MSB notes on Mark, including a discussion of "The Synoptic Problem".
Mark was a close companion of Peter, and is often mentioned in Acts as "John, who was also called Mark".  Mark was Barnabas' cousin.  This is the Mark who turned back and left Paul and Barnabas on that first missionary journey.  Paul refused to take him on the second journey when Barnabas wanted him with them, causing a rift between Paul and Barnabas that even leads to their separation.  This all blows over, and eventually Paul calls John Mark a fellow worker.  Peter calls Mark "my son, Mark".  
Early church fathers attributed this gospel to Mark.  Hieropolis in about 140 AD, talked specifically about the book.  He says that Mark was not with Jesus, but was ever with Peter.  He says Mark undertook to write down the things Peter told him, but as he was recording what someone else said, the book is not necessarily chronological.  
In AD 150, Justin Martyr referred to the Gospel of Mark as the memoirs of Peter, committed to writing by Mark while in Italy.  Most believe it was written in Rome, for the benefit of Roman Christians.  Iranaeus, in about AD 185, says the book records what Peter preached about Jesus.  There is debate as to whether it was written before or after Peter's death in ca. AD 67-68.  Consensus is that it was written in about AD 50 - though this is still hotly debated.

2024 - Is this the Mark that ran naked from the scene of Jesus' arrest?  Isn't that in here? ...Yes, that's in Mark 14:51. Do we know his mother's name?  Yes, we do...12 When he realized this, he went to the house of Mary, the mother of John whose other name was Mark, where many were gathered together and were praying. [Act 12:12 ESV].  She was one of the "Marys". 

This book seems to be written for Roman Christians, particularly Gentiles.  The internal evidence is all listed in the MSB, but particularly interesting is that Mark is careful to explain Jewish traditions (which Jews would already know), he leaves out the genealogies in Matthew and Luke, and refers only now and then to the OT - since Gentiles would not be as familiar with them anyway.  

Mark focuses more on the things Jesus did than on the things Jesus taught.  Mark doesn't spend any time on Jesus' birth or early life.  He starts at the Baptism by John.  Mark highlights the "humanness" of Jesus - emotions, physical limitations, and so on.

There are three big questions about this book: 1, what is the relationship of Mark to Matthew and Luke (The Synoptic Problem), 2, how to interpret the eschatological passages (Chapters 4 (2022 - which does not seem particularly eschatological to me), 13 (2022 - which starts off much like Matthew 24), and 3, were those last 12 verses of the last chapter added much later?

The question of how to explain the similarities and differences between the three Synoptic gospels - Matthew, Mark, and Luke - is called the Synoptic Problem.  The most commonly accepted theory is called the "Two-Source" theory.  This theory says Mark was written first, and then Luke and Matthew used Mark's book, along with a now unknown (MSB calls it imagined and non-existent) source Q after the German word Quelle, meaning "source", that supplied all the material that Mark didn't already mention.  The reasons given for accepting the 2 source theory are outlined.  They seem more like general observations than compelling arguments to me.  And I don't see why it makes a lot of difference whether or not Luke and Matthew had read Mark's book and used it as the "backbone framework" off which they built their own gospels?

In refutation of the 2 source theory - these:
1, Early church fathers were unanimous that Matthew was the first written.  
2, Why would Matthew, who was there, depend on someone who wasn't - Mark, even for the account of his own conversion?
3, Statistical analysis (who knows what the details might be) say there are a lot more differences in these gospels than is generally acknowledged, which argues against any one of them depending on the others.
4, They are all somewhat chronological, all record the events in the life of Christ.  Of course they will relate things in more or less the same order, as would three writers of American history who put the Revolutionary war before the Civil war in each case.  Doesn't mean one was copying from the other.
5, In about a sixth of each of Matthew and Luke, they agree together differently than Mark.   Why would both Luke and Matthew change Mark's wording in exactly the same way?
6, The 2 source theory cannot explain why Luke omits the important section in Mark (6:45-8:26).  The fact that Luke does omit it indicates that Luke had never seen it, therefore he did not have Mark's gospel as a source.  
7, No historical evidence for the Q document exists.  It never was there (per MSB) but is "a fabrication of modern skepticism and a way to possibly deny the verbal inspiration of the gospels".
8,  All three of them probably knew each other, spent time with each other, discussed Jesus with each other.  So some commonalities between their gospels in matters they'd discussed do not indicate directly that they had read each other's books.

Gotta go with John on this one.


Mark Chapter 1
This book opens at Matthew 3 so to speak.  Mark quotes from the same place in Isaiah as Matthew did.  
2022 - Here is that passage:
"2 Speak tenderly to Jerusalem, and cry to her that her warfare is ended, that her iniquity is pardoned, that she has received from the LORD's hand double for all her sins. 3 A voice cries: "In the wilderness prepare the way of the LORD; make straight in the desert a highway for our God." [Isa 40:2-3 ESV]
Note that the "double punishment is mentioned here.  I think it refers to the second destruction of Jerusalem, which occurred so near in time to the coming of Christ.  It is almost as if this verse is not only Messianic, but foretells WHEN he will come.  
Next, note the punctuation in Isaiah as contrasted with Mark.  The Isaiah passage starts out as "A voice cries:"  and then the message of that cry starts "In the wilderness...".  Jesus is forced to take his ministry out of the cities and into the desolate places very early in his ministry.  So BOTH John and Jesus were in the wilderness for the most part.  This would have been very different from other "prophets" of the time, different from pretenders, and so on.  You do not normally rise to fame and fortune in the middle of nowhere.  This makes both John and Jesus unique.

This verse is how Mark puts what John was doing:
4 John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. [Mar 1:4 ESV]
"a" baptism.  Definite article must be missing.  (2022 - Yes, it is missing).  Baptism for forgiveness.  MSB note on this verse first tells us that John is the last OT prophet, and also the announcer of the Messiah.  He is the end of Israel, and the beginning of the church (my words).  The MSB note continues:
Baptism was the distinguishing mark of John's ministry.  It differed from the ritual washings in that it was only done once.  THIS INFORMATION:  The Jews performed a similar one-time washing of Gentile proselytes, symbolizing their embracing of the true faith.  NEVER KNEW THIS!  Would love to look into the source of this information.  The note continues "That Jews would participate in such a rite was a startling admission that they, although members of God's covenant people, needed to come to God through repentance and faith just like the Gentiles.  John's message is again summarized in 7 through vs 8.

2022 - He baptized "for the remission of sins".  This is how it is worded in English.  The word translated "for" is from "eis", a little word used 1,774 times in the New Testament.  You would think that would be enough for us to know what it means and how it is used.  But it isn't.  I heard a very good explanation of the usages of this word...but I can't remember it precisely.  The gist was that the word eis is used two ways, just as we use for in two ways.  Here is one way we use it"
He went to the grocery story for groceries.  So in this sense, the action was taken to obtain something.  This is the usage that those who believe baptism is necessary for salvation use.  The other usage means "because of".  He went to the grocery store because of groceries.  This is not about going to obtain groceries, but going because the store HAS groceries.  Because they had groceries, he went to that store.  It is this second usage that is applied by those who believe baptism is subsequent to remission, and not its prequel.  I believe the examples given in the video I saw were much better than these two I've come up with but the idea is the same.  I also note that eis is sometimes translated "in", "into".  It is a very common, very useful, and very often used preposition.
Here is the point of all this:  You cannot pick out one verse, apply your preferred interpretation, and then make the rest of the Bible conform to that interpretation.  It works the other way.  You find everything in the Bible that relates to your question and you reach a conclusion based on the preponderance (if I may use a legal term) of the answers given.  I think baptism is "because of" salvation, not "to obtain" salvation.  
Here is one more verse, by the same writer, and only 4 verses later, and this verse does not use "eis":
"8 I have baptized you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."" [Mar 1:8 ESV].  If you take the position that water baptism precedes salvation, doesn't this verse say that Holy Spirit baptism precedes salvation?  And if so, that means that God indwells unsaved people with the Holy Spirit, with the third person of the Trinity.  The only way around this is to perhaps says that the two are concurrent - indwelling and salvation, water baptism and salvation.  If you take that position, then you have to deal with this:
"47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" [Act 10:47 KJV].  In this verse, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in these people who were not yet baptized is evident to all.  Some didn't want to baptize them, because they were not Jews.  Are we to believe that those making such an argument didn't want them to be saved?  Isn't it more likely that they saw water baptism as a Jewish thing that should not be extended to Gentiles?  After all, the temple was still in operation at this time and Gentiles couldn't go into the inner parts of that temple and offer sacrifices, Gentiles couldn't be priests in the temple...it was exclusive to the Jews.  They felt the same way about water baptism.  So they were saying, ok, they have the Holy Spirit, so they are saved - and saved without water baptism, as evidenced by a more powerful baptism - but they are not Jews so they aren't entitled to participate in a Jewish ritual.  
The conclusion to me is obvious.  Even so, I have heard people say that this cannot be used as a precedent because it was during the "startup" of the church, and many exceptions were made.  They equate this incident with the performing of miracles and speaking in tongues, and such things as were only present during the initial days of the church.  But those things were done by apostles or those directly empowered by the apostles.  Those were the exceptions.  Salvation itself, the gospel itself, was NEVER done by exception.  
What of the OT saints?  They weren't baptized.  Now we have an entire testament full of exceptions.  But if salvation is by faith alone, then all are saved in the same way.
Enough on that for today.

This is a serious matter, more serious than most people believe.  There is no way around the fact that one of these positions is right and one is wrong.  It is not an either/or, it is not a "whichever".  One is right, one wrong.  The one that is wrong is a false gospel.  Those who teach the one that is wrong are false teachers.  The gospel is too important for us to get wrong.  We often think that those who take the opposite view from us on this question are good people but misinformed.  That is too lenient.  Whichever way you believe, if you sincerely believe it, you must view those with the opposing view as teachers of a false gospel, and these verses address that directly:
"8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." [Gal 1:8-9 KJV]
He says it twice.  This is a big deal indeed and we need to stop skimming over it as if it is not a big issue.  It is a huge issue.

2023 - This verse:
8 I have baptized you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit." [Mar 1:8 ESV]
The clear implication is that baptism with water - or John's baptism - is incomplete.  It is not a sufficient baptism.  Baptism by/with/in the Holy Spirit is the priority baptism, and is to be sought even after water baptism.  Water alone is not enough.  So those who count baptism necessary for salvation must say something like "during water baptism..." or "at the moment of water baptism..." the Holy Spirit indwells us and we receive that baptism simultaneously with water baptism.  But I have never really heard them say that.  Maybe they do.  We have examples of tongues of fire before baptism, and we have them subsequent to baptism.  And here's a question...did the 12 have to get baptized?  When did that happen?  Who did the baptizing?  Do we have any Scriptural indication that they were baptized...other than Paul?

Beginning in 9 we have Mark's account of the baptism of Jesus.  It is a little different than Matthew's record:
10 And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11 And a voice came from heaven, "You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased." [Mar 1:10-11 ESV]  More of a sense of something violent happening here, a sense of a "sign" in the heavens.  Mark then jumps ahead to John's arrest and implies that as John was arrested, Jesus began his own public ministry in Galilee.  Jesus' message was that the kingdom of God was at hand, and a call to repentance and belief in the gospel.

2023 - This verse:
8 I have baptized you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit." ... 15 and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel." [Mar 1:8, 15 ESV].  Jesus has repentance coming first, and then belief.  

Mark then moves to the calling of the disciples.  The first four are mentioned.  Simon and Andrew, James and John.  
This moves really fast.  From vs 4-20, we go from John's appearance baptizing, to Jesus baptism, his temptation, his "first sermon", and the calling of the disciples.  That seems like a lot of ground to cover so quickly.  

Next, they are in Capernaum - a ways off from the sea of Galilee - and Jesus enters the synagogue.  They are amazed at Jesus teaching - as one with authority.  There is a demon-possessed man in this synagogue as Jesus is teaching.  The demon states his recognition of Jesus as "The Holy One of God".  Jesus rebukes the demon, then casts him out.  Jesus' reputation spreads far and wide as a result of this event.  This is what the new "Chosen" series keeps harping on through Nicodemus.  Casting out demons.  It is indeed more significant this first time than I would have thought.  But they make it casting out of Mary Magdalene, not in the synagogue at Capernaum.  The more I read the more I believe that while Chosen might be a good idea, the amount of artistic license they take is well beyond what is reasonable. (2020-No.  It is very much worth watching.)  2020-I read in a book I found at Dad's that it may be that demons - Satan's angels, minions, helpers, beings or whatever it really is that demons are - may have been released into the world in huge numbers prior to Jesus appearance as part of some plan of Satan's to try and stop Jesus and his work.  The murder of countless male children in and around Bethlehem was, I believed, accomplished with some kind of demonic influence on Herod - either possession by a powerful demon or by Satan himself.  So it would not be surprising for Satan to "marshal his forces" to the area where Jesus was.  Even if Satan only used them as spies, to report on where Jesus was and what he was doing - to gather intelligence that might be used to kill Jesus early or to prevent the spread of his message...it makes sense that there would be demons in force and in quantity.  This is why the gospels are "flooded" with demon stories.  It was a unique and unusual time of manifestation of demons in the world.  They were less "secret" than they are now.

To use Mark's word, Jesus immediately heals Simon's mother-in-law of a fever.  It also makes it seem as though Simon and Andrew live in Capernaum.  (Yes, I was confusing Cana and Capernaum.  Capernaum is right on the Sea of Galilee.)  So they could have walked from the synagogue to Simon's house in a heartbeat.  Also, Simon wouldn't have a mother-in-law if he were not married.  That same night, Jesus heals a LOT of the residents of that town.  So in Mark's version, Jesus' ministry starts with a huge demonstration of his power to cast out demons and to heal the sick.  It starts with miracles.  

Jesus gets up very early the next day and prays, and then moves on to several more towns in the region.  Jesus says he wants to preach, because that is why he came out.  This verse:
39 And he went throughout all Galilee, preaching in their synagogues and casting out demons. [Mar 1:39 ESV]
Mark's gospel makes it seem like casting out demons was just about as big a deal as all the healing, as far as Jesus' credentials as Messiah.  In this verse, Jesus is preaching and casting out demons, not healing.  Are there any prophecies that he would do this?  I know there are prophecies that have to do with the healing, but demons?  I really don't remember any stories of OT prophets casting out demons either.  Never thought about it before, but exorcism may be a uniquely NT thing.  Check that book I have now, and see what the OT says about demons.

A leper is healed.  Jesus asks him to keep it quiet, but the former leper proclaims it.  This miracle, unprecedented in that time, catapults Jesus to such celebrity that he can no longer go into a town without being mobbed.  So from here on, he preaches and heals in desolate, out of the mainstream places.  The people now come to him, not the other way around.  His ministry was a phenomenon.

Healing, casting out demons, curing leprosy.  Leprosy was like the "cancer" of that day, the incurable killer.  Worse than cancer, leprosy isolated first, and then killed.  More like what Alzheimer's is doing today.  As leprosy isolated those who contracted it so that their loved ones could not support them, Alzheimer's makes it impossible for the loved ones to communicate with the sufferer even in the same room with them.  They watch as the one afflicted slips away, forgets who they are, changes the memories.  In lepers, the memories stay and are cherished by the sufferer, though none can be added in the isolation. 

Mark Chapter 2
This chapter opens with Jesus home in Capernaum.  Word gets out that he is there, and crowds gather.  Jesus preaches to those gathered.  There is an MSB note that says the "word" he preached was likely the good news of the gospel - that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone, for the forgiveness of sin.  Again, a stark contrast to the system of the Law that they all lived under.
While Jesus is preaching, four men lower a paralytic friend down through the roof.  Mark and Luke give us quite a bit of detail on this event.  Matthew doesn't even mention it.  At any rate, scribes are present.  When Jesus sees the man, he tells him that his sins are forgiven, likely in response to the man's faith.  MSB note, however, says that in those days people believed sickness and disease was the result of sin in their lives.  It was punishment.  So the paralytic would have seen the forgiveness as preparatory to healing.  With the sin gone, he should get well.  

The scribes, internally, believe that Jesus' claim to forgive is blasphemy, since only God forgives sins.  Jesus confronts them, knowing their thoughts, and asks what is easier - to say " your sins are forgiven" or to say "be healed".  His point is that anybody can say that first, and no man will know otherwise.  While it might be blasphemy, it cannot be proven efficacious.  SO, to prove that the first was efficacious, Jesus does the second, before their eyes and all those assembled.  The paralytic gets up and walks.  (The way this scene is presented in "The Chosen" adds much more to the story.  It is worth buying those DVDs just for this one scene.  That's just my opinion of course.)

Jesus goes out preaching again, and sees Levi in the tax booth, and tells him to follow him.  Levi does so.

They go and eat at Levi's house, and many of Levi's friends - in the tax collectors and sinners category - are also there.  The Pharisees judge this as a bad move, and question the disciples.  Jesus says he came to save sinners, not the righteous.  This was sarcasm!  The Pharisees were not righteous.  But they believed they were.  They were the worse sinners, but Jesus was not in one of their homes, but in Levi's home.  Jesus knew they were too hardhearted to come to him.  He was preaching to those who were inclined to convert, not those determined to discredit him.  Do we need to do the same?  Or do we lack the insight to tell which is which, and so preach to all?  Jesus knew this New Covenant - grace alone, by faith alone - was never going to fly with those who made their living off their religious positions.  The Mosaic was about to be thrown completely out - in 70 AD - and it won't come back until the end.  We are under a completely different system!  The only commonality is that God looks at hearts now just as he did then.  But the ritual of Sinai has been stripped off, and rather than bleating sheep and lambs taking away sin temporarily, the perfect lamb has taken it away forever for those who believe.

Jesus is asked why his disciples do not fast.  He gives the answer about the bridegroom.  Then, immediately after this - in fact it is in the same paragraph in ESV -  he tells them about patching old garments with new cloth.  It is worded this way in ESV:
21 No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment. If he does, the patch tears away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear is made. [Mar 2:21 ESV]
The disciples of the Pharisees, which is the Mosaic law, are fasting.  This is the "old" way.  John's disciples are also fasting.  John the Baptist, though he baptized which was a bit of an oddity at the time - also fasts according to the Mosaic Law.  Even John the Baptist was a part of a system - of a religion really - that was about to go away.  John preached the truth of salvation through faith, but he did so within the confines of the Mosaic law.  Jesus does the same thing.  A chapter before Jesus told the leper he healed to go make his sacrifice to the priest.  So even as Jesus walks the earth, the veil of the temple is intact.  The Mosaic MUST REMAIN so long as the annual "carry-forward" of the sins of the people, and the consequential delay of execution, is needed.  And it was needed until the day that Jesus died.  John didn't start baptizing because it was a new "requirement", because the Mosaic Law continued for years after that.  The Mosaic was still necessary, still required.  But the day was coming when trying to incorporate the new covenant into the old was simply not going to work, could not work.  The tearing of that veil was the last undoing of the requirements of the law for delaying God's punishment.  That was the last day of God's covenant with Israel as a nation.  It was the final divorce decree.  And yet...There will be temple sacrifices during the Millennial reign...when Israel as a nation is "reinstated" and the covenant is finally honored on their part.  Some sacrifices will continue as memorials, but some are no longer required.  Ezekiel speaks at length about this.

Animosity between those who are part of the old towards those who are of the new might be what is in view here.  Surely there was persecution later between the Jews and the followers of Christ.  But look at this in context

Ahhh....The reason the gospel so radically departed from the Mosaic Law was precisely so that the followers of the old way would not change.  They were under God's wrath for their unpaid harlotry (to use OT language), and only a few, a scant remnant, would be saved to carry on the line of Abraham and David to the end times.  The rest were being abandoned, as a divorced wife, with no further association.  God did this out of justice - as national punishment visited on individuals - because to do less was to be other than God.  The covenant is broken, and God no longer blesses Israel under the terms of that covenant.  Jesus understands this, and sarcastically tells the Pharisees that he isn't there for them, because they are not sick.

He follows up the patched cloth with the old and new wine skins.  Mixing new wine and old skins destroys both.  They are mutually exclusive, mutually destructive to each other such that mixing ruins both.

Next section is labelled Jesus Is Lord of the Sabbath.  About the corn picking on the Sabbath because they were hungry.  The Sabbath was extremely important to God.  The 70 years in Babylon were  70 because that's how long it took for the profaned, unobserved, un-honored Sabbaths to be restored as they should have been.  It took that long for God's Sabbaths to be observed.  Jesus says now that he is Lord of the Sabbath.  That they are for him.  Essentially, he says that he is God.  And I think he is also saying that even though David and his men ate the bread of presence, they did so while honoring the Sabbath, while these people don't eat the bread, but still manage to turn the Sabbath into nothing but a day prickly with rules and regulations.  Here is another verse where Jesus refers to himself as the Son of Man:
28 So the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath." [Mar 2:28 ESV]  This is in red in ESV.  Jesus is saying again that he is the one in Daniel's vision.  Lord of all - even the Sabbath of God.  This verse tells what authority the one like a son of man was given:
14 And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed. [Dan 7:14 ESV]  When Jesus uses this term, the Pharisees and scribes understand who he is claiming to be.  He is in their face about it.
2022 - ALSO, here is Jesus applying the intent of the Law rather than the letter of the Law.  They were hungry.  The Law of the Sabbath was not put in place to make people prepare food the day before.  It was not in place to make people fast on the Sabbath.  It was made to honor God as creator of the universes, and to rest, as he rested, on the seventh day.  BUT, God must still be honored, remembered, respected on the Sabbath, even if, occasionally, one has to lift a finger in order to go about doing his will.  
Perhaps this is finally a shorter version that I can post using Mark 2:25 cf.
Possible FB post.

Mark Chapter 3
2024 - This verse:  'And they watched Jesus, to see whether he would heal him on the Sabbath, so that they might accuse him. ' Mark 3:2 ESV.  We shouldn't be like this.  If we go to church and spend our time looking around to see who is doing church wrong, we are being Pharisees.  Church is not for seeing who is under dressed, overdressed, inappropriately dressed, too loud, too timid, hair too long, hair too short...you get the idea.  I'm not saying there is no line about church.  There were several issues that Paul discusses in the Corinthian letters that had to be addressed.  I'm thinking the likelihood of running into one of those problems is too low to waste time thinking about, much less appointing ourselves judge and jury of other people's worship choices.  Think about Paul and Silas.  Chained up, dirty, beaten, bleeding probably, bruised certainly, surrounded by unbelievers and skeptics, and...singing.  Absolutely unpresentable in any kind of polite company, and yet they were worshiping God and given the results, I'd say their worship was acceptable to God.  When at church, we ought to focus on ensuring that our own worship is acceptable to God, and very little else.
Possible FB post.

The healing of the withered hand.  Jesus' asks them this question:
4 And he said to them, "Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?" But they were silent. [Mar 3:4 ESV]
These two questions say that the law is not Boolean.  It is not only about yes and no.  It is not a "dead" rule.  It is about doing right.  When faced with a choice, right is best, not law.  If the result of strict compliance is evil, then another option is called for.  Hagar broke the law of the king to hide the spies.  Because turning them over would have been evil.  But this is such a dangerous concept...Moral relativism must have come from this view, and that is clearly not right either.  In any case, Jesus wants them to wake up.  To think.  To escape tradition for tradition's sake.
The amazing thing about this story is this summary verse:
"6 The Pharisees went out and immediately held counsel with the Herodians against him, how to destroy him." [Mar 3:6 ESV].  A hand was miraculously restored, and it prompted not rejoicing and praise and awe, but hatred and conspiracy.
Possible FB post.

A crowd follows Jesus as he leaves.  Just as in Matthew.  In Mark, Jesus admonishes the demons who recognize him to keep quiet, not those he has healed.

Mark says Jesus here picked out his 12, and called them apostles, and gave them power to cast out demons.  They are listed.  Then Jesus goes home, but the crowd knows he is there and crowd around so heavily that they cannot even eat.  So Jesus' family - brothers, sisters, Mary?  - show up to seize him because "He is out of his mind".  
2020 - Oh my!!!!  This explains Jesus strange answer that these who are sitting around him are more  his brothers, sisters, and mother than his own family.  At this moment, his family believes he is having some serious problems with delusions of grandeur!  They want to take him home and shoot him up with thorazine until he calms down and gets normal again.  His family was in fact trying to stop him because of their own unbelief.  He was right!  Those who believed in him were his family at this point!  Why has no one ever pointed this out before!!!  Looking in the Harmony, this spot where it says Jesus' family suspected mental illness is not in the same place as when he says his family is those who believe.  So you  have to infer that this was still their attitude later - in this case in Mark 3: 31-35 instead of here in vs 21.  But it finally makes some sense!

Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.  Mark's account is very much like Matthew's.  Unforgivable sin.  
2020-BUT, Mark gives us a little bit of an extra clue right here:
28 "Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the children of man, and whatever blasphemies they utter, 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin"-- 30 for they were saying, "He has an unclean spirit." [Mar 3:28-30 ESV]
So...shortly after Jesus' own family thinks he's had a mental break, the Pharisees decide his behavior is explainable by demon possession.  They think Jesus has the same problem as the person from whom he just expelled a demon.  Perhaps their point is that the demon in Jesus is dominant enough to make the other demons obey him and leave.  So they aren't really crediting Satan himself, but are saying Jesus has one whale of a powerful demon and this powerful demon is deluding people so that they will believe in him (the demon).  So this is all a big satanic show and has nothing to do with God. But the only Spirit that Jesus had was the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, and the Pharisees were calling that Spirit - because they saw such things as casting out demons as spiritual matters - a demonic spirit.  THIS is why this is different, why it is so serious, why Jesus took such offense.
SOOOO much new information today.  And I decided to just read right through Mark and both these things have opened up to me today!
2022 - This verse:
"27 But no one can enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man. Then indeed he may plunder his house." [Mar 3:27 ESV].  In this statement, Satan is the strong man.  Jesus counters the Pharisees accusation that he is possessed and so casting out weaker demons by saying the truth is that he is not only stronger than the demons, but stronger than the prince of demons.  He is saying that he is stronger than Satan himself and is making great inroads into the "house" of Satan, and stealing away the lost that Satan "owns" and bringing them home with him.  He is telling them that their vision is limited, that they need to think this through, and if they will, they will stand in awe of what they are seeing, rather than attributing the power being exercised to the one who is losing the war.

