The structure of this section, which is one of the two large blocks of teaching in Mark (the other being chapter 13), may be indicated as follows: That this is a composite section is fairly obvious. In v. 1 Jesus is sitting in a boat and in v. 36 he is apparently still in the boat, but vv. 10–20 presuppose a different scene. As things stand it is not clear to whom the teaching in vv. 21–32 was addressed. Are we to conclude from its relation to vv. 10–20 that it was addressed to the disciples alone, or are we to conclude from its relation to vv. 33 f. that it was addressed to the multitude? It seems likely that we have to do here with a number of originally independent pieces of tradition which have been brought together in several stages to form an artificial unity. Vv. 10–20 disturb the unity of scene of a grouping of parables and sayings which is probably itself artificial. But vv. 10–20 themselves are not originally a unit. Vv. 11–20 give a double answer to the disciples' question in v. 10. V. 13 (with the singular ‘this parable’) presupposes a question about the meaning of the particular parable and would follow on v. 10 quite smoothly. It is true that the plural ‘the parables’ in v. 10 might suggest a more general question, but it need not; and one wonders whether it represents a correction made in order to make the insertion of vv. 11 f. easier.

The first question that must be considered is the historical one: Was the tomb empty? In a very useful chapter entitled ‘History and Criticism’ Professor A. M. Ramsey discusses ‘some of the types of conclusion reached by those who have applied the methods of critical science to the narratives of the Resurrection’. He mentions first the subjective-vision theory, according to which ‘the appearances of Jesus recorded in the Gospels were simply visions generated by the imaginations of the disciples out of an intense state of emotion or expectancy’. Some who have held this view have combined with it a belief in the survival of Jesus' soul. As Professor Ramsey points out, there are obvious difficulties in the way of accepting this theory—particularly the fact that the disciples' slowness to believe is a marked feature of the narratives. He then mentions the ‘telegram from heaven’ or what we might call the objective-vision theory (Theodor Keim, B. H. Streeter), according to which ‘the residuum of fact behind the narratives consists not in visions generated by the disciples but in visions imparted by God Himself, so as to assure the disciples that Jesus was alive…’

Early in 1632 we find Samuel Rutherford writing in these words to his friend Lady Kenmure:

It is the crooked love of some harlots, that they love bracelets earrings and rings better than the lover that sendeth them; God will not be so loved; for that were to behave as harlots and not as the chaste spouse, to abate from our love when these things are pulled away. Our love to Him should begin on earth as it shall be in heaven; for the bride taketh not by a thousand degrees so much delight in her wedding garment, as she doth in her bridegroom; so we in the life to come, howbeit clothed with glory as with a robe, shall not be so much affected with the glory that goeth about us, as with the bridegroom's joyful face and presence.