15<\/strong>. the leaven of the Pharisees<\/em> ] Leaven in Scripture, with the single exception of the Parable (Mat 13:33<\/span>; Luk 13:20-21<\/span>), is always a symbol of evil (comp. 1Co 5:6-8<\/span>; Gal 5:9<\/span>), especially insidious evil, as it is for the most part also in the Rabbinical writers. See Lightfoot on Mat 16:6<\/span>. The strict command to the children of Israel that they should carefully put away every particle of leaven out of their houses during the Passover-week, rests on this view of it as evil.<\/p>\n the leaven of Herod<\/em> ] “and,” as it is in St Matthew’s Gospel, “ of the Sadducees<\/em>.” The leaven of the Pharisees was hypocrisy<\/em> (Luk 12:1<\/span>), of the Sadducees, unbelief<\/em>, of Herod, worldliness;<\/em> all which working in secrecy and silence, and spreading with terrible certainty, cause that in the end “the whole man is leavened,” and his whole nature transformed.<\/p>\n 15. And he charged them, saying,Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees<\/B>“and ofthe Sadducees” (Mt 16:6<\/span>). <\/P> and of the leaven ofHerod<\/B>The teaching or “doctrine” (Mt16:12<\/span>) of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees was quite different,but both were equally pernicious; and the Herodians, though rather apolitical party, were equally envenomed against our Lord’s spiritualteaching. See on Mt 12:14<\/span>. Thepenetrating<\/I> and diffusive<\/I> quality of leaven, for goodor bad, is the ground of the comparison.<\/P><\/p>\n And he charged them<\/strong>,…. When they were in the ship, and had just recollected themselves, that they had took no care to bring any provisions with them:<\/p>\n saying, take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees; and of the leaven of Herod<\/strong>: in Matthew, instead of “the leaven of Herod”, it is read, “the leaven of the Sadducees”: which are either the same, Herod and his courtiers being Sadducees, or favourers of them; or the Sadducees being sticklers for Herod, and his government, which the Pharisees had no good opinion of; or else distinct from one another; and so Christ cautions against the doctrines of the Pharisees, which regarded the traditions of the elders, and of the Sadducees, concerning the resurrection, and of the Herodians, who thought Herod to be the Messiah; and against the unreasonable request and demand of them all to have a sign from heaven, in proof of his own Messiahship; [See comments on Mt 16:6]<\/span>.<\/p>\n Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and the leaven of Herod <\/B> (H, H<\/SPAN><\/span>). Present imperatives. Note <\/SPAN><\/span> and the ablative case. <\/SPAN><\/span> is from <\/SPAN><\/span> and occurs already in Mt 13:33<\/span> in a good sense. For the bad sense see 1Co 5:6<\/span>. He repeatedly charged (<\/SPAN><\/span>, imperfect indicative), showing that the warning was needed. The disciples came out of a Pharisaic atmosphere and they had just met it again at Dalmanutha. It was insidious. Note the combination of Herod here with the Pharisees. This is after the agitation of Herod because of the death of the Baptist and the ministry of Jesus (Mark 6:14-29<\/span>; Matt 14:1-12<\/span>; Luke 9:7-9<\/span>). Jesus definitely warns the disciples against “the leaven of Herod” (bad politics) and the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees (bad theology and also bad politics). <\/P> <\/p>\n Comments<\/strong><\/p>\n 1) “And He charged them, saying,”<\/strong> (kai diestelleto autois legon) “And He charged them, repeatedly saying,” emphasizing, the subtle corrupting nature of pride of religious form and ceremony in Phariseeism, and the sensual moral corrupting of Herodian Sadduceeism.<\/p>\n 2) “Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees,”<\/strong> (horate blepete apo tes zumes ton Pharisaion) “Beware of and avoid the leaven (putrefaction) of the Pharisees,” the corrupting doctrinal influence of the Pharisees, that taught heaven might be attained by pious living and ceremonial deeds, Luk 12:1<\/span>; Mat 5:20<\/span>; Rom 10:3-4<\/span>.<\/p>\n 3) “And of the leaven of Herod.”<\/strong> (kai tes zumes Herodou) “And of the leaven (putrefaction) of the Herodians,” which alluded to the moral corruption of fornication and adultery so prevalent in the King Herod household and dynasty, Mat 14:11-12<\/span>: Mar 6:14-29<\/span>; Luk 9:7-9<\/span>. Herod was a Sadducee. Their denial of a resurrection gave way to their corrupt practices of licentiousness so prevalent in Herod’s household, Act 23:8<\/span>.<\/p>\n (15) He charged them.<\/strong>The verb is in the imperfect tense, and implies that the command was more than once repeated. Hence they, too, were reasoning, more than once, what was the meaning of the precept on which so much stress was laid.<\/p>\n The leaven of Herod.<\/strong>The words imply the presence among the questioners of Mar. 8:11<\/span> of others besides the Pharisees. On the connection between the leaven of Herod and that of the Sadducees in Mat. 16:6<\/span>, see Note on that verse.<\/p>\n ‘And he charged them saying, “Take notice. Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod ”.’