Blind at Bethsaida (Mark 8:22-26)

Ever wonder why the Gospel are in the order that they are in your Bible? The Gospels come in the order of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John because that’s the order the Early Church Fathers believed that the Gospels were written. Of course, John makes the most sense as the last Gospel. About 85% of the Gospel of John in unique, and the 15% that is not unique John takes a different direction. So much uniqueness in the Gospel of John demonstrates that the accounts in the synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke have been well established, hence why John felt the need to add new material. Therefore, John must come last. Luke also makes much sense as the penultimate Gospel. In the Gospel of Luke’s introduction, Luke acknowledges that several reports of Jesus exist, which probably consists of both the oral tradition and written tradition, which possibly includes both the Gospels of Matthew and Mark. Luke’s goal simply consists of creating the most organized report. Thus, Luke makes sense as the penultimate Gospel. That leaves Matthew and Mark.

Back in the days of the Early Church, the Early Church Fathers honestly believed the Gospel of Matthew proceeded the Gospel of Mark (called Matthean priority), but their logic and reasoning did have its flaws. Some argued that Matthew, as an upper-class tax collector, could afford the paper and ink for the gospel sooner than lower-class fisherman Mark, so Matthew must have come first. Others believed that Matthew, as a Jew writing to Jews, must have written the Gospel of Matthew first in Hebrew before Greek (no original Hebrew manuscripts has ever appeared, by the way), and since the Hebrew language is older than the Greek language, the Hebrew text of Matthew must have happened before the Greek text of Mark. As stated above, the Early Church Fathers did not have the soundest logic. During the modern church age, however, modern Bible scholars have concluded that the Gospel of Mark came first, called Markan priority. Modern scholars have a top 3 proofs, which do have studier logic and reasoning. The first proof comes from the length of each book. It makes little sense for Matthew to write his Gospel first and then have Mark write his Gospel second because then Mark’s Gospel would look like a Cliff Notes or Spark Notes version of Matthew’s Gospel (the famous bishop of Hippo Aurelius Augustine actually knows and understands this argument, yet he still holds fast to Matthean priority, even calling the Gospel of Mark the “inferior Gospel”). It makes a lot of sense that Mark’s Gospel came first, and upon reading it, Matthew decides to explain and expound on it. The second evidence comes in light of the Gospel’s setting. Mark mentions the temple as a present reality, while Matthews talks about the temple as a past reality. Since the Romans destroy the temple in 70  A.D. Mark must written before 70 A.D. and Matthew after 70 A.D. Third, and most important to transition from introduction to the main body, if the last Gospel has the most unique passages, then the first Gospel must have the least unique passages. Indeed, the Gospel of Mark has the fewest amount of unique passages in comparison to the other 3 Gospels. Now when the Gospel of Mark has unique passages, it is typically words or phrases, maybe a sentence, but rarely whole stories. Nevertheless, Mark does have 2 unique pericopes: 1 miracle and 1 parable. This exegesis will look at the miracle.

 And they came to Bethsaida. And some people brought to him a blind man and begged him to touch him. ~Mark 8:22

In this section of the Gospel of Mark, Jesus tours the cities, towns and villages along the shore of the Sea of Galilee, which all had a bigger Gentile population and a smaller Jewish population. So far in this tour, Jesus has visited Gennesaret (Mark 6:53), Tyre (Mark 7:24), Sidon and the Decapolis (Mark 7:31) to Dalmanutha (Mark 8:10). Connecting the dots on a map, it becomes evident Jesus sailed across the Sea of Galilee to get to each town or region, which also probably provided relief from the crowds. From Mark 8:13, the reader learns that Jesus and his disciples cross over the Sea of Galilee to Bethsaida in the district of Gaulanitis. Gaulanatis’s capital, Bethsaida, sat right on the northeastern shore of the Sea of Galilee. Bethsaida had started out as a village, but in recent history, under Herod’s brother Philip, it had upgraded it to a city. Philip grew its population to that of a city, and he also had built some of the important buildings that mark a city. Thus, it becomes confusing when Mark labels Bethsaida a village in the next verse. Some have argued Mark may have called Bethsaida a village simply because he always knew Bethsaida as a village, like a force of habit, as evident in a lot of Mark’s contemporaries’ writings, who did the same (Josephus acknowledges Bethsaida has all the buildings of a city, but he still calls Bethsaida a village). Others believe that the setting of this account takes places not in the city of Bethsaida, but in a village outside of Bethsaida (like a suburb of Bethsaida), similar to how Jesus stops at village of Caesarea Philippi in Mark 10:27. The other Gospels teach more about Bethsaida. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke teach that Jesus cursed Bethsaida for not reacting appropriately to the mighty works performed in it. From the Gospel of John, the reader learns that three disciples, Peter, Andrew and Philip came from Bethsaida. These three disciples all had the occupation of fisherman, which makes sense. Indeed, Bethsaida had become known for its fishing industry. In fact, Bethsaida means “house of fishers.”

