Mar 1:1-4. As our canonical Matthew has a superscription of his first section, so also has Mark. This, however, does not embrace merely Mar 1:1, but ὡς γέγραπται … τὰς τρίβους αὐτοῦ belongs also to the superscription, so that with Mar 1:4 the section itself (which goes on to Mar 1:8, according to Ewald to Mar 1:15) begins. It is decisive in favour of this view, that with it there is nothing either to be supplied or to be put in parenthesis, and that it is in the highest degree appropriate not only to the simplicity of the style, but also to the peculiar historical standpoint of the author, seeing that he places the beginning of the Gospel, i.e. the first announcement of the message of salvation as to the Messiah having appeared-leaving out of view all the preliminary history in which this announcement was already included-in strictness only at the emergence of the Baptist; but for this, on account of the special importance of this initial point (and see also the remarks on Mar 1:21-28), he even, contrary to his custom, elsewhere appends a prophetic utterance, in conformity with which that ἀρχή took place in such a way and not otherwise than is related in Mar 1:4 ff. Moreover, in accordance with this, since the history of that ἀρχή itself does not begin till Mar 1:4, the want of a particle with ἐγένετο, Mar 1:4, is quite in order. Comp. Mat 1:2. If, with Fritzsche, Lachmann,[47] Hitzig, Holtzmann, we construe: ἈΡΧῊ … ἘΓΈΝΕΤΟ ἸΩΆΝΝΗς ΒΑΠΤΊΖΩΝ, then Ὡς ΓΈΓΡΑΠΤΑΙ Κ.Τ.Λ. becomes a parenthetical clause, in which case the importance of the Scripture proof has not due justice done to it, and the structure of the sentence becomes too complicated and clumsy for the simplicity of what follows. If we take merely Mar 1:1 as the superscription either of the first section only with Kuinoel and others, or of the entire Gospel with Erasmus, Bengel, Paulus, de Wette, and others, then ὡς γέγραπται becomes protasis of ἘΓΈΝΕΤΟ Κ.Τ.Λ., but thereby the citation, instead of being probative of the ἈΡΧΉ laid down by Mark, becomes a Scripture proof for the emergence of John in itself, and in that way loses its important bearing, seeing that this emergence in itself did not need any scriptural voucher at all, and would not have received any, in accordance with Mark’s abstinence from adducing Old Testament passages. Finally, if we supply after Mar 1:1 : ἦν, the beginning … was, as it stands written (Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Vatablus, Maldonatus, Jansen, Grotius, and others), doubtless the want of the article with ἀρχή is not against this course (see Winer, p. 113 [E. T. 154]), nor yet the want of a ΓΆΡ with ἘΓΈΝΕΤΟ-an asyndeton which would rather conduce to the lively impressiveness of the representation (comp. Joh 1:6); but it may well be urged that the supplying of ἮΝ is unnecessary, and even injurious to the vivid concrete representation. Moreover, in the very fact that Mark just commences his book with the emergence of the Baptist, there is ingenuously (without any purpose of contrast to other Gospels, without neutral tendency, or the like) exhibited the original type of the view which was taken of the Gospel history,-a type which again, after the terminus a quo had been extended in Matthew and Luke so as to embrace the preliminary histories, presents itself in John, inasmuch as the latter, after his general introduction and even in the course of it (Mar 1:6), makes his historical commencement with the emergence of the Baptist. Undoubtedly, traditions of the preliminary history were also known to Mark; in leaving them unnoticed he does not reject them, but still he does not find in them-lying as they do back in the gloom prior to the great all-significant epoch of the emergence of John-the ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγ.
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ] See on Mat 1:1. When the genitive with ΕὐΑΓΓ. is not a person, it is always genitive of the object, as εὐαγγ. τῆς βασιλείας, τῆς σωτηρίας κ.τ.λ. (Mat 4:23; Eph 1:13; Eph 6:15, al.). If Θεοῦ is associated therewith, it is the genitive of the subject (Mar 1:15; Rom 1:1; Rom 15:16, al.), as is the case also when μου stands with it (Rom 2:16; Rom 16:25; 1Th 1:5, al.). But if Χριστοῦ is associated therewith (Rom 1:9; Rom 15:19; 1Co 9:12, al.), it may be either the genitive subjecti (auctoris) or the genitive objecti, a point which must be determined entirely by the context. In this case it decides (see Mar 1:2-8) in favour of the latter. Taken as genitive subjecti (Ewald: “how Christ began to preach the gospel of God”), τοῦ εὐαγγ. Ἰ. Χ. would have reference to Mar 1:14 f.; but in that case the non-originality of Mar 1:2-3 is presupposed.
ΥἹΟῦ Τ. ΘΕΟῦ] not as in Mat 1:1, because Mark had primarily in his view Gentile-Christian readers;[48] see Introd. § 3. This designation of the Messiah is used in the believing consciousness of the metaphysical sonship of God (comp. on Mat 3:17), and that in the Pauline and Petrine sense (see on Matt. p. 65 f.). The supernatural generation is by ΥἹΟῦ Τ. ΘΕΟῦ neither assumed (Hilgenfeld) nor excluded (Köstlin); even Mar 6:3 proves nothing.
ἘΝ ἩΣΑΐΑ] The following quotation combines Mal 3:1 and Isa 40:3. In this case, instead of all sorts of hypotheses (see them in Fritzsche), we must abide by the simple admission, that by a mistake of memory (of which, indeed, Porphyry made a bitter use, see Jerome, ad Mat 3:3) Mark thought of the whole of the words as to be found in Isaiah,-a mistake which, considering the affinity of the contents of the two sayings, and the prevalence of their use and their interpretation, is all the more conceivable, as Isaiah was “copiosior et notior” (Bengel). A different judgment would have to be formed, if the passage of Isaiah stood first (see Surenhusius, καταλλ. p. 45). Mat 27:9 was a similar error of memory. According to Hengstenberg, Christol. III. p. 664, Mark has ascribed the entire passage to Isaiah, because Isaiah is the auctor primarius, to whom Malachi is related only as auctor secundarius, as expositor. A process of reflection is thus imputed to the evangelist, in which, moreover, it would be sufficiently strange that he should not have placed first the utterance of the auctor primarius, which is held to be commented on by that of the minor prophet.
As to the two passages themselves, see on Mat 3:3; Mat 11:10. The essential agreement in form of the first citation with Mat 11:10 cannot be used, in determining to which of the two evangelists the priority is due, as a means of proof (Anger and others, in favour of Matthew; Ritschl and others, in favour of Mark); it can only be used as a ground of confirmation, after a decision of this question has been otherwise arrived at. Just as little does the quotation form a proof for a primitive-Mark, in which, according to Holtzmann and others, it is alleged not to have held a place at all.
