Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadInternational Critical Commentary NT - Mark 5:1 - 5:99
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
RELATION OF THE SYNOPTICAL ACCOUNTS
5. All of the Synoptics agree in correlating the three miracles narrated in this chapter. And Mk. and Lk. agree in general in the relation of these to events preceding and following. But Mt. places them in an entirely different connection. According to him, the occasion of Jesus’ crossing to the other side was the gathering of the multitude about him owing to the miracles accompanying the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law. And the parables are said to be delivered on a day following, not preceding, the sending forth of the twelve, and removed from these events by a considerable interval. According to our account, the evident intention is to connect Jesus’ departure with the failure of Jesus’ mission to the Galileans marked by the veiled teaching of the parables. The recurrence of the same language in various places marks the interdependence of the Synoptics, as also the correlation of the events. But Mk.’s fulness of detail, in which he is followed to some extent by Lk., is characteristic.
HEALING OF THE GERGESENE DEMONIAC
1-20. Jesus crosses the lake into Decapolis on the south-eastern shore, and heals a man said to be possessed of a host of demons. The demons, driven out of the man, enter with Jesus’ permission into a herd of swine, and the maddened beasts rush into the lake and are drowned.
1. εςτνχρντνΓρσννinto the country of the Gerasenes. Γδρννis the probable reading in Mt., and Γρεηῶ in Lk. The country of the Gadarenes designates the district generally by the name of a principal city. Γρεηῶ is probably derived from the name of the town in whose immediate vicinity the event occurred, which must have been on the shore of the lake. Γρσννis more difficult to dispose of, as Gerasa is too far away to be the scene of the incident, or even to become a familiar designation of the general locality. And the similarity of name indicates that it has been confused with the nearer Gergesa.1
Γρσνν instead of Γδρνν Tisch. Treg. א BD Latt. Γρεηῶ Treg. marg. WH. RV. א LU Δ1, 28, 33, 118, 131, 209, Memph. Harcl. marg. Internal, as well as external, evidence favors Γρσνν
2. ἐεθνο ατῦThe TR. gives the proper construction of the part., putting it in agreement with ατ after ὑήτσν This improper use of the gen. absolute is a specimen of the inaccuracy of Mk. in dealing with the part., like the μκόεο ὂ of 4:31. The TR, is an evident correction of this mistake by some copyist. Mt.’s repetition of the inaccuracy is one of the proofs of the interdependence of the Synoptics. Mat_8:28, Critical Text.
ἐεθνο ατῦ instead of ἐεθνιατ, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBCL Δ1, 13, 33, 69,118, 124, 131, 209, 346, two mss. Lat. Vet. (Memph. Syrr.). ὑήτσν instead of ἀήτσν Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBCDGL Δ1, 13, 28, 69, etc.
ἐ τνμηεω—out of the tombs. These were natural or artificial excavations in the rocks, frequently cut laterally in the hills, and often left uncovered, which, like other caves, would be resorts for wild men and beasts. ἐ πεμτ ἀαάτ—in an unclean spirit.1
3. μήαι. This, like μηεω, v. 2, means properly monuments. Tombs is a Biblical meaning. This adds to the previous statement that the man came from the tombs, that he had his home there.
μήαι, instead of μηεος Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אABCL Δ etc.
οδ ἁύε οκτ οδὶ ἐύαοliterally, and not even with a chain could no one no longer bind him. The RV. manages, by an ingenious arrangement of the negatives, to hide their barbarism. But the original couples them together without any mitigation of their effect. The TR. evidently omits οκτ to get over this roughness.
οδ, instead of οτ, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBCDL Δ33, etc. ἁύε, instead of ἁύει, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BC*L 33, two mss. Lat. Vet. οκτ before οδὶ Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBC* DL Δ13, 28, 69, 124, 346, Lat. Vet. (most mss.) Vulg.
4. δὰτ ατνπλάι πδι κὶἁύειδδσα—on account of his having been bound often with fetters and chains.2 The perf. inf. here, and in δεπσα and σνερφα is used to denote the relation of these past acts to the present inability.3 πδι κὶἁύειbonds for the feet and other parts of the body. δεπσα κ σνερφα—rent asunder, and crushed together. Breaking by pulling, and by the opposite motion of crushing, are denoted severally.
κὶοδὶ ἴχε ατνδμσιand no one had strength to tame him. The statement of reasons for their inability to bind him ends with σνερφα, and this introduces another independent statement.
