Lectionary Calendar
Thursday, July 17th, 2025
the Week of Proper 10 / Ordinary 15
the Week of Proper 10 / Ordinary 15
video advertismenet
advertisement
advertisement
advertisement
Attention!
Tired of seeing ads while studying? Now you can enjoy an "Ads Free" version of the site for as little as 10¢ a day and support a great cause!
Click here to learn more!
Click here to learn more!
Bible Commentaries
Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Meyer's Commentary
Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Bibliographical Information
Meyer, Heinrich. "Commentary on Mark 2". Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. https://studylight.org/commentaries/eng/hmc/mark-2.html. 1832.
Meyer, Heinrich. "Commentary on Mark 2". Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. https://studylight.org/
Whole Bible (51)New Testament (17)Gospels Only (6)Individual Books (14)
Introduction
CHAPTER 2
Mark 2:1 . The order εἰÏá¿Î»Î¸Îµ Ïαλιν (Fritzsche, Lachm. Scholz) would need to be adopted on decisive evidence. But Tischendorf has εἰÏελθὼν Ïάλιν without the subsequent καί , which Lachm. brackets. Rightly; the attestation by B D L × , min. vss. is sufficient; the Recepta is an attempt to facilitate the construction by resolving it.
Îµá¼°Ï Î¿á¼¶ÎºÎ¿Î½ Lachm. Tisch. have á¼Î½ οἴκῳ , following B D L × , min. An interpretation.
Mark 2:4 . á¼Ïʼ á¾§ ] Lachm.: á½ ÏÎ¿Ï , according to B D L × . So now also Tisch. Mechanical repetition from the foregoing.
Mark 2:5 . á¼ÏÎÏνÏαι ] B 28, 33 have á¼ÏίενÏαι . So Lachm. and Tisch. here and at Mark 2:9 (where also × has the same reading). But B has the same form at Matthew 9:2 . An emendation.
Elz. Scholz, Lachm. have Ïοὶ αἱ á¼Î¼Î±ÏÏίαι ÏÎ¿Ï , the latter bracketing ÏÎ¿Ï . But B D G L Î × , min. have ÏÎ¿Ï Î±á¼± á¼Î¼Î±ÏÏίαι (Griesb. Fritzsche, Tisch.). This reading is in Matthew 9:2 exposed to the suspicion of having been taken up from Mark 2:5 , where the Recepta has but very weak attestation, and from Matthew it passed easily over into our passage. There is the same diversity of reading also at Mark 2:9 , but with the authorities so divided that in Mark 2:5 and Mark 2:9 only the like reading is warranted.
Mark 2:7 . λαλελ βλαÏÏÎ·Î¼Î¯Î±Ï ] Lachm. Tisch. read λαλεῠ; βλαÏÏημεῠ, following B D L × , Vulg. It. Rightly; the Recepta has smoothed the expression in accordance with Luke.
Mark 2:8 . οá½ÏÏÏ ] is deleted by Lachm. upon too weak evidence.
αá½Ïοί is adopted after αá½ÏÏÏ by Bengel, Matt. Griesb. Fritzsche, Scholz on very considerable evidence (A C Î Î , etc.). Being unnecessary and not understood, it was passed over.
Mark 2:9 . á¼Î³ÎµÎ¹Ïε ] Elz. Rinck have á¼Î³ÎµÎ¹Ïαι (1st aorist middle). The former is here quite decisively attested, and, indeed, in all places á¼Î³ÎµÎ¹Ïε is to be written, the active form of which the transcribers did not understand (see on Matthew 9:5 ), and converted it into the middle forms á¼Î³ÎµÎ¹Ïαι and á¼Î³ÎµÎ¯ÏÎ¿Ï (B L 28 have here the latter form). The middle form á¼Î³ÎµÎ¯ÏεÏθε is in stated use only in the plural (Matthew 26:46 ; Mark 14:42 ; John 14:31 ), which affords no criterion for the singular.
After á¼Î³ÎµÎ¹Ïε Elz. Lachm. Tisch, have καί , which C D L, min. vss. omit. An addition in accordance with Matthew 9:5 ; Luke 5:23 .
Instead of ÏÎ¿Ï Ïὸν κÏαββ . we must read, with Lachm. Scholz, Tisch., in accordance with decisive testimony, Ïὸν ÎºÏ . ÏÎ¿Ï .
ÏαÏιÏάÏει ] Tisch. ed. 8 : á½Ïαγε , but against such decisive weight of evidence, that ÏεÏιÏάÏει is not to be regarded as derived from the parallel passages, but á½Ïαγε is to be referred to a gloss from Mark 2:11 .