<\/p>\n The situation drew from Jesus one of His enigmatic sayings. As He saw them worrying about shortage of bread He still remembered the Pharisees’ demand for a sign, which had demonstrated their spiritual bankruptcy. He did not want His disciples to be in the same position. Rather than worrying about bread they should be concerned about the false teaching that might deceive them and lead them astray. So their concern should not be about lack of bread but about ensuring that they had the true bread, the genuine sign of which they had been privileged to witness. They had to ensure that they avoided the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod. In other words they were to avoid being led astray by religious ritual and pious pronouncements or by worldly advancement, seeking rather to enjoy the bread of life. He may also have had in mind their need to avoid the desire of the Pharisees for spectacular ‘signs’.<\/p>\n The feeding of the crowd should have demonstrated to them that He was here, not in order to raise an insurrection, or to be a sign-giver, but so as to be a Messiah Who would feed men’s hearts with Himself as the Bread of life, and that that was therefore what should now be their main concern. The Pharisees offered the way of ritual and religiosity, and even of passive resistance against Rome, Herod offered the way of compromise, and of cooperation with Rome. But what they should be concerned about was that they received His teaching truly unaffected by any such false ideas. He wanted them to be free from political ideas so that they could concentrate on what was important, the feeding of the souls of men.<\/p>\n ‘Leaven.’ Dough that had been left and had fermented. It was thus permeated with corruption.<\/p>\n Matthew interprets ‘leaven’ as ‘the teaching of –’ (Mar 16:12<\/span>). Luke interprets it as ‘hypocrisy’ (Luk 12:1<\/span>). Either way it was corrupted bread. It refers to the inner thinking of the Pharisees and Herod, truth twisted into their own kind of falsehood by the Pharisees, and putting earthly pleasure, power, gain and prestige before godliness by Herod. They had to beware of both ritualism and worldliness.<\/p>\n This is confirmed by the use of the idea of leaven in 1Co 5:6-8<\/span> and Gal 5:9<\/span>, and in Rabbinic Judaism where leaven was a common metaphor for the evil tendency in man. Thus Jesus was warning them against allowing their thoughts to be turned aside from concentration on Him as the source of life towards either legalistic practises and the traditions of men, which twisted the truth and resulted in hypocrisy, or towards grasping, worldly, ungodly behaviour which resulted in the same. Had Judas heeded this he would not have betrayed Jesus. Perhaps Jesus was in fact already aware that some of His disciples were being approached privately by representatives of both the Pharisees and Herod, and were even possibly a little shaken by it. For they had grown up respecting the Pharisees and fearing Herod.<\/p>\n Mar 8:15<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>And of the leaven of Herod.<\/em><\/strong><\/strong> See the note on Mat 22:16<\/span>. It seems evident from this passage, that the Herodians were of the sect of the Sadducees; for what St. Mark calls the leaven of Herod, <\/em>St. Matthew, in the parallel passage, calls the leaven of the Sadducees. Herodian, <\/em>therefore, was but another name for such sort of Sadducees as maintained the expediency of submitting to the innovations introduced by Herod and the Romans; for it may easily be thought, that those who favoured Herod and the powers who supported him, were generally of this sect. At the same time all the Sadducees were not Herodians, some of them shewing little of that complaisance to the reigning powers, for which their brethren were so remarkable: and this accounts sufficientlyfor the distinction between the Herodians and Sadducees, found Mat 22:16<\/span>; Mat 22:46<\/span>. <\/p>\n 14 Now the disciples<\/em> had forgotten to take bread, neither had they in the ship with them more than one loaf.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n 15 And he charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of<\/em> the leaven of Herod. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n Ver. 15. Of the leaven of Herod<\/strong> ] Of the Sadducees, saith Matthew; to the which sect some conceive that Herod had now joined himself, the better to still the noise of his conscience by making himself believe there was no judgment to come. <\/p>\n 15.<\/strong> ] <\/strong> is merely take heed<\/em> , and does not belong to <\/strong> .<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n <\/strong> . <\/strong> <\/strong> is not ‘ turn your eyes away from<\/em> ’ (Tittm. and Kuin. in Meyer), but as in reff.<\/p>\n The here seems to answer to the . in Matt. But we must not infer from this that Herod was a Sadducee. He certainly was a bad and irreligious man, which would be quite enough ground for such a caution. We have a specimen of the morals of his court in the history of John the Baptist’s martyrdom. In the last<\/em> <\/strong> , Mar 8:21<\/span> , Meyer sees a new<\/em> climax, and refers the not yet<\/em> to the moment even after the reminiscence of Mar 8:18-20<\/span> . It may doubtless be so, and the idea would well accord with the graphic precision of St. Mark.<\/p>\n Mar 8:15<\/span> . , etc.: two<\/em> leavens, one of Pharisees, another of Herod, yet placed together because morally akin and coincident in practical outcome. Vide<\/em> notes on Mat 16:1-6<\/span> .