ἘΓΈΝΕΤΟ] might be connected with βαπτίζων (Erasmus, Beza, Grotius, Kuinoel, and others), see Heindorf, ad Plat. Soph. p. 273 f.; Lobeck, ad Aj. 588; Kühner, II. p. 40. But the mention of the emergence of the Baptist is in keeping with the beginning of the history.[49] Hence: there appeared John, baptizing in the desert. Comp. Joh 1:6; 1Jn 2:18; 2Pe 2:1; Xen. Anab. iii. 4. 49, iv. 3. 29, al. Comp. ΠΑΡΑΓΊΝΕΤΑΙ, Mat 3:1, and on Php 2:7. As to the desert (the well-known desert), see on Mat 3:1.
ΒΆΠΤΙΣΜΑ ΜΕΤΑΝΟΊΑς] a baptism involving an obligation to repentance (see on Mat 3:2), genitive of the characteristic quality.
εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτ.] Comp. Luk 3:3. The aim of this baptism, in order that men, prepared for the purpose by the μετάνοια, should receive forgiveness of sins from the Messiah. Comp. Euthymius Zigabenus. This is not an addition derived from a later Christian view (de Wette, comp. Weiss in the Stud. u. Krit. 1861, p. 61), but neither is it to be taken in such a sense as that John’s baptism itself secured the forgiveness (Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. p. 606; Ewald). This baptism could, through its reference to the Mediator of the forgiveness who was approaching (Joh 1:29; Joh 1:33; Joh 3:5; Act 2:38), give to those, who allowed themselves to be baptized and thereby undertook the obligation to repentance, the certain prospect of the ἄφεσις which was to be received only through Christ-promising, but not imparting it. Matthew has not the words, the passing over of which betrays an exercise of reflection upon the difference between John’s and the Christian baptism.
[47] The conjecture of Lachmann (Stud. u. Krit. 1830, p. 84, and praefat. II. p. vi.), that vv. 2, 3 are a later interpolation, is critically quite unwarranted. According to Ewald and Weizsäcker, p. 105, ver. 2 f. is not from the hand of the first author, but is inserted by the second editor; in opposition to which, nevertheless, it is to be remarked that similar O. T. insertions, which might proceed from a second hand, are not found elsewhere in our Gospel. According to Holtzmann, p. 261, only the citation from Isaiah appeared in the primitive-Mark, and the evangelist further added the familiar passage of Malachi. In this way at all events,-as he allowed simply ἐν Ἡσαΐᾳ to stand,-he would have appropriated to Isaiah what belongs to Malachi; and the difficulty would remain unsolved. There is therefore no call for the appeal to the primitive-Mark.
[48] The absence of υἱοῦ τ. Θεοῦ in א, two min., and some Fathers (including Iren. and Or.) has not so much critical importance as to warrant the deletion of these words by Tischendorf (ed. maj. viii.). In his Synopsis, Tischendorf had still rightly preserved them. The omission of them has just as little dogmatical reason as the addition would have had. But ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγ, as in itself a complete idea, was taken together with the following ὡς γέγρ; and thence all the genitives, Ἰ. Χ. ὑ. τ. Θ., which could be dispensed with, were passed over the more readily by reason of the homoeoteleuta. So still in Ir. int. and Epiph. Others allowed at least Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ to remain, or restored these words Besides, υἱοῦ τ. Θεοῦ is precisely so characteristic of Mark’s Gospel in contradistinction to that of Matthew, that it could scarcely proceed from a transcriber, as, in fact, the very oldest vss. (and indeed all vss.) have read it; for which reason merely a sporadic diffusion is to be assigned to the reading without υἱοῦ τ. Θεοῦ.
[49] Ewald (comp. Hitzig) connects ἐγένετο with κηρύσσων, reading ὁ βαπτίζων in accordance with B L Δ א (comp. Mar 6:14), and omitting the subsequent καί with B, min. “John the Baptist was just preaching,” etc. The critical witnesses for these readings are not the same, and not sufficiently strong; there has evidently been an alteration in accordance with Mat 3:1. Tischendorf has rightly reverted to the Recepta.
Mar 1:5-8. See on Mat 3:4-5; Mat 3:11; Luk 3:7 ff. Matthew enters more into detail on John the Baptist; Mark has several particulars in a form more original.
πᾶσα ἡ Ἰουδ. κ.τ.λ.] Ἰουδ. is an adjective (see on Joh 3:22), and χώρα is in contrast to the metropolis (see on Joh 11:54 f.), the whole Judaean region, and the people of Jerusalem collectively. In πᾶσα and πάντες there is a popular hyperbole.
Mar 1:6. Instead of ἐσθίων, we must write, with Tischendorf, ἔσθων.[50]
Mar 1:7. ἔρχεται] present: “ut Christum intelligas jam fuisse in via,” Beza.
κύψας] belongs to the graphic character of Mark, whose delineation is here certainly more original than that of Matthew.
ἘΝ ΠΝΕΎΜ. ἉΓΊῼ] The fire, which Matthew (and Luke also) has in the connection of his more comprehensive narrative, is not yet mentioned here, and thus there is wanting a characteristic point, which, nevertheless, appears not to be original. Comp. Joh 1:33 (in opposition to Ewald, Köstlin, Holtzmann, and others). It would not have been “abrupt” (Holtzmann) even in Mark.
[50] See on this poetical form, which occurs also in the LXX. and Apocrypha, Duncan, Lex., ed. Rost, p. 457; Winer, p. 79 [E. T. 105]; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 51 [E. T. 58]. Also at Mar 12:40, Luk 7:33 f., Luk 10:7, Luk 22:30, this form is to be read.
Mar 1:9-11. See on Mat 3:13-17; Luk 3:21 f.
εἰς τὸν Ἰορδάνην] Conception of immersion. Not so elsewhere in the N. T.
εὐθύς] usual form in Mark; we must, with Tischendorf, read it here also. It belongs to ἀναβ.: immediately (after He was baptized) coming up. A hyperbaton (Fritzsche refers εὐθ. to εἶδε) just as little occurs here as at Mat 3:16.
εἶδε] Jesus, to whom also ἐπʼ αὐτόν refers (see on Matt. l.c.). Mark harmonizes with Matthew (in opposition to Strauss, Weisse, de Wette), who gives a further development of the history of the baptism, but whose ἀνεῴχθησαν αὐτῷ οἱ οὐρ. presents itself in Mark under a more directly definite form. In opposition to the context, Erasmus, Beza, Heumann, Ebrard, and others hold that John is the subject.
σχιζομένους, conveying a more vivid sensuous impression than Matthew and Luke.