Mark 2:10 . Elz. has á¼Ïá½¶ Ïá¿Ï γá¿Ï after á¼ÏιÎναι . So A E F G al. But B has á¼Ï . á¼Î¼ . á¼Ïá½¶ Ï . γ .; C D L M Î × , al. min. vss. have á¼Ïá½¶ Ï . γ . á¼Ï . á¼Î¼ . So Griesb. Fritzsche, Lachm. Scholz, Tisch. Exodus 8:0 . The latter is a reading conformed to Matthew and Luke. The various readings have arisen through omission (Augustine) and diversity in the restoration of á¼Ïá½¶ Ï . γ . The Recepta is to be restored, as there was no reason, either in the passage itself or from the parallel passages, for separating á¼ÏιÎναι and á¼Î¼Î±ÏÏÎ¹Î±Ï from one another by the insertion of á¼Ïá½¶ Ï . γ .
Mark 2:15 . The reading κ . γίνεÏαι καÏακεá¿Ïθαι (Tisch.) is based on B L × , and is to be preferred; á¼Î³ÎνεÏο is from Matthew, and á¼Î½ Ïá¿· is explanatory.
Mark 2:16 . κ . οἱ γÏαμμ . κ . οἱ ΦαÏÎ¹Ï .] Tisch.: κ . γÏαμμαÏεá¿Ï Ïῶν ΦαÏιÏαίÏν , following B L Î × , Lachm. in the margin. Rightly; the Recepta arose from the usual expression. But we are not, with Tisch. (following the same testimony), to insert καί before ἰδÏνÏÎµÏ , as this καί owes its origin to the erroneous connection of καὶ γÏαμμ . with ἠκολοÏθ ).
The simple á½ Ïι (Tisch.), instead of Ïί á½ Ïι , is too feebly attested.
καὶ Ïίνει ] is wanting, no doubt, in B D × , min. Cant. Verc. 2 :Corb. 2 (bracketed by Lachm.), but was omitted on account of Matthew 9:11 , from which place, moreover, C L D × , min. vss. Fathers have added ὠδιδάÏÎºÎ±Î»Î¿Ï á½Î¼á¿¶Î½ .
Mark 2:17 . After á¼Î¼Î±ÏÏ . Elz. has Îµá¼°Ï Î¼ÎµÏάνοιαν , which on decisive testimony is deleted as an addition from Luke 5:32 by Griesb. and the later editors.
Mark 2:18 . Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Tisch. Fritzsche have rightly adopted οἱ ΦαÏιÏαá¿Î¿Î¹ instead of the Recepta οἱ Ïῶν ΦαÏιÏαίÏν . The former has decisive testimony in its favour, the latter is from Luke 5:33 .
οἱ Ïῶν ] Tisch.: οἱ μαθηÏαὶ Ïῶν , following B C * L × , 33. Rightly; the superfluous word was passed over.
Mark 2:20 . Instead of the Recepta á¼ÎºÎµÎ¯Î½Î±Î¹Ï Ïαá¿Ï ἡμÎÏÎ±Î¹Ï (which Fritzsche maintains), á¼ÎºÎµÎ¯Î½á¿ ÏῠἡμÎÏá¾³ is received by Griesb. Lachm. Scholz, Tisch. according to decisive evidence. The plural is from what precedes.
Mark 2:21 . The Recepta is καὶ οá½Î´ÎµÎ¯Ï , against decisive witnesses, which have not καί .
á¼Ïá½¶ ἱμαÏίῳ Ïαλαιῷ ] Lachm. and Tisch.: á¼Ïá½¶ ἱμάÏιον ÏαλαιÏν , according to B C D L × , 33. Rightly; it was altered in conformity with Matthew 9:16 .
αἴÏει Ïὸ ÏλήÏÏμα αá½Ïοῦ Ïὸ καινὸν Ïοῦ Ïαλαιοῦ ] Many variations. A K Î , min. Syr. p.: αἴÏει á¼Ïʼ αá½Ïοῦ Ïὸ Ïλ . Ïὸ καινὸν Ïοῦ Ïαλ .; B L × (yet without the first ÏÏ ), min. Goth.: αἴÏει Ïὸ Ïλ . á¼Ïʼ αá½Ïοῦ (B: á¼Ïʼ á¼Î±Ï Ïοῦ ) Ïὸ καιν . Ïοῦ Ïαλ . (so Lachm. and Tisch.); D, min. vss.: αἴÏει Ïὸ Ïλ . Ïὸ καινὸν á¼Ïὸ Ïοῦ Ïαλ . (so Rinck). The Recepta is to be rejected no less than the reading of D, etc. Both are from Matthew. Of the two readings that still remain, that of A, etc. is to be preferred, because in that of Lachm. and Tisch. the collocation of αἴÏει Ïὸ Ïλ . likewise betrays its being shaped according to Matthew. Hence we read: αἴÏει á¼Ïʼ αá½Ïοῦ Ïὸ ÏλήÏÏμα Ïὸ καινὸν Ïοῦ Ïαλαιοῦ .
Mark 2:22 . ῥήÏÏει ] Lachm. ῥήξει , following B C D L × , 33, Vulg. codd. of It. So also Tisch. Exodus 8:0 . From Luke 5:37 , whence also subsequently has come ὠνÎÎ¿Ï , which Lachm. and Tisch. have deleted.