 At Bethsaida, the people intercede for the blind man, bringing him to Jesus, asking Jesus to touch the blind man in order to heal the man. Up to this point in the Gospel of Mark, Jesus has yet to go to Bethsaida (Mark 6:45 says that Jesus had the disciples embark towards Bethsaida, but Mark, but Mark 6:53 tells of Jesus and the disciples reaching Gennesaret) but Mark makes it clear that the word about the miracles Jesus has performed has gotten around, so no surprise that Bethsaida heard this news, probably from nearby Capernaum. Throughout the Gospel of Mark, Mark has made generic statements about Jesus healing the sick and diseased (see Mark 1:34, 3:10 & 6:56), which, with the help of the other Gospels, could assumedly include blind people. Altogether, the 4 Gospels record at least 7 blind men healed. This blind man in Bethsaida is the first detailed account of healing a blind man, although it will not be his first it will not be his last (see Mark 10:46-52). Therefore, the reader must consider what this blind man healing teaches differently than all the other ones. The people specifically ask Jesus touch the blind man because that’s what Jesus normally did in the past (see Mark 1:31&41, 5:23, 6:5, 7:33), to the point that people themselves sought to touch Jesus (see Mark 3:10; 5:27&28; 6:56). Thus, naturally, when the people ask for a healing, they expecting healing through touching.

And he took the blind man by the hand and led him out of the village, and when he had spit on his eyes and laid his hands on him, he asked him, “Do you see anything?” ~Mark 8:23

The text clearly states Jesus leads the blind man out of the village, as opposed to merely taking him aside, which may be due to the fact that the man cannot see. The text does not explain, however, why Jesus led the blind man out of the village. It does seem necessary for the miracle, as Jesus has performed many miracles in the middle of a crowd (see Mark 1:23-28, 3:1-5, 9:14-27). As a matter of fact, in the next blind man healed, Jesus does so in the presence of other people (see Mark 10:46-52). Even the generic statements about Jesus’s miracles insinuate large crowds witnessing the healing (see Mark 1:32-34, 3:7-12). This does not mean, however, Jesus has never performed a miracle in private. For example, Jesus raises synagogue ruler Jairus’s daughter only in the presence of the father, the mother, Peter James and John (Mark 5:35-43). As another example, when Jesus heals a deaf man, Jesus takes the deaf man out of the crowd to heal him (Mark 7:33). Jesus may have pulled the blind man out of crowd for the benefit of the blind man. Crowds can become loud and chaotic, especially to a man down a sense. By removing the blind man out of the crowd, Jesus created an intimate connection with the man. The blind man could concentrate on Jesus, and Jesus can concentrate on the blind man. Based off this built relationship, the man would trust in the certainty of Christ’s healing power. Jesus might have also removed the blind man from the people in order to avoid people from getting the wrong idea or message from him. The crowd could focus more what Jesus did instead of who Jesus was, which would lead them into copycatting in order to heal, instead of having faith in Jesus. The people could end up following Jesus simply out of awe and inspiration from the miracle, just bringing more sick and disabled for a miraculous healing, hoping to see another miracle, instead of becoming a true disciple.