Lange’s poetically naturalizing process of explaining (L. J. II. 1, p. 182 ff.) the phenomena at the baptism of Jesus is pure fancy when confronted with the clearness and simplicity of the text. He transforms the voice into the sense of God on Christ’s part; with which all the chords of His life, even of His life of hearing, had sounded in unison, and the voice had communicated itself sympathetically to John also. The dove which John saw is held to have been the hovering of a mysterious splendour, namely, a now manifested adjustment of the life of Christ with the higher world of light; the stars withal came forth in the dark blue sky, festally wreathing the earth (the opened heaven). All the more jejune is the naturalizing of Schenkel: that at the Jordan for the first time the divine destiny of Jesus dawned before His soul like a silver gleam from above, etc. See, moreover, the Remark subjoined to Mat 3:17.
Mar 1:12-13. See on Mat 4:1-11; Luk 4:1 ff.
ἐκβάλλει] He drives, urges Him forth; more graphic than the ἀνήχθη of Matthew and the ἤγετο of Luk 4:1. The sense of force and urgency is implied also in Mat 9:38. Observe the frequent use of the vividly realizing praesens historicus.
And He was there (ἐκεῖ, see the critical remarks) in the desert (whither the Spirit had driven Him), i.e. in that region of the desert, during forty days, being tempted by Satan,-a manifest difference of Mark (comp. also Luke) from Matthew, with whom it is not till after forty days that the temptations begin. Evasive interpretations are to be found in Krabbe, Ebrard, and others.
καὶ ἦν μετὰ τῶν θηρίων] and He was with the wild beasts. This is usually[51] taken as merely a graphic picture (according to de Wette: “a marvellous contrast” to the angels) of the awful solitude (Virg. Aen. iii. 646, and see Wetstein in loc.); but how remote would such a poetic representation be from the simple narrative! No, according to Mark, Jesus is to be conceived as really surrounded by the wild beasts of the desert. He is threatened in a twofold manner; Satan tempts Him, and the wild beasts encompass Him. The typical reference, according to which Christ is held to appear as the renewer of Paradise (Gen 1:26; Usteri in the Stud. u. Krit. 1834, p. 789; Gfrörer, Olshausen, comp. Bengel, and also Baur, Evang. pp. 540, 564; Hilgenfeld, Evang. p. 126; Schenkel, Holtzmann), is not indicated by anything in the text, and is foreign to it. The desert and the forty days remind us of Moses (Exo 24:18; Exo 34:28; Deu 9:9; Deu 9:18), not of Adam.
οἱ ἄγγελοι] The article denotes the category.
ΔΙΗΚΌΝΟΥΝ ΑὐΤῷ] There is no occasion at all, from the connection in Mark, to understand this of the ministering with food, as in Matthew; nor does the expression presuppose the representation of Matthew (Weiss). On the contrary, we must simply abide by the view that, according to Mark, is meant the help which gives protection against Satan and the wild beasts. There is in this respect also a difference from Matthew, that in the latter Gospel the angels do not appear until after the termination of the temptations.
The narrative of Christ’s temptation (regarding it, see on Mat 4:11, Remark) appears in Mark in its oldest, almost still germinal, form. It is remarkable, indeed, that in the further development of the evangelic history (in Matthew and Luke) the wonderful element ἦν μετὰ τῶν θηρίων (which, according to Hilgenfeld, merely serves to colour and embellish the meagre extract), should have remained unnoticed. But the entire interest attached itself to Satan and to his anti-Messianic agency. The brevity[52] with which Mark relates the temptation, and which quite corresponds[53] to the still undeveloped summary beginning of the tradition, is alleged by Baur to proceed from the circumstance that with Mark the matter still lay outside of the historical sphere. Against this we may decisively urge the very fact that he narrates it at all, and places the ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγ. earlier. Comp. Köstlin, p. 322.
[51] So also von Engelhardt (de Jesu Christi tentatione, Dorp. 1858, p. 5).
[52] For the idea that κ. οἱ ἀγγ. διηκ. αὐτῷ. is only the closing sentence of an originally longer narration (Weisse, Evangelienfr. p. 163) is fanciful. Only the short, compact account is in harmony with all that surrounds it. Weisse supposes that something has dropped out also after ver. 5 or 6, and after ver. 8.
[53] How awkwardly Mark would here have epitomized, if he had worked as an epitomizer! How, in particular, would he have left unnoticed the rich moral contents of the narrative in Matthew and Luke! Schleiermacher and de Wette reproach him with doing so. Comp. also Bleek.
Mar 1:14 f. See on Mat 4:12; Mat 4:17; Luk 4:14 f.
εἰς τ. Γαλιλ.] in order to be more secure than in the place where John had laboured; according to Ewald: “He might not allow the work of the Baptist to fall to pieces.” But this would not furnish a motive for His appearing precisely in Galilee. See Weizsäcker, p. 333. In Matthew also the matter is conceived of as ἀναχώρησις.
κηρύσσων] present participle with ἦλθεν. See Dissen, ad Pind. Ol. vii. 14, p. 81; Bornemann, ad Xen. Anab. vii. 7. 17; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 116 C.
τὸ εὐαγγ. τοῦ Θεοῦ] See on Mar 1:1.
ὅτι] recitative.
ὁ καιρός] the period, namely, which was to last until the setting up of the Messiah’s kingdom, ὁ καιρὸς οὗτος, Mar 10:30. It is conceived of as a measure. See on Gal 4:4.
πιστεύετε ἐν τῷ εὐαγγ.] Believe on the gospel. As to πιστ. with ἐν, see on Gal 3:26; Eph 1:13; frequently in the LXX. The object of faith is conceived as that in which the faith is fixed and based. Fritzsche takes ἐν as instrumental: “per evangelium ad fidem adducimini.” This is to be rejected, since the object of the faith would be wanting, and since τὸ εὐαγγ. is just the news itself, which Jesus gave in πεπλήρωται κ.τ.λ.
Mar 1:16-20. See on Mat 4:18-22 (Luk 5:1 ff.). The narrative of Mark has the brevity and vividness of an original. Observe, however, how, according to all the evangelists, Jesus begins His work not with working miracles, but with teaching and collecting disciples.[54] This does not exclude the assumption that miracles essentially belonged to His daily work, and were even from the very beginning associated with His teaching, Mar 1:21 ff.
παράγων (see the critical remarks), as He passed along by the sea. This as well as ἀμφιβάλλ. ἐν τ. θαγ. (casting around) is part of the peculiar vividness of representation that Mark loves.
Mar 1:19. καὶ αὐτούς] et ipsos in nave, likewise in the ship. It does not belong to καταρτίζοντας (the usual view, in which there is assumed an imperfect comparison, which contemplates only the fishers’ occupation generally, comp. on Mat 15:3), but merely to ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ, so that καταρτ. κ.τ.λ. then subjoins a further circumstance. The former explanation in the sense assigned to it would only be possible, if ἀμφιβάλλ., in Mar 1:16, and καταρτ. were included under one more general idea.