2022 - These verses:
"32 And a crowd was sitting around him, and they said to him, "Your mother and your brothers are outside, seeking you." 33 And he answered them, "Who are my mother and my brothers?" 34 And looking about at those who sat around him, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers!" [Mar 3:32-34 ESV].  I was sitting alone at the Good Friday service, feeling lonesome and dejected because so many were coming in together and sitting and laughing and talking.  And out of the blue, this passage came to me.  I don't have it memorized, but the story came to mind.  And I looked around, and I thought "I am not alone here.  I am surrounded by brothers and sisters and parents.  I am NOT alone."  What a difference it made!

When Jesus' family comes to retrieve him, and can't get to him because of the crowd, they send word that they are there.  Jesus says his family are those who do the will of God.  He has set aside earthly family for spiritual family.

Chapter 4
Mark also tells us that this message from Jesus was delivered from a boat because of the crowds.  I still get hung up on the sower, and on the soil.  But it's about the seed according to the one who told the parable, and "forcing" the other details to mean things is a mistake.  This is about the seed, and the different ways the gospel is received.  The seed on the path didn't reject the message, it was snatched away.  The seed on the  stony ground sprouted, but when it got tough, this seed had no teaching, no depth of knowledge, nothing but superficial understanding, and so withered away.  The seed among the thorns let other things have more importance, but the gospel was retained.  It just didn't get the priority.  The last produced.  It was in good ground...but this isn't about the ground.  And I can't really argue.  Every good tree produces.  Faith produces works.  If there is no fruit, there is no faith.

Here again, when asked, Jesus explains why he is teaching in parables:
12 so that "they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand, lest they should turn and be forgiven." [Mar 4:12 ESV]  There is a long note at Mat. 13:3 about this, and I included a lot of that note there yesterday.  Luke also talks about the reasons for the parables.  There seem to be two main reasons:  One is that these people wouldn't listen to the truth if it was right in front of them anyway, and the other is that since they are not called, it is best that they really not understand at all, lest they be more condemned for understanding and rejecting than just for rejecting.  This seems to be about "degrees" of hell.  Are we to understand that eternity in hell can be bad, worse and worst, depending on how blatantly the gospel is rejected?  It is still an eternity of torment, how can infinity have degrees?  Yet if this is what it means, it also means that those who never heard the gospel and who go to hell because of that will be punished "less" than those who sit in church all their lives rejecting the gospel.  And this does seem more fair...The length of the sentence for the crime of rejecting the gospel is eternity in hell, but the wantonness and the brutality of the crime determine which cell block you're in.  2020 - Still...that last phrase in Mark's version is hard to understand.  Lest they should turn?  Back when I was first reading the Bible, I thought the problem here was sort of an irresistible grace problem.  If the Son of God in the flesh right there in front of you says "Come to me..." who can say no?  Yet all are not called.  So, if Jesus "called" in clear plain language that all who heard him would understand, wouldn't they all "have to be saved?"  So he speaks in parables, so that only the called get the message, and only the called are saved.  This too has lots of problems, but based on this language in Mark, seems like it could be the reason.

2024 *!*!*!*  Ok forget every down to this symbol below, in 2024!
*!*Ok, forget the paragraphs above, and some of the below.  This next section is the best sense I have yet made of these things.  This was "spurred" by reading Mark 4 on 12/10/20.
2020, Later...I think I have it finally!  Look at vs 12, in red.  Jesus tells them exactly what the parables are about, and to explain it, he refers to a number of OT references that explain it in detail.  I have struggled with this for so long that I am going to take an expanded look at each reference:
1.  9 And he said, "Go, and say to this people: "'Keep on hearing, but do not understand; keep on seeing, but do not perceive.' [Isa 6:9 ESV]  This is right at the beginning of Isaiah's ministry, before the 10 tribes fell.  This is the message that Isaiah is to delver.  It is accusatory in that it tells them to just go on being blind, because wrath is coming.  I think there is also a very real sense here that the time for their repentance is past.  The line has been crossed, and no matter what they do now, the Assyrians are coming.  I don't know if the Babylonian's were a certainty at this time, but let's continue.
2. 8 Bring out the people who are blind, yet have eyes, who are deaf, yet have ears! [Isa 43:8 ESV]  The same kind of picture is painted here.  This is after the North fell, but before the south.  So again, there is the implication that these people are not listening, and they are not going to listen, and possibly, they are being prevented from hearing and seeing because their rebellion has "cut them off".  God is no longer allowing them to understand, because too much sin has accumulated, and they are under God's judgement.
3. Then this:  21 "Hear this, O foolish and senseless people, who have eyes, but see not, who have ears, but hear not. ... 23 But this people has a stubborn and rebellious heart; they have turned aside and gone away. ... 25 Your iniquities have turned these away, and your sins have kept good from you. [Jer 5:21, 23, 25 ESV].  Gets even more clear, more obvious here, especially in 25.  Their accumulated sins - both individually, because all have sinned, and corporately because all Israel has sinned - have shut down even the offer of salvation to this people.  What is happening in the NT, with the parables, is this same thing.  The parables insure that only those truly chosen will have a clue what Jesus is saying.  God's wrath against the nation of Israel is still in full force and effect, because the double is not yet complete.  This wrath won't be finished until 70 AD, and the blindness God sends on them continues to this day.  Like Isaiah and Jeremiah, Jesus speaks to a rebellious and unruly and stubborn people.  Judgement came before.  It is still being carried out.
4. 2 "Son of man, you dwell in the midst of a rebellious house, who have eyes to see, but see not, who have ears to hear, but hear not, for they are a rebellious house. [Eze 12:2 ESV]  Lest we think that the wrath was over at the Babylonian captivity, Ezekiel tells us from Babylon itself that this people remains rebellious, blind and deaf to the message of God, the message of salvation.  So all these years I struggled with this, and it is now plain as day.  It was NEVER that Jesus didn't want the people of Galilee to be saved.  It was that they had been condemned already, by their own acts and the acts of their ancestors, and the sentence was still to be served.  This also explains what the "let him who has ears hear" phrase is about.  It is about all these OT references to rebellion and to judgement and to punishment for rebellion - by the nation of Israel!!!  Only a few, a remnant, are to be preserved!!!!  Most are blind and deaf!!!
I wonder now if the whole "he who has will be given more, and he who has little will lose even that" is about insight into the OT scriptures, for those to whom Jesus was speaking?  Is that how the parable of the sower really ties in?  Some of Jesus' listeners had a cursory knowledge that Messiah was coming, but weren't all that keen about it.  They have other things to do.  So Satan snatches that hope away, they never really experience.  They are the blindest and deafest of all.  The little they had was snatched away.  But some hear about Messiah and grab onto the hope of his coming and are filled with the joy and thrill of anticipation.  But he doesn't come.  Time goes on.  Life is the misery and hardship it has always been.  The joy fades.  This one had a little more, but that too was lost.  Skipping ahead, this makes the good ground the remnant.  The few that God has selected for himself to be saved, to be given insight and understanding from the OT that this man before them is THE Messiah, not just another prophet.  Not only do they recognize him, but all the puzzle pieces fall into place, even the ones they didn't recognize as even being part of the puzzle.  These, who are chosen, who still hold onto joy and hope in the face of hardship, trial, and worldly bonds, these who have the "most" compared to the others, these will be given abundantly hugely more.  So maybe, just maybe this parable is hard to understand because we always look at it as being about salvation only, and we look at it as being universal.  But that's not all it is.  It is about the earthly ministry of Jesus to the Jews, and reason it was the way it was.  Like so many  other things in the Bible, these things are specifically to and about the Jews,  and it is the principal of how God works that is applicable to us today, NOT the details!!!!  And one last point about that lamp...this is about all that there is to be revealed, hidden in darkness.  For those to whom more will be given, there is MUCH to see.  This encourages those in the fourth group to continue digging, studying, learning.  There is no end to the more that will be given.

It is a relief to see that Jesus had to explain so many of his parables to his disciples.  They were with him every day, most were saved, surely, and yet even though the parables veiled truths revealed only to believers, these believers also needed some help with understanding.  If they did, it seems ok if I do.  There is no test of salvation in whether or not we understand a parable on first reading/hearing it.  Jesus explains the parable of the sower yet again.  It is explained three times yet I still have trouble with it.  In this explanation also is the phrase "Satan immediately comes and takes away the word".  In Matthew it says it this way:  ...the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart.  [Mat 13:19 ESV].  The explanation in Luke puts it this way:
12 ...the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved. [Lk 8:12 ESV]  Satan, the evil one, and the devil.  All the same.  
I note that MSB goes into a lot of detail in the notes on Mark 4 to explain the rocky ground, the thorns and the good ground.  Nothing about the seed on the path.  But he does address it in the Matthew notes.  He says this refers to those who hear the gospel superficially, on the surface only, but never really take it and deal with it.  They don't maybe see it for the "pearl" that it is, and so make no effort to hold on to it and preserve it and be changed by it.  It never "enters" their heart, only their ears.  So Satan can easily distract them from it, and since they didn't see it as important in the first place, they never think to try and retrieve it.  It has been snatched away.  

This is all pretty good then.  Those in this group were never saved.  In the second group, on stony ground, the gospel was accepted like a new diet where the first 5 lbs melts off like ice in a furnace.  This is great!  But then it slows down.  And things get tougher.  And then YouTube videos come out saying this diet is stupid and only stupid people would do it.  It becomes very unpopular...so you go back to the old way.  No real commitment.  Fair weather Christians.  

2022 - No, I think I have the stony ground wrong.  As I read it this year, these are saved.  The first are not, because Satan snatched away the word.  He cannot snatch away salvation.  They heard the gospel but never considered it important enough to deal with, and so, before it could begin to change the heart, Satan put other things in their way, and they never came back to it, because it was never important.  But look at these phrases about the stony ground:  ...immediately receive it with joy...,  ...when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word..., ...they fall away...".
Here is the whole "rocky ground" part:
"16 And these are the ones sown on rocky ground: the ones who, when they hear the word, immediately receive it with joy. 17 And they have no root in themselves, but endure for a while; then, when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately they fall away." [Mar 4:16-17 ESV]
The word translated "receive" is the Greek "lambano", G2983.  As is so very often the case with passages difficult to pin down, this Greek word is unusual.  Unusual in the sense that it has a wide range of possible translations, and in this case, it is an unusual verb, described this way:  "A prolonged form of a primary verb, which is used only as an alternate in certain tenses."  Even so, this unusual word is used 263 times in the KJV.  It is most often translated as "receive", 133 times, but next on this list is "take", 106 times!  Those two don't seem very much alike to me.  You receive something that is given to you.  But the sense of "take" here, is that you grab what is being offered, not that you steal it.  You really want it, and it is being offered, so you "take" it with joy and abandon.  Hand a child a cupcake, and he will "take" it in this same way.  In vs 16, it could have been translated "take" in this sense.  The fact that the words"immediately with joy" are included almost require that "take" be the correct word for translation...but ESV, and KJV both used receive.  In fact, all the translations I looked at use receive.  Even so, those extra words tell us that what was offered was received in a way that says it became a cherished, valuable possession to the one who received it.  It was not a "gift" placed on a shelf.  It was a huge deal.  Here is a verse where "lambano" is translated take:  "40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well." [Mat 5:40 ESV].  It is not stealing here either, but legally obtained.  If the suit is won, the tunic will belong to the one who sued.  Here is a different verse that translates it "receives":  "8 For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened." [Mat 7:8 ESV].  If you ask,  you will receive.  God does not give and then take back.  What He gives is ours.  Surely "gift" is in view in vs 8.  All this to say that this seed on the stony ground surely represents saved people.  Only the first seed is unsaved.  
But there is a problem with these saved people.  They have no root.  What does that mean?  (Hmm...I think our tendency in these days is to make as many people "saved" as we can.  That may be why I fight against the interpretation that only the last group - the seed on good soil - are saved.  I think it is because I see myself in the seed on stony ground at some times in my life.  I see myself at other times like the seed on thorny ground.  And at times, I am even the seed on good ground.  But I don't see myself as on the path.  I received.  Those on the path never did.  Only the seed on the path failed to "sprout".  
No root.  What does that mean?  The word for root is "rhiza", from which we get rhizome.  This is what a rhizome is:  a somewhat elongated usually horizontal subterranean plant stem that is often thickened by deposits of reserve food material, produces shoots above and roots below, and is distinguished from a true root in possessing buds, nodes, and usually scalelike leaves.  Translating this word root does not really tell the whole story.  However, in other places, this word rhiza just seems to me a plain old root, not this whole rhizome idea.  So this seed starts to grow, but its roots are insufficient to supply it when testing comes along.  It has to have some roots, or it would never have raised up.  We surely should not understand this is as being "minimally saved".  We are going to stick with binary here.  Saved or not saved and no position in between.  One or the other.  Perhaps this seed is about the current generation of young people in the US.  So very many were brought up in church, but are not going now that it is their own decision as to whether to do so or not.  How many of them were "saved" as children, how many prayed the prayer, and were baptized...and now they stay home.  Now they keep their own children at home and don't consider the consequences to their children of not being saved a source of worry.  But...this generation is not being persecuted, at least not blatantly.  No.  This generation seems more like the path, don't they.  
So what are the consequences of having no root?  "They fall away".  Now this is a hugely interesting phrase, the subject of countless arguments.  The argument is whether this means you lose the salvation you already had, or it just means "stumble".  Stumble in the sense of not making much progress, for a little while or a long while, but just a delay during the journey, not a complete restart.  The argument as to which it means falls along predictable denominational lines.  There is only one Greek word here, and it is translated into the three English words "they fall away".  I think it is important that there is only one Greek word here.  Simplifies the study.  The word is "skandalizo".  Pretty sure we get our English word "scandal" from that word.  We need to add the sense of that to "fall away".  They should be able to continue the journey, but they don't.  Like the fourth runner in a relay, who decides that because he is so far behind, he'll just coast and not even try.  He'll just "fall away" from the pack that is running the real race, and not work up a sweat.  This is the sense that I get about the seed on stony ground.  If the analogy holds, remember that even this runner finishes the race, but is unworthy of our praise for his efforts.
Skandalizo is used 30 times in the KJV.  It is NEVER translated "fall away" in the KJV.  It is translated "offended" 28 times, and "make to offend" twice.  Only the more modern translations have it as "fall away".  Here is the verse we're looking at in the KJV:  "17 And have no root in themselves, and so endure but for a time: afterward, when affliction or persecution ariseth for the word's sake, immediately they are offended." [Mar 4:17 KJV].  Almost like the KJV didn't want us to think this was about losing salvation.  Here is another place the word is used:  "29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast [it] from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not [that] thy whole body should be cast into hell." [Mat 5:29 KJV].  And the same verse in ESV:  "29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell." [Mat 5:29 ESV].  Skandalizo is the "causes sin" part of the phrase.  In these two verses, the sense of skandalizo is of something getting between you and God, and you need to get rid of it.  It is not about a permanent condition, but it is about a serious situation.  So can you get rid of the condition of "having no root"?  Of course.  More study, more focus, fewer distractions - that is, fewer rocks.  Rocks are part of every persons life.  Our flaws and foibles, the things we have to work through and constantly guard against that keep us from our goals.  Are we really to consider them insurmountable in terms of what this parable is about?  The seed sprouted, but the sun got to it quickly, before it dealt with working it's way around the rocks and down into more soil, more moisture down below.  Perhaps the whole point is about those who face serious problems while their faith is new.  Or about those who are saved, but never receive the training that they will require in the face of the persecution that we all know is coming.  
In conclusion, in 2022, the seed on stony ground is about saved people faced with the worlds derision before they have been established in the faith.  They are saved, but they are children in the faith.  They have not learned to exercise their faith to resist, to withstand, to rejoice in trials, and so they stumble.  They lose their way.  But their salvation is still there.  
The big question then, is how to we "reignite" the joy they first felt???
Ok, really a long time spent on the stony ground in 2022.  Moving on.  Next year I will spend the time on the thorns, and see whether I think that person is saved - right now I most certainly do.  I think every seed that sprouted represents a saved person.  But not all are productive.  How is that not consistent with Paul's writing to the churches?  With John's letters to the seven churches?  


 
The seed among the thorns - successful people who don't have time for church.  They hear, they know it's a big deal, but their priority is the job, the wealth, the position.  These are the guys that say "you and the kids go on to church, I have to get some work done this morning".  Or the every Sunday morning golfers.  Or the PBS watchers.  That was my excuse.  Or the "I only have the weekends to keep up the yard and the house".  Or the "shift diff and weekend pay" people.  With these, they know, but they choose otherwise.  (2021 - I think this paragraph, from an early reading of mine, is pretty much the traditional interpretation of the parable of the sower.  I didn't really think it worked then, and I don't think it works now.  I think my interpretation above, marked *!*, is better, but maybe still not right.

It is hard for me to deny that I was in the third group for a lot of my life.  Then I committed for a long time...and drifted out into the third group again.  When was I saved?  Looking at my own behavior, it might not have been until a few years ago.  But I just don't believe that.  I believe I was changed at church camp in Gary that year.  I think my heart changed, I believed, and I never disbelieved after that.  (So...I do well, for even the demons believe and tremble...)  I think it was more than that.  I think that's when I was saved.  Yet I think of all the long droughts of commitment between then and today.  What explains those?  Maybe this parable is not JUST about salvation.  Maybe it is about the lives of saved people also.  Not everyone is Billy Graham from day 1 on.  Not everyone produces 100 fold.  But even if you don't produce until the bitter end, were you not saved until the bitter end?   The thief on the cross got one thing right his entire life.  What was his fruit?  The witness of salvation to those at the foot of the cross?

How can so much, so many possibilities, so many angles of approach be in so few words???

*!*!*!*  This is what it mean!
2024 - Oh no....Reading the NASB  this year and it just opened up a whole new way to look at this parable, and possibly the best way to look at it.  Here are the relevant verses in NASB95:
15 "These are the ones who are beside the road where the word is sown; and when they hear, immediately Satan comes and takes away the word which has been sown in them.
16 "In a similar way these are the ones on whom seed was sown on the rocky [places,] who, when they hear the word, immediately receive it with joy; ...
18 "And others are the ones on whom seed was sown among the thorns; these are the ones who have heard the word, ...
20 "And those are the ones on whom seed was sown on the good soil; and they hear the word and accept it and bear fruit, thirty, sixty, and a hundredfold." [Mar 4:15-16, 18, 20 NASB95].
Remember Jesus' explanation. The sower sows the word.  The SEED is the WORD as contrasted with those who receive the word.  Those who receive are the SOIL!!!  The Word is delivered to the hearers!  So you cannot/should not conclude that if the seed sprouted then that person was saved.  The seed sprouting or getting choked out and such is about how and to what extent the seed is able to grow fully into yielding maturity based on the conditions - the souls - to which the seed is cast!  Look at the NASB phrase in EACH CASE:  "These are the ONES".  In 15, they are the ones BESIDE the road where the seed is sown.  These just happen to have a few seeds fall on them as it is being sown in the field.  They are not even the intended recipients.  These are people who never go to church but maybe hear a preacher for 5 minutes on the radio, and it grabs there attention....but then they see brake lights and it's gone, and they go on scanning the channels for something.  These "had ears but did not hear".  The second group...these are people who live under conditions that are not all that supportive of growing in Christ.  They did receive the word, they were saved, but lacking instruction, teaching, support, mentoring, encouragement, and all those things, they never "increased",   These are the kids invited to VBS one summer who prayed the prayer and were saved that week, then went back home to no real follow up and nothing in the way of spiritual growth.  These are the people that got invited to revival services and heard the word preached effectively enough to sprout in their hearts, and they walked the aisle...and then they disappeared back to where they came from and were never encouraged to grow in Christ.  All these have is the word that they heard and received, and their own lonesome resources.  They have "no firm root in themselves".  Their faith is not nurtured and watered because there is no one to do that.  What there is are those who ridicule them for the faith, laugh at them, exclude them because of their faith...and for some, this is enough to just stop things at a very menial, immature level, and maybe someday their situation will change and that seed - that rhizome - will get some water and some "stone removal" and what is left of it might find a way finally to sprout.  The third seed falls among thorns.  These are busy people.  Worldly successful people.  People who have made long term commitments to worldly things in terms of jobs and house payments and perhaps child support payments.  These people have serious obligations that have nothing at all to do with the church or growing in Christ.  They heard the word - some seed landed on this ground - and they jumped at the chance for peace in their souls and real meaning in their lives instead of the cold heartless grind in which they were trapped.  They tried hard...but there were deadlines ahead, and this payment or that was due in a few days, and the child support just got increased, and a second job was necessary if all the balls were to be kept in the air.  And so they choose to take care of what is most pressing.  They try to avoid being stickered by those thorns that surround them and keep them from reaching the light and the water that will help them grow even in their difficult situation.  The word never caught at all in the first group.  It changed the lives - but only for a time - in the second and third groups, and their maturation in the faith withers in the heat or gets choked by the thorns.  And then there is that last group, where the seed fall on the ground of a Christian home with Christian parents, and faith going back generations.  Where the sprouting of the Word is celebrated, where teaching is available and learning is encouraged.  Don't tell me that it is only the last group, only the ones where all the conditions are nearly perfect, where salvation takes place!  That is NOT how it works!  We all know people that came from the stony ground or the thorn-choked ground, and yet they overcome or their conditions change, or the Holy Spirit supplies them in some way and allows them to grow to maturity DESPITE adverse conditions around them.  They are STILL the soil, and not the rocks or the thorns!  
THIS HAS TO BE POSTED ON FB!!!  How to do it?
Post the verses and set up the difficulty of Jesus' words and what they might mean.
Then take each kind of soil, a day at a time, and talk about "who" they represent.  This is going to have to be a day by day, not a twice a week.  At the end, encourage self examination.  How are you doing in your Christian life?  Have the heat and rocks held you back?  Did you get tired of the thorns poking you every time you tried to do the right thing?  You do not have to give up just because things in YOUR life make it hard to grow!  But you do have to fight harder to get what you need.  You have to TRY and find a Christian friend who'll help.  You do have LISTEN to those radio preachers on the way to work and  back.  You absolutely should download a Bible app onto your phone and READ THE WORD!  These are the things that provide what you need to grow despite adverse conditions.

Mark turns now to the lamp under the basket.  I think now that the lamp is the truth of the Word, not just the gospel.  Many "mysteries" are being revealed while Jesus is in the world, and they remain there for those who look hard enough to see them.  To understand and connect the thread of God's plan throughout history.  Jesus' coming threw the light on all of it.  In Mark's words nothing is secret except to come to light.  The plan was only partially revealed to the prophets, but that very secretiveness was part of the plan.  The impact of the revelations of the full meaning of the OT prophecies was like a bomb going off in a tiny room.  It had been there all along, but the impact of discovery was a spectacular moment!  AND, more than that, after the shock wave has passed, the more one studies and learns about these revelations, the more there is to understand, the deeper the understanding and intricacy of all that is really there.  But if you don't study, as I didn't for so many years, then you limit how much you can ever take in.  I can't imagine what all Dad knew.
2021 - This paragraph goes well with the interpretation I have of the parable of the sower.  The light is revealing the Messiah, and the prophecies of the Messiah, and the good news of the Messiah.  Others got it in part - and for many it was not enough for continuance - but now the light is shining for the remnant chosen to see it.

Then Mark tells us one the others don't - at least not so far.  The Parable of the Seed Growing.  A man plants a seed, and it grows, and matures, and "sets fruit", and the farmer has no idea how all this happens, no understanding of the actual workings of seeds and plants reproducing after their kind.  But when it is ripe, the man knows to harvest it.  MSB says this is only in Mark, and expands on The Sower to bring out the maturing of the seed that falls on the good ground.  I guess it could be that.  I really don't remember seeing this parable before.  Haven't thought about it.  "At once..."?  The man recognizes that it's ripe?  Do we even have that recognition about planting the gospel?  Not too sure about this one.

The Mustard seed is next.  I am happy with the previous explanation of this one.  Either the church or the Millennial is in view I think.  And right after, Mark also says that Jesus only preached in parables from here on.  The directness of the Sermon on the Mount goes away.

2024 - Look at this verse in NASB95:  34 and He did not speak to them without a parable; but He was explaining everything privately to His own disciples. [Mar 4:34 NASB95].  The saved didn't understand the parable either, at least a lot of them didn't.  Even they had to be taught the deeper meanings.  That is why we study!  And those who just walked away because they couldn't make sense of the parables?  That the seed that fell on the path, and Satan snatched the see away from them.  We have to accept that some will not be saved, and Jesus' choice to teach in parables was like a knife, separating the receptive soil from that which was too beaten down and walked on to even sprout a seed anyway.  Only those who could see and hear would take the time and trouble to learn what the parables meant!  They were not meant to be "secret information", but neither were they meant to "simplify".

They go in a boat, seemingly to escape the gathered crowds.  Jesus calms the sea as they cross, after his apostles wake him up.