5. ἐ τῖ μήαι κ ἐ τῖ ὄειin the tombs and in the mountains. Probably, these are specific and general designations of place—in the tombs and in other parts of the hills. ἦ κάω κ κτκπω—he was crying and cutting. This vivid circumlocution for the impf. is characteristic of Mk. The forcible descriptions of the violence and frenzied strength of the demoniac are also peculiar to Mk. Mt. tells us simply that no one could pass that way, and Lk. that he went about naked. Two qualities in Mk. lead to this: first, his vividness of narration, and secondly, his desire to emphasize the greatness of Jesus’ miracles.
6. ἀὸμκόε—from a distance.1 ποεύηε ατ—he made obeisance to him.2 The verb in the N.T. denotes prostration before another in token of reverence, but properly it denotes reverence by kissing the hand towards another.
This act of homage seems inconsistent with the expostulation which follows. It is evident, throughout the narrative, that Jesus has to deal with a hostile attitude in the man, dominated, as he is, by the demon. But the demons, nothwithstanding, recognize Jesus’ mastery over them, and adopt a suppliant rather than a defiant attitude. The ποεύε is not inconsistent with the ὀκζ, or πρκλι v. 10, 11.
λγι says. The historical present, characteristic of Mk.
This reading, instead of επ, said, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אABCKM D Harcl. etc.
7. Τ ἐο κὶσὶ—What have I to do with thee? This reproduces the language of 1:24, a more or less suspicious imitation. The language of the expostulation is exactly the same as in Lk. In Mt. it is Τ ἡῖ κὶσί υὲτῦΘο; As this is probably a reproduction of what was spoken originally in Aramaic, the resemblance points strongly to the interdependence of the Synoptics. The man speaks here under the influence of the demons possessing him, identifying himself with them, but not so as to represent their plurality stated in v. 9. It was such addresses as this which led Jesus to prevent the recognition of himself by the demoniacs.
μ μ βσνσςtorment me not. This would easily imply that Jesus’ command to them to vacate the man implied remanding them to the place of torment. And Lk.’s account follows this out in the ἄυσν 8:31. Also Mt. in πὸκιο, 8:29. But Mk. is not constructed on that basis, as he substitutes ἔωτςχρςfor εςτνἄυσν According to him, this would represent therefore the man’s insane terror of being driven out of his haunts.
8. ἔεε γρThe reason of the protest of the demons against Jesus’ interference with them was his command to them to vacate. It is difficult to find a place to put this in, as the man’s action and words in the preceding verse seem to succeed each other immediately in such a way as to make one act, occasioned apparently by his sight of Jesus at a distance. But evidently this sequence must be interrupted somewhere to introduce this.
ατ—to him. Only the man has been mentioned before, which would lead us to refer this to him. But the command is evidently addressed to the demon. The confusion is due to the identification of the two.
Ἔεθ, τ πεμ τ ἀάατνCome out, thou unclean spirit.1
9. Τ ὄοάσι—What is thy name?2 It is a curious question, why Jesus asked this question of the demoniac, and it has been curiously answered; e.g. that Jesus saw the state of the case, and wished to bring it out in order to impress on the witnesses the greatness of the miracle. This ostentation we know to be far from the spirit of Jesus, who performed his miracles for beneficent purposes alone, and with secrecy, instead of ostentation. We are in the region of conjecture here, but we can guess at it somewhat after this fashion. May it not be, that the purpose of Jesus was hindered by this identification of the man with the demons, leading him to resist the cure? In that case, Jesus might ask the question in order to bring before the man the nature of the power holding him in thrall, so as to make some break in the terrible sympathy and alliance of the two. But it is all mixed up with the question as to the nature of this possession, and how far the account of the cure has been modified by the view of it taken by the narrators. It is comparatively useless to discuss details where the main facts are so much in doubt.
κὶλγιατ Λγὼ—And he says to him, Legion.
λγιατ, instead of ἀερθ, λγν Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אABCKLM Δ text, two mss. Lat. Vet. Vulg. Memph. Syrr.
Λγὼ, instead of Λγὼ, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. א B* CDLL ΔLat. Vet. Vulg. Memph. Syrr.
Legion is the Roman name for a body of soldiers numbering, when full, 6000 men. Of course, it is a rhetorical and exaggerated statement by the man of his state, as if he had said, I feel as if I were possessed by a thousand devils.
ὅιπλο ἐμνbecause we are many. Lk. puts this statement into the mouth of the Evangelist, saying himself that it was because many demons entered into the man. But it seems that Mk. is more correct, as he is certainly more effective, in making the demoniac say this; for it traces back to the man himself the hallucination which gives shape to the story. In Lk. the plurality, which formed a part of the man’s delusion, is transferred to the statement of facts.
