of the gospel of eternal life by faith alone in the book. There is also early church evidence that the book was written to believers. See, for example, Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.14.5–6.
17. Some great Bible teachers maintain that doing the will of God in the NT always refers to believing in Jesus for eternal life. What is being argued here is that the audience determines the meaning. Doing the will of the Father means one thing for the unbeliever and another for the believer. In this account, as well as in Luke 8, the Lord is telling believers what the will of the Father is for them.
18. Zane C. Hodges, Absolutely Free! A Biblical Reply to Lordship Salvation (Dallas, TX: Redención Viva, 1989), 83–88.
19. Robert N. Wilkin, Is Calvinism Biblical?: Let the Scriptures Decide (Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2017), 99–104.
20. Barry Mershon, Jr., “The Gospel According to Mark,” in The Grace New Testament Commentary, vol 1 (Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical 2010) 156.
21. Zane C. Hodges, “Problem Passages in the Gospel of John, Part 2: Untrustworthy Believers—John 2:23–25, ” Bib Sac 135 (1978): 139–52.
22. The fourth occurrence is found at the end of the verse 24. The MT states that more will be given “to you who hear.” The CR simply says that more will be given. Even if one accepts the CR, the context makes it clear that only the one who hears will be given more.
23. In light of the Parable of the Four Soils, it would also include rewards in the kingdom.
24. Kenneth W. Yates, Hebrews: Partners with Christ (Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2019), 80–83.
25. France says that Mark wants to make a direct connection between those who are the outside in Mark 4:11 and Mary. See, France, Mark, 197.
26. Kuruvilla, Mark, 81.
27. Actually, the number of people was much larger because the number mentioned in both cases does not include women and children.
28. Mershon, “Mark,” 173.
29. Lane, Mark, 282.
30. In Mark 4, the Lord appeals to Isaiah 6. Jeremiah 5:21 and Ezek 12:2 have the same theme, where, like Isaiah, the prophets go to the nation of Israel and the people will not listen. Here, in Mark 8, the Lord refers to the passage in Ezekiel.
31. Zane C. Hodges, The Epistles of John: Walking in the Light of God’s Love (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1999), 81–82.
32. Yates, Hebrews, 214.
33. France, Mark, 317. He points out that the disciples have hope however, when the Lord asks if they “still” do not understand (8:17). This might imply that they will understand, see, and hear in the future. But there is no guarantee.
34. Bock, Mark, 237.
35. Lane, Mark, 282.
36. Bock, Mark, 175. Bock rightly sees that the second and third soils are on the outside. However, he seems to believe that these two soils represent unbelievers.
37. Kuruvilla, Mark, 82.

Darkness At The Cross (Mark 15:33)

By Kenneth W. Yates

[Editor, Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society]

I. Introduction

Each Synoptic Gospel writer mentioned that when Jesus was dying on the cross, darkness fell upon the land for three hours (Matt 27:45; Mark 15:33; Luke 23:44). However, because of the general nature of narrative literature, we are not told the significance of this darkness.

In this article, I would like to look at Mark’s Gospel and try to determine the importance of this event from his perspective and what it means. Other explanations will be explored and rejected.

It seems that this is a productive exercise. First of all, there is obvious benefit in knowing why this miraculous event took place and how it is related to the death of Christ. Secondly, Mark showed us that studying this phenomenon is beneficial. He indicated that at least one person considered the darkness, and it helped him in arriving at certain truths about the One on the cross.

II. The Centurion At The Cross

All the Synoptic Gospels record that there was a Roman centurion at the cross. In the Gospel of Mark, this man played a pivotal role. He was the one who made the final statement about Jesus when He died. He stated that Jesus was the Son of God (15:39).

This is significant for a number of reasons. First, in Mark’s Gospel, he is the only human who declared this truth. God the Father and demons were the only other ones who recognized the identity of Christ in like manner (1:11; 3:11; 5:7; 9:7).