<\/p>\n charged was charging. of = [and keep away] from. Greek apo. App-104. <\/p>\n the leaven. Note the Figure of speech Hypocatastasis (App-6), by which the word “doctrine “is implied. Compare Mat 16:6. <\/p>\n Herod. See Mar 3:6 and App-109. <\/p>\n 15.] is merely take heed, and does not belong to .<\/p>\n . is not turn your eyes away from (Tittm. and Kuin. in Meyer), but as in reff.<\/p>\n The here seems to answer to the . in Matt. But we must not infer from this that Herod was a Sadducee. He certainly was a bad and irreligious man, which would be quite enough ground for such a caution. We have a specimen of the morals of his court in the history of John the Baptists martyrdom. In the last , Mar 8:21, Meyer sees a new climax, and refers the not yet to the moment even after the reminiscence of Mar 8:18-20. It may doubtless be so, and the idea would well accord with the graphic precision of St. Mark.<\/p>\n Mar 8:15. , of the Pharisees and Herod) Two opposite extremes of religious sects. In Mat 16:6, where see note, the words are, the Pharisees and Sadducees. Therefore, instead of what Matthew has, viz. the Sadducees, Mark has, Herod. The leaven common to them all, at least in demanding signs on various pretexts at different occasions, was hypocrisy (Herod is called the fox, Luk 13:31, where see note). As to Herod, Luke does not mention that indeed (viz. his demanding a sign), at ch. Luk 12:1, but he does at Luk 23:8, as it were in the way of supplement. For although Herod approached nearer to the Pharisees in the article of the resurrection, ch. Mar 6:16, yet the licentiousness admitted by the doctrine of the Sadducees, was in other respects more suited to his palace and court, which bent religion into a mere species of political expediency.<\/p>\n leaven See note 4, (See Scofield “Mat 13:33”) <\/p>\n Herod See margin ref., (See Scofield “Mat 14:1”) <\/p>\n he charged: Num 27:19-23, 1Ch 28:9, 1Ch 28:10, 1Ch 28:20, 1Ti 5:21, 1Ti 6:13, 2Ti 2:14 <\/p>\n Take: Pro 19:27, Mat 16:6, Mat 16:11, Mat 16:12, Luk 12:1, Luk 12:2, Luk 12:15 <\/p>\n the leaven of the: Exo 12:18-20, Lev 2:11, 1Co 5:6-8 <\/p>\n of Herod: Mar 12:13, Mat 22:15-18 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Mat 3:7 – the Pharisees Mat 6:1 – heed Mat 14:1 – Herod Mat 22:16 – the Herodians Mar 3:6 – Herodians Mar 10:2 – the Pharisees Luk 20:46 – Beware 1Co 5:8 – neither Gal 5:9 – General<\/p>\n 5<\/p>\n The disciples knew that the Pharisees and Herod were in an unfavorable light with Jesus, but they did not grasp the comparison that was made to leaven.<\/p>\n Mar 8:15. The leaven of Herod. Matthew: of the Sadducees. Herod was not a professed Sadducee, but our Lord was warning against what all these had in common. On the alliance of the Pharisees and Herodians, see on chap. Mar 3:6. The one common characteristic of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Herodians was hypocrisy (see on Mat 16:12), the last named party coquetting with the other two as politicians do, and of course acting hypocritically.<\/p>\n Verse 15 <\/p>\n The leaven; that is, the spirit.<\/p>\n Mark 8:22-26. This is one of the very few accounts which Mark only has given. Nearly the whole of his Gospel, with some variations of phraseology, may be found in those of Matthew and Luke.–Bethsaida; a town south of Capernaum, the birthplace of Philip, Andrew, and Peter.<\/p>\n 8:15 {2} And he charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and [of] the leaven of Herod.<\/p>\n (2) We must especially take heed of those who corrupt the word of God, no matter what their position is in the Church or in civil politics.<\/p>\n Jesus evidently used the leaven in the loaf of bread as an object lesson to illustrate the pervasive corrupting teaching of the Pharisees and of Herod. Leaven was a common metaphor for corruption in both Jewish and Hellenistic circles. [Note: Lane, p. 280.] <\/span> The teaching of the Pharisees was that Jesus received His authority from Satan rather than from God (Mar 3:22; cf. Mar 7:8-13). It was a denial of His role as God’s anointed Servant, Messiah. The teaching of Herod Antipas, what he believed and articulated, was likewise that Jesus was not the Messiah. Herod told others that Jesus was just John the Baptist come back to life (Mar 6:14-16). The Pharisees and Herod, though so different from each other in many respects, promoted the same heretical view that Jesus was not the Messiah, much less divine. In short, this leaven was unbelief. Another view is that the yeast of the Pharisees was their hypocritical, self-righteous traditionalism and the yeast of Herod was his spirit of imperial pride. [Note: Bailey, p. 80.] <\/span><\/p>\n And he charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and [of] the leaven of Herod. 15. the leaven of the Pharisees ] Leaven in Scripture, with the single exception of the Parable (Mat 13:33; Luk 13:20-21), is always a symbol of evil (comp. 1Co 5:6-8; Gal 5:9), especially insidious evil, … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Mark 8:15”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-24502","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24502","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=24502"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24502\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=24502"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=24502"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=24502"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"