10. κὶπρκλιατνπλὰἵαμ ατ ἀοτίῃAnd he besought him much that he would not send them.
ατ, instead of ατὺ, Tisch. Treg. WH. BC Δetc. But ατ looks like an emendation.
Here, again, the man identifies himself with the demons, but not so as to protest any longer against their expulsion. Only one demon has been mentioned before, vv. 2, 8. But with v. 9, it begins to be assumed that there is a host of them, and the plural is used.
ἔωτςχρςout of the country.1 Lk. says εςτνἄυσν into the abyss, i.e. into Gehenna, the place of evil spirits. And it has been supposed that our phrase means out of the earth, making it equivalent to this. But plainly, χρ does not mean the earth as distinguished from the under world, but one part of the earth as distinct from another. γ is the proper word for earth, or world. But just as plainly, the translation, out of the country (put into the mouth of the demons, so to speak), creates another difficulty. What preference they should have for one country over another is one of the mysteries connected with these stories of demoniacal possession. It can be explained only as part of the hallucination of the demoniac, to be referred possibly to his terror of city or town, and his unwillingness to be driven out of the solitary wild district haunted by him. Lk.’s statement is probably an attempt to remove the difficulty.
11. πὸ τ ὄε—on the mountain side.2
τ ὄε, instead of τ ὄη Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. and about all the principal sources.
χίω—swine. The presence of these unclean animals, so abhorrent to the Jews, indicates, what we know from other sources, that the region was inhabited by a mixed population, in which Gentiles predominated.3
12. κὶπρκλσνατνand they besought him.4 Here the subject changes from the man speaking for the demons to the demons speaking through the man.
πμο—Lk. says, ἵαἐιρψ, that he would permit, a modification which Mk. introduces in his account of Jesus’ answer.
Omit πνε ο δίοε with πρκλσν Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBCLΔ1, 13, 28, 69, 118, 131, 209, 251, 346, Memph.
13. Κὶἐέρψνand he permitted them.
Omit εθω ὁἸσῦ, immediately Jesus, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBCLΔ1, 28, 118, 131, 209, two mss. Lat. Vet. Memph. Pesh.
εσλο εςτὺ χίοςentered into the swine. It is evidently the intention of the writer that the man was possessed by a host of demons, and that this host of demons—no less would be required—entered into the herd of (two thousand) swine. This literalizing of the demoniac’s Legion, the multiplication of the difficulty of possession by the thousands, and the addition of the difficulty of demoniac possession of swine, makes this part of the story a tax upon our belief. Demoniacal possession is in itself such a tax, but this story shows whereto such belief in a credulous age tends. The facts in this case are the cure and the rush of the frightened swine. The traditional account connects them in such a way as to make Jesus responsible for one as well as the other. Leave out now the elements of the story contributed by the idea of possession, and substitute the theory of lunacy, and the rational account of the fright and destruction of the swine is that it was occasioned by some paroxysm of the lunatic himself.
Κὶὥμσνἡἀέηκτ τῦκηνῦεςτνθλσα, ὡ δσίλο—and the herd rushed down the declivity into the sea, about two thousand (of them).
Omit ἦα δ, and there were, before ὡ δσίιι Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBC* DL Δ1, mss. of Lat. Vet. Vulg. Memph. Pesh.
κηνῦ a perfectly good Greek word, occurs in the N.T. only in the parallel Synoptical accounts of this event, and the verbal resemblance is an important item in the proof of the interdependence of the Synoptics.
ὡ δσίιιin the reading adopted is in apposition with ἡἀέηthe herd, about two thousand (of them).
14. Κὶο βσοτςατὺ ἔυο κὶἀήγια—And those feeding them fled and brought the news.
Κὶο, instead of Ο δ, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אABCDLM Δtwo mss. Lat. Vet. Syrr. ατὺ, instead of τὺ χίος Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBCL Δ13, 69, 124, 346, Latt. Memph. Pesh. ἀήγια, instead of ἀήγια, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אABCDKLM II etc.
εςτνπλνκὶεςτὺ ἀρύ—to the city and to the farms. πλνis the city Gergesa (Gerasa) in the neighborhood.1 ἀρύ denotes the farms or hamlets in the vicinity. κὶἦγο—and they came, viz. the inhabitants generally.
ἦθν instead of ἐῆθν they came out, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. א ABKLMU II* 33, etc. Memph. Harcl.