We can certainty conclude that this man did not understand that Jesus was the Second Person of the Trinity. Even the disciples did not comprehend these realities. The centurion was not even a believer and was a person who believed in many different gods. Wallace calls the use of “Son” here qualitative. This means the centurion was stressing the character of Christ[1]: he saw that Jesus was the One who was doing the work of God. Those who heard and saw Jesus were hearing and seeing what God was doing. The One dying on the cross was displaying supernatural power.[2] In the centurion’s belief system, for example, the emperor was a son of the gods because he had great authority on earth. The emperor was doing the work of the gods, providing for the well-being of the people of the empire.

Roman soldiers often adopted the beliefs of the people in whatever region they were living. They believed that local areas were governed by local deities. The centurion was in the capital of the Jewish people, very near to the temple of the Jewish God. He came to the conclusion that Jesus was approved by the God of that area. The God of the Man on the cross was with Him. In fact, the centurion had heard Him call out to His God (v 34).

Mark explained why the centurion came to that conclusion. He said that the man “saw” that Christ had “cried out like this” when He died. The centurion saw the manner in which Christ died, and this made an impression upon him. He had seen many men die by crucifixion. All the others had died in agony, suffering from extreme dehydration. In such a state, men were delirious and unable to speak clearly. But Jesus was in complete control. He seemed to determine the point of His death. He was able to speak clearly.[3] The centurion had never seen anything like this before.[4]

But the centurion was also aware of the darkness around him. The word “saw” in v 39 is the first word of the sentence in the Greek text. What this man saw is being emphasized. He had never “seen” it turn dark for three hours in the middle of the day. It was clearly a miraculous event. This, along with the way Jesus died, convinced him that Jesus was the Son of God. The Jewish God was revealing something by this darkness, and the centurion would have understood this darkness was affecting the land of the Jews.

While it is impossible to know exactly how he saw the significance of the darkness, the culture of the centurion provides clues. Many in the ancient world saw a darkened sky as signifying the death of a great person. This could happen, for example, with an eclipse of the sun. It would indicate that that person went to be with the gods. It could be a sign that the gods were angry and were about to punish the inhabitants of earth. Roman army generals would often point to changes in the sky, such as a comet or shooting stars, as indicating that the gods were about to act, and they would motivate their armies in the light of such signs.[5] It is likely that as a longtime member of the Roman army, the centurion would have witnessed such teachings by his superiors.[6]

Grandez says that the background of this military man would have caused him to see the darkness in one of three ways, or even a combination of these three. He would interpret what was happening around and in front of him in light of these things, even though he had no knowledge of the Jewish Scriptures. The darkness showed that an important man was dying, that the God of the Jews was intervening in what He was seeing, or that the Jewish Deity of that region was angry.[7]

When the centurion saw the darkness and the composure of Christ on the cross, he made this surprising evaluation of Jesus. This crucified criminal was pleasing to the God of that country. The God of Israel was on His side.

Even though he came to this conclusion from a pagan understanding and background and still fell very short of the full significance of the title he gave to Jesus, this man saw things that others did not. The darkness allowed him to perceive such truths. He was, theologically speaking, moving in the right direction. He was open to what God was revealing to him by the darkness.[8]

The Gospel of Mark began with a statement that Jesus is the Son of God (1:1). Now, with the words of this centurion at the death of Christ, this truth was restated. These words form an inclusio, or bookends, of the book.

The words of the centurion, therefore, are central to the Gospel of Mark. The reason is that they provided a rebuke to the nation of Israel. They also provided a rebuke to the disciples. His interpretation of the darkness at the cross, as theologically flawed as his understanding may have been, allowed the centurion to provide a contrast to both.

A. A Rebuke To The Nation

The response of the centurion was shocking when compared to the pronouncements of the Jews concerning Jesus. When the high priest asked Him if He was the Son of God, the Lord confirmed His identity. The high priest and the highest governing body of the nation condemned Him as being a blasphemer, worthy of death (14:62–64).

Before a crowd of Jews, Pilate referred to the Lord as the King of the Jews (15:9). This title was equivalent, in Jewish thinking, to being the Son of God (John 1:49). The Jews in the crowd called for Jesus to be crucified (15:13). The confession of the centurion at the cross was declaring that the Jewish nation was killing their King.