καὶ á½ Î¿á¼¶Î½Î¿Ï â¦ Î²Î»Î·ÏÎον ] Instead of this there is simply to be read, with Tisch., following B L D, codd. of It.: καὶ á½ Î¿á¼¶Î½Î¿Ï á¼ÏÏÎ»Î»Ï Ïαι καὶ οἱ á¼Ïκοί (B × leave out of á¼Î»Î»á½° κ . Ï . λ . only βληÏÎον ). The Recepta is from the parallels.
Mark 2:23 . ÏαÏαÏÎ¿Ï .] Lachm.: διαÏÎ¿Ï ., following B C D. But comp. Luke 6:1 .
á½Î´á½¸Î½ Ïοιεá¿Î½ Lachm.: á½Î´Î¿Ïοιεá¿Î½ , only after B G H.
Mark 2:24 . á¼Î½ ] is on decisive evidence condemned by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. From Mark 2:23 .
Mark 2:25 . αá½ÏÏÏ ] after the first καί is suspected by Griesb., bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Fritzsche and Tisch. It is wanting indeed in B C D L × , min. vss., but it was very easily mistaken in its reference, and passed over as cumbrous and superfluous, the more especially as it does not appear in the parallels.
Mark 2:26 . á¼Ïá½¶ á¼Î²Î¹Î¬Î¸Î±Ï Ïοῦ á¼ÏÏÎ¹ÎµÏ .] is wanting in D, 271, Song of Solomon 2:0 :Verc. Vind. Corb. 2. Condemned, after Beza, by Gratz (neuer Versuch, d. Entst. d. drei erst. Ev. z. erkl. p. 196), and Wassenbergh in Valckenaer, Schol. I. p. 23. An omission on account of the historical difficulty and the parallel passages. Only Ïοῦ before á¼ÏÏ . has decisive evidence against it, and is rightly deleted by Lachm. and Tisch.
Verses 1-12
Mark 2:1-12 . Comp. on Matthew 9:1-8 ; Luke 5:17-26 . At the foundation of both lies the narrative of Mark, which they follow, however, with freedom (Matthew more by way of epitome), while not only Matthew but Luke also falls short of the vivid directness of Mark.
According to the reading εἰÏελθÏν (see the critical remarks), this participle must be taken as anacoluthic in accordance with the conception of the logical subject of the following: it was heard that He , etc. See Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 256 [E. T. 298].
διʼ ἡμεÏῶν ] interjectis diebus , after the lapse of intervening days. See on Galatians 2:1 .
Îµá¼°Ï Î¿á¼¶ÎºÎ¿Î½ á¼ÏÏι ] just our: “He is into the house.” The verb of rest assumes the previous motion; Mark 13:16 ; John 1:18 ; Herod, i. 21, al. See Buttmann, p. 286 [E. T. 333]. Comp. even Îµá¼°Ï Î´ÏÎ¼Î¿Ï Ï Î¼Îνειν , Soph. Aj. 80, and Lobeck in loc. ; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. 537. The house where Jesus dwelt is meant (but not expressly designated, which would have required the use of the article).
Mark 2:2 . μηκÎÏι ] from the conception of the increasing crowd.
μηδΠ] not even the space at the door, to say nothing of the house. Köstlin, p. 339, arbitrarily finds exaggeration here.
Ïὸν λÏγον ] καÏʼ á¼Î¾Î¿Ïήν : the Gospel. Comp. Mark 8:32 ; Luke 1:2 , al.
Mark 2:3-4 . Here also Mark has the advantage of special vividness. Jesus is to be conceived of as in the upper chamber , á½ÏεÏῷον (where the Rabbins also frequently taught, Lightfoot in loc. ; Vitringa, Synag. p. 145 f.). Now, as the bearers could not bring the sick man near [61] to Him through the interior of the house by reason of the throng, they mounted by the stair, which led directly from the street to the roof, up to the latter, broke up at the spot under which He was in the á½Î ÎΡῷÎÎ the material of which the floor of the roof consisted, and let down the sick man through the opening thus made. The conception that Jesus was in the vestibule , and that the sick man was lowered down to Him after breaking off the parapet of the roof (Faber, Jahn, Köster, Imman. p. 166), is at variance with the words ( á¼Î ÎΣΤÎÎÎΣÎΠΤá¿Î ΣΤÎÎÎÎ , comp. Luke 5:19 ), and is not required by Mark 2:2 , where the crowd has filled the fore-court because the house itself, where Jesus is tarrying, is already occupied (see above on μηδΠ, Mark 2:2 ); and a curious crowd is wont, if its closer approach is already precluded, to persevere stedfastly in its waiting, even at a distance, in the hope of some satisfaction. Moreover, the fact of the unroofing is a proof that in that house roof and upper chamber were either not connected by a door (comp. Joseph. Antt. xiv. 15. 12), or that the door was too narrow for the passage of the sick man upon his bed (Hug, Gutacht. II. p. 23); and it is contrary to the simple words to conceive, with Lightfoot and Olshausen, only of a widening of an already existing doorway. Mark is not at variance with Luke (Strauss), but both describe the same proceeding; and the transaction related by both bears in its very peculiarity the stamp of truth, in favour of which in the case of Mark the testimony of Peter is to be presumed, and against which the assertion of the danger to those who were standing below (Woolston, Strauss, Bruno Bauer) is of the less consequence, as the lifting up of the pieces of roofing is conceivable enough without the incurring of that risk, and the whole proceeding, amidst the eager hurry of the people to render possible that which otherwise was unattainable, in spite of all its strangeness has no intrinsic improbability.