15. κὶθωοσ τνδιοιόεο κθμννἱαιμννand they behold the demoniac sitting clothed. θωοσ, they behold, expresses the kind of sight directed towards notable objects.2
διοιόεο is timeless. The temporal relation would be expressed by the aor. διοιθτ.1 ἱαιμννclothed. This implies what Lk. states, that the man in his previous state had torn his clothes from him. Luk_8:27. τνἐηόατνλγῶαwho had the legion. We have already seen how it is implied that Mk. accepts the man’s account of himself in telling the story of the swine. Here he does it expressly. κὶἑοήηα—and they were frightened. The thought of the miracle alone produced this effect.
16. κὶδηήατ—and …reported in full, rehearsed. The verb denotes the fulness of the account—they went through it all.
17. THEY BESEECH HIM TO DEPART
This is the only case in our Lord’s ministry in which his miracles operated against him in this way, and it is to be accounted for by the strange element in this case, the mixture of gain and loss in the result. Men welcome a beneficent power, and so we find the multitudes following Jesus. But they are repelled from a destructive power, and all the more, if it is supernatural. This explains the singular treatment, but the infraction of our Lord’s rule, to use his power only for beneficent purposes, is itself to be accounted for. And it enforces the question already raised, if this is not one of the cases in which we have to separate between the facts and the explanations and inferences of the Evangelists. The facts are the cure of the man and the destruction of the swine. But is Jesus responsible for the destruction? The whole idea of possession is beset with serious difficulties, and in this case, the substitution of lunacy for possession removes not only these, but also this anomaly in the action of Jesus.
18. ἑβιοτςAs he was entering. The present part. denotes action contemporaneous with that of the principal verb.
ἐβίοτς instead of ἐβνο, was come, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אABCDKLM Δ 1, 33, 124, most mss. Lat. Vet. Vulg.
ὁδιοιθ0ί—He who had been possessed with demons. The aor. part. denotes a state preceding the action of the principal verb.2
ἵαμτ ατῦᾖthat he may be with him.3
19. Κὶοκἀῆε ατνand he did not permit him.
κὶ instead of ὁδ Ἰσῦ, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אABCKLM Δ 1, 33, two mss. Lat. Vet. Vulg. Memph. Syrr.
Κὶἀάγιο ὄαὁΚρό σιππίκνand report how much the Lord hath done for thee.
ἀάγιο, instead of ἀάγιο, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBC Δetc. ππίκν instead of ἐοηε Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אABCL Πetc.
This command, the exact opposite of the injunction of secrecy usually enforced by Jesus, is due to the fact that this was a region not frequented by him, and in which, therefore, the ordinary reasons for such silence were inoperative. His enemies were not here, nor his injudicious friends, nor the people to be blinded by his miracles to his more spiritual work. But it was a region rarely visited by him, and out of which he himself had just been driven, where therefore the story told by this man would be the only message of glad-tidings brought to the people. Moreover, the message which Jesus gives him does not concern our Lord himself, but God, to whom ὁΚρο evidently refers. The effect produced would thus be, not a false Messianism, as in Galilee, but a sense of God’s presence and pity. The demoniac’s story would counteract the impression made by the destruction of the swine. And it would be kept in Decapolis, where it would do no harm, and away from the already excited Galilee.
ὅαὁΚρό σιππίκν κὶἠέσ σ—how much the Lord hath done for thee, and pitied thee.1
ὁΚρο—is evidently used of God, as neither the man himself nor his friends would understand its application to Jesus. And besides, this is a case in which Jesus would especially desire to call attention to what God had done for him. Lk. says ὁΘὸ, 8:39.
20. τ ΔκπλιDecapolis, the ten city district, is the name applied to the cities, east of the Jordan, liberated by Pompey from Jewish rule, which united in the ten city alliance. These cities had been Hellenistic since the Syrian conquest, had been conquered and subjected to Jewish rule by the Maccabees, and were finally liberated by Pompey. Schü II. I, 23, I.
RAISING OF THE DAUGHTER OF JAIRUS, AND HEALING OF THE WOMAN WITH AN ISSUE OF BLOOD
21-43. Jesus, repelled by the people of Decapolis, returns to the western shore of the lake, and there raises the daughter of a synagogue ruler by the name of Jairus. On his way to the house of Jairus, he is approached in the crowd by a woman with an issue of blood, who is healed at the touch of his garment.
21. εςτ πρνπλνσνχηhaving crossed over to the other side, again there was gathered.
εςτ πρνπλν instead of πλνεςτ πρν Tisch. אD mss. of Lat. Vet. Syrr. It is more in Mk.’s manner to connect πλνwith σνχη
κὶἦ πρ τνθλσα—And he was by the sea. According to Mt., Jairus came to Jesus while he was in the house. He places the events after the crossing of the lake in the following order: first, the healing of the paralytic, and the dispute about forgiveness of sins; then, the call of Matthew; then, the question of John’s disciples about fasting; and then, while he was saying these things, the coming of Jairus. And these events are connected all the way through by marks of time, fixing the chronological connection. Mat_9:1-18.