Chapter 5
The demon possessed man of the Gadarenes, here called Gerasenes.  This seems to be by far the most detailed account of this incident.  Whatever demon or demons possessed this man, had made him supremely strong, so that he could break chains.  Previously, the people in and around there had been able to catch this man, and chain him up, so he couldn't do any mischief.  But at this time, they could no longer "subdue" him.  He was too strong for them.  So they must have feared him, and avoided not just him, but the whole area of these tombs where he  stayed.  The boat Jesus is in must have landed right there at the tombs, and this man saw them coming and was on the shore when they arrived.  I think it is clear also here in Mark that Jesus had told the demon to come out of the man.  That takes place before there is any conversation.  After being told to leave, this demon appeals to Jesus for "mercy".  So Jesus has a conversation with the demon(s).
This verse:
10 And he begged him earnestly not to send them out of the country. [Mar 5:10 ESV]  This is a demon praying to Jesus.  Petitioning Jesus for mercy.  The demons name says that there were in fact many demons.  Perhaps this tells us that their strength - physical strength at least, is additive.   There were so many that they could break chains.  Ahhh....but they cannot always break chains!  They can be confined.  And a stronger than they can drive them all the way out of those they control!  This is how it works.  

The phrase "out of the country" is interesting too.  The demon liked it here.  Maybe because those nearby lacked the resources to keep him in check.  He had free reign here, and liked it.  The demon "enjoyed" his time possessing this man and tormenting him and making him cut himself and cry out.  He enjoyed the fear that must have struck into those who saw these things, and he enjoyed that they couldn't stop him.  Then Jesus shows up with a bucket of cold water.  

The demons request permission to go into the pigs, Jesus doesn't suggest it.  They don't realize that the pigs will go mad and kill themselves over this.  Demons are not omni-anything.  Jesus allows them to do as they wish.  And the pigs drown.  I don't know what happens to demons when the host drowns, and I don't know whether they needed permission to "exit" the man, or permission to "enter" the pigs.  Maybe both.  Jesus told them to exit, and they had no choice in this matter, but they did have "options" once they left, if they could get Jesus to approve it.  So he had power over them, at this point, prior to his resurrection when all things are given into his hands.  He was already over demons, and diseases, and sickness and such things.  

Perhaps the demons learned a lesson here - for all time.  You can't possess an animal.  What demons are and what animals are will not mix.  Their other choice seems to have been to leave the area.  Other gospels tell us they didn't want to be sent to the abyss.  A third option?  They didn't want to leave the country - and compete with other demons already in those areas and jealous of their territory, to the abyss to await the last days, or hey, what about these pigs?  Much to consider.

When the local people hear that 2,000 pigs have died in direct connection with this "uncontrollable" man being freed from the demons and calmed down, they are very afraid of the man who brought it all about.  If they were afraid of the madman, why wouldn't they be afraid of the man who subdued him?  And they may have been afraid that all their pigs were to be used for demon destruction.  If they ate pigs they weren't Jews.  Maybe their local superstitions made Jesus some kind of very powerful being that there religion labeled as non-benevolent?  We don't really know.

Mark and Luke call this the country of the Gerasenes.  Matthew calls it the country of the Gadarenes.  Much has been made of this Biblical "error" in place names.  There is a long note in the Harmony about this on p. 71.  The place where Legion was is called both the country of the Gadarenes, or the country of the Gerasenes because there was a larger city there called Gadara.  It was a ways from the shore, but was a larger city in that area.  Right on the shore, in fairly recent times, archeologists discovered the remains of a village, a small place, called Gerasa.  So in effect, Gerasa was a suburb of Gadara, and "in the country of Gadara.  So both phrases are correct, one is just more precise.  We might say that something happened in the Oklahoma City area, or say that it happened in the Bethany area and be correct both ways.  So Matthew is saying "The Village" and Mark and Luke are saying "Oklahoma City".

Jesus gets in the boat and leaves again, and we get the story of Jairus' daughter being resurrected.  
Again, with such an unprecedented event as the main subject of this episode in Jesus' ministry, why do they all throw in this story of the woman who bleeds being cured as if "by chance".  That's how they couch it.  She touched Jesus garment, and that healed her, though Jesus didn't even see her.  Her faith did it for her, independent of Jesus' participation.  I know we can't interpret it that way, but that is how they all seem to put it.  Why is this detail included by all of them?  MSB does not address this particular question.  2020-Well one reason might be that it is sort of stuck in here because this is exactly when it happened.  So they all put it in the correct place chronologically.  That would mean it isn't the writers who want it here, it was where God wanted it to occur.  And since in other places, like when Jesus is in Nazareth, he talks about how they don't have enough faith to get the miracles like other places have gotten.  So both the woman's receiving a miracle cure by faith, and Nazareth receiving almost nothing without faith, are to drive home the point.    Hmm...Seems like one of these versions put the bleeding woman and the second visit to Nazareth quite close together.  Maybe that's the point.

Jesus gets to Jairus' house, where the wailing crew is in full force.  They laugh at Jesus when he says the little girl is only sleeping.  They are "put out" of the house, leaving only the girls parents, Peter, James, and John.  He takes the girls hand, and tells her to arise.  She does so, and gets up and walks around.  Jesus tells them to give her something to eat.  And we know from other gospels that her spirit came back to her. 

(From MSB introduction to Mark:
6, The 2 source theory cannot explain why Luke omits the important section in Mark (6:45-8:26).  The fact that Luke does omit it indicates that Luke had never seen it, therefore he did not have Mark's gospel as a source.)  

In Matthew 10, yesterday's reading, Jesus sends out the 12, with all the questions that I raised about the when and how of that.  Today we skip ahead to Matthew 14 and get the death of John, the feeding of the 5000 and walking on water.  Our last reading in Mark was the day before yesterday, and there we saw the collection of parables, including the Sower, Jesus calming a storm - but no mention of walking on water, the casting out of Legion into the pigs, in Mark 5, and the resurrection of Jairus' daughter.  

We take up here right after Jesus has raised Jairus' daughter from the dead, and see Jesus in Nazareth - for the second time I think - the twelve are sent out, as Matt 10, and Jesus hears of John's death, as Matt 14.  It is very difficult, even in a chronological Bible arrangement, to keep up with where we are in Jesus' life.  Must remember, to give more weight to the Mark and Luke versions of chronology than to Matthew's version.  At any rate...

Jesus travels to Nazareth from where Jairus lived.  Doesn't say by boat, but does say his disciples followed him.  Presumably, this means a lot more than the 12 went.  Jesus teaches in their synagogue on the Sabbath.  It couldn't have been much of a place in Nazareth.  They are amazed at his teaching and at his works.  Perhaps he had healed some there in the town.  A few maybe.  They confirm with each other that this is Jesus, son of Mary (Joseph is not mentioned), brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon, and some sisters also.  Once they know who he is precisely, they reject him.  They "know him too well" I guess, and so won't accept the teaching of one who grew up right there with them.  You apparently need a PhD to teach here in Nazareth.  Jesus says:
4 And Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor, except in his hometown and among his relatives and in his own household." [Mar 6:4 ESV]  
2020- Look at how this is worded.  Jesus has added his family to those who do not honor him.  This ties in with them coming to get him because he is "out of his head".  The family is apparently in agreement that Jesus is just not right in the head.  This is the second place we see this implied.  Harmony note points out that this was the second visit, not the early visit.  Jesus did go to Nazareth twice.  This time through the Bible is the first time I've noted that.  Matthew 13:54-58 has this quote also that includes the family.  This second visit is not recorded in Luke.  The first is recorded only by Luke in Chapter 4.  In this account in Mark, they call Jesus the son of Mary.  Joseph is not mentioned.  Perhaps they are implying again that there is no certainty as to his father.  But they do mention two brothers and his sisters.
2021 - This would be my proof text against the perpetual virginity of Mary.  Either she had more children after Jesus, or Joseph had a second wife who produced children, because Jesus had brothers and sisters, and here we learn there were at least four brothers and more than one sister.  We might also imply from his own words that even Mary had some doubts about his sanity, and we know she is present later when the y come to "take him home" because he is out of his head.  Mary is to be honored for all time as the mother of Jesus.  But I see nothing here that indicates we should worship her.

It says that Jesus healed a few sick people this time, but was amazed at their lack of faith.  
This is a sad truth that so many of us are faced with.  In our cases, they know of our mistakes and problems and sinfulness, and reject the change inside us, though we tell them.  They have to see it, and they judge harshly.  But this was not the case with Jesus.  They rejected him perhaps because they knew Mary was pregnant before she was married?  It says Jesus "marveled because of their unbelief".  And it says he couldn't do much there because of their unbelief.  This is not really right.  I have to believe wouldn't is a better word.  MSB also says that he just didn't.  Perhaps the mercy and judgement argument again.

Jesus sends out the twelve, two by two.  This is the second account of this, and this one is far more brief in description.  They are to go out, stay where they stay, and shake the dust off their sandals if they are not welcomed.  They cast out demons and anoint the sick with oil, healing them.  There is nothing about eschatology in this account, nothing linking it to Matt 24.  We are left wondering, once again, why Matthew put all that extra stuff in there.  I mean, Matthew was there.
2021 - This verse:  7 And he called the twelve and began to send them out two by two, and gave them authority over the unclean spirits. [Mar 6:7 ESV].  So this "power" over demons was given to the apostles directly from Jesus.  It was not about their faith, it wasn't that anyone could get strong enough to cast out demons.  It is more like they were gifted with this ability.  Mark confines this to the 12, not to all the disciples who were traveling with Jesus at this time.  
We also see them anointing many sick people with oil, and healing them.  How are we to understand this?  Were these two separate things?  They anointed sick people with oil and then healed them, or they anointed them with oil and this healed them.  I think we see this anointing with oil later - Paul talks about it.  In Mark, only the 12 are doing this, I think Paul talks about the elders doing it.  I think MSB or Unger have a lengthy explanation about how this really is no longer a thing.  It went away.

2023 - This verse:  
13 And they cast out many demons and anointed with oil many who were sick and healed them. [Mar 6:13 ESV].  In the book of James - who was Jesus' brother - we are told that the elders can anoint with oil and heal people of sin-caused sickness.  Look at this verse, talking about what may be the very exact same thing.  The 12 could heal with oil, because so much of sickness is actually caused by our own sins.

At this point, after Nazareth and after the 12 are sent out, Mark tells us about Herod's beheading of John.  This verse:  14 King Herod heard of it, for Jesus' name had become known..." [Mar 6:14a ESV]  This seems to mean Herod heard of the 12 casting out demons and healing people, and knew they were followers of Jesus.  These things were apparently so widespread and so well know and so much talked about that Herod's informants heard of them and reported them to Herod.  There is much speculation going around the country about who Jesus was.  Some said John the Baptist raised from the dead, others said Elijah, others said a prophet like there used to be in the old days.  Herod is convinced it is John back from the dead to get his revenge.  There is this verse:
20 for Herod feared John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man, and he kept him safe. When he heard him, he was greatly perplexed, and yet he heard him gladly. [Mar 6:20 ESV]
Herod realizes that John is not ordinary, but he has no clue what the truth is.  What could be made of this?

This account is very much like Matthew's.  I don't see a lot of difference.  John was beheaded in his cell, not in public.  Likely because Herod feared the people.  He also feared his own guests and what they'd say if he refused to give John's head to the daughter.  Bet no one called her a sweet child after this incident.  This account says John was laid in a tomb.  Matthew said buried.  Could be the underlying word is the same in both.

2024 - In vs 29, John's disciples come and get his body and put it in a tomb.  It is unclear what happened to John's head.  You would hope that Herodias gave it to them to place in the tomb, but a woman like this...We really don't know what she might have done with it.

Mark says that the twelve returned and reported to Jesus what they'd done and taught, and Jesus invites them out to a desolate place to rest.  So they've just gotten back.  Maybe that's why they wanted to get rid of the crowd.  So this fills in the timeline some.  They 12 were sent out before the death of John, and they came back after John was buried.  We don't know how long a time this was, but it must have been a while.  Surely the apostles, sent out 2 by 2, would have been gone more than a few days.   We see also that when they tried to get some privacy for rest and debriefing, the crowd anticipated their destination, and ran on foot, and got there before those in the boat.  This account of feeding the five thousand has some add'l details.  Jesus sends them to see how much food is available.  So they'd know how great this miracle was perhaps.  Jesus has them sit by 50's and 100's.  2020-Here also, as soon as all had eaten, Jesus sends the apostles off in a boat.  Mark says they were going to Bethsaida.  I wonder if this is somehow related to Gennesaret, which is where Matthew said they went.  This part begins at Mark 6:45, which Luke does not report.  

Mark recounts the walking on the water.  Again, a little different information is given, though the backbone is the same.  Jesus has sent his disciples away in the boat while he dismisses the crowd, and goes on the mountain to pray.  They are going to Bethsaida.  Jesus "sees" that they are having a hard time making headway against the wind.  Jesus goes walking on the water during the fourth watch.  Mark says Jesus meant to just go on by them - how could he know this?  But they see Jesus, and are afraid, so he gets in the boat with them and the wind dies down.  Mark says they were utterly astounded.  They still don't understand how Jesus fed the 5000, and this walking on water and wind calming leads to them hardening their hearts.  Is Mark saying they still didn't know who this was?  Though Matthew has told us they did?  MSB note says they couldn't understand what Jesus was saying.  The word translated hardened connotes rebellion.  As in they were refusing to recognize who he was.  2020 - It is interesting that Mark says "52 for they did not understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened. [Mar 6:52 ESV]", Matthew says "33 And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God." [Mat 14:33 ESV]", and John says "21 Then they were glad to take him into the boat, and immediately the boat was at the land to which they were going. [Jhn 6:21 ESV]".  Matthew and Mark seem contradictory about Jesus' reception once he got into the boat.  And John tells us they did not arrive at Bethsaida, the original destination that the wind opposed, but at Gennesaret, which is in the opposite direction.  The way the wind had been blowing.  So perhaps the 5000 were fed somewhere in the middle, maybe really near Bethsaida since Jesus was going to just walk there on the water, but the wind was wrong, so Jesus took them back to Gennesaret instead.  Couple of significant difficulties here.  

They arrive in Gennesaret, and Jesus is recognized.  The word spreads, and the sick are brought on their beds to be healed.  As Jesus goes from town to town the sick are there, and they are healed, even if they just touch the fringe of his garment.  All are being healed.

Mark Chapter 7
Starts like Mt 15 starts.  They ask Jesus about washing before eating.  There is additional explanation about these rules in parentheses.  The Pharisees had built a whole "ritual" around what all had to be washed before you could eat.  Not just hands, but cups, plates, couches and so on.  This was all tradition, and they knew it was not Mosaic law.

2021 - Some interesting - very interesting things - are in the footnotes to the parentheses:
3 (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands properly, holding to the tradition of the elders, 4 and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches.) [Mar 7:3-4 ESV]
First footnote has to do with "wash their hands properly".  The footnote says the literal interpretation is "unless they wash their hands with a fist", indicating some kind of ceremony they went through before they would eat.  We don't really know precisely what it meant, but it does seem to indicate a ritualization of something as trivial as washing hands before eating, and something that had no scriptural command behind it.  The verse even says it is about tradition.  Then in vs 4 there is a note about "unless they wash".  The word that is actually used here is "unless they baptize".  So did they have to immerse themselves before they ate if they'd been to the marketplace and been exposed to all those sinners?   Other manuscripts say "unless they purify themselves".  Perhaps these two together give us an understanding of how baptism - ritual immersion of the whole body - was understood at that time.  It was a purification, washing off the dirt of the world before participating in....what?  Lunch?  It seems better understood as "starting clean" on a new task.  This would explain why those disciples in Acts who'd been baptized into John still needed to be baptized into Christ.  (Looking at the interlinear, the word baptizo is what is used in both the Morphological GNT and the Textus Receptus.)
2022 - Two forms of the word baptizo are used in vs. 4, coming from different Strong's numbers; G907 and G909, "baptizo" and "baptizmos".  Surely that root would mean immerse in both cases.  The first is a verb, the second a masculine noun.  Here is that whole verse:
"4 and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches.)" [Mar 7:4 ESV]

It is also interesting that the Scribes and Pharisees ask why Jesus' disciples do not follow the tradition of the elders.  They don't ask why they violate the Law of Moses, they already know Moses didn't say this.  This is an example of the "heavy burden" the Pharisees put on the people and lift no finger to make it easier.  Can you imagine the common people all  having a bathtub full of water so that they could wash every time they went to the market?  This would have been impossible for many, and could even have turned them away from Judaism completely since they had no chance of doing it right.
2022 - This is assuming that they immersed their whole bodies.  And the link between what they are doing to "purify" themselves and what John was doing at the Jordan and what we are to do now is unmistakable.  If the Pharisees did completely immerse themselves when they came from the market, then likely only the rich, and/or only those with servants, would be able to take the time and energy to continually do so.  These washings before eating may have been yet another way the Pharisees separated themselves from the common people.  Which would mean that even in this, they were completely off the track of what the "rules" ought to be about.  

2024 - This also would seem an unmistakable rebuttal to the traditions of the Catholic church.  Many of the doctrines of the RCC are passed down from Pope to Pope, and observed not because the Bible commands it but because the traditions of the church demand it.  Some of the RCC traditions are just like this - things that must be done, rituals that are to be observed, like the mass, that are not at all outlined in Scripture, nor commanded.  The RCC also has doctrines that are based on tradition instead of Scripture.  The perpetual virginity of Mary and the immaculate conception of Mary to name just two.  Add the worship of the saints (though they deny this as worship).  All these things, which they make NECESSARY to enter heaven, are tradition and not Scripture.

Jesus talks here also about them not honoring parents because they have twisted their laws to the point where they contradict the word.  Tradition trumps scripture with them.  

Then Mark tells us about what corrupts a man.  Here, Jesus seems to be overthrowing the dietary laws of Moses.  In fact, this is about so focusing on the letter of the law that we disregard the intent.  The Rule becomes more important than the Ruler.

And he said to them, "Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him,  since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.)
Mark 7:18‭-‬19 ESV
Look in the parentheses.  They seem to stretch what Jesus as really saying.  He always kept the intent of the law, but not the letter.
2021 - No.  Jesus is making it clear that the dietary rules of the Mosaic Law were to separate the culture of Israel from all other countries.  Just like I read earlier today in the words of Balaam as he blessed Israel in Numbers 23:9b.  So interesting that I read both these verses the same day using this new plan!  The dietary rules made Israel a nation dwelling alone, so different from all others specifically for the purpose of making it undesirable to the daughters and sons of other nations who might intermarry.  Jesus did keep the letter of the Law, but he understood the purpose of the dietary laws, not just the literal injunctions about diet.

2023 - Vss 20-23:  20 And he said, "What comes out of a person is what defiles him. 21 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person." [Mar 7:20-23 ESV].  Jesus puts great emphasis here that ALL sin comes from within.  We don't get to blame anyone else.  No external factor is the cause of our sin.  We sin because we want to sin.  And this comes right after Jesus saying that nothing outside and going in can defile a man.  That goes to the stomach and passes right on out.  But what comes out of the heart...that defiles.  All sin is from within.

Then Mark's account of the Syrophonecian woman asking for healing for her daughter. Here, Jesus puts it this way:
And he said to her, "Let the children be fed first, for it is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs."
Mark 7:27 ESV
So not that the gospel is exclusive, but that it is not yet offered to Gentiles.  Like his early miracles, it was just not time yet.  2020 - Yes, I think this is important additional information about what Jesus meant.  The children first, then the pets, but the pets are in the picture.

Jesus heals a deaf man with a speech impediment. He tells them to keep it quiet.  They do not do so.  His fame continues to increase.  These things he does are unprecedented both in magnitude and number.  Mass miracles are nowhere else in the Bible.

Mark 8
Starts with feeding the 4,000, and is worded this way, confirming that this is a second miracle, similar, but distinct from feeding the 5,000:
1 In those days, when again a great crowd had gathered, and they had nothing to eat, he called his disciples to him and said to them, [Mar 8:1 ESV]
This is very similar to the Matthew 15 account.  After the crowd ate, Jesus gets in a boat headed for "Dalmanutha".  Other places (manuscripts) say Magadan, or Magdala.  Not sure why they would all say something different, unless the boat made several stops along the way.
2022 - Note the phrase "when again", implying that this was the second time that a hungry crowd was gathered.  Very obviously Jesus did this miracle on two separate occasions.   Even so, how in the world could the disciples ask "4 And his disciples answered him, "How can one feed these people with bread here in this desolate place?"" [Mar 8:4 ESV].  They are so like the Israelites who wondered how they would find water in the desert, even though God had already provided it once before.  Truly the disciples are Jewish also!

The Pharisees seek a sign.  Mark abbreviates this quite a bit from Matthew's account.
2022 - The way this is worded makes it seem like the Pharisees were waiting at the first stop the boat made - perhaps in Dalmanutha, and Mark gives us an abbreviated version of that stop.  And then Jesus gets back in the boat and they continue to Magdala.  This seems possible and explains the differences in the destination that are in different manuscripts.  Some give that first stop, others give the final destination.  Note also that there is nothing here about the sign of Jonah.  So it may be that when he denies this generation a sign elsewhere, it was a completely different sign.  ...but no...that is in Matthew 16, just above.  These two chapters roughly correspond to the same period of time.  So we read Mark's account as brief, and since Matthew's account is written later, and because Matthew was there, he includes more detail about this than Mark.  Luke 11:29 also corresponds to this, and includes the phrase "sign of Jonah".  

The disciples get worried about bread.  Mark says they only had one loaf in the boat.  So they had some, just not enough for everyone.  This is why Jesus was exasperated with them.  He'd just fed 4000 people with 7 loaves, and they are worried about going hungry when there is only one loaf for what, 13 of them?  But again, they are very literal when Jesus speaks of the leaven of the Pharisees.  There is also the lesson on how to interpret what Jesus says.  It should be apparent when he is literal as opposed to when he is speaking spiritually, and using the physical as a metaphor.  See notes on Matt 19 for a more complete explanation.
2022 - Jesus is chastising them pretty severely here.  They know that Jesus speaks in parables so that those not chosen will not understand.  They are too thick to understand.  And Jesus is asking the chosen 12 if they too are like those who hear parables yet don't understand and so go to hell.  They should have felt about 3" tall after this rebuke.  A severe rebuke, from Jesus himself.  

Mark also adds the leaven of Herod to the leaven they need to watch out for.  This equates the heart of the P's and C's to the heart of Herod.  That surely got their attention.

These verses, confirming what I think the Parable of the Sower is about, with red letter words:
17 And Jesus, aware of this, said to them, "Why are you discussing the fact that you have no bread? Do you not yet perceive or understand? Are your hearts hardened? 18 Having eyes do you not see, and having ears do you not hear? And do you not remember? [Mar 8:17-18 ESV]
Jesus is asking them if they are among those he speaks to in parables.  Is it they they are already marked for hell because of God's wrath towards Israel?  He asking if they are like those that Isaiah talked about.  Very same concept here.  Is there no way to make them hear, because they are among those with hardened hearts?

A blind man is healed - in two stages - and is then sent home, after Jesus tells him not to even go back to his village.  This is another that I think needs more explanation.  Why is this story here?  Why two stages of healing, and why not go back to the village?  The MSB note says this isn't even the same "Bethsaida" as in 6:45.  A second MSB note on vs 23 says that this person, unlike the others, obeyed Jesus instruction to keep quiet about the miracle.

2024 - Here is a thought...Mark tells about this taking two stages.  Now, if you were "making up" a story about some fake miracle healing of a blind man, would you include that Jesus had to do it twice before it was entirely successful?  Or, if it was just a fake, wouldn't it be better to make it all happen perfectly the first time, so as not to risk anyone doubting the truth of your story and claiming that a real Messiah would not have had to do it twice?  This is yet another example of how a true eye witness - or in this case a hearsay witness most likely - would tell the story.  This reads like a true story.

Peter confesses Christ as Messiah.  Mark also says that Jesus told them to keep this quiet.

This verse:
32 And he said this plainly. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. [Mar 8:32 ESV]
Jesus told them word for word, so that even their literal interpretation of his words, would make no mistakes.  He was going to die - to be killed - by the elders and chief priests, and he was going to rise again after three days.  They were told this in so many words, and STILL were surprised when it happened.  STILL didn't connect the dots.  

27 For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done.
38 For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels." [Mar 8:38 ESV]
These two verses are equivalent in place in the two gospels.  

2024 - In vs 38, the key may be "in this adulterous and sinful generation".  In Mark, I think we can be pretty sure that Jesus is speaking exclusively  of the judgment of those who were alive and witnesses of his ministry as God's own Son.  Perhaps these are people who, when persecution comes later, deny Jesus even though they SAW him and they SAW the miracles first hand.  Yet to avoid persecution, to avoid being associated with him, they keep quiet.  They deny.  They don't help those who DO confess him when they are in need.  We can make this sound like the Sheep and Goat judgment...but if it is ONLY about this generation that saw Jesus firsthand, then the Sheep and Goat judgment becomes a subset of a larger judgement where many others are perhaps judged also.  I guess this is another one of those places where just because the Bible describes one thing that happens doesn't mean that it the ONLY thing that happens.  This is worth a follow up, but remember that it is pretty clear that the Pre-Millennial judgment is a judgment of the living.  How do you get these specific people of this specific generation to show up at the Pre-Millennial judgment without a resurrection of the dead that is NOT the rapture - where only the saved are resurrected?  Interesting...but still difficult to assimilate with other events and descriptions.