There was also an inscription above the cross of Christ which called Him the King of the Jews (15:26). Even though it was a sarcastic statement on the part of the Romans and was meant as a slur to the Jewish people, it stated the truth. The Jews around the cross were offended that the Romans would make such a statement about a man hanging on a cross.

The darkness around the cross made the contrast between the centurion and the Jews stand out. In the midst of that darkness, the centurion confirmed what the sign on the cross said. The Jews, however, could not recognize the obvious. The crucifixion was in a public place, and as crowds passed by, they ridiculed Him. Specifically, they mocked Him for what false witnesses had said about His claim of destroying the temple in Jerusalem. They taunted Him, telling Him to come down from the cross. Somebody who could destroy the temple and raise it up in three days could surely come down from a cross (15:29–30).

The religious leaders of the nation agreed that He was worthy of ridicule at the cross as well. They commented that He had healed others but could not save Himself (15:30–31a).

Even the Jewish criminals crucified alongside Him blasphemed Him. The nation of Israel had placed Him between two of the lowest segments of society and even their verdict was that He was not the King of Israel, the Son of God (15:32b). That was how all the Jews saw what was happening on the cross.

Schmidt points out that the darkness brought out the magnitude of the centurion’s comment. He expressed “wonder” and “insight” about who Jesus is. The Jews at the cross, from every level of society, showed their “blindness” in the middle of the same darkness. The Jews, who should have been enlightened, were not able to see in the darkness. The Gentile centurion, whom the readers would have expected to be in the dark regarding spiritual matters, received from God a “ray of enlightenment” in the midst of the dark sky.[9]

When one compares the account of Christ’s death in the Gospels of Luke and Mark, the contrast between the Jews and the centurion in Mark becomes even more stark. In Luke, one of the criminals crucified with Christ became a believer and recognized that Jesus is the King of Israel (Luke 23:42). Luke described this man’s spiritual insight; he was like the centurion in that regard.[10] Mark, however, did not mention the conversion of the Jewish criminal. Luke also described other Jews who were sympathetic to Jesus at the cross (Luke 23:48).[11] Once again, Mark did not discuss such positive insights by the Jews.

Mark, then, emphasized how blind the Jews were in the darkness. They mocked and killed Jesus. The centurion, although he was not a Jew, understood more about the King of the Jews than they did. He proclaimed Jesus’ dignity. He was a strong rebuke to God’s chosen people.

B. A Rebuke To The Disciples

The confession of the centurion at the cross was not only an indictment of the nation of Israel, but it was also a foil to the disciples.[12] In the darkness, the centurion saw things the disciples did not see, even though the Lord had taught them for three years.[13]

First of all, the centurion saw things at the cross the disciples did not because the disciples had fled from the Lord after the Garden of Gethsemane (Mark 14:50). They were not even present. Even though the disciples understood that He is the Christ, they were also blind to certain aspects of what that means. That was the reason they had fled.

When Peter confessed that Jesus is the Christ, he understood that Jesus is the promised King who was to come. However, when Jesus immediately told him and the rest of the disciples that He was going to suffer and die, Peter rebuked Him (Mark 8:29–33). It is clear that Peter was speaking for all the disciples and that none of the disciples could accept that the King would suffer and die.

Jesus continued to teach the disciples that He would be mocked and killed by both the Jewish nation and the Romans (Mark 9:31; 10:33–34). Every time the Lord spoke of these things, Mark recorded how the disciples did not understand. It was inconceivable to them that the King of the kingdom of God could experience such humiliation.

But the King is also the Son of God. The centurion saw the bloody Man on the cross and witnessed the mocking of the religious leaders who were present. This Man had suffered greatly. The centurion even saw Christ die an agonizing death after all He had gone through. After all of that, he proclaimed that Jesus is indeed the Son of God. He recognized that He was doing the will of the God of Israel.