Mar 1:20. μετὰ τ. μισθωτ.] peculiar to Mark. Any special purpose for this accuracy of detail is not apparent. It is an arbitrary supposition that it is intended to explain how the sons might leave their father without undutifulness (Paulus, Kuinoel, de Wette, Bleek, and others), in reference to which de Wette charges Mark with taking away from their resolution its nobleness.[55] It may, moreover, be inferred, that Zebedee carried on his business not altogether on a small scale, and perhaps was not without means. Comp. Mar 16:1; Luk 8:3; Joh 19:27; Only no comparison with the “poverty of Peter” (Hilgenfeld) is to be imported.
[54] Comp. Weizsäcker, p. 364. But the teaching begins with the announcement of the kingdom, which has as its presupposition the Messianic self-consciousness (Weizsäcker, p. 425). Without reason Schenkel maintains, p. 370, that Jesus could not at all have regarded Himself at the beginning of His work as the Messiah. He might do so, without sharing the political Messianic hopes. See Schleiermacher, L. J. p. 250 f.; Keim, Geschichtl. Chr. p. 44 f. But the view which makes the beginning of the teaching and miracle-working even precede the baptism (Schleiermacher) has absolutely no foundation in the N. T., not even in the history of the marriage feast at Cana. Nor yet can it be maintained, with Keim (p. 84), that the conviction of being the Messiah gained strength in Jesus gradually from His first emergence up to the decisiveness, which first makes itself manifest at Matthew 11, where He announces the present kingdom, no longer merely that which is approaching. For the approaching kingdom is throughout-only according to a relative conception of time-from the beginning onward to Luk 21:31 to be taken in an eschatological reference; and it presupposes, therefore, a Messianic self-certainty in the Son of man, who with this announcement takes up the preaching of the Baptist.
[55] With greater truth, because more naturally, it might be said that that trait places in so much stronger a light the resignation of those who were called, seeing that they forsook a business so successfully prosecuted. Comp. Ewald, p. 192. We may more surely affirm that it is just a mere feature of the detailed description peculiar to Mark. Comp. Weiss, l.c. p. 652.
Mar 1:21. εἰσπορεύονται] Jesus and His four disciples. According to Mark, they go away from the lake to Capernaum, not from Nazareth (thus Victor Antiochenus, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, and others, following Luke), and not away from the mount (according to Mat 8:5). Matthew and Luke have differently restored the right historical sequence, the absence of which was felt in the abrupt report of Mark, Mar 1:21. They thus found here something of the ἔνια, which the fragment of Papias pronounced to be wanting in τάξις (see on Matt. Introd. p. 42 f.).
εὐθέως τοῖς σάββ.] i.e. immediately on the next Sabbath, not: on the several Sabbaths (Euthymius Zigabenus, Wolf, and many others), which is forbidden by εὐθέως. σάββατα, as in Mar 2:23; Mat 12:1; Luk 4:6; Col 2:16.
ἐδίδασκε] What, Mark does not say, for he is more concerned with the powerful impression, with the marvellous deed of the teaching, the general tenor of which, we may add, Mar 1:14 f. does not leave in any doubt. This synagogue-discourse has nothing to do with the sermon on the Mount, as if it were intended to occupy the place of the latter (Hilgenfeld).
Mar 1:22. Comp. Mat 7:28 f., where the notice of Mark is reproduced unaltered, but placed after the sermon on the Mount; and Luk 4:32, where the second part of the observation is generalized and divested of the contrast. It is very far-fetched, however, in Hilgenfeld, who in Mar 1:22 sees a sure indication of dependence on Matthew, to find in the fact, that Mark already here makes Capernaum appear as the scene of the ministry of Jesus just as in Mar 1:29, the Petrine character of the Gospel. See, on the other hand, Baur in the theol. Jahrb. 1853, p. 56 ff.
As to ἦν διδάσκ. and ὡς ἐξουσ. ἔχων, see on Mat 7:28 f.
Mar 1:23 f. Ἐν πνεύμ. ἀκαθάρτῳ] to be connected closely with ἄνθρωπος: a man in the power of an unclean spirit. See on ἐν Matthiae, p. 1141. Comp. Mar 5:2; 2Co 12:2; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 84 [E. T. 96]. As to the demoniacs, see on Mat 4:24; and as to the miracles of Jesus in general, see on Mat 8:4.
ἀνέκραξε] he cried aloud (see Winer, de verbor. cum praepos. compos. usu, III. p. 7), namely, the man, who, however, speaks in the person of the demon. Comp. Mat 8:29, where also, as here, the demon immediately discerns the Messiah.
ἡμᾶς] me and those like to me. “Communem inter se causam habent daemonia,” Bengel.
ἀπολέσαι] by relegation to Hades, like βασανίσαι in Matt. l.c.
ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ] the hallowed One of God (Joh 10:36) κατʼ ἐξοχήν (see Origen and Victor Antiochenus in Possini Catena), a characteristic designation of the Messiah, which here proceeds from the consciousness of the unholy demoniac nature (Luk 4:34; Act 4:27; Rev 3:7; Joh 6:69). In a lower sense priests and prophets were ἅγιοι τοῦ θεοῦ. See Knapp, Opusc. I. p. 33 f. The demon does not name Him thus as κολακεύων αὐτόν (Euthymius Zigabenus, and before him Tertullian), but rather by way of giving to His ἦλθες ἀπολέσαι ἡμᾶς the impress of hopeless certainty.
Mar 1:25 f. Αὐτῷ] to the demon, who had spoken out of the man.[56]
The demon, before he goes forth, once more gives vent to his whole fury on the man by tearing (σπαράξαν) him. Comp. Mar 9:26; Luk 9:42.
[56] To refer φιμώθητι, with Strauss, II. p. 21, following older expositors, merely to the demon’s declaration of the Messiahship of Jesus, is, in view of the general character of the word, arbitrary. It is the command of the victor in general: Be silent and go out! Strauss appeals to i. 34, iii. 12. But these prohibitions refer to the time after the going out.
Mar 1:27. Πρὸς ἐαυτούς] is equivalent to πρὸς ἀλλήλους (Luk 4:36). The reason why the reflexive is used, is the conception of the contradistinction to others (they discussed among one another, not with Jesus and His disciples). See Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 6. 20. Fritzsche explains: apud animum suum. But συζητεῖν stands opposed to this, designating as it does action in common, Mar 9:10, Mar 12:28; Luk 20:23; Luk 24:15, al.; so also in the classics.
τί ἐστι τοῦτο;] a natural demand in astonishment at what had happened for more precise information as to the circumstances of the case.