2022 - Or is Jesus talking about the sheep and goat judgment, the pre-millennial judgment.  He's told them in Matthew that "this generation shall not pass", and now he says the generation there when he comes will be judged for whether they fed and closed the least of these or not.  And just to add one more confirmation that this is what he means, he says this will happen when he comes in glory and with his angels.  We can surely tie that to the second advent when he comes to defeat Satan and the Antichrist.  It seems very clear.  If this is what he means here.  And look at that first verse!  To repay EACH PERSON.  Surely this is all about the sheep and goat.
2022 - Another way to read it is to say that those assembled, those who see and hear Jesus with their own eyes and ears, yet reject him, will be judged at a later judgment for being ashamed.  If this is what is meant, then that would mean that "dead" people are going to be judged at the sheep and goat.  That is hard to reconcile with the pre-millennial judgment, which is only of the living as I read it.  In the Harmony, Mark 8, Matt 16, and Lk 9 ALL have this discourse.  Here are the verses that cause me such difficulty still:


MARK
"38 For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels."" [Mar 8:38 ESV]  "1 And he said to them, "Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power."" [Mar 9:1 ESV].  Jesus has called the crowd to him.  He is addressing more than just the 12.  He concludes what he is saying to the crowd with 8:38.  I see no way to make the time Jesus is referencing anything other than his second advent, after which he will judge those alive at that time based on whether or not they have been ashamed of the gospel.  

I think the most important clue is that Jesus will come back, according to ESV at least "with the holy angels".  That is important because of this verse:  
"14 And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses." [Rev 19:14 ESV].  And this verse:
14 It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, "Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones, 15 to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him." [Jde 1:14-15 ESV].  I am assuming - without research - that holy ones are angels.  Then this verse:
"14 And he said, "No; but I am the commander of the army of the LORD. Now I have come." And Joshua fell on his face to the earth and worshiped and said to him, "What does my lord say to his servant?"" [Jos 5:14 ESV]. This army was back in Joshua's time, so it was there before the rapture.  If the argument is made that the army that accompanies Christ is only those raptured, then this verse disputes that.  Here is one more along that same line:
"15 When the servant of the man of God rose early in the morning and went out, behold, an army with horses and chariots was all around the city. And the servant said, "Alas, my master! What shall we do?" ... 17 Then Elisha prayed and said, "O LORD, please open his eyes that he may see." So the LORD opened the eyes of the young man, and he saw, and behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha." [2Ki 6:15, 17 ESV].  Vs 15 is an earthly army.  Vs 17 is the army of God, present to oppose them.  Well before the rapture.  Has to be angels.

So.  My position is that the armies of heaven are angels.  The picture is of the second advent, and at that time, Jesus is accompanied by the angels.  There are NO angels mentioned in any account of the transfiguration, so this verse addressed to the crowd is not about the transfiguration.  Let me "stick with that story" and see how I can then interpret the rest of the passage.  The next verse is Mk 9:1.  Even so, we connect this verse back to Mark 8 as if it is a continuation of what Jesus was saying there.  But maybe we ought not do that.  Even though the original texts don't have chapter headings, perhaps the phrase "And he said to them..." is a marker for these words being later, at a different time, and perhaps spoken only to his disciples.  No angels are mentioned in 9:1.  No judgment is in view.  This is about the coming of the kingdom - or MSB's royal splendor perhaps.   So it may be that the introductory phrase is there in 9:1 specifically to show that what Jesus was talking about was the transfiguration, the details of which come beginning in Mark 9:2.  As if to show that 9:1 was indeed fulfilled in that generation.  Doe the other accounts fit with this way of looking at it?

MATTHEW
"27 For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done. 28 Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."" [Mat 16:27-28 ESV]
Again, we see the angels mentioned.  This is a reference to the second advent.  In Matthew's version, there is no introductory insertion to show that the subject has changed, but Jesus does segue' in that he says "I tell you truly..."  As in he is saying the Son will come with his angels to judge, BUT you don't have to wait until then for the Kingdom.  Because there are some "standing here" who will see the kingdom - at the transfiguration!  This part is worded in a way that seems purposeful as to there being no mistake that Jesus was talking about the Kingdom appearing during his own time on earth.  He is no longer talking about the second coming, but the transfiguration.  And last of all...

LUKE
"26 For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words, of him will the Son of Man be ashamed when he comes in his glory and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels. 27 But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God."" [Luk 9:26-27 ESV].  In 26, three "markers" as to the time Jesus means.  1, in his glory, 2, in the glory of the father, and 3, the glory of the holy angels.  So for the third time, the presence of angels means that Jesus is referring to the second coming in vs 26.  Then, in an even more pronounced way than we saw in Matthew, Jesus segue's with the phrase "BUT I tell you truly..."  Luke adds this conjunction for us to make sure we understand that Jesus is NOT talking about the same time in vss 26 and 27.  Jesus is making it clear that the Kingdom of God is now, it is about to appear, and some standing there will get a brief glimpse of it on the mount of transfiguration.  In the first verses, Jesus is referring to the physical kingdom, on earth, that begins with the second advent.  In the next part, he is making it clear that a spiritual kingdom will be in place, beginning very shortly, that some there will have opportunity to witness.  I think the idea of a spiritual kingdom in the interim before the second advent is confirmed by Jesus when he answer Pilate this way:
"36 Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world."" [Jhn 18:36 ESV].  Not physical, spiritual.
So...maybe I finally do have a good grasp of what I myself believe this passage is about.  It is quite "finely" divided, but I think this gives the most consistent interpretation, fitting right in with things Jesus says elsewhere.


MSB note is pretty literal about what this means.  Rejecting the demands of discipleship is tantamount to being ashamed of Jesus.  This indicates that the one ashamed was not redeemed at all, wasn't saved in the first place.  
Do the references to "this generation" and the Son coming in glory refer again to the transfiguration about to take place?  Or are we to interpret Mt 16:28 one way, and the very similar clues of Mk 8:38 so differently?  Were there angels at the transfiguration, or were Moses and Elijah the only ones?
I can sure see this as applicable to then and to now, but I can also see it as just about that generation that rejected what they had seen with their own eyes.

2020- In Mark as in Matthew, you have to get all the verses together.  This time, we have to go over into Mark 9 to pick up the last verse.  Here is each section altogether, for easier comparison:
First, the part about judgement:
26 For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul? 27 For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done. [Mat 16:26-27 ESV]
38 For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels." [Mar 8:38 ESV]
When you put them together like this, those who are to be judged are those "of this generation" who reject Christ.  He has just gotten done, in both Matthew and Mark, saying this about those who ask for a sign:  12 And he sighed deeply in his spirit and said, "Why does this generation seek a sign? Truly, I say to you, no sign will be given to this generation." [Mar 8:12 ESV]
If he was specific about the generation in which he was living in reference to the Jewish religious leaders, why not in referenced to those who would be judged.  And maybe those WERE judged during the lifetimes of some of those there assembled?  Judas was judged during their time, perhaps many of the leading conspirators in the plot to crucify Jesus also met with "judgement" in their own premature and possibly suffering deaths.  But...we still need to see how angels would fit in here?  

And for the second part, they read like this:
28 Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." [Mat 16:28 ESV]
1 And he said to them, "Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power." [Mar 9:1 ESV]
2022 - You have to read this as the spiritual kingdom of God in which we now live.  NOT the physical Millennial Reign of Christ on earth.

Matthew emphasizes the Son of Man coming, Mark the kingdom of God with power.  In both Matthew and Mark, the word used for kingdom Strong's G932.
βασιλείαbasileía, bas-il-i'-ah; from G935; properly, royalty, i.e. (abstractly) rule, or (concretely) a realm (literally or figuratively):—kingdom, + reign.  Note that it can be an abstract kingdom, and so from that MSB gets royal splendor, which can apply to the transfiguration.  Does that work in Mark if we translate it the same way?  No...because Mark is about the Kingdom.  The Son is not mentioned.  And yet...if we don't do it the same, then we have a big problem with Mark's version.  Only way to even get close is to say that the transfiguration is representative not only of Jesus glorification, but of the kingdom itself, which he will rule from the right hand of God following his resurrection.  But...if he's only talking to his own generation, then what would it mean?
(It means I have a headache from puzzling about it, and while I made peace with Matthew's version, Mark's still gives me problems, and resolving the two gives me even more problems!)  Moving on....

Mark 9
First verse really belongs back in Chapter 8.  This is the reference - per MSB - to the transfiguration.
2022 - See notes in Mark 8 on this first verse.  Quite a few notes there.
2022b - It occurs to me today, that Mark's wording might give us yet another clue here:
"1 And he said to them, "Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power."" [Mar 9:1 ESV].  Perhaps is use of the kingdom coming with power is in fact a reference to the day of Pentecost, and not to the transfiguration?  Many who were alive when Jesus said these things were still alive in Acts, it wasn't that far away.  That outpouring of power on the day of Pentecost surely signaled a beginning - and we would understand the church age and the kingdom age as beginning simultaneously.  However, there were no angels there on teh day of Pentecost.  There verses:
"30 Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." [Mat 24:30 ESV]
"27 And then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory." [Luk 21:27 ESV]
"49 And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high."" [Luk 24:49 ESV]
Mat and Luke are speaking of the return of the Son of Man.  In a cloud.  A cloud overshadows them at the transfiguration, but you couldn't say that Jesus arrived on clouds.  So this is about either the rapture (I would say probably the rapture).  The reference in Luke is the one I'd use to argue that the kingdom comes with power on Pentecost.  What we are really talking about is the coming of the Holy Spirit, as promised.  But the Holy Spirit is the power of the church.  When it came, many could heal and preach and prophesy and speak in tongues.  It surely seems more palatable to me read these passages as referring first to the second advent, pre-millennial and the judgment there, and secondly - the some standing here part - referring to Pentecost.  I need to go back to Mark 8 and see if this interpretation fits with what is said by the other authors.

vs 2 starts just like Mt 17:1, with "after six days".  The events are recounted here very much as Matthew recounts them.  There is this verse that adds a little more information:
10 So they kept the matter to themselves, questioning what this rising from the dead might mean. [Mar 9:10 ESV]
This was not the first time that Jesus told them about events that were to take place.  Yet still they don't understand.  Perhaps they had grasped that Jesus would die, but they still don't get that he will come back.  Perhaps this is why they were all in a room mourning his death after the crucifixion, and didn't get excited when they heard he had risen.  Maybe it was only then that they put everything together.  Had they understood before, surely they would have been out at the tomb, waiting for him to come out?
2020-Mark's gospel is believed to be a collection of the things that Peter told Mark about his time with Jesus.  So This is second hand, where Matthew was first hand...except that Peter was actually up there when all this happened, and we don't know who Matthew heard it from.  Mark tells us that Peter suggested the three tents because he had no idea what else to do.  How many times in the OT did they build an altar when there was a heavenly appearance?  The first one to my mind is Jacobs Ladder, and Jacob builds an altar there.  This happened many times.  So Peter's suggestion is not really "out of keeping" with tradition.  Then the voice from heaven.  Mark doesn't mention that they all fell down terrified.  God's own voice had affirmed the authority, position, and power of Jesus at his baptism first, and now here.  Different people present both times.  But two.  Witnesses to both events, and two times meant it was real.  So why is the next question about Elijah?  Looked at MSB notes.  Elijah had just appeared to them on the mountain.  They had just seen him.  This verse: 1 "Behold, I send my messenger, and he will prepare the way before me. And the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant in whom you delight, behold, he is coming, says the LORD of hosts. [Mal 3:1 ESV].  And this one:  5 "Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and awesome day of the LORD comes. [Mal 4:5 ESV].  They knew these verses.  They knew what the appearance of Elijah foretold.  And he had just appeared.  Jesus tries to explain to them that John was the messenger - one like Elijah - and as I read it now, Elijah will appear as one of the witnesses in Revelation and restore all things at that time.  So it should have been clear at this point that the two prophecies are about two different epiphanies!!!  One, with John the Baptist, is the Messiah as Suffering Servant, and the second, with Elijah himself, is Messiah as Conquering King.  So Jesus had just told them he was going to die and be resurrected.  They couldn't figure the dying part, because they new what it said in Malachi, but didn't understand that two events were prophesied.  Their question was, "How can you die, when what you're supposed to do after Elijah comes is restore Israel and the promises?"  In this context, Jesus two part answer fits with the two part prophecy of Elijah's appearance.  Wow.  All these years and I finally understand this conversation.

vs 14 says this:
14 And when they came to the disciples, they saw a great crowd around them, and scribes arguing with them. [Mar 9:14 ESV]
Here is a good example of how Mark, at least, uses disciples for those who follow Jesus in general as contrasted with the 12, also called apostles.  So the ones that couldn't cast out the demon from the boy were disciples.  Not part of the 12...in my opinion.

Mark's account of Jesus casting out the demon has a lot more detail and information than Matthew's account.  Once again, it may be that Peter, who was there, had a very good recollection of the details of this encounter, while Matthew heard it later when they all got back together.  Peter's eye witness account, as told directly to Mark, as opposed to Matthew's "everyone talking at once" version of the story.  

As Mark tells it, as Jesus and the three came down from the transfiguration, they encounter a crowd of Jesus disciples arguing with some scribes.  Jesus asks what the argument is about, and the possessed boy's father tells Jesus that his disciples failed at casting out the demon, and now they're arguing about it.  So likely the Scribes were saying that their failure to cast it out proved that Jesus was not the Messiah.  So with this extra information, it seems like Jesus was upset at his disciples for relying on their own "power", instead of on God, and they were having a demon casting out contest with the scribes.  So they were all pretty much down in the gutter with each other about it, and not much concerned with the sad state of the boy the demon had hold of in the first place.  They were missing the point on so many levels.  Jesus might also have been angry with the Scribes who used the lack of faith of Jesus' disciples to discredit and deny Jesus himself.  And they're all standing out in the street shouting at each other about it, instead of caring for the young man with the demon.  Truly a perverse situation.  And Jesus used the phrase "this generation" because both his disciples AND the religious elite that had things so messed up were both involved in the dispute.  It was all of them, the whole generation!
More information here about the symptoms the boy had.  Many of the symptoms show up in "The Exorcist".  Note that when Jesus sent it out, he added that the demon was never to enter him again.  I don't recall Jesus ever giving this order before.  But I do remember the story about how if a demon is put out of the house, it wanders about alone, and at some point decides home was better, and comes back with seven others, so that the state of the home is worse after than it was before. Are all demons like this, or just these really nasty ones?  I don't want to get distracted with the accounts of demons in the NT.  But there seems to be so much more here than we ever discuss.  Even that sermon of John Mac's that I found was from 1973, and it was the only one I found.  I'm betting he caught no end of flack over that, and has never preached on it again.
When this demon is expelled, the crowd thinks it has left the boy dead.  But Jesus takes the boy by the hand and lifts him up.  Perhaps he was dead, and Jesus raised him?  This would be a pretty powerful demon.

As in Matthew, after this incident, the disciples ask why they couldn't do it.  Jesus says:
29 And he said to them, "This kind cannot be driven out by anything but prayer." [Mar 9:29 ESV]
"This kind..."  There are many kinds of demons.  If they are fallen angels, then the more powerful the angel, the more powerful the demon.  We know of cherubim, seraphim, and archangels on the good side.  Likely they also have "rank" on the bad side.  But we don't know much about that.
2020-Note also that at least part of the verse that ESV wouldn't include in Matthew's account of this event shows up here in Mark's account without reservation.  But it only mentions prayer, not fasting.  Still, this may be the reason that some manuscripts include this extra information - because it is in Mark, and casting out demons is serious business, and should be done right.  

As they journey to Capernaum, Jesus tells them about his coming death and resurrection.  They don't understand, and Mark adds that they were afraid to ask him about it.  
2022 - This verse:
"31 for he was teaching his disciples, saying to them, "The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him. And when he is killed, after three days he will rise."" [Mar 9:31 ESV]
What they didn't understand was "rise". We know now that he meant "come back from the dead" or "rise from the grave".  But here is the definition of the word:  
ἀνίστημιanístēmi, an-is'-tay-mee; from G303 and G2476; to stand up (literal or figurative, transitive or intransitive):—arise, lift up, raise up (again), rise (again), stand up(-right).
There really isn't anything there to connect this with coming back from the dead.  They may have thought he meant he would come to power.  He would rise in popularity, fame, authority, and earthly power.   They didn't know how he was going to do that.  There are some references to a resurrection of the saints in the OT, but not very many, and they aren't very clear about when.  Perhaps they though he was referring back to those, and they didn't really understand them, and were afraid to "show him their ignorance"...as if he didn't already know about that!  We have hindsight, and so we tend to think they were quite dense, but when you look at the Greek word...it just means to "stand up".  No real wonder they didn't understand that he was talking about a very miraculous and unprecedented event.  In this verse...
"9 As Jesus passed on from there, he saw a man called Matthew sitting at the tax booth, and he said to him, "Follow me." And he rose and followed him." [Mat 9:9 ESV], Matthew rose.  But not from the dead.  This kind of "rise" is what the word commonly meant.  So let's cut them a little slack.
Compare this verse:
"23 The same day Sadducees came to him, who say that there is no resurrection, and they asked him a question," [Mat 22:23 ESV].  The word used here for resurrection - which refers directly to a rising from the dead, is a completely different Greek word than Jesus used.  Why wouldn't he use this word when talking to his apostles?  The only answer can be that they were not to understand it yet, it was not meant for them to understand.  So Jesus uses a word that will make sense to them (and to us) after the fact, but was a little vague before the fact.  With all this information, their confusion makes perfect sense.  They were neither dense nor stupid.  This word was not specific, because Jesus didn't want it to be specific.

This little section is here and in the same spot in Matthew's gospel.  Jesus knows they were confused by the transfiguration, and that they still don't understand that there will be two advents of Christ.  He tells them again.  They still don't understand.  And why would they?  They'd lived a long time being told there was only one appearance of Messiah.  And one of Elijah, and that they sort of went together.  So how do you fit "Messiah dies" into the context of what they knew?  We shouldn't be so hard on them.  Like when Einstein showed that Newton was wrong.  There must have been a LOT of resistance to that also!  We see it all the time.  What doesn't fit into our preconceived ideas is rejected out of hand.  Square peg, round hole.

Also on the way, the disciples are discussing who among themselves is greatest.  When they get to town, Jesus asks them what they were talking about on the way.  Mark says he called the 12 to him, implying that he was traveling with more than just the 12.  He calls them apart here to teach them about greatness.  And he tells them just the opposite of what the world was telling them.  The principal is that receiving those who have no possibility of increasing our own greatness as pay back for what we do for them, these are the ones we should do things for.  Heaven rewards generosity to the helpless, giving to those who cannot repay, loving those who do not love us.  Heaven's rewards are exactly in contrast to earthly rewards.  This is why we need to keep any "good deeds" secret.  If we tell of them, we are seeking accolades on earth.  We might get them, but that's all we will ever get.  If we keep these things secret until heaven, then we receive heavenly rewards for them.

2022 - Here it is again!  Look at this verse:
"37 "Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me."" [Mar 9:37 ESV].  Another reference to the sheep and goat judgment!  Jesus talks about this judgment over and over and over.  Once you know what to look for, and once you are actively searching it out, it is here repeatedly!  These verses from sheep and goat:
"35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me,
36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.'
37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? ...
40 And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'" [Mat 25:35-37, 40 ESV]
I mean, come on!  These are about the same thing!  And when does this happen?  Here is the verse, and it fits very neatly into the end of Mark 8/first of 9:
"31 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne."
It happens when he comes with his angels.  Back to Mark 8 for verses on that one, we have already "established" that this is about the second advent.  That is the ONLY time he comes with his armies/angels.  This does not happen at the GWT, and it does not happen at the bema if indeed the bema is in heaven rather than on earth.  He comes in his glory, with the angels, and he sits on his "glorious" throne.  This is Pre-Millennial stuff here.  And Jesus just keeps talking about it.
It is inextricably linked to the kingdom - which is his real subject.  The kingdom will come with power, yes, spiritually, and then later will come physically.  Both "kingdoms" are ruled over by Christ.  Today  he rules from his throne at the right hand of God, at the second advent he will rule from his glorious throne on earth - in Israel, in Jerusalem.  Wow!  That is the link between the sheep and goat judgment and "some standing here".  It is one continuous kingdom in two forms.

39 But Jesus said, "Do not stop him, for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. 40 For the one who is not against us is for us. 41 For truly, I say to you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you belong to Christ will by no means lose his reward. [Mar 9:39-41 ESV]
Who is not against us is for us.  There is an implication that those who do good things in Christ's name, even though they are not fully committed to him, will still receive a reward for it.  BUT THIS IS WRONG!!!  John, the one who tells the story, was feeling guilty about having rebuked this person who was casting out demons.  If it is true, as Jesus said, that a house divided, etc, then the one doing the casting out was in fact a true believer.  The person was perhaps not part of the crowd following Jesus, perhaps didn't even openly declare his position, but only true believers cast out demons.  John was realizing this, and felt bad about rebuking him.  This comes right after the talk about who is greatest also.  Maybe John felt that only Jesus' immediate followers "deserved" recognition for casting out demons.  He saw this person as a usurper, as competition.  So when Jesus talked about being least, John felt bad.  Think of the lessons here for the modern church.  We compete with other denominations, other preachers, other leaders in the church...What if we all took this view?  Is there a FB post here?  Surely there is a website post.  
2022 - Look at vs 41!  A cup of water.  This is about the sheep and goat judgment.  This says that there will be rewards at the sheep and goat judgment.  But how can we say that only those alive at the second coming will receive these rewards?  The implication is that since Jesus doesn't know when the second coming will be, it is possible that it will be in the lifetime of this guy casting out demons, and he will receive a reward at that judgment.  That is the only way we can understand these words AND maintain that only those alive at the time will receive a reward at the sheep and goat.  And we have to put the bema rewards in heaven.  We could say that Jesus means that bema judgment, but the reference to the cup of water pretty clearly ties it to the sheep and goat.

Jesus talks about how it is better to die than to mislead the little ones.  Better to be maimed than to hang on to a hand that sins perpetually.  We need to be supremely cautious about our witness, our testimony, our behavior.  
2022 - Here is the reason for wanting to protect little children from pornography, from gender transitions, from R rated movies, from Satanic teachings of all kinds, from profanity.  ANYTHING that causes a child to sin - in word, deed, or thought - is abhorred by God:
"42 "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea." [Mar 9:42 ESV]
Possible FB post here, certainly, and a very timely one also.

And whatever we have in our lives that pulls us toward sin, we need to get rid of.  It is not really about our physical bodies.  It is about what we "cherish" and hold close to us that also distracts us.  Alcohol that gives us the hangover that keeps us from church or Bible reading or even from smiling at other people in the grocery store.  Fishing on Sunday, athletic teams, and so on.  None of these are inherently bad, it is the priority that we put on them.  If we cannot keep them in the proper perspective, then they must go, because they have power over us that only God should have.  It all ends with these two verses:
49 For everyone will be salted with fire. 50 Salt is good, but if the salt has lost its saltiness, how will you make it salty again? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another." [Mar 9:49-50 ESV]
Looked at the MSB notes here.  Even John Mac says 49 is a difficult verse, but he does give an OT reference that ties salt to the sacrifices offered.  Lv 2:13, 13 You shall season all your grain offerings with salt. You shall not let the salt of the covenant with your God be missing from your grain offering; with all your offerings you shall offer salt. [Lev 2:13 ESV].  This is another reference, I believe, to the covenant of salt.  I have other notes about it, but can't seem to recall them right now.  I think this is about keeping the covenant.  Jesus is referring to the loss of the Sinai covenant that they are living through, lost because the religious elite had taken God out of the covenant and made it about the rules.  The food was there, but it was unsalted, bland, and ephemeral.  He was telling them to keep the covenant of his blood and body, of repentance, and of commitment without the law that they were so used to.  Keep the food savory, keep the flavor of the covenant.  I think that other place I found this was just as profound as this one.  In fact, I think this one explains it even better.  2020 - Don't let the new covenant lose it's savor and become nothing but ritual and requirement like the Mosaic Covenant has.  Go to church expectantly, not routinely.  Look for something to happen that is not in the bulletin!  This too is a good post, and should go right after the one above, just like it does here in Mark!

2022 - Couple of things from vss 42-50:
Note that Jesus himself describes hell as a place with "unquenchable fire", vs 44, and in vs 48, a place where "the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched".  The fires of hell don't kill, but they burn.  Eternal suffering is in view.  The suffering is in the form of fire, not starvation, not drowning forever, not acid baths, but fire.  This is the most severe punishment that God can give.  He made fire "the worst thing".  Perhaps that's why they burned Christians at the stake, because of the irony of killing believers - who would never feel the fires of hell - with the thing believers ought not have to worry about.  How cruel.
Then this whole salt thing comes in.  In the OT, bulls, rams, sheep, and goats were offered as a sweet savor, and as a "food offering" to the Lord.  Here is one of many places where that phrase is used in the OT:
"6 besides the burnt offering of the new moon, and its grain offering, and the regular burnt offering and its grain offering, and their drink offering, according to the rule for them, for a pleasing aroma, a food offering to the LORD." [Num 29:6 ESV]
Food needs salt.  If the sacrifice was meant to honor God by giving him food, then to be proper, it would need salt.  The offering was also burned.  Non-believers are burned.  But there is no salt with unbelievers, their salt has lost it's savor.  They are NOT an honorable sacrifice, but a sacrifice that has no salt to make it flavorful. I have never seen hell as a picture of "strange sacrifice".  It is a sacrifice that God will not accept, will not honor, and therefore though the punishment is eternal, it is never sufficient.  Because those burned have no salt - no good thing - associated with them.  
Then this verse:
"49 For everyone will be salted with fire." [Mar 9:49 ESV]
What can this mean?  The salt has been changed to fire.  The fire IS the salt in this verse.  If we look at the rest of these verses...could it be that fire refers to "testing", and our response to the testing determines whether our salt will have savor or not?  Will the testing make us "better", more acceptable as sacrifices, more wholly dedicated perhaps?  Really don't know.  This one is pretty difficult.