C. Summary

In the darkness surrounding the cross, the centurion was able to see things that others should have been able to see but did not. The Jewish nation could not see through the darkness. Neither could the disciples. How strange it was that a pagan Gentile could.

How did Mark want the readers of his Gospel to interpret the darkness? As in the case of the centurion, it seems that he wanted these readers to see in it a message for the nation of Israel and for the disciples.

Before looking at those messages, let us consider other possible but less likely reasons for the darkness.

III. Other Reasons For The Darkness

There have been a number of suggestions as to the significance of the darkness at the cross. Grandez and Moo list at least eight.[14] Some of these have been considered under the discussion of how the centurion interpreted the darkness. A few other views are popular among evangelicals. However, they should be rejected when the context and purpose of Mark are considered.

A. God The Father Looked Away

Mark recorded only one saying from the Lord while He was on the cross: Jesus asked why His God had forsaken Him (15:34). Many have interpreted this cry, which came from Psalm 22, as a statement that Jesus felt abandoned by His Father.[15] The darkness is seen in connection with this cry of desperation and the emotions of Christ.

As the Father turned His gaze from the Son, the world turned dark. The sin of the world was put upon Him ,and the Father could not gaze upon sin. In addition, the death of Christ was the greatest wickedness ever committed in the history of the world, and the darkness revealed it.[16] The whole scene was a picture of the pain felt by Christ and His Father. It was as if nature itself sympathized with the Father, as the Son died for the sin of the world.[17] Creation itself expressed grief.

However, this view does not take into consideration the context of the Gospel of Mark. The reader cannot determine the subjective emotions of the Lord on the cross. Mark did not give any clues of such things in the crucifixion account. Schmidt makes this point and regrets that the early church fathers used this verse to argue for certain theological doctrines. For example, they pointed to the cry of the Lord to prove the doctrine of the Trinity, since Jesus spoke to the Father. It is highly doubtful, however, that Mark wanted to teach on these matters. Schmidt rightly states that these early writers also looked at the darkness in order to simply speculate about Christ’s feelings and experiences.[18]

This view is also defective because it assumes that the words of Christ in Mark are a cry of abandonment. As will be discussed, the words from Psalm 22 were a cry of victory.

B. Eschatological Judgment

Some have seen the darkness at the cross as a demonstration of the eschatological judgment that OT prophets spoke of. Joel 2:28–32 speaks of darkness associated with the Day of the Lord.[19] God was judging the world, and the inhabitants of the world were going to be judged. It was a warning for people to be prepared for what was coming.[20]

In the same vein, some see the darkness in Mark 15:34 as a direct allusion to Amos 8:9. In the death of Christ, God had finally intervened in human history. Eschatological judgment had arrived.[21]

The view that the darkness at Calvary pointed to these OT references has some weaknesses. Amos 8:9 is not addressing the judgment in the last days. The prophet was speaking to the northern kingdom of Israel and telling them what God was going to do to them because of their sin.

More importantly, the eschatological judgment of the world did not occur at the crucifixion of Christ. Later, Peter would appeal to Joel 2:28–32 when he preached on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:17–21) and discussed the darkness of that coming day. This certainly seems to point to a still future day. The darkness that Joel spoke of will occur before the second coming of the Lord at the end of the Tribulation coming upon the earth. It does not describe what happened when He died.

C. A New Creation

Another view of the darkness at the cross also looks to the OT to find its significance. It goes back to Gen 1:2. In the beginning, the world was shrouded in darkness. This darkness yielded to the light when God spoke that light into being. The same thing happened at the cross. Jesus, in His death, was bringing in a new creation. It began in darkness but lasted for three hours. That darkness also yielded to the light. We could even say that the entire old creation could be described as darkness. But there is a transition. The new creation brought by the work of the Lord will be one of light.[22]

This view also brings in Paul’s discussion of Christ as the Second Adam (Rom 5:12–19; 1 Cor 15:20–22). Adam failed, but on the cross Jesus succeeded. The Lord undid what Adam did. Kline comments:

With the first Adam, son of God, creation dawned, and all those in him share in the results of his covenant failure. With the second Adam, Son of God, new creation dawned, and all those in him share in the benefits of his covenant faithfulness.[23]

When compared with Genesis 1, the darkness in Mark 15 means that Jesus was inaugurating a latter-day new creation.[24]

This view suffers from the same weakness as the view that the darkness signified eschatological judgment. The death of Christ did not bring in a new creation. In addition, this introduces a foreign concept in the Gospel of Mark. There is nothing in the context of Mark 15 indicating that Mark wanted the reader to make that connection.