In what follows we must read: διδαχὴ καινὴ κατʼ ἐξουσίαν· καὶ τοῖς πνεύμασι τοῖς ἀκαθάρτοις … αὐτῷ! See the critical remarks. They give vent by way of exclamation to what has thrown them into such astonishment and is so incomprehensible to them, and do so in the unperiodic mode of expression that is appropriate to excited feeling: a doctrine new in power! and He commands the unclean spirits, etc.! They marvel at these two marked points, as they have just perceived them in Jesus. Lachmann attaches κατʼ ἐξουσίαν to καὶ τοῖς πνεύμασι κ.τ.λ. But this is manifestly opposed to the connection, according to which κατʼ ἐξουσίαν looks back to the foregoing ἦν γὰρ διδάσκων αὐτοὺς ὡς ἐξουσίαν ἔχων. This applies also in opposition to Ewald, who reads διδαχῇ καινῇ: “with new teaching He powerfully commands even the devils.” A confused identification of the teaching with the impression of the miraculous action is here groundlessly discovered by Baur,[57] and used as a proof of dependence on Luk 4:36. Even with the Recepta ὅτι the two elements of the exclamation would be very definitely correlative to the two elements of the ministry of Jesus in the synagogue respectively.
κατʼ ἐξουσίαν] defines the reference of καινή: new in respect to power, which has never yet occurred thus with the impress of higher authorization.
[57] Who holds that Mark has not been able to enter into Luke’s mode of view, but has kept to the διδαχή of Jesus in the sense of Matthew, without himself rightly understanding in what relation the καινὴ διδαχή stood to the ἐπιτάσσειν κ.τ.λ. Baur, Markusevang. p. 11; comp. theol. Jahrb. 1853, p. 69 f. See, on the other hand, Hilgenfeld, Evang. p. 128.
Mar 1:28. Εἰς ὅλην τ. περίχ. τ. Γαλιλ.] not merely therefore into Galilee itself, but also into the whole region that surrounds Galilee. Comp. Luk 3:3; Luk 8:37. This wide diffusion, the expression of which is still further strengthened by πανταχοῦ (see the critical remarks), is not at variance with the εὐθύς (Köstlin finds in the word “a mistaken fashion of exaggeration”), which is to be estimated in accordance with the lively popular mode of expression. Criticism becomes confused by the stress laid on such points.
πανταχοῦ] with the verb of motion, as is often the case among the Greeks: every-whither. Comp. on ἀλλαχοῦ, Mar 1:38.
It is to be observed, we may add, that this first miracle, which Mark and Luke relate, is not designated by them as the first. Hence there is no inconsistency with Joh 2:11 (in opposition to Strauss).
Mar 1:29 ff. See on Mat 8:14 f.
ἐξελθόντες] Jesus, Peter and Andrew. James and John are thereupon specially named as accompanying.
The short narrative is condensed, animated, graphic,[58] not subjected to elaboration, against which view the mention of Andrew, whom Matthew and Luke omit as a secondary person, cannot well be urged. Comp. Weiss, p. 654.
[58] In this point of view the sickness is denoted by the words κατέκειτο πυρέσσ. as severe enough not to allow the event to be treated as a simple soothing of the over-excited nervous system (Schenkel). Mere psychological soothings of this kind would simply stand in utter disproportion to the sensation produced by Jesus as a worker of miracles.
Mar 1:32 f. Ὀψίας … ἥλιος] an exact specification of time (comp. Matthew and Luke) for the purpose of indicating that the close of the Sabbath had occurred. “Judaeos religio tenebat, quominus ante exitum sabbati aegrotos suos afferrent,” Wetstein, and, earlier, Victor Antiochenus.
πρὸς αὐτόν] presupposes that before the evening He has returned again to His own dwelling (Mar 2:1; Mar 2:15). It is not Peter’s house that is meant.
πάντας τοὺς κ.τ.λ.] all whom they had.
Here and at Mar 1:34, as also at Mat 8:16, the naturally sick are distinguished from the demoniacs; comp. Mar 3:15.
ἡ πόλις ὅλη] comp. Mat 3:5. So also in the classical writers (Thuc. vii. 82.1; Soph. O. R. 179); comp. Nägelsbach, Anm. z. Ilias, ed. 3, p. 103.
Mar 1:34. πολλοὺς … πολλά] therefore not all, which, nevertheless, does not presuppose attempts that were without result. It was already late, and in various cases, moreover, the conditions of healing might be wanting.
ἤφιε] as in Mar 11:16. Imperfect, from the form ἀφίω, with the augment on the preposition; see Winer, p. 74 [E. T. 97].
λαλεῖν … ὅτι] He allowed them not to speak, enjoined on them silence, because they knew Him. They would otherwise, had they been allowed to speak, have said that He was the Messiah. Kuinoel, Bleek, and others erroneously take it as if the expression was λέγειν … ὄτι. The two verbs (comp. on Joh 8:43; Rom 3:19) are never interchanged in the N. T., not even in such passages as Rom 15:18; 2Co 11:17; 1Th 1:8; hence “to say that” is never expressed by λαλεῖν, ὅτι.
As to the reason of the prohibition, see on Mar 5:43 and Mat 8:4.
Mar 1:35-39. Luk 4:42-44 is less characteristic and more generalized.
ἔννυχον λίαν] when it was still very dark. ἔννυχον is the accusative neuter of the definition of time, as σήμερον, αὔριον, νέον, etc. The word itself is often found also in classical writers, but not this adverbial use of the accusative neuter (3Ma 5:5; see, however, Grimm in loc.). Comp. ἐννυχώτερον, Aesop, Fab. 79. The plural form ἔννυχα (in Lachmann and Tischendorf, following B C D L א, min.) is, however, decisively attested, although likewise without sanction from Greek usage;[59] in Soph. Aj. 930, πάννυχα is adjective.
ἘΞῆΛΘΕ] out of his house, Mar 1:29. Comp. Mar 2:1.
ΚΑΤΕΔΊΩΞΑΝ] only occurring here in the N. T., more significant than the simple form, expressive of the following up till they reached Him; Thuc. ii. 84. 3; Polyb. vi. 42. 1; Sir 27:17; Psa 22:18.
καὶ οἱ μετʼ αὐτοῦ] Andrew, John, and James, Mar 1:29. Under this expression is already implied the conception of the historical prominent position of Peter. But such an expression does not betray any special Petrine tendency of the Gospel.
πάντες] puts Jesus in mind of the multitude of yesterday, Mar 1:32; Mar 1:34.
ἈΛΛΑΧΟῦ] with a verb of direction, comp. Mar 1:28 and on Mat 2:22. The following ΕἸς ΤᾺς ἘΧΟΜ. ΚΩΜΟΠ., into the nearest (Herod. i. 134; Xen. Anab. i. 8, iv. 9; Joseph. Antt. xi. 8. 6, and frequently; comp. Act 13:44; Act 21:26) villages, is a more precise definition of ἀλλαχοῦ. See Bornemann, Schol. in Luc. iv. 23, v. 35, and in the Stud. u. Krit. 1843, p. 127; Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 22.
κωμοπόλεις] villages, only used here in the N. T., but see the passages in Wetstein.
εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ ἐξῆλθον] for that (namely, to preach abroad also) is the object for which I have left the house, Mar 1:35. Schenkel invents here quite a different connection. In opposition to the context, others understand ἐξῆλθον of having come forth from the Father. So Euthymius Zigabenus, Maldonatus, Grotius, Bengel, Lange, and others; comp. Baumgarten-Crusius. A harmonizing with Luk 4:43.
[59] Hesychius has the adverb νύχα, equivalent to νύκτωρ.
Mar 1:39. Κηρύσσων εἰς τὰς συναγωγ. αὐτῶν κ.τ.λ.] There is the conception of direction in εἰς: announcing (the Gospel) into their synagogues. He is conceived of as coming before the assembly in the synagogue and speaking to them. Comp. the well-known modes of expression: ἐς τὸν δῆμον εἰπεῖν, Thuc. v. 45, εἰς τὴν στρατίαν εἰπεῖν, Xen. Anab. v. 6. 37; Joh 8:26, ταῦτα λέγω εἰς τὸν κόσμον. Comp. Mar 14:10; Rom 16:26. The following εἰς ὅλην τὴν Γαλιλαίαν specifies the geographical field, into which the κηρύσσειν εἰς τὰς συναγωγ. αὐτ. extended. Comp. Mar 13:10; Luk 24:47. We may add that this tour is not invented by Mark as a happier substitute for the Gadarene journey of Matthew 8, as Hilgenfeld assumes it to be, which is a vagary in the interest of antagonism to the independence of Mark. Holtzmann appropriately observes that Mar 1:35-39 is one of the most telling passages in favour of Mark’s originality.
Mar 1:40-45. Comp. on Mat 8:2-4, where this history follows immediately after the sermon on the Mount, and that in a shorter, more comprehensive form in accordance with Mark. In Luke (Mar 5:12 ff.) the narrative of the draught of fishes is previously inserted.
γονυπετῶν αὐτόν] see on Mat 17:14.
Mar 1:41.[60] ΣΠΛΑΓΧΝΙΣΘ.] subordinated to the participle ἘΚΤΕΊΝΑς; see Winer, p. 308 [E. T. 433]; Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. p. 249.
Mar 1:42. ἀπῆλθεν ἀπʼ αὐτοῦ] so also Luke. But he has omitted the following Κ. ἘΚΑΘΑΡ., to which Matthew has adhered.
Mar 1:43. ἘΜΒΡΙΜΗΣΆΜ. ΑὐΤῷ after He had been angry at him, wrathfully addressed him (comp. Mar 14:5, and on Mat 9:30). We are to conceive of a vehement begone now! away hence! With this is connected also the forcible ἐξέβαλεν. Observe the peculiar way in which Mark depicts how Jesus with very earnest zeal desired and urged the departure of the man that was healed. Moreover, the statement that the cure took place in a house (ἐξέβαλεν) is peculiar to Mark, who in the entire narrative is very original and cannot be following the colourless narrative of Luke (Bleek). It is true that, according to Lev 13:46, comp. Num 5:2, lepers were forbidden to enter into a house belonging to other people (see Ewald in loc., and Alterth. p. 180); but the impulse towards Jesus and His aid caused the sick man to break through the barrier of the law, whence, moreover, may be explained the hurried and vehement deportment of Jesus.
Mar 1:44. As to the prohibition, see on Mat 8:4, and on Mar 5:43.
The prefixing of σεαυτόν (thyself) is in keeping with the emotion, with which the withdrawal of the person is required.
περὶ τοῦ καθαρ. σου on account of thy cleansing, i.e. in order to become Levitically clean.
Mar 1:45. Comp. Luk 5:15 f. Mark has peculiar matter.
ἐξελθών] from the house. Comp. Mar 1:43.
ἬΡΞΑΤΟ] ΕὐΓΝΏΜΩΝ ὪΝ Ὁ ΛΕΠΡῸς, ΟὐΚ ἨΝΈΣΧΕΤΟ ΣΙΓῇ ΚΑΛΎΨΑΙ ΤῊΝ ΕὐΕΡΓΕΣΊΑΝ, Euthymius Zigabenus. The beginning of this breach of the imposed silence is made prominent.
τὸν λόγον] Euthymius Zigabenus: ὋΝ ΕἼΡΗΚΕΝ ΑὐΤῷ Ὁ ΧΡΙΣΤῸς, ΔΗΛΑΔῊ ΤῸ ΘΈΛΩ, ΚΑΘΑΡΊΣΘΗΤΙ. So also Fritzsche. But Mark, in order to be intelligible, must have led men to this by a more precise designation pointing back to it. It is the story, i.e. the narrative of the occurrence (Luther appropriately has the history), not: the matter (so usually; even de Wette and Bleek), which λόγος in the N. T. never directly means (not even at Mar 2:2, Mar 8:32; Luk 1:4; Act 10:36); as, indeed, also in classical writers (see Wolf, ad Dem. Lept. p. 277) it never absolutely means the matter in itself, but the point spoken of, the state of things that is under discussion, or the like. As to the distinction between λόγος and ΦΉΜΗ, see Bremi, ad Isocr. Paneg. p. 32.
μηκέτι] no longer, as He could hitherto.
ΔΎΝΑΣΘΑΙ] moral possibility, if, namely, He would not occasion any tumult.
ΚΑΊ] not: and yet (Kuinoel, de Wette, Bleek, and others), but the simple and. Instead of going publicly into the city, He was outside in solitary places, and people came to Him from all quarters. A simple account of what was connected with His sojourn in the solitude; He did not withdraw from this concourse, but He would not excite any sensation in the city.
[60] If the leper had come to Jesus when he was already substantially healed, as Schenkel in spite of ver. 45 thinks probable, what charlatanry would the Lord have been practising at ver. 41 f.! And yet, even according to Schenkel (p. 373), Mark is assumed to have had the narrative from the mouth of Peter.
Mar 1:1.The beginning of the Gospel. Though what we have hitherto taken out of Matthew and Luke is a part of the Gospel, yet it is not without reason that Mark makes the beginning of the Gospel to be the preaching of John the Baptist. For the Law and the Prophets then came to an end, (Joh 1:17.) “The Law and the Prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, ” (Luk 16:16 .)And with this agrees most fully the quotation which he makes from the Prophet Malachi, (Mal 3:1.) In order to inflame the minds of his people with a stronger desire of the promised salvation, the Lord had determined to leave them, for a time, without new prophecies. We know that the last of the true and lawful prophets was Malachi.
That the Jews, in the meantime, may not faint with hunger, he exhorts them to continue under the Law of Moses, until the promised redemption appear. He mentions the law only, (Joh 1:17,) because the doctrine of the Prophets was not separate from the law, but was merely an appendage and fuller exposition of it, that the form of government in the Church might depend entirely on the Law. It is no new or uncommon thing in Scripture, to include the Prophets under the name of the Law: for they were all related to it as their fountain or design. The Gospel was not an inferior appendage to the Law, but a new form of instruction, by which the former was set aside.