Mark 10
This chapter comes right after the section on tempting "children" to sin.  Chapter 10 opens with teaching on divorce.
In Mark, the period does come after wife, as if they are asking if divorce is EVER ok:
2 And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" [Mar 10:2 ESV]
(In Matthew it reads like this:
3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful  to divorce one's wife for any cause?" [Mat 19:3 ESV]  The end of the  sentence could have been after wife, but they apparently knew there were  causes that were a lawful basis for divorce.)

Jesus turns the question back on them, asking what Moses wrote about divorce?  They say Moses allowed divorce, with a certificate.  Again, they are misrepresenting.  In Matthew, the passage is very much about the consequences to men after divorce.  Women are not mentioned.  Not excluded but not explicitly included.  But here in vs 12, women are included, with exactly the same rule as for men.  If she divorces for other than adultery, and marries again, then she commits adultery.

So...if you divorce, but don't get remarried...what then?  It says what God has joined together, let no man put asunder.  So we are not to divorce at all.  But if we mess this up, and divorce, we at least should not remarry, and make things still worse.  That's why the disciples said better not to marry at all than to marry, and after having that kind of a relationship, divorce and have to live alone.  That living alone the second time would be very difficult to deal with indeed...unless you are a eunuch, in which case divorce would leave you in about the same situation you were in before you got married!

2024 - I had a remarkable, and possibly untrustworthy thought about this section as I read it today.  What if Jesus meant it another way.  What if he asked them what Moses said to make the point first, that in Moses' day, as in Jesus' day, some people put away their wives or husbands just to get rid of them - they were tired of them, or had their eyes on someone else.  They could do very cruel things back then, just as now, and the innocent party - the one who had NOT been adulterous, and who was not being a fiend, was the one who suffered at the hands of these awful people.  Then, as now.  What if also, divorce in Moses' day was always "initiated" by someone.  Then maybe what Jesus was getting at here is that if you do not have a really good reason to divorce your spouse - if you are just sick and tired of them, though they haven't done anything - if you do that and then move on to someone else, in God's sight YOU, NOT the one you divorced, becomes an adulterer.  If this were not true, Jesus would never have said that if your unbelieving spouse leaves you, let them go.  You'd somehow still be guilty even though this other person put you in difficulty.  Vss 11 and 12, furthermore, seem to say that those who divorce a spouse for frivolous reasons - and then marry again, are adulterers.  
So this year, what I am wondering is what happens if your spouse is beating on you, constantly drunk, abusive toward the children, causing the whole family to dread their company, and you file for divorce for that reason.  To remove yourself and your children from a highly abusive situation, and NOT because you have your eye on the neighbors wife or the pool boy, but because you are the spouse of a despicable, even dangerous person?  This year, I don't think Jesus is talking about THAT situation at all.  Divorcing a mean, hateful, awful person is not something that hard-hearted people do and so cause hurt and pain to the one divorce.  Divorcing a wife beater does not do HIM any harm at all, not in the sense that Jesus means here.  There is good reason to get divorced from people like that, and everyone - in Moses' day as in Jesus' - knew that.  
It remains true also that God never intended for people to divorce.  He hates divorce.  BUT, it is not tenable to claim that God DOES intend for people to be abused for a lifetime just because the abuser is married to them.  No.  God would never intend such a thing.
There are divorces that are based on good sound reasons, and though God does not encourage such, perhaps he also does not "curse" such divorces.  It all comes down to the heart, to the real, true, deep down reason for the divorce, and I think even then we are talking about the one who initiates the divorce.  The "victim", let's call it, of divorce is NOT an adulterer for getting remarried.  
This is a big change in how I understand this passage.  I need to look at the parallel passages very closely to see if I am contradicting one of them, and so wrong dead wrong in looking at things this way.  But this way seems to make a lot of sense in the real world and when Jesus said "because of your hard hearts" he was talking about the real world, not God's ideal.

Jesus rebukes them for not letting the children come to him.  He takes the children in his arms.

The rich young man shows up.  First thing Jesus answers is that none is good but God alone.  This is the theme of everything about to be said.  Jesus makes it clear that no man can live a perfect life.  Only God is perfect.  But this man believes that he is also.  That's the point of this answer.

At the end of this conversation, Jesus has compassion for this young man, and invites him to follow.  Jesus doesn't extend that invitation to just everyone.  I think this was a sort of "inner circle" invitation.  Jesus truly wanted this man to join him.  But the young man blatantly openly knowingly put his money ahead of Jesus, ahead of God.  He could never again claim that he was a good man.  Given the choice, he chose money.  This is the test that all rich men must face.

Peter's question about what they'll get because they've given up everything indicates his misunderstanding of what Jesus is saying.  Peter thinks it is a universal call to poverty and want.  That's not what Jesus said.  Jesus made it clear that with God, it is possible even for a rich person to enter the kingdom.  It's just harder - and probably a lot more rare.

Mark continues on in chapter 10 past where Matthew 19 ended.  Taking a quick look at Matt 20, it does not continue as Mark, just in a different chapter.  The two take different routes.

After this, Jesus starts toward Jerusalem for the last time, with many following him.  He walks in the lead, identifying himself easily for any who are looking for him to kill him.  He walks in front as they approach enemy lines.  The 12 are amazed, and all his disciples are afraid for him as he does this.  Jesus tells them, in the most detailed account to date, what is going to happen when they get to Jerusalem.  He tells them he will rise the third day, and yet they are surprised when this happens.  They either don't understand, or even at this point, they don't believe that Jesus can rise from the dead - though they have seen him raise others.  How could thy not believe????  (2020 - In a previous chapter, we were told that they were kept from grasping what Jesus was telling them.  They were not supposed to latch onto it until after it happened, and THEN they would remember in what detail he prophesied about his death.  This was the purpose of Jesus saying it at this point - not so they'd understand, but so they would remember this demonstration yet again that God was with Christ, controlling all these events.)

James and John ask for the most honored positions in the kingdom, once Jesus becomes king.  Pretty ambitious request.  They are told that they cannot have those seats because they are already prepared for others.  However they can drink the same cup and be baptized the same way as Jesus.  James died at Herod's hand - killed by Gentiles for his faith?  John dies a natural death on Patmos...or so tradition says.  So I don't quite get this passage.  MSB just says they would suffer like their master.  Does not try to correlate directly.

Blind Bartimaeus is bold enough to call out for Jesus though rebuked by the crowd as he does it.  He doesn't care what the crowd thinks.  He is fine with their shushing him.  Some surely thought he was just a beggar, wasting his time trying to get attention from Jesus.  The lesson is that we are all as blind as Bartimaeus, as needy as he was, and as undeserving as he was.  BUT, are we as bold to approach Jesus as Bartimaeus was?  He walked through the disdaining, skeptical, judgemental crowd, right to Jesus feet.  Who won that one?
There is surely a FB post here!  2020 - Some make much of the fact that Mark says the blind man was healed as Jesus left Jericho, and Luke, yesterday, says it happened as he got there.  The explanations I've seen say Jericho had an old town and a new town, and this event happened as Jesus was leaving one and entering the other.  I say we probably have very little direct knowledge of how Jericho was laid out in those days, or of Jesus "route" as he went through it.  You can make a lot of fuss about this if you want, but can no more prove it an error than I can prove it is not one.    

This verse:
46 And they came to Jericho. And as he was leaving Jericho with his disciples and a great crowd, Bartimaeus, a blind beggar, the son of Timaeus, was sitting by the roadside. [Mar 10:46 ESV]  Look at all the detail Mark gives us about the blind man.  Mark and Luke only mention one blind man.  Matthew's account mentions two, and says both were healed.  But only Mark tells us the name of the blind man, and who his father was.  My guess is that this beggar was well known.  Likely he had "hollered" at a lot of people as they passed that spot.  I would also guess that after these events, Bartimaeus becomes a voice proclaiming Jesus, maybe shouting at passers by from that very spot, and that he gives his testimony about having his sight restored to anyone who will listen.  So in case you didn't believe the story when Mark wrote it, he is giving you a point of corroboration, so that you can go and ask Bartimaeus himself.  

2020 - This whole story is a picture of salvation.  Bartimaeus recognized his need, he recognized that Jesus could supply that need, he cried out - disregarding the cares and rebukes of those around him - for Jesus to help him.  Jesus stops, calls him, and asks what he wants.  Bartimaeus confesses his need, publicly, and then Jesus says his faith has healed him.  He sort of prayed the prayer, but Jesus says the healing has already been done.  The faith that his need could be met at all is what restored his sight.  Upon hearing his confession, Jesus says "Go your way...", and that blind man, lost in sin, could see.  
 

Mark 11
Jesus nears Jerusalem and sends two disciples ahead for the colt.  All three accounts say two went for the colt, none tell us which two.  In Mark, there is no stop in Bethany at the home of Mary, Martha, and Lazarus.  The shouts of the crowd as related by Mark are phrased a bit differently:
9 And those who went before and those who followed were shouting, "Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! 10 Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David! Hosanna in the highest!" [Mar 11:9-10 ESV]  This is the first line of Psa 118:26.  

This account says Jesus arrived at the temple, and looked around, then left for Bethany with the 12.  Nothing about cleansing the temple that first night, or about teaching the people.  It says it was already late when he got there.  So it was getting very near evening.  I think in Jerusalem, days were reckoned from sunset to sunset.  (They are, because Israel left Egypt at night.  It is in Deuteronomy.)  2020 - I had in my head that the versions of Jesus entry, and cleansing of the temple, were different.  I thought at least one account put him cleansing it that first night, and then at least one didn't have it until the next day.  Reading it in the Harmony, though, none of them say he cleansed it that first evening.  Mark and Matthew both indicate that after his triumphal entry, Jesus went to the Temple.  Both say that.  Matthew says he healed the lame and the blind while there, that he was recognized by the multitudes.  The children in the temple were saying "Hosanna"...Now I know I saw that just recently.  Where was that?  It was Luke 19:45 ff.  The way the Harmony deals with this is to put a big break between Luke 19:44 and Luke 19: 45.  What that does is leave that first evening's visit to the Temple out of Luke.  He does not talk about that at all, but skips from the Triumphal entry directly to the second day, early, when Jesus cleanses the temple.  Luke leaves out the barren fig tree also.  Since it is a reference back to Jeremiah 8, Gentile readers -Luke's audience - wouldn't know at all what it was about.  So he leaves it out.  That's how it is all resolved, and it is really no stretch at all to do so.  If there was a chapter break between Luke 19:44 and 45, instead of waiting until after Luke 19:48, no one would ever suggest there even was a discrepancy.

As he headed back to town the next day, he was hungry.  There were 13 of them at least.  A lot of mouths to feed for Mary, Martha, and Lazarus.  Also, they could have been leaving early for the reasons above.  Jesus curses the fig tree for not providing food.  I heard some preaching on this.  A fig tree sometimes leafed out at the wrong time of year to bear fruit.  Maybe it was unseasonably warm, and the tree leafed out as if it were spring.  But when this happened, the days were still too short, and no fruit grew.  Lack of pollinators at such a time might also have kept it from bearing.  In any case, from a distance, the tree looked like it might have some figs, but up close, it was bare.  Jesus very much disliked this "misleading" tree, and cursed it.  2020 - Matthew and Mark talk about this tree, Luke does not.  Luke wrote to Gentiles.  The OT reference would mean nothing to them.  Matthew wrote to prove Jesus was Messiah in fulfillment of OT prophecy.  He most certainly would include it.  Mark was writing Peter's "memoirs".  Peter was Jewish and was Apostle to the Jews.  He also would find the fig tree a pivotal fulfillment of prophecy.  So Mark would include it.  13 When I would gather them, declares the LORD, there are no grapes on the vine, nor figs on the fig tree; even the leaves are withered, and what I gave them has passed away from them." [Jer 8:13 ESV]  Here are some other verses from that same chapter in Isaiah...7 Even the stork in the heavens knows her times, and the turtledove, swallow, and crane keep the time of their coming, but my people know not the rules of the LORD. ... 10 Therefore I will give their wives to others and their fields to conquerors, because from the least to the greatest everyone is greedy for unjust gain; from prophet to priest, everyone deals falsely." [Jer 8:7, 10 ESV]  It seems to me now, with the context of Mark 11, that Jeremiah 10 is about 70 AD, not about the Millennial.  Jesus' coming was the time they should have recognized, as storks recognize the time to migrate.  The season was changing with Christ's arrival, and they missed it.  They didn't fly.  He was the person they should have recognized.  The result?  Military conquest, by Rome, in 70 AD with all the horrors of the final fall of a besieged city by those who have grown to hate the city and all who are inside it.  No rules, no mercy, no human decency.  

He continued into town, going directly to the temple, and driving out the money changers.  It also says in Mark that Jesus wouldn't allow anyone to carry anything through the temple.  Never noticed that before.  Per MSB note, people were using the temple court as a shortcut to other areas of Jerusalem.  This was very irreverent, and Jesus wouldn't let them do it.  Jesus tells the crowd the temple has been turned into a den of thieves, which angers the chief priests and scribes.  They were almost certainly getting a kick back from the buying and selling, if not partners with the merchants, and they may have required that sacrifices be purchased in the temple because only those in the temple were "without blemish".  And they could have jacked up the prices then to extort high prices for sacrificial animals.  Jesus' words threatened this revenue source.  Of course they were angry.

Jesus leaves the temple when evening comes.  He apparently stayed and taught the people all that day.  2020 - But we really aren't told a lot about this second day, other than that he cleansed the temple.  Very little additional detail in Mark.  

The next morning (day three) they pass the fig tree on the way back to Jerusalem.  Peter is astonished that it is now dead all the way to the roots.  Jesus says this is about praying with the belief that what we ask is already done.  Then Jesus says when we pray we need to forgive, so that we too will be forgiven.  I don't see the connection with the leafed out tree not being what it appeared to be and praying with belief and forgiving.  They seem unrelated.  2020 - Matthew and Mark, again, record this about the withered fig tree.  Jesus answers them that faith can do this, if you pray already believing that your prayer is answered.  AND, he says that when you pray, you must forgive - as in maybe use that time as a "check-up" on your own life, to make sure you are forgiving, so that you can also be forgiven.  So the question is, were these words meant only for those with Jesus at the time - possibly only for the 12 and a reference to the special church-establishing miracles that would be put into their hands - or were his words also for us today?  I can see the first part being only for the apostles, but the forgiveness part is a little more of a stretch...

The chief priests, scribes, and elders ask Jesus by what authority he does what he does.   I think they were getting at somethings specific.  Their point may have been to impugn any authority other than themselves, but they needed a target.  Jesus' answer was about John the Baptist, and presented them with the horns of a dilemma.  (They may have been asking by what authority he overturned the temple merchant's tables, literally, but everything else also.  This explains the pointedness of the question.  Jesus had "damaged" them by stopping the temple trade.  Who had given him the authority to say the chief priests and scribes were in error?
Jesus question to answer a question put them in a much weaker position with the people.  Enough were convinced that John was a prophet to make denying John imply that they also denied God.  And this of course would devastate their authority to tell the people what they should believe.
2020 - They also challenged his authority the first time he'd cleansed the temple, per Harmony.  They were angry that he thought he had the authority to tell them - the chief priests, scribes, and Pharisees - how to run a temple.  He was behaving as if he had authority over them, to correct and challenge them about they way they were doing things.  Who would have such authority?  In their minds, only God had that authority, and so they wanted him to commit blasphemy by claiming to be God.  He doesn't do that.  He asked them about John, and who John was from?  Because John had already told them who Jesus was.  And if they believed what John said, then Jesus was the Messiah, and he most certainly did  have authority over the Temple.

Mark 12
The last chapter ended with the Pharisees confronting Jesus about his clearing out the money changers.
This chapter starts with the parable of the tenants.  The whole vineyard is constructed by the owner.  He does all the work before the tenants are even called.  He leaves it in their care, expecting a return on his investment - something for the labor he put into it himself.  The man owned it all.  It was ALL his, and yet he arranged to receive only a part from the tenants.  They would not give him any of it, and even beat the servants he sent.  Finally the man sends his own son, and these despicable tenants kill him also, thinking that will be the end of it, and they will now ultimately own what belonged to the builder.  But not so.  The owner will come, and will remove the usurpers, and re-establish his ownership.  2020 - No, his ownership is never in question.  He will take the vineyard from those who killed his servants first and then his son, and he will give it to others.  This is about the Gentiles also.  This could also be said to be a reference to 70 AD.  That is when the vineyard is going to be taken from them.  Killing the son is the last straw.  God sent His most loved, most treasured, to try and get these to keep their bargain - the Sinai covenant - and they killed that son.  That broke all bargains, and "maintenance" of the vineyard went to others.  That is what the church is doing.  We are maintaining the vineyard, we are supplying fruit to the owner in season.  This is what the original tenants were to do and did not.

2024 - So...during this present age, the vineyard, the favor, the blessing of God is NOT on Israel.  They are "serving their sentence" for the way they treated the vineyard owner.  It says "...he will come and destroy the vine-growers".  They are just on their own right now.  No different than any other nation.  Until they turn back to Him they are NOT guaranteed success at any level!  It was AFTER this that the Romans drove the Jews completely out of Israel!  There's nothing that says that cannot happen again.  Perhaps 1948 was just another test to see if, after all the persecution they'd suffered at the hands of the Nazis would wake them up.  Apparently, it did not.  As might have been expected given the history of Israel.
2024 - A little later...unless this is referring all the way back to 11:27, and the chief priests and the scribes and the elders.  I suppose we ought to consider that it was the whole "legal system", with the priests in charge that might have been referenced.  Hmm...That is a pretty distinct possibility.  Vs 12, where "they were seeing to seize Him", points to this as the correct interpretation, rather than Israel as a whole.  That would leave the door open for some Jews to participated in the New Covenant, which they did and still do.  That is probably more accurate.

Render unto Caesar.

The Sadducees pose their dilemma about the wife of seven husbands.  
Mark is running in parallel with Matthew 22 here.  Same parables, same questions to entrap, and so on.

2021 - These parables are spoken in Jerusalem during Jesus' last days before crucifixion.  These are surely important.  The tenants, rendering to Caesar, no marriage in heaven, and the widow's mites.  These ought to be given particular heed.

2021 - Note the difference in the question posed by the scribe in vss 28-34 as contrasted with the Pharisees, Herodians, and Sadducees.  The scribe notices the wisdom in Jesus' answers, and truly seeks to learn from Jesus with his question.  He is a seeker.  And Jesus recognizes this also, and says he is "not far" from the kingdom of God.  But something was still missing.  That something was that this scribe still didn't recognized that Jesus was the son of God, the Messiah.  And he did not repent.  He recognizes that devotion is more important than sacrifices, but he does not swing his allegiance from the Law to the Messiah.

2021 - 36 David himself, in the Holy Spirit, declared, "'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet."' [Mar 12:36 ESV]
Jesus confirming that the scriptures are written in the Holy Spirit.  They are inspired by God - God controls the very words so that there is no doubt.  This would be good to memorize as a proof text for verbal plenary inspiration.   God's words do not "expire" neither to they waste away with the ravages of time.  The KJV language is dated, but the underlying scriptures are not.

In Mark's account, Jesus warns the crowds about the deceit of the scribes, who make themselves "above" everyone else, but in reality they "...devour widows' houses and for a pretense make long prayers".  Jesus is showing that they have not come to question him seeking knowledge, nor for the benefit of themselves or the crowd.  They have come to destroy his credibility, to undermine his teaching if they can.  His teaching was to the poor, the lame, the halt.  To the widows.  It is from these that are already considered the lowest of the low that the elite want to steal.  In Matthew, we don't see this warning until the next chapter.

The story of the widow's mites.  I have heard this used as an example of great faith, that she gave even what she needed to live on.  I always had a hard time with this.  I have also heard it said that Jesus' point was that false religion - perverted religion - takes and does not give.  It required more of a lowly widow than it did of the rich.  It favored the wealthy, and they got honor not for their sacrifice, but for their giving.  It goes all the way back to Saul sacrificing oxen he had taken as spoil.  He didn't buy them, they were nothing to him, and so nothing to God.  The same with the offerings of the wealthy.  If they don't miss it anyway, why should God honor it.  This widow though, she will go hungry because of the offering she's made.  The elite won't honor  her, but God certainly will.
2021 - There is nothing here though, really, that seems an indictment of "false religion".  Not in Mark's account anyway.  Jesus seems to be using the widow as an example of trusting in God in all circumstances.  Of devoting all to him.  I see no indication that Jesus was trying to show that religion was at fault in her giving even what she had to buy food.  Taking her last dime.  I know that's what is going on, but I don't think Jesus was trying to convey that.  He was conveying the love of God in the widow's heart as contrasted to the "show" of those who had so much.

(2021 - I'm going to do this like I did Luke 21, and just start over below the 2020 entry)
This chapter begins with Jesus' statement that not one stone of these buildings will be left upon the other.  This is the same point in time as we saw yesterday in Luke 21, and that we will see tomorrow in Matthew 24.  For some reason, Matthew's account gets all the attention.  I know that he wrote mostly to the Jews, and that Luke wrote to Gentiles, and very likely considered Greeks his main audience.  But Mark....Per MSB notes I recorded in Mark 1, this book is generally believed to be written to the Christians in Rome, and primarily the Gentile Christians in Rome.  It is referred to in ancient discussions as the memoirs of Peter as he related them to John Mark - who never met Jesus.  Others say Mark records the things Peter preached about Jesus.  As such, it was written to people who were not all that familiar with Jewish feasts, traditions, and so on, nor with the Old Testament.  With that in mind....

"....There will not be left here one stone upon another..."  Yet, as of today, there still are stacked stones at the wailing wall.  So we take this figuratively, or we take it as unfulfilled.  2021 - Or we take it that the wall still there was not the temple at all.  I have seen some video's that say the original Temple was south, on the next hill, from where the dome of the rock is now.  So this may have been fulfilled, and Satan is just deceiving us about it for some purpose of his own.

After they've left, but while they are sitting on the Mt of Olives, opposite the temple - looking at the temple from the place everyone now takes their photos of the Dome - the four innermost apostles - Peter, James, John, and Andrew - ask Jesus two questions IN PRIVATE.  Only Luke didn't mention in private.  Luke says "they" questioned him.  Luke wasn't there, and neither was Mark.  Matthew was...
2022 - There is a significant difference here in Mark from the accounts in Luke and Matthew.  The difference is this verse:
"3 And as he sat on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately, 4 "Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are about to be accomplished?"" [Mar 13:3-4 ESV].  Mark is very specific that these questions were asked privately.  BUT, it could mean they were asked on the Mt of Olives rather than back at the Temple, where there would have been people around.  We know from Jesus' trial that many people did hear him say not one stone would be left upon another...or perhaps they were remembering when he said he could build the temple back in three days.  He talked of building back in three days at an earlier time, NOT at this time, per the Harmony.  Here is how the equivalent verse in Matt 24 is worded:
"3 As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"" [Mat 24:3 ESV].  And for completeness' sake, here is the account in Luke 21:
"7 And they asked him, "Teacher, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when these things are about to take place?"" [Luk 21:7 ESV].
So as to the "privately" part, both Mark and Matthew use that word.  But I don't think we can be certain about whether many disciples, the 12 and others were there, and specifically the four, or whether ONLY those four were there.  Interesting that if it was the four - Peter and Andrew, James and John - then none of the gospel writers who actually talk about these great questions was actually there to hear it first hand.  John doesn't mention it at all in his gospel.  Andrew and James wrote no gospel, and Mark only gets this second hand from Peter.  So if we take this as only the four being present, then we have no first hand account of what Jesus said at all.  I believe God would preserve the words, inspire the words that he wants us to hear, nevertheless, that leaves us with no first hand account.  Why would Mark imply that there were only those four, while Matthew's account tends to make us think that privately just means away from the Temple crowds?  Is it usual for Matthew to use the word "disciples" when referring to the apostles only, or even to a subset of the apostles?  Here are some references:
"21 Another of the disciples said to him, "Lord, let me first go and bury my father."" [Mat 8:21 ESV].  From context, this "disciple" was not one of the 12.
"1 And he called to him his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every affliction." [Mat 10:1 ESV].  Here, Matthew refers exclusively to the 12 when using the word disciples.  It is Strong's G3101 in both cases.  So Matthew throws this word around pretty casually,  using it first to describe Jesus' followers in general and again to refer only to the 12.
"49 And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers!" [Mat 12:49 ESV].  In context, this was about the crowd, NOT at all exclusively about the 12.
"36 Then he left the crowds and went into the house. And his disciples came to him, saying, "Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field."" [Mat 13:36 ESV].  This verse shows us that Matthew used "disciples" to refer to a subset of the crowds to which Jesus spoke.  That subset seems at least to refer to those who were more than casual listeners.  There were crowds of people that Jesus spoke to, but then later, he would speak to his disciples.  In this verse, disciples could mean either just the 12 or it could mean just the core followers.  In any case, these are contrasted with the "crowds".
So now back to the original question:  Whom exactly did Jesus talk to on the Mt of Olives?  We don't know!  Perhaps he spoke with the four about some of it, and with a larger group about other parts.  Maybe Matthew's gospel relates the part that he heard, while Mark relates only what Peter recollects - from a private conversation but also some of what was said to a larger group.  We DO NOT KNOW, so any conclusions based primarily on who was being addressed is a shaky conclusion.  Best not to depend on that.
But you have to go with something.  I am going to go with there being more than one conversation while they were out there on that mountain all night.  Jesus talked to the four for a while, and he talked to a larger group for a while.  What we have in the gospels is a collection of what various people remember about Jesus' words that night, mostly from interviews with people that were there and heard what he said.  I think it is fair to say that Matthew heard a lot of it, and as an insider - as one of the 12 - had more access to those who heard it all than probably any other gospel writer would have had.  Mark's account came almost exclusively from Peter's recollection.  Peter likely heard it all.  But it wasn't written down until quite a while later when Peter was in Rome.  But Peter could have been telling the story consistently for that whole time.
Enough on that.  Going with the "multiple conversations" version and moving on.