This healing miracle has three actions attached to it. First, Jesus spits on the blind man’s eyes. Second, Jesus lays his hands on the blind man. Third, Jesus asks the blind man if he says anything. These actions adds the details that Jesus not merely speak healing into this man’s life, nor did Jesus simply touch the man, as the locals requested. The laying on of hands could go together spitting in his eyes. Quite possibly, Jesus put spit on his fingers and put his fingers into the blind man’s eyes, thus putting spit in the man’s eyes. Similar methods occur in both Jewish and Gentile healing procedures of Jesus’s day, especially the spitting part, but Jesus does not attempt anything magical or mystical here. By doing so, Jesus alerts the blind man that he intends to heal him, and it puts the blind man at ease. Obviously, the blind man cannot see what Jesus is doing, but he can feel what Jesus is doing, so Jesus includes lots of sensory touching making the blind man aware of the working power of Jesus. Also, give credit to the man for allowing Jesus to do something that someone might consider disgusting. Of course, just as obvious, Jesus’s laying on of hands involves touching the body part needing healing. How Jesus proceeds, however, will draw the difference from Jewish and Gentile practices. Jesus follows his actions with the question of “Do you see anything?” This is the first and only time Jesus questions the recipient about the progress of a miracle. Do not mistake this question as Jesus’s uncertainty of the healing. This question already hints Jesus intended a two-part healing miracle.

And he looked up and said, “I see people, but they look like trees, walking.”  ~Mark 8:24

The blind man’s response begins with the action ἀναβλέψας (anablepsas). The root βλεπω (blepo) simply means “to look,” but the prefix ἀνα (ana) can mean “up” or “again.” The wordplay here involves the blind man looking up to look again. Interesting enough, ἀναβλέψας (anablepsas) commonly refers to a person looking up to the heavens to consult God. Here, the bland man looks up to consult the Son of God, Jesus Christ. The blind man’s answer to Jesus’s question if the blind man sees anything is that he sees people, but they look like trees walking. This statement clues the reader into a couple details about this account. For starters, this answer reveals Jesus did not pull the blind man too far outside of the village, as the blind man can see the people in the distance. More importantly, this reply demonstrates to the reader the fact that the man was not born a blind, for a man born blind could not identify a person or a tree. At the same time, however, such a description also displays that the man is still somewhat blind. He knows what a human looks like, he knows what a tree looks like, and he knows humans walk, but trees do not walk. What he sees must be people, although they look like trees walking. This part may be the puzzling piece of this account. At first glance, it looks like the miracle did not work. At first glance, it seems like Jesus made a mistake, which would throw in doubts about the perfection of Jesus, especially as the perfect God. To the contrary, what Jesus does here makes sense, as those who wear glasses might know from going to the ophthalmologist-

 

Jesus did not do something incorrect or wrong. Rather, it was just incomplete. The healing Jesus had in mind had two parts; Jesus merely checked in halfway to make sure the miracle worked as intended, the first time he ever did that in a miracle. It also does not mean the blind man did anything incorrect or wrong, like lack faith.

Then Jesus laid his hands on his eyes again; and he opened his eyes, his sight was restored, and he saw everything clearly ~Mark 8:25

Here, Jesus’s healing of the blind man diverts from the common procedures of Jesus’s time. Jesus does not do anything differently. Jesus simply lays his hands on the man’s eyes a second time, unheard of for Jesus’s day. The rest of the verse goes on to confirm that this action brought the man from partial healing to full healing. The three-fold synonymous parallelism (the same idea repeated with different words, in this case, three times) assures the reader of the certainty of the healing. The man can see plainly and his eyes have returned to their normal function. Together, it may prove that while worldly ways may bring partial healing, but only true, full healing comes from Jesus. Interesting enough, thought, the best way to describe Jesus’s action would be healing over miracle. Jesus acts more like a doctor than a miracle worker. He asks questions, he has a procedure, and he follows up accordingly. This does not de-emphasize the miracle. Rather, it emphasizes Jesus the great physician, who can provide the perfect healing for any disease or disability. And sometimes, that healing can be a process, even for divine healing. Healing as a process should comfort the Christian, as it assures the Christian that God will never leave the Christian partially healed. As Pail said in Philippians 1:6, “And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.”