As to κÏάββαÏÎ¿Ï , or ÎΡÎÎÎΤÎÏ , or ÎΡÎÎÎΤΤÎÏ (Lachmann and Tischendorf), a couch-bed , a word rejected by the Atticists, see Sturz, Dial. Mac. p. 175 f.; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 62 f.
á¼ÏÎÏνÏαι κ . Ï . λ .] See on Matthew 9:2 .
Mark 2:6 . Ïῶν γÏÎ±Î¼Î¼Î±Ï .] So correctly also Matthew. But Luke introduces already here (too early, see in Mark 2:16 ) the Pharisees as well. As to διαλογιζ . comp. on Matthew 16:7 .
Mark 2:7 . According to the reading βλαÏÏημεῠ(see the critical remarks), this word answers to the question, What speaketh this man thus ? by saying what He speaks.
Îá½Î¤ÎÏ Îá½Î¤Î© ] this man in this manner, an emphatic juxtaposition. The former is contemptuous (Matthew 13:54 ); the latter designates the special and surprising manner, which is immediately pointed out in what follows.
Mark 2:8 . Observe the intentional bringing into prominence of the immediate knowledge of the thoughts.
Îá½Î¤ÎÎ ] is not the unaccented they , but designates with á¼Î½ á¼Î±Ï Ïοá¿Ï , ipsi in semet ipsis , the element of self-origination , the cogitationes sua sponte conceptas .
As to Mark 2:9-12 , [62] see on Matthew 9:5-8 ; Matthew 9:33 .
Ïοὶ λÎÎ³Ï ] Ïοί prefixed with emphasis, because the speaker now turns to the sick man. Comp. Luke 5:24 . According to Hilgenfeld, the “awkward structure of the sentence,” Mark 2:10 f., betrays the dependence on Matthew 9:6 . Why, then, not the converse?
καὶ á¾ÏÎ±Ï Îº . Ï . λ .] Thus the assurance of the remission of sins, according to Schenkel, must have stimulated the paralyzed elasticity of the nerves ! A fancy substituted for the miracle.
οá½ÏÏÏ â¦ Îµá¼´Î´Î¿Î¼ÎµÎ½ ] not equivalent to ÏοιοῦÏο εἴδ . (see on Matthew 9:33 ), but: so we have never seen , i.e. a sight in such a fashion we have never met with. Comp. the frequent á½¡Ï á½Ïá¾¶Ïε . It is not even requisite to supply Ïί (Fritzsche), to say nothing of mentally adding the manifestation of the kingdom of God , or the like.
[61] Î ÏοÏεγγίÏαι , active (Aquila, 1 Samuel 30:7 ; Lucian, Amor. 53), hence the reading of Tischendorf, ÏÏοÏενÎγκαι , following B L × , min. vss., is a correct interpretation of the word, which only occurs here in the N. T. This view is more in keeping with the vivid description than the usual intransitive accedere.
[62] Respecting the Messianic designation which presupposes Messianic consciousness coming from the mouth of Jesus: á½ Ï á¼±á½¸Ï Ïοῦ á¼Î½Î¸ÏÏÏÎ¿Ï , see on Matthew 8:20 , and the critical exposition of the different views by Holtzmann in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1865, p. 212 ff., and Weizsäcker, p. 426 ff. Observe, however, that the passage before us, where Jesus thus early and in the face of His enemies, before the people and before His disciples, and in the exercise of a divine plenary power, characterizes Himself by this Danielic appellation, does not admit of the set purpose of veiling that has been ascribed to His use of it (Ritschl, Weisse, Colani, Holtzmann, and others). For the disciple especially the expression, confirmed as it is, moreover, by John from his own lively recollection (see on John 1:41 ), could not but be from the outset clear and unambiguous, and the confession of Peter cannot be regarded as the gradually ripened fruit of the insight now for the first time dawning. See on Matthew 16:13 ; Matthew 16:17 . How correctly, moreover, the people knew how to apprehend the Danielic designation of the Messiah, is clearly apparent from John 12:34 .
Verses 13-17
Mark 2:13-17 . See on Matthew 9:9-13 ; Luke 5:27-32 . Matthew deals with this in the way of abridgment, but he has, nevertheless, retained at the end of the narrative the highly appropriate quotation from Hosea 6:6 (which Luke, following Mark, has not ), as an original element from the collection of Logia .