Malachi, distinguishing the two conditions of the Church, places the one under the Law, and commences the other with the preaching of John. He unquestionably describes the Baptist, when he says, “Behold, I send my messenger,” (Mal 3:1 :) for, as we have already said, that passage lays down an express distinction between the Law and the new order and condition of the Church. With the same view he had said a little before, (which is quoted by Mark, [Mar 9:13;] for the passages are quite similar,) “Behold, I send you Elijah the Prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord,” (Mal 4:5.) Again,
“Behold, I send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple,” (Mal 3:1.)
In both passages, the Lord promises a better condition of his Church than had existed under the Law, and this unquestionably points out the beginning of the Gospel But before the Lord came to restore the Church, a forerunner or herald was to come, and announce that he was at hand. Hence we infer, that the abrogation of the Law, and the beginning of the Gospel, strictly speaking, took place when John began to preach.
The Evangelist John presents to us Christ clothed in flesh, “the Word made flesh,” (Joh 1:14;) so that his birth and the whole history of his appearance are included in the Gospel. But here Mark inquires, when the Gospel began to be published, and, therefore, properly begins with John, who was its first minister. And with this view the Heavenly Father chose that the life of his Son should be buried, as it were, in silence, until the time of the full revelation arrived. For it did not happen without the undoubted Providence of God, that the Evangelists leave out the whole period which Christ spent in private, and pass at once from his earliest infancy to his thirtieth year, when he was openly exhibited to the world, invested with his public character as a Redeemer; Luke excepted, who slightly touches one indication of his future calling, which occurred about his twelfth year, (Luk 2:42 .)
It had a very close connection with this object, that we should be informed, first, that Christ is a true man, (Joh 1:14,) and next, that he is “the Son of Abraham and of David, ”(Mat 1:1 ;)as to both of which, the Lord has been pleased to give us an attestation. The other matters which we have examined, relating to “the shepherds, ” (Luk 2:8 ,)the “Magi,” (Mat 2:1 ,)and “Simeon,” (Luk 2:25 ,)were intended to prove his Divinity. What Luke relates about John and his father Zacharias, (Luk 1:5 ,)was a sort of preparation for the Gospel.
There is no impropriety in the change of the person which is here made, in quoting the words of Malachi. According to the prophet, God says, I send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way Before Me. Mark introduces God as addressing the Son, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way Before Thee. But we see that Mark had no other intention, than to express more clearly the prophet’s meaning. Mark designates Christ the Son of God The other Evangelists testify that he was born of the seed of Abraham and David, and therefore was the Son of man, (Mat 8:20 .)But Mark shows us, that no redemption is to be expected but from the Son of God
Mar 1:14.Preaching the Gospel of the kingdom of God. Matthew appears to differ a little from the other two: for, after mentioning that Jesus left his own city Nazareth, and departed to Capernaum, he says: from that time Jesus began to preach. Luke and Mark, again, relate, that he taught publicly in his own country. But the solution is easy; for the words which Matthew employs, ἀπὸ τότε, from that time, ought to be viewed as referring, not to what immediately precedes, but to the whole course of the narrative. Christ, therefore, entered into the exercise of his office, when he arrived at Galilee. The summary of doctrine which is given by Matthew is not at all different from what, we have lately seen, was taught by John: for it consists of two parts, — repentance, and the announcement of grace and salvation. He exhorts the Jews to conversion, because the kingdom of God is at hand: that is, because God undertakes to govern his people, which is true and perfect happiness. The language of Mark is a little different, The kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the Gospel But the meaning is the same: for, having first spoken of the restoration of the kingdom of God among the Jews, he exhorts them to repentance and faith.
But it may be asked, since repentance depends on the Gospel, why does Mark separate it from the doctrine of the Gospel? Two reasons may be assigned. God sometimes invites us to repentance, when nothing more is meant, than that we ought to change our life for the better. He afterwards shows, that conversion and “newness of life” (Rom 6:4) are the gift of God. This is intended to inform us, that not only is our duty enjoined on us, but the grace and power of obedience are, at the same time, offered. If we understand in this way the preaching of John about repentance, the meaning will be:” The Lord commands you to turn to himself; but as you cannot accomplish this by your own endeavors, he promises the Spirit of regeneration, and therefore you must receive this grace by faith.” At the same time, the faith, which he enjoins men to give to the Gospel, ought not, by any means, to be confined to the gift of renewal, but relates chiefly to the forgiveness of sins. For John connects repentance with faith, because God reconciles us to himself in such a manner, that we serve him as a Father in holiness and righteousness.
Besides, there is no absurdity in saying, that to believe the Gospel is the same thing as to embrace a free righteousness: for that special relation, between faith and the forgiveness of sins, is often mentioned in Scripture; as, for example, when it teaches, that we are justified by faith, (Rom 5:1.) In which soever of these two ways you choose to explain this passage, it still remains a settled principle, that God offers to us a free salvation, in order that we may turn to him, and live to righteousness. Accordingly, when he promises to us mercy, he calls us to deny the flesh. We must observe the designation which Paul gives to the Gospel, the kingdom of God: for hence we learn, that by the preaching of the Gospel the kingdom of God is set up and established among men, and that in no other way does God reign among men. Hence it is also evident, how wretched the condition of men is without the Gospel.
This demoniac was probably one of that multitude, which was mentioned, a little before, by Mat 4:24. Yet the narrative of Mark and Luke is not superfluous: for they relate some circumstances, which not only present the miracle in a more striking light, but also contain useful instruction. The devil dexterously acknowledges, that Christ is the Holy One of God, in order to insinuate into the minds of men a suspicion, that there was some secret understanding between him and Christ. By such a trick he has since endeavored to make the Gospel suspected, and, in the present day, he is continually making similar attempts. That is the reason why Christ rebukes him. It is, no doubt, possible, that this confession was violently extorted from him: but there is no inconsistency between the two suppositions, that he is forced to yield to the power of Christ, and therefore cries out that he is the Holy One of God, — and yet that he cunningly attempts to shroud in his own darkness the glory of Christ. At the same time, we must observe that, while he flatters Christ in this manner, he indirectly withdraws himself from his power, and in this way contradicts himself. For why was Christ sanctified by the Father, but that he might deliver men from the tyranny of the devil, and overturn his kingdom? But as Satan cannot endure that power, which he feels to be destructive to himself, he would desire that Christ should satisfy himself with an empty title, without exercising it on the present occasion. (344)
Mar 1:22; Luk 4:32.And they were astonished at his doctrine The meaning of the Evangelists is, that the power of the Spirit shone in the preaching (345) of Christ with such brightness, as to extort admiration even from irreligious and cold hearers. Luke says, that his discourse was accompanied with power, that is, full of majesty. Mark expresses it more fully, by adding a contrast, that it was unlike the manner of teaching of the Scribes As they were false expounders of Scripture, their doctrine was literal and dead, breathed nothing of the power of the Spirit, and was utterly destitute of majesty. The same kind of coldness may be now observed in the speculative theology of Popery. Those masters do indeed thunder out whatever they think proper in a sufficiently magisterial style; but as their manner of discoursing about divine things is so profane, that their controversies exhibit no traces of religion, what they bring forward is all affectation and mere drivelling: for the declaration of the Apostle Paul holds true, that the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power, (1Co 4:20.) In short, the Evangelists mean that, while the manner of teaching, which then prevailed, was so greatly degenerated and so extremely corrupted, that it did not impress the minds of men with any reverence for God, the preaching of Christ was eminently distinguished by the divine power of the Spirit, which procured for him the respect of his hearers. This is the power, or rather the majesty and authority, at which the people were astonished.