And he sent him to his home, saying, “Do not even enter the village.” ~Mark 8:26

Jesus’s last words to the man are the instructions to go home and not tell anybody in the village. Such wording may hint that the man did not live in the village of Bethsaida. With this concluding verse of the pericope, now for the third time in Mark, Jesus requests that the healed person goes home instead of returning to the crowd (see Mark 2:11 & 5:19), and for the fourth time, Jesus requires the healed person to tell no one about the miracle (see Mark 1:44, 5:43 & 7:36). Most Old Testament prophets publicly displayed the results of the miracle for the testimony (e.g. 1 Kings 17:23 & 2 Kings 4:36). Surely Jesus would want the man to testify in excitement about what God has done for him, right? Again, Jesus may have made these requests in order to avoid crowds following him just to see miracles. While this man needed the healing, the deeper meaning behind it would not become clear until the death and resurrection of Jesus, when Jesus’s ministry on earth came to full completion. Then everybody could know what Jesus did because it would make sense in the light of his whole ministry. Jesus might have also made these requirements because Jesus did not the people begging for miracles to throw him off of his true ministry. For the rest of the Gospel of Mark, Jesus will not travel by boat, but rather, he will travel by foot. Escaping the people by foot will become harder than escaping by sea. Because the man went home instead of back into the village, it allows Jesus to escape without a crowd following him, even though a miracle just happened. Also, Jesus might have denied the man to go back to Bethsaida because in the other Gospels Jesus cursed Bethsaida, and so Bethsaida did not deserve the success story of this man.  Although an argument from the silence, some have claimed that Jesus preferred the blind man to go home, where family could verify the success of the miracle.

On top of exegeting Mark 8:22-26, a study of the near context, or the pericopes surrounding Mark 8:22-26, will aid in revealing the intended purpose and message of Mark including this story in his Gospel. Furthermore, a study of the far context, or how this account attributes to the Bible as a whole, will help reveal the importance of this narrative to theology.

In regard to the near context, this account of Jesus in Mark 8:22-26 has a parallel narrative in Mark 7:31-36. While the two pericopes differ in the disability healed, the two stories share several similarities. Both have the eastern coast of the Sea of Galilee as the setting. Both have the crowd bringing forward the disabled man. Both disabled men are missing one of the senses. Both have the people asking Jesus to lay hands or touch the disabled person. Both have Jesus pull the disabled man out of the local population to perform the miraculous healing. Both involve spitting and touching, more specifically, touching the disabled body part. Both have a tricolon of synonymous parallelisms to emphasize the completeness of the miraculous healing. Both end with Jesus asking not to disclose the event that just happened. With so many parallels, these stores must serve as “book ends” to a section. Thus requires a closer look at the narratives in between the two pericopes.

After the account of Jesus healing the deaf man (Mark 7:31-36), Jesus feeds the four thousand in the following account (8:1-10). The account of feeding the four thousand happens similar to the feeding of the five thousand. Simply replace five thousand men with four thousand people, five loaves of bread with seven loaves, two fish with a few fish, and twelve baskets with seven baskets. Next comes the narrative which the ESV calls “The Pharisees Demand a Sign” (8:11-13). As the title hints, the Pharisees want Jesus to provide a sign from heaven, and Jesus refuses. The comes the pericope which the ESV names “The Leaven of the Pharisees and Herod.” In this pericope, Jesus accuses the disciples in Mark 8:18 of “Having eyes do you not see, and having ears do you not hear?” Does that sound familiar? This pericope transitions smoothly into the story of Jesus healing the blind man. As an added bonus, observe how the chapter ends. Mark 8 ends with Peter calling Jesus the Christ. While more famous for Peter’s confession, just as important, do not forget the passage contains 2 rebukes. Peter rebukes Jesus for claiming the Messiah must die, and Jesus rebukes Peter for not understanding the role of the Messiah. While Peter successfully gives Jesus the title Christ, he fails to comprehend what that means.