22. Κὶἔχτιεςτνἀχσνγγν And there comes one of the synagogue-rulers.
Omit ἰο before ἔχτι Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBDL Δ102, mss. of Lat. Vet. Vulg. Memph. Pesh.
According to Schü the ἀχσνγγςis to be distinguished from the ἄχν the officer having general direction of the affairs of the synagogue; and he is not an official conducting the worship, for which no special appointment was made; but he is the officer entrusted with the care of public worship, including the appointment of readers and preachers. Mt. calls Jairus an ἄχν and Lk. uses the two names interchangeably, which is explained by the fact, that the two offices, though distinct, might be combined in one person. Generally, there was only one ἀχσνγγςin each synagogue, and εςτνἀχσνγγνmay mean one of the class simply. S. Schü II. 2. 27.
23. πρκλῖbeseeches.
πρκλῖ instead of πρκλι besought, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אACL 33, etc.
ἔε ἐχτςis at the point of death.2
Mt. says ἄτ ἐεετσν just died, evidently confounding this with the message brought later by members of his household. Lk. says ἀένσε, was dying. ἵαἐθνἐιῃ—that you may come and lay.1 ἵασθ κὶζο—that she may be saved and live.
ἵασθ κὶζσ, instead of ὅω …ζστι Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBCDL Δ13, 69, 346, most mss. Lat. Vet. Vulg. Memph.
24. ἠοοθι…ὂλς… κὶσνλβνa crowd followed, and they pressed.2
THE WOMAN WITH AN ISSUE OF BLOOD
There is a peculiar turn given to this story by the statement of Mk. and Lk. that Jesus recognized that power had gone forth from him. Mt. treats it as an ordinary miracle, in which Jesus consciously exercises his healing power. But Mk. and Lk. represent it as a miracle in which the woman herself, unknown to Jesus, draws upon his healing power, and Jesus knows it only by the departure of the power, of which he becomes conscious as he would be of any bodily change happening to him. It would seem that this is a case in which the miracle was performed directly by God, without the intervention of Jesus, of which Jesus becomes aware by the touch of the woman, but not by the loss of power. This makes an opening, as Mt.’s account does not, for the explanation of Mk. and Lk. The fact for which they try to make way in their account is the cure of the woman without the intervention of Jesus. But here again, we have to distinguish between the fact which they preserve for us, and their explanation, arising from reflection on the fact. The one is a matter of testimony, and the other of judgment.
25. Κὶγν οσ—And a woman being.
Omit τς a certain, before οσ, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אABCL Δmss. Lat. Vet. Vulg. Memph. Harcl.
οσ ἐ ῥσιαμτςἒηδδκ—being in an issue of blood twelve years.3 There is nothing in the language, which is quite general, not technical, to denote the nature of this hemorrhage, but it was probably menstrual.
26. πλὰπθῦαὑὸπλῶ ἱτῶ—having suffered many things at the hands of many physicians.1 δπνσσ τ πρ ἑυῆ πναhaving spent all that she had.2
μδνὠεηεσ—seeing that she was no way benefited.3 μδνis used, instead of οδν because of the writer’s way of conceiving what is nevertheless stated as a fact. He is giving here not only the facts, but the facts as they lay in the woman’s mind and became her reasons for coming to Jesus. He suggests that she knew all this, and reasoned it out this way, and this subjective view is implied in the use of μδν Win. 55, g, β
27. ἀοσσ τ πρ Ἰσῦhaving heard the things concerning Jesus.
τ is inserted before πρ by Tisch. (Treg. marg.) WH. RV. א BC* Δetc.
The things concerning Jesus were the reports of his miracles. So far, the participles have denoted the particulars of the woman’s state, previous to her coming to Jesus, and this identity of relation has led to the use of κὶor ἀλ to connect them. Now, the narrative passes over to a new relation, and the conjunction is dropped. ἐθῦαhaving come. Here, the long line of participles ceases to be elegant, and should have been replaced by ἦθ κὶ she came and.
28. Ὅιἐνἅωα κντνἰαινIf I touch his garments only.4
ἐνἅωα κντνἰαιν instead of κντνἰαίν ἅωα, Tisch. Treg. marg; WH. RV. אBCL Δetc.