(344) “Mais pource que Satan ne pent endurer ceste vertue et puissance, aquelle il sait estre le destruire et ruiner, il voudroit bien que Christ se contenant d'un beau titre en l'air, se reposast, et se deportast de luy rien faire.” — “But because Satan cannot endure that power and might, which he knows to be to destroy and ruin him, he would rather wish that Christ, satisfying himself with a fine title in the air, should take repose, and refrain from doing any thing to him.
(345) “En la facon d’enseigner de Jesus Christ;” — “in Jesus Christ's manner of teaching.”
Mar 1:26When the unclean spirit had torn him Luke uses a milder phrase, when the devil had thrown him down: but they agree perfectly as to the meaning; for the design of both was to show, that the devil went out of the man in a violent manner. He threw down the unhappy man, as if he had intended to tear him: but Luke says that the attempt was unsuccessful; for he hurt him nothing Not that the attack was, in no degree whatever, attended by injury, or at least by some feeling of pain; but that the man was afterwards delivered from the devil, and restored to perfect health.
Mar 1:27What new doctrine is this? They call it new doctrine, not by way of reproach, but as an acknowledgment, that there was something in it unusual and extraordinary. It is not for the sake of blame, or to lessen its credit, that they speak of it as new. This is rather a part of their admiration, that they pronounce it to be not common or ordinary. Their only fault lies in this, that they remain in their state of hesitation, (346) whereas the children of God ought to make increasing progress.
(346) “En leur doute et estonnement.” — “In their doubt and astonishment.”
Mar 1:29.They came, with James and John, into the house of Simon and Andrew. There is reason to conjecture, that Matthew does not relate this history in its proper order: for Mark expressly states, that there were only four disciples who attended Christ. Besides, when he left the synagogue, he went straight to Peter’s house; which also shows clearly, that Matthew did not observe, with exactness, the order of time. The Evangelists appear to have taken particular notice of this miracle; not that, in itself, it was more remarkable, or more worthy of being recorded, than other miracles, — but because, by means of it, Christ gave to his disciples a private and familiar illustration of his grace. Another reason was, that the healing of one woman gave occasion to many miracles, so that they came to him in great numbers, from every direction, to implore his assistance. A single word, in Luke’s narrative, presents to us more strikingly the power which Christ displayed; for he says, that Simon’s mother-in-law was held by a GREAT fever. It was a clearer and more affecting proof of divine power, that, in a moment, and by a single touch, he removed a strong and violent disease. He might have done it by the slightest expression of his will; but he touched her hand, (Mat 8:15 ,)either to mark his affection, or because he was aware that this sign was, at that time, advantageous: for we know, that he freely used outward signs, when the time required them.
Mar 1:34.He did not permit the devils to speak. There might be two reasons why he did not permit them: a general reason, because the time of the full revelation was not yet come; and a special reason, which we hinted at a little ago, that he refused to have, as heralds and witnesses of his divinity, those whose praise could have no other effect than to soil and injure his character. This latter reason is undoubtedly true: for he must have known, that the prince of death, and his agents, are in a state of irreconcileable enmity with the Author of eternal salvation and life.
Mark1:38.For on this account I came out. Luk 4:43.For on this account am I sent. These words deserve our attention: for they contain a declaration of his earnest desire to fulfill his office. But it will perhaps be asked, is it better that the ministers of the Gospel should run here and there, to give only a slight and partial taste of it in each place, or that they should remain, and instruct perfectly the hearers whom they have once obtained? I reply. The design of Christ, which is here mentioned, was agreeable to the injunction and call of the Father, and was founded on the best reasons. For it was necessary that Christ should travel, within a short period, throughout Judea, to awaken the minds of men, on all sides, as if by the sound of a trumpet, to hear the Gospel. But on this subject we must treat more fully under another passage.
Mat 8:4; Mar 1:44.For a testimony to them Some consider testimony to mean here a law or statute, as it is said in the Book of Psalms, God laid down this “ for a testimony to Israel,” (Psa 122:4.) But this appears to me to be a poor exposition: for I have no doubt that the pronoun to them refers to the priests. (496) Christ said this, in my opinion, with a view to the present occurrence: for this miracle was afterwards to be a sufficiently clear proof for convicting them of ingratitude. There is nothing inconsistent with this in the command which Christ gave to the leper to maintain silence: for he did not intend that the remembrance of the miracle which he had wrought should remain always buried. When the leper, at the command of Christ, came into the presence of the priest, this was a testimony to them, which would render them inexcusable, if they refused to receive Christ as the minister of God; and would, at the same time, take away occasion for slander, since Christ did not neglect a single point of the law. In a word, if they were not past cure, they might be led to Christ; while, on the other hand, so solemn a testimony of God was sufficiently powerful to condemn them, if they were unbelievers.
(496) According to the view which Calvin rejects, the words, which Moses commanded for a testimony to them, mean, “which Moses delivered to them, that is, to the people of Israel, as a divine ordinance.” The view which he adopts may be more clearly brought out by a different arrangement of the words. Present, for a testimony to them, that is, “to the priests,” the offering which Moses commanded. —Ed
Mar 1:45.So that Jesus could no longer enter openly into cities Hence we learn the reason why Christ did not wish the miracle to be so soon made known. It was that he might have more abundant opportunity and freedom for teaching. Not that his enemies rose against him, and attempted to shut his mouth, but because the common people were so eager to demand miracles, that no room was left for doctrine. He wished that they would all be more attentive to the word than to signs. Luke accordingly says, that he sought retirement in the deserts He avoided a crowd of men, because he saw, that he would not satisfy the wishes of the people, without overwhelming his doctrine by a superfluity of miracles. (497)
(497) “Que quant et quant il ne fist tant de miracles, que cela les empescheroit de bien penser a la doctrine;” — “without doing so many miracles as to prevent them from thinking properly about his doctrine.”
