Mtt. 4: 1–11; Lk. 4: 1–13. Hereafter referred to as the Q account
10.
BultmannR.The History of the Synoptic Tradition. (E. T. Oxford, Blackwell, 1963) p. 245
11.
BarrettC. K.The Holy Spirit in the Gospel Tradition. (London, S. P. C. K., 1947, Revd. Edn. 1966) p. 47
12.
BestE.The Temptation and the Passion: The Markan Soteriohgy. (Cambridge, C. U. P., 1965) p. 3; V. Taylor The Gospel According to St. Mark. (London, Macmillan, 1952) p. 163
13.
HauckF.T. W. N. T.Vol. I pp. 527f; W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. C. U. P., 1957) pp. 236f
14.
Mk. 1: 34, 39, 3: 15, 5: 40, 6: 13, 7: 26
15.
The Gospel According to Saint Mark. (Cambridge, C. U. P., 1957) p. 56
16.
Mk.1: 35, 45, 6: 31f
17.
See StrackH. L.BillerbeckP.Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch. (Munich, Beck) Vol. IV pp. 515f; G. Kittel T. W. N. T. Vol. II pp. 657–60; J. Pedersen Israel: Its Life and Culture. I-II (E. T. London, O. U. P., 1926) pp. 453–96; U. Mauser Christ in the Wilderness. (London, S. C. M., 1963) pp. 36ff
18.
BarrettC. K.Op. Cit. p. 49
19.
There are possible parallels in the length of the flood (Gen. 7: 12); Israel's forty years sojourn in the wilderness (ps. 95: 10); the fast of Moses on Sinai (Ex. 34: 28); and Elijah's journey through the wilderness to Horeb (I K. 19: 8)
20.
BultmannR.Op. Cit. pp. 253f suggests that it is tempting to regard the words ‘tempted by Satan’ as an addition, and to see the story as a representation of Jesus as the Paradisal Man at peace with the world of nature
21.
See SeesemannH.T. W. N. T.Vol. VI pp. 23–37; C. K. Barrett Op. Cit. p. 51
22.
As CranfieldC. E. B.Op. Cit. p. 59
23.
Is. 11: 6–9, 65: 25; Hos. 2: 18; Ps. 91: 11ff; Test. Naph. 8: 4. J. Jeremias New Testament Theology. (Vol. 1 E. T. London, S. C. M., 1971) pp. 69f; D. Nineham The Gospel of Mark. (Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1963) p. 64
LewestadR.Christ the Conqueror. (London, S. P. C. K., 1954) p. 51. ‘All moral struggle has this metaphysical background; it means fighting the devil.’
27.
Ex.16
28.
Is. 35: 6f, 49: 9f
29.
RobinsonJ. A. T.Twelve New Testament Studies. (London, S. C. M., 1962) p. 55
30.
MansonT. W.The Sayings of Jesus. (London, S. C. M., 1949) p. 44 suggests the mountain mentioned in En. 25: 3 cf. Apoc. Bar. 76: 3. C. K. Barrett Op. Cit. p. 52 favours Pisgah-Deut. 34: 1f
31.
MansonT. W.Op. Cit. p. 44 suggests the Royal colonnade on the south side of the outer temple court, which overlooked a deep ravine (Josephus Ant. xv. 11: 5); while J. Jeremias Op. Cit. p. 71 takes it to be ‘the lintel of the temple gateway.’
32.
RobinsonJ. A. T.Op. Cit. pp. 58ff argues that the temptations have nothing to do with the nature of Jesus' ministry, but are concerned with the claim of the Church to be the new Israel. The Church triumphantly relates that Jesus accepted for himself the role of the people of God, and gave the very answers which the old Israel failed to make its own
33.
Op. Cit. pp. 71f, contra Robinson Ibid, suggests that the neucleus of the temptation story goes back to a pre-Easter tradition. Also evidence is assembled to support the view that the temptation story originally circulated in three independent versions
34.
Cf. Mk. 8: 33 and par
35.
LangtonE.Essentials of Demonology. p. 155 explains the phenomenon of demon possession in modern psychological terms
36.