The woman seeks to be cured in this surreptitious way because of her uncleanness.5
29. ἔν τ σμτ—she knew in her body. The changed condition, like the disease itself, would make itself known physically. ὅιἴτιἀὸτςμσιο—that she has been healed of the
scourge.1 μσι is used in Greek writers to denote any calamity providentially, a μσι θο. But the providential view does not appear in the N.T. use, but only a figurative designation of the effect of disease.
30. ἐ ἑυῷin himself. Denotes the inwardness of his knowledge, proceeding from his own feelings, not from his knowledge of what the woman had done. This feeling is where Jesus’ knowledge of the facts began, and signifies that he had no conscious part in the miracle. Also the expression τνἐ ατῦδνμνἐεθῦα, the power gone out from him, indicates that the writer conceives of the cure as effected not by the conscious exercise of power by Jesus, but by power that went out from him involuntarily, and of which he became conscious only afterwards. Lk. relates the story from the same point of view. Mt. tells us that the woman expected to be cured in that way, but that Jesus felt the touch, and sought the woman out, after which the miracle proceeded in the ordinary way. It is possible that the cure took place without Jesus’ intervention, but by a direct Divine act, as in the other cases in which the throng about him sought to touch even the hem of his garment, and as many as touched were healed. Only, in this case, Jesus knew in some way that there had been a touch on him different from that of the crowd, and chose to trace it and bring himself into personal contact with the person from whom it proceeded, instead of allowing it to remain in the impersonal form which was necessary in the case of numbers doing the same thing. This has been interpreted by Mk. and Lk. into a miracle done not by Divine intervention, but coming from a spring of power in Jesus, which could be drawn on, but not without his feeling the efflux, the loss of power. While Mt. has reduced it to a miracle of the ordinary kind.
32. τντῦοπισσνher who did this. This is anticipating the result of his search. Jesus was ignorant who had done it, and so of course, whether it was man or woman.
33. φβθῖακ τέοσ—the aor. pass., denoting a past act, and the pres., denoting a present state; having been frightened and trembling.
34. ὕαεεςερννgo in health. An exact translation of the Heb. לך לשָום the salutation used by them in saying farewell. ερν does not have its Greek meaning, peace, but one imported directly from the Heb., general wellbeing, or in this case, health. This is the primary meaning of the Heb. word, and peace only a secondary meaning, whereas peace is the only meaning of the Greek word. Our version translates it always peace, which is misleading.
κὶἴθ ὑιςand be well. This must not be taken to mean that the cure was performed now for the first time, as everything in the story points to the fact that the cure was effected when she touched Jesus, v. 29.
THE DAUGHTER OF JAIRUS
This is the only case of raising of the dead related by all the Synoptics. Only Lk. tells of the case at Nain, 7:11-17. The words, she did not die, but sleeps, lend themselves so readily to the supposition that this was not a case of raising the dead, that it is no wonder that they have been so used. Beyschlag treats it as a case in which the state ordinarily called death has been reached, but in which there has been no final separation of soul and body, so that there is a possibility of awakening, which there would not be, if the connection between the two had been actually severed. Holtzmann treats the language more rudely as a contradiction within the story itself of its miraculous intention. Everything else in the three accounts favors the hypothesis of death. The announcement in Mt. is that the child is dead, in Mk. and Lk., that she is dying, and later, that she is dead. Lk. says that they knew her to be dead, an expression which is inappropriate, if it was their mistaken supposition. And Jesus signifies his sense of the momentousness of the occasion by taking with him only the three, a selection reserved for the critical periods of his life. On the other hand, the explanation of Jesus’ words, which makes she did not die, but sleeps mean that this was not an ordinary case of death, though really death; but resembling sleep, since the child was to be raised, does not seem quite adequate. And Beyschlag’s explanation is worthy of serious consideration. But it is purely an exegetical consideration. His general objection to miracles of resurrection is a question by itself, and the theory of miracles to which it belongs discredits many of Jesus’ miracles without sufficient reason. He attributes the genuine cases to the immense influence of Jesus’ personality on other men, with its reaction on the body, and of course excludes all miracles on nature, and of actual reanimation of a dead body. When once the soul and body are finally severed, the possibility of reanimation ceases. Meantime, it seems quite certain that the narratives themselves treat this as a case of raising the dead.
35. ἔχνα ἀὸτῦἀχσνγγυthey come from the synagogue’s ruler’s house. The Greek says from the synagogue ruler, but he was with Jesus, and they bring the message to him.
ὅιἡθγτρσυἀέαε τ ἔισύλι τνδδσαο;—thy daughter has died; why troublest thou the teacher further?1
36. Ἰσῦ πρκύα—Jesus having overheard, i.e. heard what was not addressed to him.