The two questions here are "When will these things be", and "What will be the sign when all these things are about to be accomplished".  So the phrasing again requests a general idea of when these stones will be thrown down, and the expectation is that it is far enough away from that current time that they wanted to be able to identify precisely when it was coming to pass.  They wanted to be able to identify the prophecy being fulfilled by pointing to specific - and unique - events that would take place just prior to the stones being destroyed.  2021 - These are the same two questions that are recorded in Luke.  So Luke and Mark have the questions the same, and Mark is more specific as to the audience.

2022 - Generally, Mark and Luke ask the question of how far in the future will the stones be thrown down, and how will we know when that time is really close?  There is nothing here about the sign of Jesus return - they really don't understand that there will be a resurrection from the dead and a second coming anyway, so how could they be asking about that?  They are asking, in Luke and Mark, specifically about the destruction of the Temple.  In Matthew though, the questions are different.  Here they are for comparison:
"3 As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"" [Mat 24:3 ESV]. Three questions here.  Only the first is about the destruction of the Temple.  The second is about the second coming (or the rapture! 2023 - Did they even know about the rapture at this point?), and the third question is about the end of the church/Gentile age which would mean the end of the blindness of the Jews and the fulfillment of the OT promises.  So we would expect there to be material in Matthew that is not present at all in Mark and Luke.  Is that the case?  If so, the add'l material in Matthew could be expected to apply to these last two questions in Matthew, and not at all to the destruction of Jerusalem.  Does that work out?  I know it cannot possibly or someone would have interpreted it that way before.  But it is something I will look for, because it would sure bring a lot of clarity to this passage.

The start of Jesus' answer seems to understand the question exactly the  same way.  He says a lot of charlatans claiming to be him are going to appear between that current time and the time Jesus is talking about.  There will be a lot of wars and rumors of wars.  None of these signs are unique enough to qualify as "signs".  Vs 7 ends with "the end is not yet", and vs 8 begins with "for".  Vs 8 mentions international conflicts, which would seem to fit into the "not yet" category, but then goes on to mention earthquakes and famines, and how these are just the beginning.  If they are just the beginning, then these are not signs of the fulfillment of the prophecy either.  

Verse 9 starts with "But be on your guard..."  This preposition seemed to me to be an indicator of a subject change in Luke's account, and seems to be used in the same way here.  The subject changes to persecution by government.  Then vs 10 says the gospel must be proclaimed to all nations.  (There are many NT verses that say this has already occurred.)  Also, Paul surely stood before governors, as did others, and testified of Jesus, and this during times of great persecution.  If these are the events Jesus is speaking of, then it all points to 70 AD as being the time when this prophecy is fulfilled.

Jesus goes on to speak of what seems like universal hatred of those who believe.  And Jesus again says they aren't to prepare their replies to questions in advance, and says that many will be killed for their testimony, betrayed by father, brother, or child.  This verse:
13 And you will be hated by all for my name's sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved. [Mar 13:13 ESV]  So not all those who believe during this time will die.  Some will be saved.  The preposition is there again, transitioning the time from what will happen in 70 AD to what happens at the end of Great Tribulation.  I think the case is weaker here, less clear.  I would appeal to Luke's account before this one.

2022 - I think, today, that up through at least 13 we are talking exclusively about events leading up to AD 70.  The persecution and betrayal in view is associated with the initial spread of the gospel, and the push back from Jews, Gentiles, and secular governments all.  (2024 - And Paul!!) Christians were hated.  There were wars here and there.  There were famines and earthquakes in various places.  All these thing took place before 70 AD.  Note that not one of these things is unique enough to serve as "the sign when all these things are about to be accomplished".  All these things are the things that should NOT concern them as indicating an imminent destruction of the Temple.  They were to push on through these things, not hunker down and wait for the end.
2022 - Comparing the three accounts, there is enough direct correlation between Mk 13:1-13, Matt 24:1-14, and Lk 21:1-19 for them to all be relating the same words of Jesus.  A little is added in one, or left out of another, but all three passages track quite closely to this point.  And I believe that up to this point, Jesus is relating to them things that will happen before 70 AD.  General things, about which they ought not get overly concerned, but continue to preach the gospel.

Then we get to vs 14, which again starts with "but".  Jesus has moved along, answering the question of what will go on in the world generally between now and when the "not one stone" prophecy will be fulfilled.  Here is 14:
14 "But when you see the abomination of desolation standing where he ought not to be (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. [Mar 13:14 ESV]
In Luke, when it talked about not going back to Jerusalem, it prefaced it by saying Jerusalem would be surrounded by armies, so don't go home.  That was pretty clearly about 70 AD.  But here, the abomination of desolation is front and center, not surrounding armies.  Further, it says woe to those nursing infants, and pray that this doesn't happen in winter - because believers are going to be persecuted like never ever before in history, and their preferred reaction is going to be to run.  Vs 19 says this:
19 For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God created until now, and never will be. [Mar 13:19 ESV]
This same phrasing is used of several earthquakes in Revelation.  This language is about great tribulation.  This is the sign that this prophecy is about to be fulfilled - the one about the sign, not about the stones:  The abomination of desolation will be where he shouldn't - I'm thinking that is when Antichrist will cut off the sacrifice, stand in the holy place, and demand that the world worship only him.  
(((Find the verses in Revelation that identify some of the events described there as unique in history.  Also find the ones about the abomination of desolation requiring all to worship him.)  One way to see this is that neither of these prophecies, neither event, has yet happened.  The stones are still stacked.  Antichrist will therefore build a temple on temple mount, atop the existing foundation, and once Jesus arrives to depose him, those stones will be leveled.  Perhaps it is Jesus then, that will build Ezekiel's temple, and it will be used for worship during the Millennial.
One more phrase Jesus uses - for the sake of the elect, those days will be cut short.  This phrase also ties directly to a phrase in Revelation.  Find that verse, and fix it in the chronology of that time.  (At this time, 5/11/20, I believe the first prophecy, about the stones, was fulfilled in 70 AD, and I believe the sign of Jesus' coming is yet to be seen, but will be, during Trib/Great Trib, when the Antichrist stops the sacrifices in the temple.)

2022 - Next, both Mark and Matthew reference the abomination of desolation.  Matthew makes sure we tie this back to Daniel's prophecy.  Luke does not mention the abomination, but he ties right back into the narrative as found in Mark and Matthew just one verse later.  All Luke leaves out is the abomination verse, and then all three are right back in sync, as they have been since the original questions.   (Does Luke leave it out because it is about the Jews only, and Jerusalem only?)                                                         
The abomination is mentioned in Dan. 9:27; 11:31; and 12:11.  What was Daniel seeing?  The time before the rapture or the time before the second advent?  Well the instructions here, in all three gospels, are about what to do when you see the abomination.  If this was about the rapture, wouldn't it say "Lift up your heads, redemption draweth nigh"?  But it doesn't.  It says run for the hills, it says don't go home, it says hope you are not pregnant.  So the appearance of the abomination does not mean the rapture is in the next few minutes.  Whatever it portends is not in the next few minutes.  You need to get away from Jerusalem and go underground for a period of time.
So.  We do seem to have moved well beyond 70 AD out to end times events.  If this is about 70 AD, then there was an abomination of desolation in 70 AD.  I've never heard of that.  Some say there was one during AE IV, but that was during the intertestamentary period.  Surely we can't think Jesus was speaking of the past here and looking back at the time of the Maccabees and Hasmoneans?  IF such a huge event had taken place in association with 70 AD, we would know about it.  Therefore, my conclusion is that in Mark 13:14, Jesus has moved beyond that to the "end of the age".  
2022 -
Mark 13:14b-16, Matt 24:16-18 are almost precisely the same.  Luke 21:20-21 are similar, but NOT the same.  Note this phrase found in both Mark and Matthew:
"15 Let the one who is on the housetop not go down, nor enter his house, to take anything out," [Mar 13:15 ESV]. NEITHER go down, NOR enter in...to take anything out.
"17 Let the one who is on the housetop not go down to take what is in his house," [Mat 24:17 ESV].  DO NOT go down to get anything.
Surely this sentence was uttered almost exactly like this by Jesus himself.  They both say it.  But why would you not go back into your house if you were on the roof?  You can't leave if you don't go back in.  There were no fire escapes back then.  Is this hyperbole?  Did Jesus EVER use hyperbole?  If you were in Judea - the whole country, not just if you were in Jerusalem - you were to flee to the mountains.  You need to go hide big time.  If you were in the field, you were not to go home to get your coat.  If you were on your own rooftop, you weren't to go back in the house.  There had to be an outside escape of some sort, else this imprisons you on your own rooftop.  
What we need to understand here is once the abomination of desolation is SEEN PUBLICLY in the holy place, you no longer have time to pack.  Satan is in full persecution mode, he is out of hiding, he is openly hostile to Jews.  I think it means to Jews because I think the church will be gone.  If I think that, then these events are post-rapture, pre-advent2.  What is being described in Matthew and Mark in these verses is the beginning of Great Tribulation.  The unveiling of the abomination IS "the sign of your coming and of the end of the age".  Unmistakable.  Unique.  The question is from Matthew's gospel, but the answer is in both Mark and Matthew.  
2022 -
BUT, this is NOT what Luke is talking about.  I believe that in Luke 21:20-24, we are still being told about 70 AD.  After all, Luke is writing to Gentiles.  Luke does not tie us to a unique sign - the abomination.  He says when the city is surrounded, as Rome surrounded it in 70 AD when it was packed with people, THEN run away if you are not already trapped.  Luke doesn't mention any houses.  He says if you are in Judea, and can get away, then do so.  Because Rome is about to come down hard on Jews in retribution of their rebelliousness against the Emperor.  They will take everything, they will kill people summarily if they are believed to be Jews.  Note specifically in Lk 21:24 that the Gentiles will trod over Jerusalem.  Rome made it illegal for a Jew to even come within sight of Jerusalem.  They renamed the city.  There are a tremendous number of differences between Luke's account in these verses and what is going on in Mark and Matthew.
2022 -
We find these parallel verses in Mark and Matthew, but they are NOT found at all in Luke:
"19 For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God created until now, and never will be. 20 And if the Lord had not cut short the days, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he shortened the days." [Mar 13:19-20 ESV];
"21 For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be. 22 And if those days had not been cut short, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short." [Mat 24:21-22 ESV].
It is very difficult to argue here that both Mark and Matthew are talking about the time post-rapture, pre-second advent in these verses, and I think they switched over to this period in the verses where the abomination was mentioned.  
SO, THIS IS KEY:  Luke 21 is DIFFERENT in subject to Mark 13 and Matthew 24.  Luke continues on with the 70 AD information, the other two jump ahead to Great Tribulation.

Surely vs 24 bears out that Jesus is talking about the time of Great Tribulation, just before He appears as conquering king in this verse:
24 "But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, [Mar 13:24 ESV]
Signs in the heavens.  Only God does such.  These are unique signs.  They cannot be faked.  

2022 - The term "great tribulation" is a modern invention making it more convenient to reference the last 3 1/2 years as opposed to the first 3 1/2, which are merely tribulation.  So let's turn loose of those terms as we read verses 24-27 in Mark 13.  We have maintained up to this point that these verses are about EITHER the rapture, OR the second coming.  Do vss 24-27 help with that determination?
We see three parallel accounts, very similar, of things we need to make decisions about.  
First, we see the signs:
"24 "But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, 25 and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken." [Mar 13:24-25 ESV]
"29 "Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken." [Mat 24:29 ESV]
"25 "And there will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and on the earth distress of nations in perplexity because of the roaring of the sea and the waves, 26 people fainting with fear and with foreboding of what is coming on the world. For the powers of the heavens will be shaken." [Luk 21:25-26 ESV]  NOTE that Luke's gospel appears to have come back into sync with Mark and Matthew, though Luke is still not precisely the same.  Luke is not specific about what the signs in sun, moon and stars will be, but all three are mentioned as in Mark and Matthew.
The verses below are, I believe, relevant to understanding what time is in view in these three gospel passages.
This OT verse:
"31 The sun shall be turned to darkness, and the moon to blood, before the great and awesome day of the LORD comes." [Joe 2:31 ESV].  Could be about the same time as in the verses above.   Another part of this passage is quoted by Paul as the explanation of the events of the day of Pentecost.  But we didn't have any heavenly signs on that day.  So at best, this is an incomplete prophecy.
Sun darkened might equal sun turned to darkness.
Moon won't give light could equal moon turned to blood.  
"15 The sun and the moon are darkened, and the stars withdraw their shining." [Joe 3:15 ESV].  The stars aren't falling here.  I would say this is something different.  I also believe this verse is just before the battle Christ comes with his army to fight.  This is just before the second advent.  This verse is not about the rapture.

2024 - Oh my....if the interpretation above is correct, then the signs in the heavens WILL occur TWICE!  The first time is just before the rapture, the second time just before Jesus reappears.  So the signs - very similar but not exactly the same - do happen twice!
"12 When he opened the sixth seal, I looked, and behold, there was a great earthquake, and the sun became black as sackcloth, the full moon became like blood," [Rev 6:12 ESV].  (Added later, after a search for "stars") "13 and the stars of the sky fell to the earth as the fig tree sheds its winter fruit when shaken by a gale." [Rev 6:13 ESV].  This is the sixth seal.  This seal is in the early stages of the final 7 years.  This is, in my opinion, well before the second advent, but just before the rapture.  
This earthquake is not mentioned in the gospels.  
Is the sun becoming black = sun turned to darkness = sun darkened?
Is moon like blood=moon wont give light=moon turned to blood?  
Surely the stars falling in the two gospels and in Rev 6, along with what is said of sun and moon, almost surely make them all the referencing the same time, the same signs, the same imminent event.  
We can be pretty sure Joel 2 and Revelation 6 are talking about the same time.  And if we put a nail in that, and we know that the 6th seal is NOT about the second advent, then Joel 2 and Rev 6 are about the rapture.  And the only remaining question is whether or not the three gospel accounts of darkening sun and moon with no light - which is how Jesus described this time - are also referencing Joel and Revelation, and so the rapture.  When we add Rev 6:13 to 12, and see that darkened sun, lightless moon, and falling stars all accompany the 6th seal, just as they all occur in Mark and Matthew, I think we just pretty much HAVE to tie them all to the same event.  If we are going to say that event is Jesus' arrival to rule on earth, then he must rule during the trumpets, the thunders, and the bowls as the earth is being devastated by demons and curses and as/while the Antichrist is ruling in the Temple.  Cannot be.  Jesus is never going to allow the Antichrist to inhabit the Temple while he is personally on the earth.  (There could be simultaneously a temple in Jerusalem and Ezekiel's temple elsewhere.)  
"12 The fourth angel blew his trumpet, and a third of the sun was struck, and a third of the moon, and a third of the stars, so that a third of their light might be darkened, and a third of the day might be kept from shining, and likewise a third of the night." [Rev 8:12 ESV].  We have moved ahead two chapter in Revelation and are into the trumpets.  First, we are into the trumpets now.  We've moved further into those final seven years.  The wording here makes this sound like an ongoing condition, with diminished light during both daylight and dark.  This would keep plants from growing, greatly diminish photosynthesis.  I read these trumpet curses as occurring during Great Tribulation and accruing to the rebellious unsaved, rather than as a sign in the heavens that portended good things for Christians or Jews.  But sun, moon, and stars all are mentioned here.  (2024 - So is this three times we'll see these signs?)
Let me just add some more from Rev 6 and the opening of the 6th seal:
"14 The sky vanished like a scroll that is being rolled up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place. 15 Then the kings of the earth and the great ones and the generals and the rich and the powerful, and everyone, slave and free, hid themselves in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains, 16 calling to the mountains and rocks, "Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who is seated on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb, 17 for the great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand?"" [Rev 6:14-17 ESV]
In these verses we can surely see "the powers of the heavens shaken" in Matthew and Mark.  We can see "people fainting with fear and foreboding", and also the heavens shaken in the passage from Luke.
What is in Revelation but not in any of the three gospels?  That earthquake in Rev 6:12.
What is in the gospels that is not in Revelation?  The "roaring of the sea and the waves" in Luke.
   (Later - the Greek word translated "roaring" in Luke is the word "echoes".  It is the same word used here and translated sound:  "2 And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting." [Act 2:2 ESV], and here where it is translated sound: "19 and the sound of a trumpet and a voice whose words made the hearers beg that no further messages be spoken to them." [Heb 12:19 ESV]  NASB and a few others call it a blast of a trumpet.  Could Luke be describing the actual sound of the sixth trumpet, or perhaps the voice of the archangel?  Luke is repeating what he was told.  Perhaps someone used the word "echo" meaning a "blast" and Luke associated that word with waves and surf, when what the "witness" meant was a trumpet blast.  Could explain it.  Not really necessary to explain it.)
I only see these two differences in the passages from the three gospels and Rev 6.  I believe they are about the same time.  For  more confirmation, move ahead in Revelation just a little more.  This verse, in Chapter 7 which is after the 6th seal, and before the seventh:
"14 I said to him, "Sir, you know." And he said to me, "These are the ones coming out of the great tribulation. They have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." [Rev 7:14 ESV]

Then, put these verses in:
"19 For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God created until now, and never will be. 20 And if the Lord had not cut short the days, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he shortened the days. " [Mar 13:19-20 ESV].
I have always interpreted these words about having to cut things short as being about Great Tribulation (the GT that WE use in our time to reference the wrath of God period).  But as I am reading this now, this refers to the things that will happen to the earth during the first 5+ seals, and not at all to the wrath that comes after.  So even those first seals will see horror beyond anything ever experienced on earth before.  The things that happen during the first 5 are bad enough to end human life on earth if they had been allowed to just continue.  All men would have been killed by those.  But those days are shortened for the elect because they will be raptured out of them.  Perhaps...and this really seems to ring true...the term "great tribulation" as used here is about the entirety of the seven years.  Rather than have the saved go through all that, for the elect, the time is shortened as they are raptured out of the very worst of what is coming.  
Note that this is NOT the same passage where it says the very elect might be deceived were the days not shortened.  This is about all men dying.  
Or...this is about being saved.  It could mean that the lying wonders of Satan might ultimately convince all men to take that mark.  If that happened, then none living here at the end of the church age would be saved.  I don't know if I agree with that...But it has to mean something.  If you go back and put it in context with where it falls in Mark 13 and Matt 24, then as I am interpreting it, this "danger" of "no flesh would have been saved" is about the time from the revealing of the abomination of desolation until the rapture.  That's the segment of end times we are talking about.
The word here translated "flesh" is Greek "sarx", and it means "the soft substance of the living body, which covers the bones and is permeated with blood".  So it is about living breathing creatures.  
We have to decide whether the rapture changed the progression of events from there forward, such that "flesh" was able to survive the trumpets, thunders, and bowls, or whether what this means is that things were getting so "irresistibly" evil that no one alive at that time could have remained loyal to Christ.  If that's what it means, then it means Church age Gentiles would have turned from Christ to Satan - unknowingly because they were deceived - but yet still classified as apostate.

So.  Here are those verses rearranged:
"19 For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God created until now, and never will be. 20 And if the Lord had not cut short the days, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he shortened the days. " [Mar 13:19-20 ESV].
"14 I said to him, "Sir, you know." And he said to me, "These are the ones coming out of the great tribulation. They have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." [Rev 7:14 ESV]

I think what this means is that things get pretty bad after the abomination of desolation is recognized, persecution reaches unprecedented levels, and the earth is devastated.  But after a divinely shortened time of all that going on, the signs will appear - sun, moon, stars, earthquake, waves of the sea - followed almost immediately by the trumpet and the rapture.  And after that, the bema seat judgment of Rev 7, where all those just raptured out of trib, and all the other raptured dead of the church age, will then be seen in heaven before the throne, for judgment.

So this makes it seem as though I have made sense of Mark 13 and understand Mark, Matthew, and Luke.  But do I?  Does Matthew 24 really fit this?

2024 - Not sure where this note belongs...putting it here:
21 And then if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or 'Look, there he is!' do not believe it. 22 For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect. 23 But be on guard; I have told you all things beforehand. [Mar 13:21-23 ESV].  So back in Mark 13:5 Jesus warns of fake Messiahs and false prophets.  In those verses, these are not a sign, they're just the beginning.  But here in 21 now, the false christs and prophets will do signs and wonders and those so convincingly that many will be fooled.  This is much later in Mark's account, so much later in fact that I believe it is a completely different manifestation of these fakes.  This second time IS near the end, this time it IS a sign that these things are about to take place.  This second time, the fakes are not to be ignored, they are a sign to run for the hills, to hide, to leave even if you're pregnant.  This time they are a sign that things are about to get desperately bad...and that time immediately precedes what?  This is after the A of D appears.  This is after the worst persecution in history begins.  This is after you need the mark to buy and sell.  These signs are pre-rapture, not pre-2nd.  These are signs of the end of the age...of the end of the church.  Never saw this fabulous clue before!
2024 - It has to be right, look at vss 24-27!  THEN he will gather his elect.  The rapture is AFTER the abomination is recognized, after false prophets fooling even the elect.  Such a good time stamp!

NEXT ITEM,
"26 And then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory." [Mar 13:26 ESV]
"30 Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." [Mat 24:30 ESV]
"27 And then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory." [Luk 21:27 ESV]
There can be no doubt that all three of these gospels are talking about exactly the same thing here.  And if the same here, then surely the same in each of them in the verse(s) immediately before this.  So we have the signs in the heavens, then coming of the Son of Man.  BUT we cannot yet be sure if this is the rapture, or the 2nd coming.  
These verses go with those above I think.
"16 For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord." [1Th 4:16-17 ESV].  In the clouds, in the air - NOT at his earthly throne.  This is the rapture.  On the clouds, NOT on a white horse as in Rev. 19:11, at the second advent.  
"39 But he answered them, "An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah." [Mat 12:39 ESV].  The only sign given in the first advent.  I note that only Matthew talks about a sign.  Mark and Luke just say they will see the Son of Man, not the sign of the Son of Man.  But the language in Luke surely ties us right back to Rev. 6:15-17, and so the 6th seal again.
No particular signs precede the appearance of Christ on the white horse in Rev 19 just before he returns to earth with his army.  No signs.  The signs show up in Rev 6, before what I believe is the rapture.  The sign of the Son of Man, and the Son of Man on the clouds with power and great glory, are almost simultaneous in time.  That's why the wording is like it is in the three passages.  


FINALLY, there is this third item:
"27 And then he will send out the angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven." [Mar 13:27 ESV]
"31 And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other." [Mat 24:31 ESV]
"28 Now when these things begin to take place, straighten up and raise your heads, because your redemption is drawing near."" [Luk 21:28 ESV].  Perhaps the most "rapture oriented" of the three.
Here are some relevant verses:
"16 For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord." [1Th 4:16-17 ESV].  I put this in again because of the trumpet call.
"30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, "Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn."'"" [Mat 13:30 ESV]
"12 His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire."" [Mat 3:12 ESV]
When taken all together like this, I think it is reasonable to see all these verses as references to the rapture.  The fact that gathering in is accomplished is the key.  At the second coming, he will descend to us, not gather us to him.  We go to him in the clouds.
2023 - Mat 13.13 and 3.12, I believe now, are about the time just before the second coming.  The seed will have matured.  It will be obvious what is wheat and what is weeds.  There will be pure good and there will be pure evil and nothing in between.  Lines will be drawn.  That is what the sheep and goat and the wheat and tares judgment is about.  About what you did right there at the end.  
2023 - If the rapture is at the sixth seal, and that is where we have the rapture, that is where the greatest tribulation ever known that would have wiped out all mankind is to end with the rapture, then I need the timeline of what happens after that.  Because at the instant of the rapture the world will be left with only the lost.  Where will the wheat come from?  Where the sheep?  These must all come post-rapture, from the Jews, starting with the 144,000.  The saved Jews will have to get through the trumpets, the thunders, and the bowls, and if they do that, THEN they will be at the sheep and goat as sheep.

(((2022 - I think the above three items are crucial.  Find the verses in Revelation that mention these signs.  NOTE that there is more than one place.  I think stars fall to earth several times.  Sun goes dark, not out.  Moon goes completely out, stars fall, heaven shaken.  Find them all, then show how ONLY ONE of them includes these precise signs.
For the second set, I note that no army is mentioned.  Find references to the rapture and see if they mention power and great glory.  And find the one about him coming with his army and contrast that with the others.
For the third set, pull in the wheat and tares.  In Revelation, at the signs, where is the trumpet?  We know from Thess that there will be a trumpet at the rapture.
IF we take these verses as referencing the rapture, then Jesus is not talking at all about his second coming.  Why would he "stop" his discourse with the rapture?  Because he is speaking of the church age possibly, and not of the final fulfillment of the prophecies to the Jews.  Perhaps because the Millennial reign is about the Jews far more than it is about the church.  On the Mt of Olives at this time, Jesus is talking to his disciples, NOT to the Jews.  The church is founded, and it is the church being addressed.
THIS NEEDS TO BE FILLED ON OUT with additional corroborating scriptures.  And if that works out, then perhaps I finally have a consolidated picture of this discourse that integrates Matt, Mark, and Luke all together, all saying the same things.
For now though, in 2022, after about three hours, I am going to go on to the end of this chapter.  I put the add'l scripture searches on my calendar so I DO NOT DROP THIS!!!)))))
(((((Came back the same day and filled in the spaces with relevant scriptures.  I believe this story - the story of Mark 13, Luke 21, and Matt 24 - is about the time leading up to 70 AD, and then about the end of the church age.  I think we mark the end of the church age with the rapture.  That is not a bad argument that only the church will be raptured.  Some new things came out of this.  Great tribulation, as used here, is about the time between revelation of the abomination and the rapture.  That is when tribulation will be the worst ever.  The time after the rapture is not discussed in any of these accounts because that time is not about the church, but about Israel and the promises.  Tribulation during these dark times may well be worse than that experienced by the church here at the end.  I would not be surprised to see that also described as the worst tribulation ever.  At that time, it certainly will be.  Just because we have a superlative stacked right on top of a previous superlative does not make either of them less superlative in  their own right.  Here is the bad news...I think the church will go through more bad times than I had previously though.  More as in we will be here longer.  More as in worse than what I previously thought.  This is why there are so many warnings to persevere.  It is because the persecution will be so massive, prolonged, and unjust.  It is no wonder that those living at the rapture get white robes.  They will have unfortunately earned every thread.