This core has become a neucleus round which sayings of a related nature have been built up. Mark follows his own source; Luke is more or less loyal to Q; while Matthew synthesises the two accounts
37.
The readers knew that it was such attitudes as this that helped to bring Jesus to the cross
38.
Lk. 11: 14/Mtt. 12: 22
39.
The charge is more or less the same in all three Synoptic Gospels. Mk. 3: 22 gives the impression that there are two separate charges — that he is possessed by the evil spirit of Beelzebul, and that his exorcisms were wrought by the ruler of demons. Matthew and Luke do not preserve the distinction. It is possible that Mark records two different ways of making the same accusation
40.
Lk. 11: 16
41.
PoersterW.T. W. N. T.Vol. I pp. 605f; Strack and Billerbeck Op. Cit. Vol I pp. 631–5
42.
Cf. the refs to ‘house’ in Mk. 3: 25, 27 and par
43.
A derisive corruption of the God of Ekron — II K.1: 2 ‘Lord of the flies’
44.
Cf. Mark's two-fold reply in the parables of the divided kingdom and the strong man's house, with the four-fold reply of Q: the divided kingdom, the question of Jewish exorcists, Jesus' exorcisms by the finger/Spirit of God, and the strong man's house
45.
TaylorV.Op. Cit. p. 239 suggests that the accusative is used in a collective sense of all evil spirits
46.
The Significance of the Synoptic Miracles. (London, S. P. C. K., 1961) p. 68
47.
On Jewish exorcisms see Strack and Billerbeck Op. Cit. Vol. IV pp. 533ff; S. Eitrem Some Notes of the Demonology in the New Testament. (Oslo, O. U. P., 2nd Edn. 1966) pp. 15ff
48.
Lk. 11: 20 has ‘finger of God’; Mtt. 12: 28 ‘Spirit of God.’ Both are metaphors for the mighty power of God
49.
Op. Cit. pp. 12f
50.
Op. Cit. p. 47
51.
Mk. 3: 28–30. Cf. Mtt. 12: 31f; Lk. 12: 10. V. Taylor Op. Cit. p. 244
52.
Mk. 3: 31–5. Cf. Mtt. 12: 46–50; Lk. 8: 19–21
53.
Mtt. 12: 30; Lk. 11: 23
54.
Mtt. 12: 43–5; Lk. 11: 24–6
55.
JeremiasJ.The Parables of Jesus. (E. T. London, S. C. M., Revd. Edn.1963) pp. 197f. The difficulty that the parable appears to depict relapse as a universal fact of experience is overcome when we recognise that v.44b is, in semitic grammatical construction, a conditional sentence. Thus the relapse is not inevitable, but something for which the man is responsible. The house must not be left empty
56.
Mk. 3: 14f
57.
Mk. 6: 7; Lk. 9: If; Mtt. 10: 1
58.
Lk. 9: 1–6 is a direct parallel to the Marcan account, and Mtt. 9: 37f, 10: 5–16 is a synthesis of Mk. and Q
59.
The Marcan account omits any reference to the preaching
60.
Lk. 10: 2; Mtt. 9: 37f
61.
New Testament Tiieology.Vol. I pp. 234f
62.
JeremiasJ.Op. Cit. p. 235 further adds that at the time of Jesus there were only two and a half tribes left, and therefore that the full twelve points to the establishment of the eschatological people of God, including Gentiles as well as Jews
63.
Recalling the Jewish principle of the Berakoth 5: 5 ‘The one sent by a man is as the man himself.’ RengstorfK. H.T. W. N. T.Vol. I pp. 414–20; Strack and Billerbeck Op. Cit. Vol. Ill p. 2
64.
Mtt. 10: 16ff
65.
MouleC. F. D.An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek. (Cambridge, C. U. P., 2nd Edn.1963) p. 206. The participle might give the meaning ‘I have been seeing how Satan is being overthrown.’
66.
LeivestadR.Op. Cit. p.49
67.
The Gospel of St. Luke (Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1963), p. 143
68.
