Mark 9:1

34–9:1. THE DUTY OF SELF-SACRIFICE

Matthew 16:24-28; Luke 9:23-27

1. ὧδε τῶν ἑστηκότων ([1838][1839][1840] rather than τῶν ὧδε ἑστ. ([1841][1842][1843]2[1844] etc.) from Mt.

[1838] Codex Vaticanus. 4th cent., but perhaps a little later than א. In the Vatican Library almost since its foundation by Pope Nicolas V., and one of its greatest treasures. The whole Gospel, ending at Mark 16:8. Photographic facsimile, 1889.

[1839] Codex Bezae. 6th cent. Has a Latin translation (d) side by side with the Greek text, and the two do not quite always agree. Presented by Beza to the University Library of Cambridge in 1581. Remarkable for its frequent divergences from other texts. Contains Mark, except Mark 16:15-20, which has been added by a later hand. Photographic facsimile, 1899.

[1840] An asterisk denotes that the word is not found elsewhere in N.T., and such words are included in the index, even if there is no note on them in the commentary.
[1841] Codex Alexandrinus. 5th cent. Brought by Cyril Lucar, Patriarch of Constantinople, from Alexandria, and afterwards presented by him to King Charles I. in 1628. In the British Museum. The whole Gospel. Photographic facsimile, 1879.
[1842] Codex Ephraemi. 5th cent. A palimpsest: the original writing has been partially rubbed out, and the works of Ephraem the Syrian have been written over it; but a great deal of the original writing has been recovered; of Mark we have Mark 1:17 to Mark 6:31; Mark 8:5 to Mark 12:29; Mark 13:19 to Mark 16:20. In the National Library at Paris.

[1843] Codex Bezae. 6th cent. Has a Latin translation (d) side by side with the Greek text, and the two do not quite always agree. Presented by Beza to the University Library of Cambridge in 1581. Remarkable for its frequent divergences from other texts. Contains Mark, except Mark 16:15-20, which has been added by a later hand. Photographic facsimile, 1899.

[1844] Codex Regius. 8th cent. An important witness. At Paris. Contains Mark 1:1 to Mark 10:15; Mark 10:30 to Mark 15:1; Mark 15:20 to Mark 16:20, but the shorter ending is inserted between Mark 16:8 and Mark 16:9, showing that the scribe preferred it to the longer one.

1. καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς. The insertion of this introductory formula indicates a break of some kind. The words that follow can hardly be addressed to the multitude (Mark 8:34), and they may have been spoken on another occasion. Mt., as often, omits Mk’s imperf.

Ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν. See on Mark 3:28.

εἰσίν τινες ὧδε τ. ἑστ. See crit. note. There be some here of them that stand by (R.V.). We have ὁ ἑστηκώς or ὁ ἑστώς of a “by-stander,” Mark 11:5; Mark 15:35 (?); John 3:29; Acts 22:25.

οὐ μὴ γεύσωνται θανάτου. Shall in no wise taste of death (R.V.); strong negative, as in Mark 9:41; Mark 10:15; Mark 13:2; Mark 13:19; Mark 13:30. The metaphor is taken, not from a death-cup, but from the idea of bitterness, a bitterness which to the believer is only a taste; Hebrews 2:9. See on John 8:52. The phrase is not found in O.T. Cf. γεύεσθαι μόχθων (Soph. Trach. 1101), γεύεσθαι πένθους (Eur. Alc. 1069).

ἕως ἂν ἴδωσιν. Cf. Mark 6:10; Mark 12:36; the constr. is freq. in Mt. and Lk.

τὴν βασιλείαν τ. θεοῦ ἐληλυθυῖαν ἐν δυνάμει. Mt. expands this, as he expands Mark 8:29, and here his expansion is a misinterpretation; he has “till ye see the Son of Man coming in His reign,” with obvious ref. to the Second Advent, which Mark 8:38 suggested to him. Probably, when Mt. wrote, “the reign of God come with power” was understood in that sense. See on Mark 1:15, and Dalman, Words, p. 133. That interpretation became untenable when all the Apostles had died before the Second Advent; and then other interpretations became necessary, of which the following are chief. 1. The Transfiguration (so most of the Fathers); 2. The Resurrection and Ascension (Cajetan, Calvin); 3. Pentecost and the Spread of Christianity (Godet, Hahn, Nösgen, Swete); 4. The Destruction of Jerusalem (Wetstein, Alford, Morison, Plumptre); 5. The internal Development of the Gospel (Erasmus). The test of correctness is εἰσίν τινες τ. ἑστ. Among the bystanders are some who will see the reign of God come with power, while others will not. That seems to exclude 2 and 3, unless the absence of Judas is held to justify εἰσίν τινες. The Transfiguration could be meant only in the sense that it was a sort of symbol or earnest of the reign of God; and “shall in no wise taste of death until” could hardly be used of an event which was to take place in about a week. No modern writer seems to adopt it. The destruction of Jerusalem was witnessed by a few of those present, and it swept away Judaism, leaving Christianity in full possession; Moses and Elijah vanished, and Jesus only, with His ministers, remained. Possibly no single event is intended, but only the solemn declaration that before long, by the power of God, the reign of God will be firmly established (Lagrange). In any case, it is not sound criticism to insist that Mt., who so often expands Christ’s words, alone in this case gives His words correctly, and that, in saying that some of those present would see the Second Advent, Christ said what has proved to be untrue. Moreover, we have to remember that Christ’s language, especially on this subject, reflects the pictorial symbolism of later Judaism. Much of it may be oriental imagery, setting forth the triumphant success of the Gospel, without any reference to Christ’s return in glory. In particular, ἐν δυνάμει does not refer to “glory” but to “power,” viz. the powerful energy which was manifested wherever the Gospel was preached.

The pert. ἐλήλυθα occurs nowhere else in Mk and nowhere at all in Mt. It is fairly freq. in Lk. and Jn, but Lk. omits it here, and his report of the words is the least eschatological of the three.