((((Not sure I agree with this paragraph anymore)))))  This is NOT about the rapture.  The gathering referred to in these verses is the gathering for the battle, and then the gathering for the Millennial kingdom.  It is almost all Jews who will be gathered.  Those who've died beforehand will come with him to assume the kingdom, and those who "endure to the end" will be gathered for the battle and to rule and reign with him.  It is at this time, that the last of the stones will be thrown down.  These stones go back to Solomon, but they were last used as foundation for a temple built by Herod - and evil man at best - and then a temple rebuilt by antichrist and used to worship that evil usurper.  (As of 5/11/20, I don't think Antichrist will build a temple on this site.  He will build Ezekiel's temple elsewhere.)  It seems reasonable that Jesus would destroy that temple - with Antichrist in it perhaps - and start fresh elsewhere.  A temple for the nations to worship him, not just for Israel to do so.

Still have to explain vs 30:
30 Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. [Mar 13:30 ESV]
The things he is referring to are the darkening of the sun and moon, stars falling, and like that.  The generation that sees those signs will also see the Son of Man come with power, and will see the fulfillment of the prophecy that not one stone will be left upon another - which is where this all started.  Mark's account doesn't seem as clear as Luke's - it takes more to study it all out, and the transitions are not as obvious - but they do correlate and tie in.

These events will foretell the end, but as to how far out there these things might still be - the first part of the question they asked - only the Father knows.  This verse, this admonition:
37 And what I say to you I say to all: Stay awake." [Mar 13:37 ESV]

(Later, 5/11/20)  - My "version" of the end times continues to change - I believe to get more accurate as time passes and I study more.  There are three questions, and my notes on Matthew 24 I believe explain my position best.  I plan to put my "consolidated" interpretation of these questions in the Bible Study section pretty soon.  (Later still, 1/1/21 - As of today, my notes on Luke 21 from yesterday are the most current and up to date.  But today, I will be looking in detail at this chapter in Mark, and tying the two together where ever possible, identifying places they don't match, and so coming up with a single narrative of ALL that Jesus talked about.  Then I'll tie these two in with Matthew, and hopefully have the most complete picture yet.  It looks like focusing on the specific questions in each gospel is not as much of a "key" to interpretation as I thought, because the notes above indicate that the "don't come home" imperative was used in Luke 21 of 70 AD, but in Mark 13 of Trib/Great Trib.  UNLESS, we say that the statue put in Jerusalem by Antiochus Epiphanes, AE, was what Jesus was talking about in Mark.  If so, you get into that whole "repeating of events" scenario, and have your hands full trying to show that the visions of Daniel will either be repeated, or that the first vision was about pre-70 AD, and the second was about Trib/Great Trib???

2022 - We still have to deal with Isa 13 also.  I had not found it when made the notes above.  Isa 13 is about the destruction of Babylon, in one sense, but also must be about the time in Revelation when Babylon is destroyed.  That is in Rev 18,19.  IF, as I think right now, the verses above about the signs in heaven portend the rapture, and NOT the final battle after Christ's return, then the verses below need to be explained in that context:
"9 Behold, the day of the LORD comes, cruel, with wrath and fierce anger, to make the land a desolation and to destroy its sinners from it.
This does not sound like the joyous day of the rapture.  This phrase "the day of the Lord" has to be pinned down.  I think it refers to the second  coming and the final battle.  I think it is a particular, specific, identifiable day.  I don't think the day of the Lord is the day of the rapture, so vs 9 is not about the rapture, not about Rev. 6.

10 For the stars of the heavens and their constellations will not give their light; the sun will be dark at its rising, and the moon will not shed its light.
But THIS is the very next verse.  This matches Joel, the three gospels, and Rev 6.  So...does this tie all that is being said in Isaiah to Rev 6 and so to the rapture - as I understand its timing - or is can I "explain this away"?  Look at the next verse:

"11 I will punish the world for its evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; I will put an end to the pomp of the arrogant, and lay low the pompous pride of the ruthless." [Isa 13:11 ESV].  Does this sound like the rapture?  No, I don't think it does.  So we have the signs in the heavens, the very familiar signs from Mark 13, Matt 24, and Lk 21, bracketed by descriptions of what seems necessarily to be Armageddon.  And just look at the next verse:

12 I will make people more rare than fine gold, and mankind than the gold of Ophir. 13 Therefore I will make the heavens tremble, and the earth will be shaken out of its place, at the wrath of the LORD of hosts in the day of his fierce anger." [Isa 13:9-10, 12-13 ESV]
This description goes right along with Jesus saying these things:
"28 Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather." [Mat 24:28 ESV]
"37 And they said to him, "Where, Lord?" He said to them, "Where the corpse is, there the vultures will gather."" [Luk 17:37 ESV]
At that battle, when Jesus comes, a very huge portion of the people who have managed to stay alive to that point will be fighting on the side of the Antichrist.  They will ALL be killed.  Revelation is very clear.  The language about the number of dead from that battle leaves little doubt that most of mankind -  other than the converted Jews - will be wiped out.

Looking again at the passages in Matt, Mk, and Lk, that phrase "after that time of tribulation" precedes the signs in heaven.  Revelation only mentions these signs at the 6th seal, NOT at the second coming in Rev. 19.  BUT, is it ok to say that according to Isaiah, those same signs will appear again just before the day of the Lord?  To make the case that I am making, at this point, that is what I am forced to say.  I think those vss in Isaiah 13 end as to the day of the Lord at vs 13:13.  In vs 14 we return to the prophecy of the fall of old Babylon to the Medes.

Isa 13:1-10 seem to correspond to Joel 2:1-11.  The pictures painted, the very words seem certainly to be talking about the same day.  The day of the Lord is in view.  I think both of these are about Rev 19, the second coming.  
Here are some interesting verses for direct comparison:
"6 Wail, for the day of the LORD is near; as destruction from the Almighty it will come!" [Isa 13:6 ESV]
"1 Blow a trumpet in Zion; sound an alarm on my holy mountain! Let all the inhabitants of the land tremble, for the day of the LORD is coming; it is near," [Joe 2:1 ESV]

"7 Therefore all hands will be feeble, and every human heart will melt. 8 They will be dismayed: pangs and agony will seize them; they will be in anguish like a woman in labor. They will look aghast at one another; their faces will be aflame." [Isa 13:7-8 ESV]
"6 Before them peoples are in anguish; all faces grow pale." [Joe 2:6 ESV]

"10 For the stars of the heavens and their constellations will not give their light; the sun will be dark at its rising, and the moon will not shed its light." [Isa 13:10 ESV]
"10 The earth quakes before them; the heavens tremble. The sun and the moon are darkened, and the stars withdraw their shining." [Joe 2:10 ESV]

So.  As clear as it is that these signs will appear in Rev 6, and as it is very clear that Rev 6 is NOT about the second coming, and all this destruction and desolation and fire and armies of the Lord DO NOT appear in Rev 6 or following, it is equally clear that these signs will precede the appearance of Christ in Rev 19, when he does come to destroy his enemies and assume the rule of the planet.  These signs precede the appearance of Christ - at both the rapture and at the second coming.  Why would they not.  I don't know why these things are not mentioned in Rev 19, perhaps because they don't need to be.  Both Isaiah and Joel - two witnesses to the events of the Day of the Lord - make it clear that they will appear then.  Isaiah and Joel didn't know about the church age - or the rapture that ends it, so they wouldn't talk about it.  Jesus discourse, recorded in Matt 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21, was about the church age, and since the end of that had not been previously described with the signs in heaven, is described in some detail there.  We must not mix the events of the rapture with the events of the second advent.  They are truly different.  AND, it may be that the best way to reconcile all this is to apply the parable of the tares being gathered and burned first, and then the wheat gathered in, to the second coming.  The burning is about that Satanic army.  They will first be destroyed, burned, and then the faithful Jews will be gathered for the Millennial Reign.  Perhaps this is why that parable about wheat and tares is found only in Matt 13:24-30, and nowhere near Matt 24.  Because they are about different times.  

Here is the tie to Joel, chapter 3, not chapter 2:  "13 Put in the sickle, for the harvest is ripe. Go in, tread, for the winepress is full. The vats overflow, for their evil is great. 14 Multitudes, multitudes, in the valley of decision! For the day of the LORD is near in the valley of decision." [Joe 3:13-14 ESV].  Joel 3 is about Armageddon.  And this comes right after:  "15 The sun and the moon are darkened, and the stars withdraw their shining." [Joe 3:15 ESV].  Joel tells us twice that these signs in heaven will precede the second coming.  

(So how then, if we know so nearly precisely when it occurs, are we to watch for it so closely?  Well...perhaps all those references to the thief in the night and the watching are about the rapture, and not at all about the Day of the Lord?  Need to do more research on that.  Later...Nope.  The "thief in the night" seems to be about Armageddon:
"2 For you yourselves are fully aware that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night." [1Th 5:2 ESV]
In this passage, Paul surly associates the day of the Lord and the thief in the night.  He is trying to motivate the Thessalonians to be faithful.  Why would he do this, since they will be long gone before we get to the day of the Lord?  But he also says this:
"9 For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ," [1Th 5:9 ESV].  Surely this is a reference to the fact that Christians will be rapture out BEFORE the day of the Lord.  

"10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed." [2Pe 3:10 ESV]
Peter just as surely - in fact more surely - is talking about Revelation 19.)

Here's another reference to the day of the Lord, recognizable by the words used:
"2 "Son of man, prophesy, and say, Thus says the Lord GOD: "Wail, 'Alas for the day!' 3 For the day is near, the day of the LORD is near; it will be a day of clouds, a time of doom for the nations." [Eze 30:2-3 ESV]
A time of doom means Armageddon, not rapture.  But nothing in Ezekiel about the signs in heaven.

For good measure, here are more references to the day of the Lord.  It is Armageddon, it is not the rapture.  It is Revelation 19, it is NOT Revelation 6.
"20 Is not the day of the LORD darkness, and not light, and gloom with no brightness in it?" [Amo 5:20 ESV]
"15 For the day of the LORD is near upon all the nations. As you have done, it shall be done to you; your deeds shall return on your own head." [Oba 1:15 ESV]
"7 Be silent before the Lord GOD! For the day of the LORD is near; the LORD has prepared a sacrifice and consecrated his guests. ... 14 The great day of the LORD is near, near and hastening fast; the sound of the day of the LORD is bitter; the mighty man cries aloud there." [Zep 1:7, 14 ESV]
"5 "Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and awesome day of the LORD comes." [Mal 4:5 ESV]

2022 - Vss 32-37 make it clear that the question in Matthew about the end of the age will not be answered.  Jesus says that only the Father knows when the end of the age will come.  I think this reference is to the end of the world.  The end of the Millennial.  Sure, all can be backtracked from there, but without knowing when that is, we cannot know when this other is supposed to start.  Answering that last question precisely would have answered the others in reverse.  So instead, Jesus answers with the signs, and tells us to watch for those, because from those we can deduce the rest.

Mark 14
Starts with the same time stamp as Matthew 26 did.  Two days before the Passover.

2021 - 2 for they said, "Not during the feast, lest there be an uproar from the people." [Mar 14:2 ESV]
The powerful in government and religion have always seen themselves as more "able" to discern the right course than the people they rule over.  They have always disdained the synergistic knowledge of the crowd.  And they have been cowards from time immemorial, eschewing an honest attempt to make their case and persuade the masses, and instead operating in secret, making their plans and plotting behind closed doors, and arrogantly setting themselves above those they are charged with shepherding.  
Possible FB post...but that last...they are supposed to shepherd, but instead they please themselves.

Mark's account of the spikenard in the alabaster jar being used to anoint Jesus head while he is in the house of Simon the leper is very much like Matthew's.  Mark adds that it was worth 300 denarii.  MSB says that's a year's wages.

I just took a look at the account in John.  The story of this ointment/lotion/spikenard is timestamped "six days before the Passover" in John.  In Matthew and Mark, it says two days before.  It would be good to have a reconciliation of the time ready to hand in case I am ever asked.  The Harmony puts Jn 12:1, the verse that mentions six days, well back, prior to Matt 21, and Luke 19:29.  BUT, it puts John 12:9-11 right after Jn 12:1, where John talks about the Pharisees wanting to kill Lazarus also.  The Harmony puts all these verses as solo verses.  When done that way, the dinner with Lazarus was six days before the Passover, and the dinner where the spikenard was used was two days before.  For some reason, per the Harmony, John inserted the information about the plot to kill Lazarus just before the dinner at Simon's house - which John also records, and John says Lazarus was also present at Simon's house.  Not sure how much that helps...but it is at least an idea.  There is a note in the Harmony at John 12:1 that says they decided to honor the timeline in Mark at this point.

2024 - So I looked at this difference again this year.  First, I checked MSB, and got referred to the beginning of John's gospel and a section called "Interpretive Challenges".  MacArthur goes into a long detailed explanation of how it could be that Jesus had the Passover meal with his disciples, AND be crucified at the same time the Passover lambs were being slain...the next day!  This I had never even thought about, but it does seem a seriously important point.  So.  In Galilee, a day was from sunrise to sunrise.  In Jerusalem a day was from sunset to sunset.  So Passover day, to Galileans, began on Thursday at Sunrise and ended on Friday at Sunrise.  To those in Jerusalem, Passover Day began at sunset Thursday and ended at sunset Friday.  So Jesus ate the Passover meal with the 12 on Thursday - AFTER SUNSET - which was Passover Day in Galilee.  Then he was crucified on Friday during the day, which was Passover in Jerusalem, BEFORE those in Jerusalem had their Passover meal.  
But...they took Jesus off the cross before the sun set on Friday.  If the Jews waited until sunset Friday to eat the Passover, then that would have been the day AFTER Passover wouldn't it?
2024 - So...they took Jesus down from the cross NOT because of the Passover - he was crucified on Preparation day - but because at sunset on Preparation day, the Sabbath began.  They didn't want the bodies there during the high holy day, the Sabbath after the Passover.  John says Jesus was crucified on the Preparation Day.  They broke their legs so they would go ahead and die on Preparation Day, and NOT on the Passover itself, which was on the Sabbath.  So as I make it out, the lambs for the Passover meal were killed in the afternoon on Preparation Day, Friday, they were cooked, and then they were eaten after sunset on what would still be our Friday, but was the beginning of Saturday- the Sabbath - according to custom in Jerusalem.  So the Jews ate the Passover meal after Jesus was in the tomb.

No...This is still not correct.  Or I don't know enough to grasp that it is correct.  Is the Passover meal eaten at the end of Preparation Day, or actually ON Passover?  (It is eaten on 14 Nissan).  Is Passover a day or a meal?  Jesus was crucified on Preparation Day, as here:  31 Since it was the day of Preparation, and so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken and that they might be taken away. [Jhn 19:31 ESV].  A little earlier, we have this:  14 Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover. It was about the sixth hour. He said to the Jews, "Behold your King!" [Jhn 19:14 ESV].  The preparation of the Passover is the day Jesus was judged...and crucified.

MacArthur's note says this: "Being Galileans, Jesus and the disciples considered Passover day to have started at sunrise on Thursday and to end at sunrise on Friday.  The Jewish leaders who arrested and tried Jesus, being mostly priests and Sadducees, considered Passover day to begin at sunset on Thursday and end at sunset on Friday."  So...Preparation day is somehow the same day as Passover? YES!!!  Because preparation day is about the Sabbath.  Does 14 Nissan always fall on the same day of the week?  NO!!!  So at the crucifixion, Passover just happened to be really close to the Sabbath.  It could have been Thursday or Friday!  That's where some confusion is coming from!  We don't really know exactly what year Jesus was crucified.  
I found this:  https://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/monthly.html?year=2020&month=4&country=34
Using this calendar, in 31 AD, 15 Nissan was on a Tuesday.  In 32 AD, also a Tuesday.  In 33 AD, it was on a Saturday, the Sabbath.  From this, many believe Jesus was crucified in 33 AD.  
Going with this, Passover fell on the Sabbath the year Jesus was crucified.  The Passover meal was to be eaten
This:  https://www.chabad.org/holidays/passover/pesach_cdo/aid/1751/jewish/What-Is-a-Seder-Passover-Meal.htm
As per Biblical command, it is held after nightfall on the first night of Passover (and the second night if you live outside of Israel), the anniversary of our nation’s miraculous exodus from Egyptian slavery more than 3,000 years ago. The Seder meal in 2024 will be celebrated on April 22 (and 23 in the Diaspora) after nightfall.

Awesome.  So what do we know now?  Or...first, let's just admit that we do not know what day Passover was in the gospels.  We know Jesus was crucified on a Friday, Preparation Day, before the Sabbath.  We know that in Jn 19:31, John considered the Sabbath to start at sundown.  We know that the seder starts after sundown on 14 Nissan (so it MUST BE at the start of 14 Nissan, not at the end, if we reckon the days beginning at sundown).  SO, if Jesus was crucified on a Friday, and was taken down before "Saturday" started, and that Saturday was also Passover as in AD 33, then the Passover meal would have been eaten - the seder would be held - after sundown at the BEGINNING of the Sabbath.
2024 - this confirms:  17 And when it was evening, he came with the twelve. [Mar 14:17 ESV].  AFTER SUNDOWN on Thursday was the last supper.  And somehow, this was Passover.  Per JMac above, Passover in Galilee had begun at sunrise that day.  BUT, if we reckon Passover in Galilee from sunrise to sunrise, on Thursday, then for Jerusalem, it would have been from sundown Thursday to sundown Friday, and since it is eaten in the evening, both Jesus and all Jerusalem would have eaten it that same day.
This is a HUGE problem!!!  I have spent 3 hours on this today, and I still cannot resolve the seeming contradictions.
Do we know, where do we think it says, that Jesus died at the same time the Passover lambs were being killed?  That's where all this started. So...per JMac again, we know the last supper had already occurred before we get this verse in John:  28 Then they led Jesus from the house of Caiaphas to the governor's headquarters. It was early morning. They themselves did not enter the governor's headquarters, so that they would not be defiled, but could eat the Passover. [Jhn 18:28 ESV].  This clearly implies that the last supper was in the past, but the conspirators in Jerusalem had NOT yet eaten the Passover.  Then comes this is the NEXT chapter:  14 Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover. It was about the sixth hour. He said to the Jews, "Behold your King!" [Jhn 19:14 ESV].  This implies that on the day of Jesus' trial, the Passover was being prepared, and that afternoon, Jesus died, which would have been at the same time the Passover lambs were being killed.  This is where it comes from.
What if John means it was the Day of Preparation that fell ON Passover?  So...it was the day before the Sabbath and it was 14 Nissan, with Passover starting at sunset that day.  
If Passover had started at sunset the previous day, then the meal would already have been eaten since we've established that the meal is eaten at the beginning of the day.
BUT, the reason they wouldn't go into the Praetorium was because they did not want to become unclean, and so not be able to eat the Passover.  But isn't the rule that if you become unclean during the day, you are unclean until sundown, and then you wash, and you are clean?  So they could have been clean by the time of the Passover seder, right?  So...did having eaten the seder become null and void if you became unclean later in the day after having eaten it?  This idea is about the only way I can see that any of this makes sense.

2024 - I give up...I am just too confused after 3.5 hours of puzzling this out.  I don't think JMac is making good sense here.  I don't think is analysis holds water.  But I have nothing better.  Quitting for now.  Perhaps later today I can pick it back up.  But I need to finish my reading.

2024 - Later still:  
3 Tell all the congregation of Israel that on the tenth day of this month every man shall take a lamb according to their fathers' houses, a lamb for a household. ... 8 They shall eat the flesh that night, roasted on the fire; with unleavened bread and bitter herbs they shall eat it. [Exo 12:3, 8 ESV].  This is God telling Moses how they would do the Passover their last night in Egypt.  I say that because they were to take hyssop and mark the lentils.  That was only done the first time.
6 and you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of this month, when the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill their lambs at twilight. [Exo 12:6 ESV].  This is God telling Moses how the Passover was to be carried out, that last night in Egypt.  They were still there at this time.
8 They shall eat the flesh that night, roasted on the fire; with unleavened bread and bitter herbs they shall eat it. [Exo 12:8 ESV].  Continues the instructions for the first time in Egypt.  Killed at twilight, roasted, then eaten later in the evening.  

5 And they kept the Passover in the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month, at twilight, in the wilderness of Sinai; according to all that the LORD commanded Moses, so the people of Israel did. [Num 9:5 ESV].  Is twilight before or after sundown, according to the Jews?  BLB says it can be evening, sunset, or night.  Evening is after sunset in my book.  If the lamb was to be killed AT sunset, and then had to be cooked, it would be eaten at night.  
Note that it says on the 14th day at twilight.  So if, in Moses time, the days began at sunset, then the Passover lambs died at the beginning of the 14th, and were eaten sometime later that evening.  So the lambs died as the day began.  This was the first Passover since leaving Egypt.  

6 And there were certain men who were unclean through touching a dead body, so that they could not keep the Passover on that day, and they came before Moses and Aaron on that day. [Num 9:6 ESV].  The Pharisees would not go into the Praetorium because they would have to wait to take the Passover and they didn't want that inconvenience.  That wasn't a dead body, but to enter that place would somehow have made them unclean.  How would they get clean again?  In vs 10, the only exceptions to not doing the Passover on the appointed day were touching a dead body and being on a long journey.  No other uncleanness is mentioned...but the Rabbi's may have generalized this.  

All these:
24 "And by these you shall become unclean. Whoever touches their carcass shall be unclean until the evening,
25 and whoever carries any part of their carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until the evening. ...
28 and he who carries their carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until the evening; they are unclean to you. ...
31 These are unclean to you among all that swarm. Whoever touches them when they are dead shall be unclean until the evening. ...
39 "And if any animal which you may eat dies, whoever touches its carcass shall be unclean until the evening,
40 and whoever eats of its carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until the evening. And whoever carries the carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until the evening. [Lev 11:24-25, 28, 31, 39-40 ESV]
All these different versions of "uncleanness" persist only until sundown.  For some, clothing must be washed first, but in each case, if it happens during "daylight", you'd be clean at sundown.  If it happened just after sunset, you'd be unclean almost 24 hours.  Here is what they said, exactly:
28 Then they led Jesus from the house of Caiaphas to the governor's headquarters. It was early morning. They themselves did not enter the governor's headquarters, so that they would not be defiled, but could eat the Passover. [Jhn 18:28 ESV].  So "unclean" is not the word used.  The Rabbi's could have had a completely different set of rules about this.  The verb translated "could eat" in this translation, "might eat" in another...is the aorist active subjunctive.  By not going in, the possibility of them having the Passover meal was kept intact.  The other side of it is that had they gone in, they would have been prohibited by that action from eating the Passover meal.  Context is quite clear that we are NOT talking about "for the rest of their lives" or even "next year".  I think it meant the immediately upcoming Passover.  How was it that they might still be unclean after sunset, UNLESS they were on sunrise to sunrise days. Clearly John was not seeing it that way because of the verse saying they wanted everybody dead before sundown so they wouldn't be hanging there on the Sabbath.  What we are left with here is that John is sometimes on "Galilee time" and sometimes on "Jerusalem time", and never tells us which it is.  ALSO, it is ONLY John that tells us about this.  I think the best bet here is that the "traditions" surrounding getting clean had gotten very very time-consuming.  Remember all the fuss about Jesus not "washing his hands before he ate".  So we get the aorist and the subjunctive, meaning they couldn't be sure they'd have time to get ceremonially clean before the "Passover Party" got going.  They might have to miss it.  It was a social consideration as much as religious.  So that explains that.

It also means, to my way of thinking, that the religious elite were planning to have their Passover meal on Friday night.  Jesus and the 12 had their Passover meal on Thursday night.  How do you make both Thursday after sundown and Friday after sundown the same day on the Jewish calendar?  

This from Wikipedia:
Pesach starts on the 15th day of the Hebrew month of Nisan, which is considered the first month of the Hebrew year. The Rabbinical Jewish calendar is adjusted to align with the solar calendar in such a way that 15 Nisan always coincides with Sunday, Tuesday, Thursday, or Saturday. The Hebrew day starts and ends at sunset, so the holiday starts at sunset the day before. For example, in 2024, 15 Nisan coincides with Tuesday, April 23. Therefore, Pesach starts at sundown on Monday, April 22.
The 15th of Nissan?  They don't even do it on the right day?  How would anyone EVER figure this out!!!

Later later...
IF the Jews in Jerusalem had changed Passover to 15 Nisan, and in Galilee they were still tied to the 14th of Nisan as in Deuteronomy, which is the one you would think Jesus would observe, then ALL OF THIS WORKS OUT!!!  Frankly, that is the ONLY way I can make it all fit.  I have no documentation at all about when the Jews decided to ignore Num 9:5.