When one looks at the purpose of Mark and the context of Mark 15, there are better options to explain the reason for the darkness at the cross of Christ.

IV. A Message For Israel

As already noted, the confession of the centurion was a rebuke to the unbelief of the Jews at the cross and the nation as a whole. Not surprisingly then, it is clear in Mark 15 that the nation should have understood what the darkness was saying to them. What happened at the cross was an ominous sign for Israel.

A. Judgment On The Nation

The Gospel of Mark opened with John the Baptist and then Jesus Himself offering the kingdom of God to that generation of Jews (1:15). However, beginning with their leaders, it was clear that they would reject that offer (3:6, 22; 6:6, 27; 8:31; 9:31; 10:33–34). Because of that rejection and their killing of the King, God would severely judge the nation. This was inherent in John’s and Jesus’ call for the nation to repent. If they repented, they would be blessed. If they did not, God would discipline the nation.

The last week of the Lord’s life brought this coming judgment into sharp focus. He entered Jerusalem and cleaned out the temple, rebuking the leaders who oversaw its operation (11:15). He cursed a fig tree, which was a symbol of Israel, giving a parable about her coming destruction (11:20–24).[25] He then gave a much longer parable, saying the nation would indeed be judged because they had rejected Him (12:1–11). The final time He was in the temple, He pointed to a poor widow, who was a walking advertisement for the evil of the nation and how it deserved the punishment coming its way.[26]

The Olivet Discourse in Mark’s Gospel is the longest teaching section of the Lord (13:5–37). Jesus said that the temple would be destroyed to such a degree that there would not be one stone left upon another.

The greatest illustration of their deserved judgment is what they did to the King. They accused Him of blasphemy and turned Him over to the Romans. They had Him crucified and mocked Him. When He died, the veil of the temple was ripped in two, which was another illustration of the coming destruction (15:38).[27] The fact that it was ripped from top to bottom tells the reader that this destruction would come from God Himself.

In the Gospel of Mark, the only recorded words of the Lord on the cross, quoted from Psalm 22, pointed to this judgment too.

B. Psalm 22

The Lord’s cry about being forsaken by His Father (15:34), though often taken as a cry of abandonment, needs to be reconsidered. It is the first verse of Psalm 22, but it is clear that Mark also had in mind other parts of the psalm. In 15:24, he described how the soldiers cast lots for Christ’s clothes, which is found in Ps 22:18. The mocking the Lord was subject to in 15:29–32 is foretold in Ps 22:7–8. The crucifixion itself is seen in Ps 22:14–17. In addition, the One who cried out in Ps 22:1 was delivered by God, as recorded in Ps 22:22–25. This looked forward to the resurrection of Christ recounted in Mark 16:1–8.

Years ago, Dodd argued that when the NT writers quoted OT verses, they were not taking them out of context. Nor were these verses simply to be taken in isolation. Instead, often the writers were expecting the reader to look at the whole context of the verses cited. The believing readers had exposure to the OT as well as the teachings of the church. The writers expected them to know these passages. Dodd specifically referred to Psalm 22 as an example.[28]

Mark, then, by his references to Psalm 22, wanted us to consider the entire psalm. It is a psalm about a Righteous Sufferer, who although He suffered, was delivered by God. It is a Psalm of victory, not defeat.

Concerning Psalm 22 and the darkness at the crucifixion of Christ in Mark 15, Ps 22:4–5 is of particular interest. It speaks of the fathers of Israel who cried out to God, and He delivered them. The most obvious and well-known example of such a deliverance was when the nation cried out to God, and He brought them out of Egypt.