á¼Î¾á¿Î»Î¸Îµ ] out of Capernaum. Comp. Mark 2:1 .
Ïάλιν ] looks back to Mark 1:16 .
Mark has peculiar to himself the statements ÏαÏá½° Ï . θάλαÏÏαν as far as á¼Î´Î¯Î´Î±Ïκεν αá½ÏοÏÏ , but it is arbitrary to refer them to his subjective conception (de Wette, comp. Köstlin, p. 335).
Mark 2:14 . ÏαÏάγÏν ] in passing along , namely, by the sea, by the place where Levi sat. Comp. Mark 2:16 .
On Levi ( i.e. Matthew) and Alphaeus , who is not to be identified with the father of James, [63] see Introd. to Matthew, § 1. Hilgenfeld, in his Zeitschr. 1864, p. 301 f., tries by arbitrary expedients to make out that Levi was not an apostle.
Mark 2:15 . á¼Î½ Ïῠοἰκίᾳ αá½Ïοῦ ] is understood by the expositors of the house of Levi. [64] Comp. Vulg.: “in domo illius. ” In itself this is possible, but even in itself improbable, since by αá½ÏÏν just before Jesus was meant; and it is to be rejected, because subsequently it is said of those who sat at meat with Him, just as it was previously of Levi : ἠκολοÏθηÏαν αá½Ïá¿· . Moreover, the absolute καλÎÏαι ( to invite ), Mark 2:17 , which Matthew and Mark have, while Luke adds Îµá¼°Ï Î¼ÎµÏάνοιαν , appears as a thoughtful reference to the host , the καλεá¿Î½ on whose part will transplant into the saving fellowship of His kingdom. Accordingly, the account in Matthew (see on Matthew 9:10 ) has rightly taken up Mark’s account which lies at its foundation, but Luke has not (Mark 5:29 ). It is not indeed expressly said in our text that Jesus went again into the city; this is nevertheless indirectly evident from the progress of the narrative ( ÏαÏάγÏν .⦠ἠκολοÏθηÏαν αá½Ïá¿· .⦠καÏακεá¿Ïθαι κ . Ï . λ .).
ἦÏαν Î³á½°Ï Ïολλοὶ κ . Ï . λ .] A statement serving to elucidate the expression just used: Ïολλοὶ Ïελῶναι κ . Ï . λ ., and in such a way that ἦÏαν is prefixed with emphasis: for there were many ( Ïελ . κ . á¼Î¼Î±ÏÏ .); there was no lack of a multitude of such people, and they followed after Jesus. Against the explanation of Kuinoel, Fritzsche, de Wette, Bleek: aderant , it may be at once decisively urged that such an illustrative statement would be unmeaning, and that ἠκολοÏθηÏαν may not be turned into a pluperfect. And mentally to supply with ἦÏαν , as Bleek does: at the calling of Levi , is erroneous, because the narrative lies quite beyond this point of time.
Mark 2:16 . The corrected reading (see the critical remarks) is to be explained: and Pharisaic scribes when they saw , etc., said to His disciples . To attach this κ . γÏαμμ . Ï . ΦαÏÎ¹Ï . to the previous ἠκολοÏθ . (Tischendorf) is unsuitable, because ἦÏαν Î³á½°Ï Ïολλοί , taken by itself alone, would be absolutely pleonastic, and because ἠκολοÏθ ., in accordance with the context, can only mean the following of adherents .
Respecting ἰδÏνÏÎµÏ Îº . Ï . λ ., comp. on Matthew 9:11 . Here the direct seeing (coming to Him) of the γÏÎ±Î¼Î¼Î±Ï . is meant, not: cum intelligerent (Grotius and others, de Wette).
Ïί á½ Ïι ] quid est, quod , so that there needs to be supplied after Ïί , not γÎγονεν (Schaefer, ad Bos. Ell. p. 591), but the simple á¼ÏÏί . Comp. Luke 2:49 ; Acts 5:4 ; Acts 5:9 .
[63] A confusion that actually arose in very early times, which had as its consequence the reading ἸάκÏβον (instead of ÎÎµÏ Î¯Î½ ) in D, min., codd. in Or. and Vict. and codd. of It.
[64] Yet Bleek and Holtzmann have agreed with my view, and also Kahnis, Dogm. I. p. 409 f.
Verses 18-22
Mark 2:18-22 . See on Matthew 9:14-17 . Comp. Luke 5:33-38 .
καὶ ἦÏαν ⦠νηÏÏεÏονÏÎµÏ ] considered by Köstlin, p. 339, as meaningless and beside the question, is taken by the expositors as an “archaeological intimation” (de Wette, comp. Fritzsche). There is nothing to indicate its being so (how entirely different it is with Mark 7:3 f.!); we should at least expect with νηÏÏεÏονÏÎµÏ some such general addition as Ïολλά (Matthew 9:14 ). It is to be explained: And there were the disciples of John , etc., engaged in fasting (just at that time). This suggested their question. This view is followed also by Bleek and Holtzmann, the latter thinking, in the case of John’s disciples, of their fasting as mourners on account of the loss of their master, a view for which Mark 2:19 does not serve as proof.