BultmannR.Op. Cit. p. 210
69.
The demon is referred to as an ‘unclean spirit.’ A. R. C. Leancy ‘Dominical Authority for the Ministry of Healing.’Exp. T.65(4 ′54)121 makes the interesting suggestion that an unclean spirit does not necessarily make the man ill in body, but causes him to be filthy in person and speech
70.
BeareF. W.The Earliest Records of Jesus. (Oxford, Blackwell, 1962) p. 49
71.
Jesus seeks power over his opponents by discovering their name. The impression is that the man is possessed by a whole regiment of demons. JeremiasJ.Jesus Promise to the Nations. (London, S. C. M., Revd. Edn.1967) p. 30n.5
72.
Mk. 9: 29f. Cf. Mit. 17: 20 where the reference is to lack of faith, and Lk. who omits any reference to faith and prayer on the part of the disciples
73.
77e Gospel of St. Mark. (Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1963) p. 245
74.
Cf. Acts 19: 13–16; Mtt. 7: 22
75.
Promise and Fulfilment. (LondonS. C. M., 2nd Edn.1961) pp. 121ff. Luke introduces euaggelizetai and the middle voice form of biazetai, thus producing an inoffensive and mitigating idea. Matthew offers an enigmatic and difficult version of the saying; hence the conclusion that he has preserved the more original form. As for the second half of the sentence which connects the law and the prophets with John; the short and somewhat shocking form as in Luke, telling of the end of the law and the prophets, might well have been toned down in Matthew. Thus the original form of the saying would have corresponded more or less to Lk. 16: 16a; Mtt. 11:12
76.
Mtt. 11: 13 and Lk. 16: 16b being regarded as secondary modifications
77.
BlassF.DebrunncrA.A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. (Czmbiidge, C. U. P., 1961) 311: 1; N. Turner Grammatical Insights into the New Testament. (Edinburgh, T. and T. Clark, 1965) p. 60
78.
SchrenkG.T. W. N. T.Vol. I pp. 609–14; W. G. Kummel Op. Cit. pp. 122f
79.
Op. Cit. p. 611
80.
Cf. FridrichsenA.‘The Conflict of Jesus with the Unclean Spirits.’Theology.22(129 ′31) 122–35
81.
Cf. Herod, Pilate, Pharisees, or even Zealots
82.
ArndtGingrichOp. Cit. p. 140; T. W. Manson The Sayings of Jesus, p. 134
83.
JeremiasJ.Op. Cit. p. 47
84.
See HesseM.‘Miracles and the Laws of Nature’ in MouleC. F. D.Miracles. (London, Mowbray, 1965) pp. 35–42, who examines the concept of the miraculous in the situation created by the discrediting of Newtonian physics in favour of quantum physics. She argues that in this situation the notion of miracles as a ‘violation’ of a mechanical system no longer has meaning. In a similar vein R. H. Fuller Interpreting the Miracles. (London, S. C. M., 1963) pp. 8f points out that the Bible knows nothing of nature as a closed system of law. Nature furnishes the stage for the work of God. History is the arena where God intervenes from time to time, succouring men, pressing his demands upon them, and judging them for their disobedience. Fuller contends that it is these extraordinary interventions which, properly speaking, are the miracles of the Bible. They are occurrences which faith recognises as acts of God
85.
It is an anachronism to read back such an attitude into the New Testament records. Miracles were commonplace in an age which knew nothing about the fixity of natural law. Thus to cast out demons or to heal the sick was no proof of divinity, otherwise Jesus would hardly have been condemned and executed as a criminal
86.
In Lk. 13: 32 Jesus sums up his work in the words, ‘I cast out demons and heal the sick.’
87.
Lk. 11: 20/Mtt. 12: 28
88.
MouleC. F. D.Op. Cit. Excursus I ‘The Vocabulary of Miracle.’ pp. 235ff
89.
Eg. Mtt. 11: 20ff/Lk. 10: 13; Mtt. 13: 54, 58/Mk. 6: 2, 5. Lk. 19: 36. W. Grundmann T. W. N. T. Vol. II pp. 284–317; C. K. Barrett Op. Cit. pp. 71–7
90.