On the cross, the Lord had Psalm 22 on His lips. He was put to death during the Passover feast, which also celebrated the time when God delivered Israel from Egypt. God brought this salvation about through ten plagues. The ninth plague was one of darkness which fell over the land of Egypt. It was a plague that lasted for three days (Exod 10:22). On the cross, the darkness lasted for three hours. The tenth plague was the death of each firstborn son in Egypt. On the cross, the firstborn Son of God died.

The parallel here is striking. Darkness in Egypt was a sign that God was judging the nation of Egypt. Here, in the death of Christ, the nation of Israel had rejected their King. All that happened leading up to the cross and all that was happening there cried out for judgment of the nation Israel. The darkness in the land was a sign of judgment coming upon them for their sin.

There are many similarities between the darkness described in Egypt in Exod 10:21–22 and the description of the darkness at Christ’s cross in Mark 15:33. The Exodus passage is the only place in the Greek translation of the OT in which the words for “was” and “darkness” are found, followed by the phrase “over all the land.” That the same words are found in Mark 15:33 strongly suggests that Mark had in mind the ninth plague in Egypt.[29]

In the past, as mentioned in Psalm 22, God had fought for Israel. The darkness at the cross showed that He would now fight against them. There is a parallel idea in this regard found in Jer 21:5. Jeremiah told the Jews of his day that God would fight against them with His outstretched hand and strong arm. God had fought for them in Egypt in this manner. The point is that God would do to them what He had done for them in the past (Exod 6:6; Deut 4:34; Ps 136:12). In Jeremiah’s day, as in the day of Christ, the temple would be destroyed and the people scattered in captivity.[30]

Christ, then, is the Righteous Sufferer to whom Psalm 22 pointed. Even though He was righteous, the nation had rejected and killed Him. But He would be delivered. The cry of Ps 22:1 on the lips of Christ pointed to His victory. The nation, however, would be judged. The darkness at the cross was a clear picture of that coming judgment.

It seems likely that this was the main purpose for the darkness at the cross. It also seems likely that even the centurion understood this at some level. As mentioned above, this was a rebuke to the nation. Here, we see that the Jews were blind about the judgment coming their way. But the centurion also served as a rebuke to the disciples. His understanding of the darkness also pointed to their blindness. They could also learn something from the darkness which surrounded the cross.

V. A Message For The Disciples

The Jewish religious leaders, as well as the nation as a whole, should have been able to see that the darkness which fell over Israel when Christ was on the cross was a message to them. But the darkness also contained a message for the disciples.

When the Lord began His ministry, not only did He offer the kingdom to Israel, He also encountered Satan (Mark 1:12–13). Satan, of course, was the one responsible for bringing sin into the world. Mankind has been enslaved to the power of sin since that time. That sin also meant that every man would die. This was the curse put on man because of sin.

It is clear that on the cross, Christ took on the sin of the world (John 1:29; 2 Cor 5:21). In Luke 22:53, as Christ was leaving the Garden of Gethsemane to face His fate, He referred to that hour and the “power of darkness.” This was almost certainly a reference to Satan. Just as the Lord had faced Satan when He began His ministry, He would face him again at the end of it.

In Mark 10:45, the Lord is speaking to the disciples about the cost of following Him in discipleship. He speaks of Himself as a Servant who gives His life as a “ransom.” The word means the price paid to set someone free from slavery.[31] This pointed to the cross, when the Lord paid the price to set His people free from slavery to sin.

Just as the darkness on the cross pointed to the judgment that would fall on the nation, the darkness also pointed to Christ’s judgment on sin. The power of darkness had brought the curse to this world. How appropriate it was that when the One who paid the price to release His people from that curse, darkness would fall over the land. He came to undo the darkness and curse (Gal 3:13).

In His resurrection, He would, of course, defeat death. But there is another emphasis here. The Gospel of Mark is about discipleship. If believers are to follow Christ in discipleship, they need to be released from the power of sin. The resurrection of the Lord shows that the believer can now live righteously because the power of sin has been broken. The believer no longer has to serve it (1 Pet 2:24; Rom 5:8–10).[32] The power of sin, the power of darkness, has been broken.