2024 - Next day - Found some information  here and a couple of other places not annotated that say about the same thing:  https://pcg.church/articles/1433/the-passover-controversy-14th-or-15th
The idea here is that the Jewish day ends "at dark", not at twilight.  Therefore, killing the lambs at twilight would have been still on the 14th, at the VERY END of the 14th, and then it was eaten in haste on the 15th.  Therefore, the lambs were killed on one day, but the meal that it is really about, the seder, the Passover meal, is actually eaten on the 15th.  
THIS IS IT!!!
So if in Galilee, the 14th was from sunrise to sunrise, then the only twilight in which to kill the lamb would have been at twilight the 14th, and by their reckoning, they also ate the meal on the 14th, because the 15th started the NEXT MORNING.  
However, in Jerusalem, which reckoned the 14th as running from dark to dark, the only twilight would have been at the very end of the 14th, in the twilight, before it changed over to the 15th at full darkness, which is when they ate.  Looking at the Passover Timeline spreadsheet,
AND, this means that the John MacArthur explanatory note DOES WORK, and he is also correct that this apparent "discrepancy" in fact shows the absolute accuracy and knowledge of the culture that then was in the way - in the times - the Passover was celebrated.  The real keys is that it is not from sundown to sundown, but from "dark" to "dark".  
If you read the whole article linked above, from the Worldwide Church of God, you see that it is in fact a bit controversial.  The WCG seems to have some problems with this interpretation.  I find this part of the article to be quite definitive:
"...the sacrifice was to take place “between the two evenings.” The passage he was referring to is Exodus 12:6: “And ye shall keep it [the lamb] until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening.”
“In the evening” is better translated “between the two evenings.” It is referring to that period of time between sunset and dark. So the lamb was to be killed after sunset but before dark. Notice that they were to keep the lamb until the 14th, not after or toward the end. “Until the 14th” would be at sunset right after the 13th.
The wcg teaches that the lamb was killed just after sunset (which would still be the 14th to them since their day ends at dark). Then the Passover meal was eaten in haste in the night part of the 15th; God’s death angel passed over and the Israelites got out of Egypt before the sun came up for the day part of the 15th.
Deuteronomy 16:6 was quoted above. It says that the Passover lamb was to be sacrificed “at even, at the going down of the sun ….” The Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon says this about the term “at even”: “the time between sunset and deep twilight.”
By this reckoning, and knowing that in Galilee a day is sunrise to sunrise, and in Jerusalem it is from darkness to darkness, then we see why Jesus and the 12 had the Passover on Thursday, and in Jerusalem it was on Friday.  

Found some information at this webpage:  https://www.gotquestions.org/Day-of-Preparation.html
The "Day of Preparation" happened EVERY week, the day before the Sabbath. They had to cook what they were going to eat on the Sabbath the day before, because no work was allowed ON the Sabbath.  John, in 19:14, just means that this was A preparation day, and it was the one that came during Passover that year.  The point is that Preparation Day is NOT about Passover.

And I still haven't gotten to the whole 2 day vs 6 day problem.  The way the Harmony handles this is put John 12:1, where Jesus comes to Bethany 6 days before the Passover, just before Jn 12:9-11.  Jn 12:2-8 are relocated to coincide with Mark 14.  So this means John 12 is not a chronological account.  Per the Harmony, Jn 11:55-17, Jn 12:1, and Jn 12:9-11 are correct chronology, and come just before Mark 11:1-11. where Jesus has them go get the colt and prepare for the last supper.  According to the above, this would have been on Thursday.  So we have the Jn 11-12 passages listed above as being an account of Jesus arriving in Bethany 6 days before the Passover, and beginning in Jn 12:9, a recounting of events that happened when he first arrived, and people wanted to see both Jesus and Lazarus.  Then, Jn 12:2-8, which talk about the spikenard, and about both Jesus and Lazarus being at the same dinner, must take place four days later.  So...what was John thinking as he wrote the end of 11 beginning of 12?  
Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead.  This prompted a big meeting of the Jewish elite because they thought that upon observing how many were following Jesus the raiser of dead men, the Romans would begin to work with Jesus as leader of the Jews rather than themselves.  It was at this meeting that Caiaphas says it is better to murder one man than to lose the whole nation of Israel.  And they began plotting to kill Jesus.  In 11:54, Jesus went into hiding with his disciples so the conspirators couldn't kill him.  So at this point, Jesus had not yet been to Jerusalem.  He had been "near" Bethany, because presumably Lazarus was buried near the town.  Jesus was on his final journey to Jerusalem at this time...but had not yet chosen to even go to Bethany.  Many Jews were arriving in Jerusalem for Passover, and there was much speculation about whether Jesus would show up at all.  Six days before the Passover, Jesus leaves the remote place he had been staying with his disciples - Ephraim - and goes to Bethany, 2 miles from Jerusalem.  He apparently STAYS THERE for four days.  John, as he narrates here, says Jesus arrived in Bethany six days before Passover.  Then he skips ahead to the supper that was prepared for him 2 days before Passover.  This was a big event, perhaps a very large gathering of his disciples.  They'd had four days to put this together after all, and the nard might have been especially planned for the large gathering that would be there that day.  So John skips over the four intervening days while all this was being prepared and goes straight from arrival to special gathering.  In 2-8, he describes that event.  Then in 9, John says that because of this huge large meal, word gets out that Jesus is now in Bethany, no longer in hiding, and who's plans are no longer a matter of conjecture since his presence 2 miles from Jerusalem surely indicates that he will come for the Passover.  Now that they know where he is many many people come to see both Jesus, and this man they've heard about over the last four days in Jerusalem, whom Jesus raised from the dead, is also there in Bethany.  Let's go see them!  So...the spikenard thing is NOT what is timestamped 6 days before.  It is Jesus arrival in Bethany from a remote location that is timestamped.  Both Matthew and Luke tells us that the spikenard public event was two days before.  John's telling of the events is consistent with Matthew and Luke.

Vs 10 repeats that Judas approached the elite, not the other way around, and offered to betray Jesus for money.

The Passover place is located.  In Matt, they were to go and ask.  In Mark, they were to find a man carrying a water jar.  An unusual thing for a man to be doing.  It was woman's work I heard one time.  

Jesus and the 12 arrive to eat the Passover that evening.  It is specific that it was evening.  The wine was his blood of the covenant.  A footnote in TCR says some manuscripts add "new" to covenant.  MSB says that Judas had left the group before the Lord's Supper.  He says that what Jesus was doing was transforming the Passover of the OT Covenant into the Lord's Supper of the New Covenant.  A new memorial feast is thus created.

2023 - This verse:
24 And he said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. [Mar 14:24 ESV].  The focus here is on the blood being poured out for many.  Yes, they drank a memorial to that blood, because it was poured out.  In the Law, it was sometimes sprinkled first on the altar, but then the rest was always poured out at the base of the altar - not ON the altar.  Drinking this blood memorializes Jesus dieing - having his blood drained by torture and injury - as the OT sacrifices had their blood drained.  In fact, exsanguination was the cause of death for those animals...  I still come back to the fact that you would never "drink" the life of the flesh - the blood - of bulls and goats.  You do not want to incorporate that life into your body, to make the life of an animal part and parcel of your own life.  But incorporating the sinless, righteous life of the man Jesus Christ - a perfect life - is most certainly to be desired, and the whole Lord's Supper seems to be about justification's two parts:  being declared sinless, because we eat his sinless flesh, which bore our own sins on the cross and took them away.  Second, we are declared righteous because we incorporate the righteousness of Christ into us through the covenantal drinking of his blood.

Peter's denial predicted.  Reads almost exactly like Matthew's account.  I'm sure that all remembered the details of that night because it had been told so many times among Jesus' followers by the time the gospels were written.  It shouldn't be a surprise that the accounts all match in many many points.

2021 - This verse:  31 But he said emphatically, "If I must die with you, I will not deny you." And they all said the same. [Mar 14:31 ESV]
We often accuse Peter of being brash, but here it says every one of the disciples said the same as Peter did.  They all claimed to be faithful and brave.  The 10 all ran to start with, and Peter denied later.

The events on the Mt, and in Gethsemane are also very nearly an exact match to Matthew's account.

I haven't made many notes on the account in Mark because it is so very similar to Matthew.  Maybe some tiny differences.

One note from MSB.  The young man who flees naked in vss 51, 52 may have been Mark himself.  MSB says that the mob may have first come to Mark's mother's house, lead there by Judas to look for Jesus.  Perhaps also, it was at this house where Jesus and the 11 had eaten the Passover.  Mark may have been awakened by the commotion, and in his hurry to see what was going on, may have been less than formally dressed as he followed the crowd.  I don't remember ever hearing this "back story" before.  The "a young man" reference, speaking of himself without using his own name, may have been a common literary device back then.  John does the same repeatedly.  Or maybe it was unique to Mark, and John used the same device later, having read Mark's gospel.
2023 - But...If Mark was there, when had he joined them?  As MSB tells it, this incident that Mark includes would have happened before the mob even got to the garden.  Why would Mark go backward in the chronology and tell the story here, after the arrest.  He shows that this young man fled naked at the same time the apostles did so.  Only way this works is if Mark was following the mob - had seen them heading out and went to see what they were about.  And when they arrest Jesus, and the apostles flee, perhaps they tried to grab some of them as they ran, and they recognized Mark among them, and tried to grab him also?  I had always thought it was John that ran away naked...why did I think that?  Doesn't say so in John...at least not in 18, where all these other events are recorded.  All four talk about Peter and his sword.  Only Mark talks about running away naked.  Only other possibility is that there were more than the 12 with Jesus in the garden, and it is pretty difficult to make that fit the narrative.

Mark 15
Starts with Jesus being "delivered" to Pilate, first thing in the morning.  Pretty much just where Matthew 27 above started.  Jesus is silent, answering none of the charges against him.  Mark also says this amazed Pilate.

Mark also says that Pilate surmised that those who had delivered Jesus did so out of jealousy, and that Jesus had done no harm at all.  He knew they were manipulating him to murder for them.  In Mark, it says the crowd brought up the tradition of a prisoner being released.  It wasn't initiated by Pilate here.  I wonder if it was those who loved Jesus that suggested this at first, to try and get him released.  In this account, Pilate asks them if they want him to release Jesus.  This is what he assumed the majority wanted...at least it could have been that.  Once Pilate suggested Jesus as the one to be released, the chief priests (again, no mention of Pharisees here) incite the crowd - or parts of it - to yell for the release of Barabbas instead.  Pilate had under-estimated the influence of the religious leaders over the crowd.  This is the power of false religion also.  It makes people mindless.  They fear that the elite can cost them their souls - surely the Catholics teach that the priests have the power to forgive you when you die, or to leave you in purgatory forever.  They influence by fear.

Pilate's hand-washing is not mentioned by Mark.  Neither is Herod's part in this.

Mark also tells of the soldiers - Like Matthew, Mark tells us it was the whole battalion - getting together to mock Jesus, to put the purple robe on him and the crown of thorns.  They mockingly bow to him and call him King, and then they spit on him.  How many today are mocking when they bow?   I note that this happened back in the interior of the Governor's headquarters.  There were no scribes or elders or chief priests back here.  This scourging was done by the Gentile soldiers, on their own, and they bear full responsibility for that.  Also, who told Matthew and Mark about what went on back there?  Were some of the soldiers decent, and opposed what was going on, and recounted the events to either Matthew or Mark?

"20 And when they had mocked him, they stripped him of the purple cloak and put his own clothes on him. And they led him out to crucify him." [Mar 15:20 ESV].  The thing is, though they gave Jesus the trappings of royalty, they never for a moment really believed they were his.  Though they bowed to him in homage, they didn't respected him.  The soldiers mocked Jesus' civil authority.  They were concerned only with his claim - or the accusation against him - of earthly kingship. They completely misunderstood.  And yet they mocked him and scourged him for it anyway.  They clothed him with the authority they did not believe he had.

Simon of Cyrene is "compelled" to carry the cross.  Mark says Simon was just coming in from the country, minding his own business.  It also mentions that Simon is the father of Alexander and Rufus, suggesting that these names will be recognized by those to whom Mark is writing.  Perhaps Mark is saying they are witnesses to all this and can testify to the truth of what Mark writes.  (I read somewhere else that Alexander and Rufus are mentioned as members of the church in Rome I think.  Which may tie to the MSB book notes saying this book was written to Christians in Rome.)

Mark's description of the scene at the cross is very much like the description in Matthew.  Not much difference at all.  No Pharisees mentioned here either.  He was offered wine and myrrh, and refused.  They cast lots for his clothing. 

2024 - He was crucified at 9 am.  All the things that we know about - from Pilate, to Herod, and then back to Pilate - all these things happened between "early in the morning" in vs 1, and 9 am.  That is not very long for a man to be condemned to such a death.  Another example of prophecy "hanging over us" for a very long time, but when fulfillment comes, it is sudden - like a thief in the night.  I believe the end times will be like that.  One day we won't think it is very near, and the next day it will fully in progress and we'll wonder how we didn't see it and get prepared.  This is ever the "rule" with such prophesy.

The inscription with the charge against him said "King of the Jews".  Two robbers crucified with him.  Passersby know who he is, and revile him.  The chief priests, etc, also revile him.  And lastly, the two robbers revile him.  There is a sermon in these three groups I am sure.  Three groups reject him.  The disinterested, the falsely religious, and the publicly, un-apologetically guilty, maybe.  These don't reject God, they don't care enough to realize that even this kind of rejection has consequences.
Vs 29 indicates that the disinterested knew who he was and what he'd said, but they didn't even stop to look.  The didn't care what happened to him, they didn't consider that he had anything to do with them.  He was just a passing Jerusalem phenomenon, just another preacher duping everyone else, but they were above all that.  Indifferent is what they are.  They don't feel guilty, they don't seek, they are self-sufficient and need nothing else.  They don't even realize their need.
Vs 31, 32a, the falsely religious.  Those who set themselves up as religious leaders but who were hypocrites with no real belief.  These see the truth as an enemy that might reveal their hypocrisy and diminish their authority.  Doesn't have to be preachers and deacons who do this.  Anyone at church who is there for the social part, or out of habit, or just because no one else will put up with them is in this falsely religious category.  I believe these know where they stand.  They know they are false - if they will be honest with themselves.  But they like the power and position of this world, they like to be seen as religious, and they like to lead others.  These secretly reject God, but no one knows.  This is anathema to Jesus' teaching that the last shall be first.  
Vs 32b, The brazenly, knowingly, brashly, outspokenly guilty.  The "So what" group.  The noisy rejectors of salvation offered.  These won't tolerate being told what to do even as the consequences of their attitude and actions become obvious to themselves and all who see them.
Everyone falls into one of these groups.  
Possible FB or linked website post here.
2022 - A different concept of the three groups in Mark 15:29-32:
"29 And those who passed by derided him, wagging their heads and saying, "Aha! You who would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, 30 save yourself, and come down from the cross!" 31 So also the chief priests with the scribes mocked him to one another, saying, "He saved others; he cannot save himself. 32 Let the Christ, the King of Israel, come down now from the cross that we may see and believe." Those who were crucified with him also reviled him." [Mar 15:29-32 ESV]
First group, the passersby.  These knew Jesus from afar.  He was part of their culture, they'd heard of him, they'd heard the claims about him, they knew people who lived their lives with Jesus at the center.  But Jesus didn't really fit with their concept of reality.  They didn't think miracles really happened but were in fact just flukes of medicine or science...some people just get well, even when you think they can't. Those are random exceptions, not directed miracles.  And when these saw Jesus on the cross, they nodded knowingly, and congratulated themselves for not falling into this non-rational belief in miracles and heaven and hell and all that other stuff that can't be proven to exist or not exist.  If the number one claimant that all these things were true was being executed by the Roman government, then where were those miracles now?  His death, to them, proved that his claims were invalid.  They were skeptics before, imagine the 2x4 it will take to convince them of their need for crucified carpenter after this.  They've heard of Jesus, they've doubted Jesus, and now that they see him dying on a cross, they've dismissed Jesus.  
Second group, the religious.  I use the word religious in its worst possible sense.  These were the ones who were fixated on ritual and rule.  These are the ones who who are all about Sunday morning, Sunday night, and Wednesday night.  That's when you have church, that's all the church you have.  Sunday morning, four songs, a special, the sermon, the announcements, and out.  By noon.  Anything else is entertainment, not church, and ought not be allowed.  These are the ones who don't want anything new.  Everything about church ought to be just like it was for their parents, their grandparents, and their great grandparents.  They might "allow" a sound system, but they don't see a real need for it.  They will let the "young people" have their way on some things, to shut them up, but obviously if they want those things they aren't very good Christians.  Not like in the old days.  And when Jesus died, so did the message of relationship with God, of a daily walk, of stepping out in faith, and of doing what is right even when it is not the rule.  These went right back to their stifling traditions, to ritual without heart or feeling.  They are Christians by definition and by rote, as they are happy as long as they don't have to change anything.  If seeing a man dying for them on a cross couldn't shake these out of their entrenched complacency, what chance will anything else have.  These are in church every Sunday, and they will be in hell in eternity.
Third group, the two thieves.  These knew Jesus, too, like the other two groups, but these actively hated him.  They hated him because he told them they were thieves and that was wrong.  He told them they were selfish and ungrateful and that if they didn't change they'd go to hell.  They hated him for daring to tell them about a better way to live life, as if he was some kind of authority on good.  What right did this man Jesus have to tell them how they should live?  These were only interested in doing what they wanted, whenever they wanted, to whomever they wanted.  These wanted to make their own rules, and to they wanted to beat down anyone who questioned their rules.  And most of all, these hated Jesus because he told them their rules were wrong, and self-destructive, and would result in eternal fire, not in wealth and riches.  But here's the thing.  It was one from this third group that changed.  This hating, despising, angry group turned out to have a better chance at salvation than the "I'm a good person" skeptics, and a better chance than the "I go to church every Sunday" but I'm dead on the inside religious people.  It was a hater that got saved.  So...who should we be talking to about Jesus?
Three FB posts, possibly.  They need work, they need better coherence, but I KNEW there was a sermon here, and I think this is it.

Where are the Pharisees?  Why have I never before noticed how conspicuously absent they are.  The deal with Judas is made in the Temple...but I don't think it was with Pharisees, it was with the priests.  The Pharisees hate Jesus, and try to trip him up, but are they really any part of this conspiracy to kill him?  Isn't it Caiaphas that explains it is better for one to die than the whole country to be lost?  He was a priest.  Maybe I never noticed because up until a few days ago, I was not aware of how recently the Pharisees had come on the scene.  And I most certainly was not aware that Pharisees were NOT from the priesthood in any way.  Scribes were part of the Temple also, and no Pharisees were scribes.  The Pharisees were layman, perhaps trying to exert some influence outside the official temple elite.  They wanted part of the pie.  Wow.  This idea of who the Pharisees really were just changes so many things!

The three hours of darkness are also mentioned by Mark.  Both record Jesus cry to God, asking why he is forsaken.  Many think he's calling Elijah.  

In both accounts, upon hearing Jesus cry out, they run and get some sour wine and offer it to him on a reed to drink.  They want to see if Elijah will really show up and save him.  So this sour wine was offered to prolong Jesus life - and so prolong his suffering on the cross - so that they can see a spectacle.  (It was NOT that the wine was withheld to see if Jesus was rescued, it was so he would suffer longer, to give Elijah time to show up.)  They believe Elijah might really come back from the dead, but they are not thinking that Jesus will.  They believe in ghosts, but not in God.  These are not good people either.  Maybe there should be four groups in the sermon.

2024 - He dies shortly after 3 pm.  Six hours on the cross.

Mark does not mention the earthquake, the rocks, or the saints rising and walking into town.  But something makes the Centurion believe that Jesus as indeed the Son of God.  The women watching from a distance are also mentioned by Mark.  I believe that Mary, the mother of James, Joses, and Salome' was Jesus mother also.  In Mark, James is referred to as James the Younger.  There were also many other unnamed women who had followed Jesus from Galilee.  They seem to have traveled with him from there to Jerusalem.  The way this reads, it is pretty difficult to tell just how many mothers are specifically identified.  Just hard to know where the commas really go.

Mark also says Joseph of Arimathea asked for the body.  He says this is because it was the day before the Sabbath.  He adds for us that Joseph was a "respected member of the council".  Mark says Pilate was surprised to hear Jesus was dead already, and confirms the fact with a centurion.  Witnesses confirmed that Jesus was indeed dead on the cross.  Jesus is wrapped in a new linen shroud (Mark says Joseph bought it).  Jesus was laid in "a" tomb.  Mark does not specifically say it was Joseph's tomb.  A stone was rolled in front of it.  Mark also tells us that Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where he was laid.  Witnesses that the empty tomb was not just a mistaken location.  They KNEW where he was laid.  

2024 - Looking back to the "great debate" yesterday about how time was reckoned as to when the Passover was eaten, we now get this verse:
42 And when evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath, [Mar 15:42 ESV]
42 And now when the even was come, because it was the preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath, [Mar 15:42 KJV]
42 When evening had already come, because it was the preparation day, that is, the day before the Sabbath, [Mar 15:42 NASB95]
And now here is yesterday's explanation from the external source for what was meant by "evening":
“In the evening” is better translated “between the two evenings.” It is referring to that period of time between sunset and dark. So the lamb was to be killed after sunset but before dark. Notice that they were to keep the lamb until the 14th, not after or toward the end. “Until the 14th” would be at sunset right after the 13th.
Also this:  Deuteronomy 16:6 was quoted above. It says that the Passover lamb was to be sacrificed “at even, at the going down of the sun ….” The Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon says this about the term “at even”: “the time between sunset and deep twilight.”
So based on the conclusions from yesterday about the Passover, we see that Jesus was taken down from the cross AFTER SUNDOWN, but before full dark.  He was in the tomb, therefore, on the 14th of Nisan, even if for a very short time, BEFORE full dark came and the 15th began - at full darkness on what would have been our Friday.  He was there all day Saturday.  At full dark on Saturday, the 16th of Nisan, which was a Sunday, began, and very early the next morning - still Sunday according to the Jews, and the first day of the week since it followed the Sabbath, Christ arose.  He was in the grave FriDAY, SaturDAY, and SunDAY.  Three DAYS.

Looking back at the MSB notes on Matthew 27, it says that the "other" Mary was the wife of Cleopas also known as Alphaeus, and the mother of James the Less.  In fact, MSB implies a lot of commas in the recounting of the women at the crucifixion.  Four in fact, and none was Mary the Mother of Jesus.  The MSB note says we know his mother was there from John's gospel, and that she was apart from the others, perhaps right up at the cross.  These others were watching from a distance.

Also a short chapter, also 20 verses.
Here, the two Marys ( the "other" Mary is the Mother of James the Less, as spoken of earlier.), and Salome buy spices to go and anoint him.  He has been in the grave three days.  He has 75 lbs of spices on him already.  Yet they plan to take more.  Salome was mentioned earlier also.  MSB note says there's a note on the women at Matt 27:56.  It also says Luke mentions a woman named Joanna being there, and that likely there were several others.  The fact that these women all show up on the third day with burial spices shows that they expected Jesus' body to still be in the tomb.  They didn't expect, or didn't comprehend what he had said about rising again.

In this account, no earthquake is mentioned, the guards are not mentioned, and the stone is already moved when they get there.  A "young man" is inside the tomb.  Mark doesn't call him an angel.  The young man tells them Jesus is risen, and that they should tell his disciples "and Peter" that Jesus is going ahead of them to Galilee.  Is Peter mentioned because he is still mourning his denials and is not with the other 10 at this time?  MSB says it is so Peter would know that Jesus had not excluded him because of his denials.  I think my interpretation works just as well.

They leave the tomb, and flee from it.  They are trembling and astonished.  Mark says they told no one at all about this, because they were afraid.  All these women, and not one "talked"?

Then there is a note in my ESV that says - right in the column, not as a footnote - that "Some of the earliest manuscripts do not include 16:9-20.  It also has a footnote to that statement.  It mentions two or three variations in the rest of the verses in Mark, some inserting add'l material after vs 8 but before 9-20.  MSB has a very long note about these verses.  His note starts with there being strong evidence suggesting that these last verses were not originally part of the book of Mark.  Very early church fathers note that these verses are missing from early manuscripts.  Scribal marks indicate that those copying it considered the verses "spurious".  MSB says not to build any doctrine based solely on the verses, and yet...it has come down to us as part of the Bible, and should be kept in there, just read in context with other passages only.

Could Mark have died suddenly, before completely finishing the book?  And so they knew it was left unfinished, and some decided to finish it for him?  Early complaints about Mark included the fact that those verses were questionably his, and that without them, the book ends suddenly and mentions not a single appearance of Jesus after the resurrection.

Looked back at MSB notes before the book.  Many believe it was written in Rome in about AD 50.  There is a significant debate though that it wasn't written until after Peter died in 68 AD or so.  It is considered the memoirs of Peter, though it was written down by Mark.  It was written to Gentiles mostly.  If it was written late, Mark may also have been getting pretty old, and it is quite possible that he died before finishing it.  Most especially if the 68 AD date is correct, and Peter died before it was even written.  Mark does include a lot of detail about Peter's denials, but the three are not exactly the same as in John.  There are differences.  Might be a good study to compare them all.

It is in those last verses that Mark says this:
16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. [Mar 16:16 ESV]

And this is also where we find these verses:
17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover." [Mar 16:17-18 ESV]

All three of these have been used to establish doctrine - and some of that doctrine is very questionable.  Like the snake bites and such.  Maybe these are the doctrines MSB was referring to and recommending that these last verses of Mark be looked at only in context with other scripture.