Omit εθω before πρκύα, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBDL Δ1, 28, 40, 209, 225, 271, mss. Lat. Vet. Vulg. Memph. Pesh. etc. πρκύα, instead of ἀοσς Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. א et cb BL Δone ms. Lat. Vet.
μννπσεεIn accordance with the ordinary use of the present imp., this means, hold on to your faith, do not lose it.2
37. μτ ατῦσνκλυῆα—Literally, to accompany with him. The ordinary construction is the dat.
μτ ατῦ instead of ατ, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBCL Δone ms. Lat. Vet. Pesh.
Πτο, κ Ἰκβν κ ἸάννThe prominence here given to these three is repeated at the Transfiguration and in Gethsemane (9:2, 14:33). The reason for admitting only these in this case is the same which led him to enjoin secrecy in regard to his miracles generally, but which is enhanced by the extraordinary nature of this miracle. His miracles generally earned him an undesired notoriety, but this would startle even one accustomed to them, and would excite a furor among the people. Note on 1:45.
38. κὶἔχνα …κὶθωε θρβνκὶκαοτςand they come …and he sees a tumult and persons weeping.
ἔχνα, instead of ἔχτι he comes, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אABCDF Δ1, 33, some mss. Lat. Vet. Vulg. Memph. Pesh. κὶbefore καοτς Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אABCLMU Δ mss. Lat. Vet. Vulg. Syrr. B* πλά.
ἀαάοτςwailing, is an onomatopoetic word, coming from ἀαά a cry uttered originally by soldiers going into battle, but afterwards adapted to other cries expressing various feelings. Elsewhere, in the N.T., it is used only in 1Co_13:1, to denote the clanging of a cymbal. It is used very appropriately of the monotonous wail of hired mourners.
39. Τ θρβῖθ κὶκαεε—Why do you make a tumult and weep? Mt. also speaks of the crowd as θρβύεο, and introduces αλτς flute-players. There was the exaggerated noise and ostentation of hired mourners.
τ πιίνοκἀέαε, ἀλ κθύε—the child did not die, but sleeps. This may be said from the standpoint of Jesus, who knows that she is to be raised, so turning her death into sleep. But see note at beginning of paragraph.
κὶκτγλνατῦand they laughed him down. They understood him literally, and Lk. says that they knew the child to be dead.
40. ατςδ ἐβλνπνα—but he, having put out all.
ατςδ, instead of ὁδ, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBCDL Δ33, Lat. Vet. except one ms. Vulg. Memph.
κὶτὺ μτ ατῦand those with him, viz. Peter, James, and John.
ὅο ἦ τ πιίνwhere the child was.
Omit ἀαεμνν lying, after πιίν Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBDL Δ102, mss. Lat. Vet. Memph.
41. Τλθ, κύ—Maiden, arise. Τλθ is the Chaldaic טליתא fem. of טליא a youth. κύ is the Heb. imp. קּ. κῦιof the TR. is the proper fem. form. κύ is the masc. used as an interjection. The language of Jesus reproduced here is an indication that he spoke in Aramaic, the language of Palestine at the time.
Κύ (Κῦ, Treg.), Tisch. WH. אBCLM 1, 33, 271, one ms. Lat. Vet. ἔερ, instead of ἔερι Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אABCDL Δ etc.
Τ κρσο—Maiden.1
42. ἦ γρἐῶ δδκ—for she was twelve years old. This is introduced to explain the walking, nothing having been said about her age before. ἐέτσνεθςἐσάε μγλ—they were amazed immediately with a great amazement.2
εθςafter ἐέτσν Tisch. (Treg. marg.) WH. RV. אBCL Δ33, Memph.
43. δετίαοhe commanded.3 ἵαμδὶ γο—that no one know.
γο, instead of γῷ Tisch. Treg. WH. אBDL.
Weiss contends that the words of Jesus, maiden, arise, do not mean that she is to awake from the sleep of death, but that the maiden already raised from the dead by the power of God, is to rise from her couch. But this is pure assumption, there being nothing in common linguistic usage to justify this distinction. And it leaves out of sight the plain fact that the words of Jesus on such occasions are the signal for the performance of the miracle. Weiss is theory-bound in his treatment of the miracles.
1 See Thompson, Land and Book, Bib. Dic.
Tisch. Tischendorf.
Treg. Tregelles.
אCodex Sinaiticus.
B Codex Vaticanus.
D Codex Ephraemi.
Latt. Latin Versions.
marg. Revided Version marg.
WH. Westcott and Hort.
RV. Revised Version.
L Codex Regius.
U Codex Nanianus.
ΔCodex Sangallensis
1 .Codex Basiliensis
28 Codex Regius.
33 Codex Regius.
209 An unnamed, valuable manuscript.
Memph. Memphitic.