This is the message that the darkness has for the disciple. The supposed cry of abandonment by the Lord when the sky turned dark (15:33; Ps 22:1), was in actuality, a cry of victory. The disciples thought that all was lost. They had abandoned the Lord. But He was once again teaching them about discipleship. He had told them that as disciples they would have to suffer for Him. They would have to become servants like Him (Mark 8:34–38; 10:43–45). If they did so, they would be greatly rewarded in His kingdom. As seen in the example of the centurion, however, the disciples did not see any of this. They did not understand the need to suffer, either on their part or the part of the Lord.

On the cross, He showed them all these things. He was serving them by dying there in order to save them from death and the power of sin. He suffered greatly. He endured the darkness. But His Father heard Him and exalted Him. The disciple who suffered and served would be exalted by the Father as well. Jesus’ death on the cross made such service possible. We could say that His service for us broke the power of darkness.

Just as Mark used Psalm 22 to show the coming judgment on the nation, the same psalm also pointed to what the death of Christ means for the disciple. The author of Hebrews quotes from Ps 22:22. He said the verse means that the disciple of the Lord can look to Christ as his example (Heb 2:12). The Lord had told His disciples to take up their own crosses and follow Him. They could trust in Him to fulfill His promises of great rewards for faithfulness towards Him. The Lord showed on the cross that God exalts those who suffer for Him.[33]

VI. Conclusion

Many reasons have been given for the darkness, described in Mark 15:33, that fell upon the land of Israel for three hours when Christ hung upon the cross. While there may be theological truths contained in a number of these, there appear to be two reasons in the Gospel of Mark that are most likely; these are based on the purposes of the book.

One of the major themes in Mark is that the kingdom of God was offered to the Jews of Jesus’ day. The other is that even though the gift of eternal life is absolutely free, following Christ in discipleship is costly. The darkness at the cross was a message for the nation and for the disciple. In both cases, judgment was involved. In both cases, as well, Psalm 22, which runs throughout the crucifixion account, points to the meaning of the darkness.

For the nation, the darkness was an ominous sign. Their rejection of the offer of the kingdom and their murder of the King meant that judgment was going to fall upon them. Whereas God had once brought darkness upon their enemies as a sign of His displeasure towards those enemies, it would now be a sign directed towards them.

For the disciple, the darkness was both an example and glorious news. Christ gave an example of what being a suffering servant meant, as well as showing that trusting in God in the midst of that suffering will result in exaltation. The great news was that the darkness was also a sign of the judgment upon the power of sin.

In the Gospel of Mark, the disciples had failed so often. They had misunderstood almost all of what Jesus had taught them about discipleship. They simply did not understand the necessity of suffering. Now, they could follow His example, and in the power provided by His resurrected life, they knew they could do what He commanded them to do.

One author rightly summarized what the darkness at the cross in Mark means. He says that, “the unnatural darkness signified God’s judgment on sin, as well as His displeasure with Israel who rejected their King.”[34]

The nation of Israel should have been able to grasp what the darkness meant for them. A believer in Jesus Christ who reads the Gospel of Mark should be able to see the significance of that miraculous darkness for him as well.

Mark gave us a central figure in his Gospel to show us that such insight is indeed possible. A Gentile, unbelieving Roman soldier at the foot of the cross was able to see in the dark. He “saw” what was happening. When he did, even he came very close to realizing what it signified. He stated a truth of which he did not know the full significance. But the believer who reads the account of the crucifixion of the Lord can.