Mtt. 12: 38, 16: 1ff. Also see Moule Ibid, on the cliche semeai kai terata
Mk. 4: 35–41/Lk. 8: 22–5/Mtt. 8: 23–5. Jesus again addresses the raging elements in language similar to that used in the exorcisms
103.
Mtt. 14: 22–3/Mk. 6: 45–52
104.
Mtt. 17: 24–7
105.
Mk. 11: 2/Lk. 19: 30. See G. B. Caird Principalities and Powers, p. 71 n.2
106.
Mtt. 21: 18f/Mk. 11: 12–14. See R. H. Fuller Op. Cit. p.38, who comments that some people do apparently have a power to curse things effectively. He cites the case of the late Archbishop Lang who once cursed a new hotel which had been built on a loch where he used to fish — and it burned down a week or two after!
107.
Mtt. 14: 13–21/Mk. 6: 30–44/Lk. 9: 10–17; Mtt. 15: 32–9/Mk. 8: 1–10. The accounts call to mind ideas of the Messianic banquet, the manna in the wilderness, and the miraculous plenty of the Messianic age
108.
Cf. Lk. 11:4
109.
As MontefioreC. G.The Synoptic Gospels.Vol. II (London, Macmillan, 2nd Edn.1927) p. 103
110.
JeremiasJ.The Prayers of Jesus. (London, S. C. M., 1967) pp. 104ff
O diabolos is generally held to be a later name for the devil than satanas
116.
Mtt. 13: 19. See J. Jeremias Op. Cit. p. 83 n.69 and n.70
117.
BarrettC. K.Op. Cit. p. 75. Cf. I Cor. 12: 10, 28f; Gal. 3: 5
118.
Cf. Mtt. 4: 10
119.
Job. 1: 6–12, 2: 1–7
120.
LevistedR.Op. Cit. pp. 60f
121.
Cf. Jn. 13: 2, 27
122.
Cf. Lk. 22: 53
123.
Cf. Mtt. 24; Lk. 21
124.
Mk. 13: If
125.
Mk. 13:3
126.
TaylorV.Op. Cit. p. 498 relates the theory that in anticipation of the horrors of the seige of Jerusalem, some unknown Christian edited a small Jewish-Christian apocalypse as a kind of ‘fly-sheet’ to give encouragement to the Christians of his day. The theory is that Mark used this source and added other sayings of Jesus to build up the discourse of Mk. 13
127.
Dan. 9: 27, 11: 31, 12: 11. Cf. I Mace. 1: 54
128.
NinehamD. E.Op. Cit. p. 354
129.
Cf. II Thess. 2: 3–10; Rev. 13: 18
130.
The Four Gospels. (London, Macmillan, 1924) p. 492
131.
Mk. 13: 34
132.
If the Antichrist was expected to appear in the Temple at Jerusalem, the presumption is that the Temple was still standing when Mark wrote his Gospel
133.
Lk. 21: 204. Cf. Mk. 13: 28–37
134.
Lk.9: 25
135.
Mk. 1: 2; Lk. 7: 24, 27; Mtt. 11: 10
136.
To Zecharish — Lk. 1: 11, 13, 18, 19; To Mary — Lk. 1: 26, 28, 30, 34, 35, 38, 2: 21; To Joseph — Mtt. 1: 20, 24, 2: 13, 19; To the shepherds in the fields — Lk. 2: 9, 10. 13, 15
SchlierH.Principalities and Powers in the New Testament. (Frieburg, Herder, 1961) pp.44f
151.
BarrettC. K.Op. Cit. p. 68. J. C. O‘Neill ‘The Silence of Jesus.’ N. T. S. 15(2 ′69) 165, ‘Jesus’ silence must be a comprehensive policy which would not need explanation to friends — and even to enemies. I suggest that most Jews at the time would understand that the Messiah would not be able to claim Messiahship for himself, but must wait for God to enthrone him. If this theory is right, Jesus' silence is part of his messianic role.’