á¼ÏÏονÏαι κ . Ï . λ .] Both , naturally by means of representatives from among them. The text does not yield anything else; so we are neither to understand the questioners of Mark 2:16 (Ewald, Hilgenfeld), nor mentally to supply ÏινÎÏ (Weisse, Wilke). In Matthew the disciples of John ask the question, and this is to be regarded as historically the case (see on Matthew 9:17 , Remark).
οἱ μαθηÏαὶ ἸÏÎ¬Î½Î½Î¿Ï Îº . Ï . λ .] Not inappropriate, but more definite and more suited to their party-interest than ἡμεá¿Ï (in opposition to de Wette).
Ïοί ] might be the dative (the disciples belonging to Thee), see Bernhardy, p. 89; Kühner, II. p. 249. But in accordance with the use frequent also in the N. T. of the emphatic ÏÏÏ , it is to be taken as its plural. Comp. Luke 5:33 .
Mark 2:19 . á½ Ïον ÏÏÏνον κ . Ï . λ .] superfluous in itself, but here suited to the solemn answer. Comp. Bornemann, Schol. in Luc. p. xxxix.
μεθʼ á¼Î±Ï Ïῶν ] in the midst of themselves .
Mark 2:20 . á¼Î½ á¼ÎºÎµÎ¯Î½á¿ ÏῠἡμÎÏá¾³ ] Not a negligence (de Wette) or impossibility of expression (Fritzsche), but: ÏÏÏε is the more general statement of time: then , when, namely, the case of the taking away shall have occurred, and á¼Î½ á¼ÎºÎµÎ¯Î½á¿ ÏῠἡμÎÏá¾³ , is the special definition of time subordinate to the ÏÏÏε : on that day , á¼ÎºÎµá¿Î½Î¿Ï having demonstrative force and consequently a tragic emphasis (on that atra dies !). Comp. Bernhardy, p. 279. If the plural were again used, the time previously designated by á¼Î»ÎµÏÏ . δὲ ἡμÎÏαι would be once more expressed on the whole and in general , and that likewise with solemnity, but not the definite particular day. Aptly, moreover, Bengel remarks: “Dies unus auferendi sponsi, dies multi ejusdem ablati et absentis.” The Lord from the beginning of His ministry had made Himself familiar with the certainty of a violent death. Comp. John 2:19 .
Mark 2:21 . εἰ δὲ μή ] In the contrary case , even after a negative clause, Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 336 [E. T. 392], and see on 2 Corinthians 11:16 .
The correct reading: αἴÏει á¼Ïʼ αá½Ïοῦ Ïὸ ÏλήÏÏμα Ïὸ καινὸν Ïοῦ Ïαλαιοῦ (see the critical remarks), is to be explained: the new patch of the old (garment) breaks away from it . See on Matthew 9:16 f. The Recepta signifies: his new patch (that which is put on by him) breaks away from the old garment . According to Ewald, αἱÏεῠá¼Ïʼ á¼Î±Ï Ïοῦ ought to be read (following B, which, however, has the á¼Ïʼ á¼Î±Ï Ïοῦ after Ïὸ ÏλήÏÏμα ), and this is to be interpreted: “thus the new filling up of the old becomes of itself stronger.” He compares the phrase ὠλÏÎ³Î¿Ï Î±á¼±Ïεῠ( ratio evincit , Polyb. vi. 5. 5; comp. also Herod. ii. 33; Plat. Crit. p. 48 C, al. ), the meaning of which (reason teaches it ) is, however, here foreign to the subject.
Mark 2:22 . A combination from Matthew and Luke is here contained only in the interpolated Recepta . See the critical remarks.
As to the form ῥήÏÏÏ instead of á¿¥Î®Î³Î½Ï Î¼Î¹ , see Ruhnken, Ep. crit. I. p. 26.
Verses 23-28
Mark 2:23-28 . See on Matthew 12:1-8 . Comp. Luke 6:1-5 , who follows Mark in the order of events, which in Matthew is different.
ÏαÏαÏοÏεÏεÏθαι ] not: to walk on, ambulare (Vulgate, Luther, and many others, including de Wette), so that ÏαÏά would refer indefinitely to other objects, but to pass along by . Comp. Matthew 27:39 ; Mark 11:20 ; Mark 15:29 . Jesus passed through the corn-fields alongside of these , so that the way that passed through the fields led Him on both sides along by them. Just so Mark 9:30 , and Deuteronomy 2:4 .