Harcl. Harclean.
C Codex Bezae.
13 Codex Regius.
69 Codex Leicestrensis.
346 Codex Ambrosianus.
Lat. Vet. Vetus Latina.
Syrr. Syriac Versions.
G Codex Wolfi A.
1 See on 3:22, 1:24.
A Codex Alexandrinus.
ΠCodex Petropolitianus
Vulg. Vulgate.
2 On this use of δὰwith the inf. and art., see Win. 44, 6.
3 See Win. 44, 7.
1 μκόε. The prep. expresses the same relation as the termination of the adv. On this redundancy, belonging to later Greek, see Win. 65, 2. The adv. itself belongs to the same period.
2 This use of the dat. is peculiar to later authors, the regular construction being the acc. See Win. 4, 31, 1 k.
K Codex Cyprius.
M Codex Campianus.
1 On the use of the nom., instead of the voc., see Win. 29, 2.
2 On the omission of the art, with ὄοα see Win. 19, 2b.
1 On the use of ἔωas a prep., see Win. 54, 6.
2 On the use of πό with dat., see Win. 48 e. The art, denotes the mountain in the vicinity.
3 See Schü N. Zg. II. 1, 121.
4 The meaning beseech belongs to πρκλῖ only in later Greek.
Pesh. Peshito.
1 See on v. 1.
2 See Thay.-Grm. Lex. Synonyms of θωεν
1 See Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, 123.
2 See on τνδιοιόεο, v. 15.
3 On the use of ἵαwith subj. after a verb of asking, see Win. 44, 8. Clearly, the clause with ἵαexpresses the contents of the petition, not its purpose.
1 The translation gives just the slight irregularity of the Greek; “how much” is the object of the first verb; and an adverb modifying the second, which is precisely the double use of ὅα So Meyer, who calls it zeugmatisch. On the conjunction of the perf. and aor., see Win. 40. 4. The perf, suggests the present condition as well as the past act, while the aor. denotes only the past action.
1 ἀχσνγγςis found in profane writings only in Inscriptions.
102 Codex Bibliothecae Mediceae.
2 ἐχτς is found in the N.T. only here. Its use to denote at the point of death, in extremis, is condemned by Atticists. See Thay.-Grm. Lex.
1 This is explained by Win. as a weakened form of imp. 43, 5 a. My prayer is, that you may come. On the laying on of hands, see on 1:41.
2 σνθιο is found in the N.T. only in this passage. The change from the sing. ἠοοθιto the plur. is due to the crowding being thought of, not as the act of the crowd collectively, but individually.
3 The prep. denotes the state of the woman. The pres. part. οσ is used here of a past state continuing into the present, a temporal relation properly expressed by the perf. Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, 131 (c).
1 ὑὸdiffers from ἀὸin such cases as denoting under, or at the hands of, an efficient cause, while ἀὸmeans merely from, an occasional cause. Win. 47b. p. 364, 368, Thayer’s Translation.
2 πρ ἑυῆ is a case of attraction, the prep. taking the gen. after it, instead of the dat., as if it were connected with δπνσσ. See Win. 47 b. 66, 6.
3 On the absurd medical treatment of such cases, see Geikie, Life of Christ, chap. 42.
Win. Winer’s Grammar of N. T. Greek.
4 Literally, if I touch if even his garments. It is a case of condensed structure, with ἅωα repeated after κν understood. ὅιintroduces a direct quotation. In translating the clause, only or even belongs with garments, not with touch.—If I touch his garments only.
5 See Lev_15:25-27.
1 ἴτιis a perfect pass. of the deponent verb ἰοα, which has a passive signification in the perf., aor. pass., and 1 fut.
1 σύλι means properly to flay, and is used in the weakened sense, to trouble, only in the Biblical and still later Greek. In the N.T. it is a rare word, and its use here and in the parallel passage, Luk_8:49, is one of the strong indications that the Synoptical Gospels are interdependent.
2 See Win. 43, 3 b.
F Codex Borelli.
1 In the earlier writers, this word is used disparagingly, belonging, as it does, only to colloquial speech. It is a rare word in the N.T., and its use here and in the parallel account, Mat_9:24, points in the same direction as the use of σύλι, v. 35.
2 This is a weakened sense of both noun and verb, which denote the actual putting one out of his senses, beside himself, and it belongs to later Greek. On the use of the dat. akin to the acc. of kindred signification, see Win. 32, 2, at end.
3 The nearest approach to this meaning in earlier Greek is to decide or determine. This meaning belongs in the main to Biblical Greek.