Notes

1. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 250–51.
2. Dennis J. Kavanaugh, “The Ambiguity of Mark’s Use of Huios Theou in Mark 15:39, ” (PhD Dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 2011), 272–73.
3. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke (X-XXIV), vol. 2 (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1985), 1519; I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978): 874–76.
4. Kenneth W. Yates, Centurions in Luke/Acts (PhD Dissertation: Dallas Theological Seminary, 2014): 186–208.
5. Eli E. Burriss, “The Roman and His Religion,” Classical Journal 8 (1929): 596; Plutarch, Rom. 27:6–7; Pliny, Nat. Hist. 2.26–30; Josephus, Ant. 17.6.1–4.
6. On average, it took approximately fifteen years in the Roman army to obtain the rank of centurion.
7. Rufino M. Grandez, “Las tinieblas en la Muerte de Jesus,” Estudios Biblicos 47 (1989): 217.
8. Robert J. Karris, “Luke 23:47 and the Lucan View of Jesus’ Death,” Journal of Biblical Literature 105 (1986): 66.
9. Thomas E. Schmidt, “Cry of Dereliction or Cry of Judgment? Mark 15:34 in Context,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 4 (1994): 152–53.
10. Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), 822–27.
11. David M. Crump, Jesus the Intercessor: Prayer and Christology in Luke-Acts, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, vol. 49 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1992), 78, 90.
12. J. F. Williams, “Discipleship and Minor Characters in Mark’s Gospel,” Bibliotheca Sacra 153 (1996): 336.
13. Kenneth W. Yates, “The Healing of Bartimaeus (Mark 10:46–52): Part 1, ” JOTGES (Spring, 2016): 8–10.
14. Douglas J. Moo, The Old Testament in the Gospel Narratives (Sheffield, ENG: Almond Press, 1983), 342–43; Grandez, “Las tinieblas,” 217.
15. Raymond E. Brown, “The Passion according to Luke,” Worship 60 (1986): 8. Brown compares this to the last words of Christ on the cross in Luke, which are words of trust and confidence in God.
16. Hal M. Haller Jr., “The Gospel according to Matthew,” in The Grace New Testament Commentary, ed. Robert N. Wilkin (Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2010), 133.
17. Louis A. Barbieri, Jr., “Matthew,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck, (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 89; Warren W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary, vol. 1 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1996), 276.
18. Schmidt, “Cry,” 145–46.
19. Darrell L. Bock, Luke: 9:51–24:53, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 1858.
20. Wiersbe, Bible, 165.
21. Francis J. Mooney, The Gospel of Mark (Peabody MA: Hendrickson, 2002), 325; James R. Edwards, The GospelAccording to Mark (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), 475.
22. Dane C. Ortlund and G. K. Beale, “Darkness over the Whole Land: A Biblical Theological Reflection on Mark 15:33, ” The Westminster Theological Journal 75 (2013): 236.
23. Meredith G. Kline, Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006), 97–99.
24. Ortlund and Beale, “Darkness,” 224–25.
25. Kenneth W. Yates, “Faith That Moves Mountains (Mark 11:20–26),” JOTGES 33 (2020): 6–17.
26. Kenneth W. Yates, “Discipleship and the Widow’s Mites (Mark 12:41–44), JOTGES 32 (2020): 18–20.
27. There were two veils in the temple, an inner and outer one. Scholars are divided on which veil was torn when the Lord died. The inner one was immediately before the Holy of Holies and was a symbol of access to the presence of God. In light of this discussion on the coming judgment upon the nation of Israel, it is best to conclude it was the outer veil. This would have been a public display of what was going to happen, much like the darkness was a public phenomenon as well.
28. C. H. Dodd, According to the Scriptures: The Sub-Structure of New Testament Theology (New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1953), 59–60; Richard M. Davidson, “Interpreting Scripture according to Scripture,” Perspective Digest 17 (2012): 23.
29. Ortlund and Beale, “Darkness,” 227.
30. Charles L. Feinberg, Jeremiah (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1982), 151.
31. BDAG, 605.
32. Zane C. Hodges, Romans: Deliverance from Wrath (Corinth, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2013), 140–44.
33. Kenneth W. Yates, Hebrews: Partners with Christ (Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2019), 45–47.
34. Barry Mershon, Jr., “The Gospel according to Mark,” in The Grace New Testament Commentary, ed. Robert N. Wilkin (Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2010), 213.