á½Î´á½¸Î½ Ïοιεá¿Î½ κ . Ï . λ .] is usually explained as though it stood: á½Î´á½¸Î½ ÏοιοÏμενοι Ïίλλειν ÏÎ¿á½ºÏ ÏÏάÏÏ Î±Ï , to pluck the ears of corn as they went . Against the mode of expression, according to which the main idea lies in the participial definition (see Hermann, ad Aj. 1113; Electr. 1305; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Gorg. p. 136; Phil. p. 58), there would be in itself nothing, according to classical examples, to object; but in the N. T. this mode of expression does not occur (Winer, p. 316 [E. T. 443 f.]), and here in particular the active Ïοιεá¿Î½ is opposed to it, since á½Î´á½¸Î½ Ïοιεá¿Î½ is always viam sternere , and á½Î´á½¸Î½ Ïοιεá¿Ïθαι (as also ÏοÏείαν Ïοιεá¿Ïθαι ) is iter facere . See Viger. ed. Herm. p. 116; Kypke, I. p. 154; Krebs, p. 81; Winer, p. 228 [E. T. 320]. Comp. also á½Î´Î¿Ïοιεá¿Î½ (Xen. Anab. v. 1. 14; Dem. 1274, 26, frequently in the LXX.) and á½Î´á½¸Î½ á½Î´Î¿Ïοιεá¿Î½ ; Kühner, ad Xen. Anab. iv. 8. 8. The assumption that Mark had missed this distinction is wholly without exegetical warrant, as is also the recourse to a Latinism (Krebs). The only correct explanation is: they began to make a way (to open a path) by plucking the ears of corn ; not, as Bretschneider and Fritzsche alter the meaning of the words: “evellisse spicas et factum esse, ut projectis, quum iis essent demta grana, spicis exprimeretur via .” We must rather conceive of the field-path on which they are walking perhaps at a place where it leads through a field of corn which it intersects as overgrown with ears, so that they must of necessity, in order to continue their journey, make a path , which they do by plucking the ears of corn that stand in their way. According to Matthew and Luke, the chief point lies in the fact that the disciples pluck the ears and eat them; and the Pharisees find fault with their doing this which in itself is allowable on the Sabbath . According to Mark, however, who has not a word [65] of the disciples eating, their act consists in this, that by the plucking of the ears of corn they open a way through the field ; and the Pharisees, Mark 2:24 , find fault that they do that, which in itself is already unallowable , [66] on the Sabbath . The justification of Jesus amounts then, Mark 2:25 ff., to the two points: (1) that according to David’s precedent the proceeding of the disciples, as enjoined by necessity , is by no means unallowable ; and (2) that the Sabbath makes no difference in the matter.
The origin of this difference itself is easily explained from the fact, that Jesus adduces the history of the eating of the shew-bread, by means of which also the eating of the ears of corn came into the tradition of this incident. Mark betrays by his á½Î´á½¸Î½ Ïοιεá¿Î½ abandoned by Matthew and Luke, and by the less obvious connection of it with the eating of the shew-bread, the original narrative, which perhaps proceeded from Peter himself.
ÏÎ¿á½ºÏ ÏÏάÏÏ Î±Ï ] the article designates the ears of corn that stood in the way .
Mark 2:24 . They do not ask, as in Matthew and Luke, why the disciples do what is unallowable on the Sabbath, but why they do on the Sabbath something (already in itself) unallowable .
Mark 2:25 . αá½ÏÏÏ ] and He on His part , replying to them. He put a counter-question .
á½ Ïε ÏÏείαν á¼ÏÏε ] In this lies the analogy. The disciples also were by the circumstances compelled to the course which they took. The demonstrative force of this citation depends upon a conclusion a majori ad minus . David in a case of necessity dealt apparently unlawfully even with the shew-bread of the temple, which is yet far less lawful to be touched than the ears of grain in general.
Mark 2:26 . á¼Ïá½¶ á¼Î²Î¹Î¬Î¸Î±Ï Ïοῦ á¼ÏÏÎ¹ÎµÏ .] tempore Abiatharis pontificis maximi, i.e. under the pontificate of Abiathar. Comp. Luke 3:2 ; Matthew 1:11 . According to 1 Samuel 21:1 ff., indeed, the high priest at that time was not Abiathar, but his father (1 Samuel 22:20 ; Joseph. Antt. vi. 12. 6) Aḥimelech . Mark has erroneously confounded these two, which might the more easily occur from the remembrance of David’s friendship with Abiathar (1 Samuel 22:20 ff.). See Korb in Winer’s krit. Journ. IV. p. 295 ff.; Paulus, Fritzsche, de Wette, Bleek. The supposition that father and son both had both names (Victor Antiochenus, Euthymius Zigabenus, Theophylact, Beza, Jansen, Heumann, Kuinoel, and many others), is only apparently supported by 2 Samuel 8:17 , 1 Chronicles 18:16 , comp. 1Ch 24:6 ; 1 Chronicles 24:31 ; as even apart from the fact that these passages manifestly contain an erroneous statement (comp. Thenius on 2 Sam. l.c. ; Bertheau judges otherwise, d. Bücher der Chron. p. 181 f.), the reference of our quotation applies to no other passage than to 1 Samuel 21:0 . Grotius thought that the son had been the substitute of the father. Recourse has been had with equally ill success to a different interpretation of á¼Ïί ; for, if it is assumed to be coram (Wetstein, Scholz), 1 Sam. l.c. stands historically opposed to it; but if it is held to mean: in the passage concerning Abiathar , i.e. there, where he is spoken of (Mark 12:26 ; Luke 20:37 ), it is opposed by the same historical authority, and by the consideration that the words do not stand immediately after á¼Î½ÎγνÏÏε (in opposition to Michaelis and Saunier, Quellen d. Mark. p. 58).