Regarding the far context, turn to the book of Isaiah. Throughout the book of Isaiah, Isaiah makes it clear to the reader that the real, true Messiah can work miracles. If somebody claims to be the Messiah, but he cannot perform miracles, he is not the Messiah, but a really naughty boy, making him an anti-messiah, or an antichrist. This idea most explicitly appears in Isaiah 35:5&6, in which Isaiah says, “Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf unstopped; then shall the lame man leap like a deer, and the tongue of the mute sing for joy. For waters break forth in the wilderness, and streams in the desert.” Isaiah 35:5b&6 has already been fulfilled in Mark 7:32-37. Mark 8:22-26 fulfills Isaiah 35:5a, thus bringing Isaiah 35:5&6 to full completion. Now that Isaiah 35:5&6 completely fulfilled, no wonder Peter can confess Jesus as the Christ in Mark 8:27-30! Peter, and the rest of the disciples, have now seen Jesus fulfill all the obligations of the Messiah, as recorded in Isaiah. As a response, they have to call Jesus Christ and Lord!

Put the near context and far context together. Between the account of Jesus healing the deaf man in Mark 7:32-37 and the narrative about Jesus healing the blind man in Mark 8:22-26, Mark includes a couple pericopes in between the two stories. One account, in Mark 8:10-13, the Pharisees ask for a sign. The Pharisees should have known of Isaiah 35:5&6. They had the miracles performed in front of them, yet they ignored them, demanding a sign. No wonder Jesus denied them the sign they wanted! In another narrative, in Mark 8:14-21, Jesus exposes the disciples of behaving like those Pharisees. In that passage, although not literally speaking, figuratively speaking, these disciples are as blind and deaf as the people that crowds bring to Jesus for healing. To go back to the specific story at hand, the disciples resemble the blindman halfway through the healing. They can see in part what Jesus is doing, yet at the same time, they are blind to why Jesus does what he does. If Jesus can make the blind man see and the deaf man hear, then Jesus can make the disciples, who are figuratively blind and deaf, perceive and understand who he is. It also gives hope to all Christians, who are unsure of what God has planned for them.

In closing, a few applications come from this account of the life of Jesus. First, the narrative reminds the believer that Jesus is the great physician, able to heal all disabilities and diseases completely. Second, the pericope proves Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God because he fulfills the prophecies of the Messiah as found in Isaiah. Third, this pericope teaches that Jesus can heal spiritual blindness just as much as physical blindness. In both the Jewish and Gentile writings of the first century, a common theme links blindness and seeing to knowledge, wisdom and understanding the world.

First, this account serves as a helpful reminder that Jesus is the great physician, able to heal all disabilities and diseases completely. Remember this account of Jesus both emphasizes Jesus the natural healer and the supernatural. Jesus has the power to heal both ways. Since Jesus created nature, he can choose to heal through the nature he created. This can include doctors, medication and therapy. Since Jesus reigns over his creation, he can also act supernaturally. Do not limit Jesus to either one or the other. Furthermore, the two-step healing reminds the reader that prayers for healing, both physically and spiritually, does not always come instantly complete. God can choose to heal over time, but again, the good work that the Lord starts he will bring to completion (Philippians 1:6).

Second, this narrative proves Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God because he fulfills the prophecies of the Messiah as found in Isaiah. For someone who has called Jesus Lord and Savior, this might sound like common knowledge. For those living during the 1^st century AD, however, that common knowledge did not come so easily. Mark 1:1 begins the Gospel of Mark with “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” This introductory verse communicates the message and purpose of the Gospel: to prove Jesus is Messiah and the Son of God. Mark knows Isaiah. Mark knows that Isaiah defines the Messiah as the Suffering Servant. Mark knows Isaiah describes the Suffering Servant as a miracle worker, most explicitly seen in Isaiah 35:5&6. Thus, Mark stuffs his Gospel full of miraculous healings to prove Jesus is the Suffering Servant, the Messiah and the Son of God. He successfully does so.

Third, this pericope teaches that Jesus can heal spiritual blindness just as much as physical blindness. In both the Jewish and Gentile writings of the first century, a common theme links blindness and seeing to knowledge, wisdom and understanding the world. The blind in first century literature represent those who do not have knowledge, wisdom or understanding of the world. Those who see represent those who have obtained knowledge, wisdom and understanding of the working world. Even rabbis of the first century commenting on the Old Testament commonly describe Old Testament Israel’s sinful state as spiritual blindness, even to the point of claiming Isaiah’s prophesies about the blind seeing simply refer to the spiritually blind people becoming spiritually aware. With that in mind, the Messiah Jesus can not only heal physical blindness, but he can also hear spiritual blindness. Even Paul catches on to this in 1 Corinthians 13:9-12, where he writes, “⁹ For we know in part and we prophesy in part, ¹⁰ but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. ¹¹ When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. ¹² For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.” The Pharisees at best can only “half see.” The disciples only “half see.” Even Peter’s confession of faith is a “half seeing.” In turn, Christians must humble themselves to understand they have reduced comprehension in comparison to God’s, so Christian must seek understanding through Jesus.

Bibliography

Barry, John D., Douglas Mangum, Derek R. Brown, Michael S. Heiser, Miles Custis, Elliot Ritzema, Matthew M. Whitehead, Michael R. Grigoni, and David Bomar. Faithlife Study Bible. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012, 2016.

Biblical Studies Press. The NET Bible First Edition Notes. Biblical Studies Press, 2006.

Bratcher, Robert G., and Eugene Albert Nida. A Handbook on the Gospel of Mark. UBS Handbook Series. New York: United Bible Societies, 1993.

Brooks, James A. Mark. Vol. 23. The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1991.

Church, Christopher L. “Mark.” Holman Concise Bible Commentary. Edited by David S. Dockery. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1998.

Cole, R. Alan. “Mark.” Pages 946–77 in New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition. Edited by D. A. Carson, R. T. France, J. A. Motyer, and G. J. Wenham. 4th ed. Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994.

France, R. T. The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI; Carlisle: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press, 2002.

Grassmick, John D. “Mark.” The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures. Edited by J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985.

Guelich, Robert A. Mark 1–8:26. Vol. 34A. Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1989.

Hughes, Robert B., and J. Carl Laney. Tyndale Concise Bible Commentary. The Tyndale reference library. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2001.

Jamieson, Robert, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown. Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997.

Keener, Craig S. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993.

Knowles, Andrew. The Bible Guide. 1st Augsburg books ed. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 2001.

Lane, William L. The Gospel of Mark. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974.

Leavell, Landrum P. “Mark.” The Teacher’s Bible Commentary. Edited by H. Franklin Paschall and Herschel H. Hobbs. Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1972.

Marcus, Joel. Mark 8–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Vol. 27A. Anchor Yale Bible. New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2009.

McLaren, Ross H. “Mark.” Pages 1555–93 in CSB Study Bible: Notes. Edited by Edwin A. Blum and Trevin Wax. Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2017.

Mills, M. S. The Life of Christ: A Study Guide to the Gospel Record. Dallas, TX: 3E Ministries, 1999.

Oden, Thomas C., and Christopher A. Hall, eds. Mark (Revised). Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998.

Richards, Lawrence O. The Bible Reader’s Companion. Electronic ed. Wheaton: Victor Books, 1991.

Robertson, A.T. Word Pictures in the New Testament. Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1933.

Spence-Jones, H. D. M., ed. St. Mark. Vol. 1. The Pulpit Commentary. London; New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1909.

Utley, Robert James Dr. The Gospel according to Peter: Mark and I & II Peter. Vol. Volume 2. Study Guide Commentary Series. Marshall, Texas: Bible Lessons International, 2000.

Wiersbe, Warren W. Wiersbe’s Expository Outlines on the New Testament. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1992.

Wuest, Kenneth S. Wuest’s Word Studies from the Greek New Testament: For the English Reader. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.