Mark 2:27 f. καὶ á¼Î»ÎµÎ³ . αá½Ïοá¿Ï ] frequently used for the introduction of a further important utterance of the same subject who is speaking; Bengel: “Sermonem iterum exorsus.” Comp. Mark 4:9 . As Jesus has hitherto refuted the reproach conveyed in ὠοá½Îº á¼Î¾ÎµÏÏι , Mark 2:24 , He now also refutes the censure expressed by á¼Î½ Ïοá¿Ï ÏάββαÏιν , Mark 2:24 . Namely: as the Sabbath has been made (brought into existence, i.e. ordained) for the sake of man , namely, as a means for his highest moral ends (Genesis 2:3 ; Exodus 20:8 ff.), not man for the sake of the Sabbath , [67] it follows thence: the Messiah has to rule even over the Sabbath , so that thus the disciples, who as my disciples have acted under my permission, cannot be affected by any reproach in respect of the Sabbath. The inference á½¥ÏÏε depends on the fact that the Ï á¼±á½¸Ï Ïοῦ á¼Î½Î¸ÏÏÏÎ¿Ï , i.e. the Messiah (not with Grotius and Fritzsche to be taken as man in general), is held ex concesso as the representative head of humanity. [68] On the mode of inference in general, comp. 1 Corinthians 11:9 ; 2Ma 5:19 .
κÏÏÎ¹Î¿Ï ] emphatically at the beginning: is not dependent, but Lord , [69] etc.; whereby, however, is expressed not the prerogative of absolute abolition (see against this Matthew 5:17 ff., and the idea of the ÏλήÏÏÏÎ¹Ï of the law makes its appearance even in Mark 7:15 ff; Mark 10:5 ff; Mark 12:28 ff.), but the power of putting in the place of the external statutory Sabbath observance while giving up the latter something higher in keeping with the idea of the Sabbath, wherein lies the ÏλήÏÏÏÎ¹Ï of the Sabbath-law. Comp. Lechler in the Stud. u. Krit. 1854, p. 811; Weizsäcker, p. 391.
καί ] also , along with other portions of His ÎºÏ ÏιÏÏÎ·Ï .
[65] Mark has been blamed on this account. See Fritzsche, p. 69. But the very evangelist, who knew how to narrate so vividly, should by no means have been charged with such an awkwardness as the omission of the essential feature of the connection which is just what the latest harmonizing avers. It ought to have been candidly noted that in Mark the object of the plucking of the ears is the á½Î´á½¸Î½ Ïοιεá¿Î½ ; while in Matthew it is the eating on account of hunger . The occasions of the necessity, in which the disciples were placed, are different : in the former case, the á½Î´Î¿ÏοÎα ; in the latter, the hunger.
[66] To this view Holtzmann and Hilgenfeld have acceded, as also Ritschl, altkath. K. p. 29; Schenkel, Charakterbild , p. 86; and as regards the á½Î´á½¸Î½ Ïοιεá¿Î½ in itself, also Lange. The defence of the usual explanation on the part of Krummel in the allgem. K. Zeit. 1864, No. 74, leaves the linguistic difficulty which stands in its way entirely unsolved. He should least of all have sought support from the reading of Lachmann ( á½Î´Î¿Ïοιεá¿Î½ ); for this also never means anything else than viam sternere , and even in the middle voice only means to make for oneself a path . Weiss ( Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1865, p. 363) calls my explanation “somewhat odd;” this, however, can matter nothing, if only it is linguistically correct, and the usual one linguistically erroneous.
[67] Comp. Mechilta in Exodus 31:13 : “Vobis sabbatum traditum est, et non vos traditi estis sabbato.” According to Baur, ver. 27 belongs to “the rational explanations,” which Mark is fond of prefixing by way of suggesting a motive for what is historically presented. To the same class he would assign Mark 9:39 , Mark 7:15 ff. Weizsäcker finds in the passage before us a later reflection. This would only be admissible, if the idea facilitated the concluding inference, which is not the case, and if Mark were not in this narrative generally so peculiar . The connecting link of the argumentation preserved by him might more easily have been omitted as something foreign, than have been added .
[68] For Him, as such, in the judgment to be formed of the obligatory force of legal ordinances, the regulative standard is just the relation, in which man as a moral end to himself stands to the law. Comp. Ritschl, altkathol. Kirche , p. 29 ff.
[69] With this the freedom of worship is given as well as assigned to its necessary limit , but not generally “ proclaimed ” (Schenkel).