Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadInternational Critical Commentary NT - Mark 9:1 - 9:99
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
9:1. This verse belongs with the preceding discourse by the most obvious connection of thought. He has spoken of the coming of the Son of Man in the glory of his Father; and here he states the time of that coming. For the coming of the Son of Man is everywhere identified with the coming of the kingdom. Cf. Mat_16:28, where this coming is spoken of as the coming of the Son of Man in his kingdom. The reason for placing the verse in the ninth chapter is that those who made the division supposed that the glorifying of Jesus in the Transfiguration was the event referred to here. But that would not be described as a coming of the Son of Man in power; nor would an event only a week distant be spoken of as taking place before some of those present should die. That language implies that most of them would be dead, while a few would live to see the great event. No, this coming of the kingdom is to be identified with the coming of the Son of Man. Nothing else will satisfy the context. And this coincides with everything that Jesus says about the time of that coming. See ch. 13:30, and parallel passages in Mt. and Lk. This then lets in a flood of light upon the meaning of that coming, as it declares that it was to be before some of those before him should taste of death. If his words are to stand therefore, it was to be events belonging to the generation after his death which fulfilled the prophecy of his coming, and of the establishment of his kingdom. And in this case, the kingdom was to be spiritual, and the agencies in its establishment were to be the Spirit of God and the providence of God in human affairs.
Here, as in the eschatological discourse, ch. 13, the coming is referred to as an understood thing, whereas there has been no teaching in regard to it. The same remark applies here as in the teaching about the death and resurrection. We cannot account for the expectation, which colored the whole life of the early church, without some prophecy of it. But on the other hand, the absence of expectation in the period between the death and resurrection is unaccountable if the prophecy was of this definite character.
THE TRANSFIGURATION
9:2-8. Jesus goes up into a mountain, with Peter, James, and John, and is transfigured before them. The heavenly visitors. The voice from heaven.
A week after the conversation with the disciples in regard to his death, Jesus goes, with the three disciples who stood nearest to him, up into the neighboring mountain, and was transfigured before them. As it is described, this transfiguration consisted in an extraordinary white light emitted from his whole person. Accompanying this was an appearance of Moses and Elijah talking with him. Peter, frightened out of his wits by the amazing scene, proposes to fix and retain it by building huts for Jesus and the heavenly visitors up there on the mountain side. But a cloud came over them, and a voice proceeded from it, as at the baptism, This is my beloved Son; hear him. And suddenly, looking around, they saw no one but Jesus.
2. ἡέα ἓ—six days. Lk. says, about eight days. We can easily get rid of one of the two days which separate these two accounts, as the Jews confounded after seven days with on the seventh day by reckoning both the dies a quo and the dies ad quem in the former expression, as in the account of the resurrection. But the other day needs the ὡε of Lk., about eight days, to remove the discrepancy.
τ Πτο κ τ Ἰκβνκ (τ ἸάννThese three formed the inner circle of the twelve, whom Jesus took with him on three great occasions, the raising of the daughter of Jairus, the Transfiguration, and the scene in the garden of Gethsemane. εςὄο ὑηὸ—into a high mountain. What mountain is meant, we do not know, except that it was probably in the vicinity of Cæ Philippi, and so belonged to the Hermon range. See 8:27.
κτ ἰίνμνυ—apart alone. This account gives no reason for this privacy, and Mt. is equally silent. But Lk. tells us that Jesus went up into the mountain to pray. This gives a rational turn to the whole occurrence, leaving us to suppose that the transfiguration was incidental to it, and not the purpose of our Lord’s going up into the mountain. He was glorified before the disciples, but it is quite out of character for him to deliberately set about such a transaction. This opens the way for another suggestion as to the real character of the event. Jesus would be led to special prayer at this time by the events on which it seems that his mind was fixed, and which formed the subject of conversation between himself and his disciples. The subject of his discourse at this period was the approaching tragical end of his life. And it is Lk. again, who tells us that this was the subject of conversation between himself and the heavenly visitants at this time. It looks then, as if this was a case in which the mind of the writer was fixed on the surface of things, who has told his story too in such a way as to fix our attention on the mere physical accompaniments of the scene, the shining of Jesus’ garments, rather than the glory of his countenance, while at the same time, he has himself given us the suggestions for a deeper reading of it. According to the ordinary view, arising from this emphasis of the physical side of it, the transfiguration was a gleam of our Lord’s true glory in the midst of the surrounding darkness, showing that he was divine in spite of his humiliation and death. But, according to our Lord’s own view, which he came into the world to set up, over against its superficial worldliness, his glory was essentially in his humiliation and death, not in spite of it. And here, his spirit was glorified by dwelling in the midst of these high purposes and resolves until its glory broke through the veil of flesh, and irradiated his whole being.
κὶμτμρώη—and was transfigured before them. All the particulars given are, in our account, the shining whiteness of his garments, and in Mt. and Lk. this with the shining or (Lk.) the change of his face.
3. κὶτ ἱάι ἐέεοσίβνα λυὰλα (omit ὡ χω)—and his garments became shining, exceedingly white.
Omit ὡ χω, as snow, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBCL Δ1, two mss. Lat. Vet. one ms. Vulg.
οαγαεςἐὶτςγςο δντιοτςλυᾶα—literally, such as a fuller upon the earth cannot so whiten.
Insert οτς so, before λυᾶα Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBCLN Δ13, 28, 33, 69, 116, 124, 346, two mss. Lat. Vet. Egyptt.
4. Ἡεα σνΜϋε—Elijah with Moses. Elijah is generally said to be the representative of O.T. prophecy, Moses of the Law. But this distinction is more apparent than real. Moses was a prophet, and the law that he gave was a part of his prophetic utterance; while Elijah had nothing to do with the predictive, certainly with the Messianic side of prophecy, according to the record, but it was his province to reveal to men the Divine law and make real to them the Divine lawgiver. But these were two men in the O.T. history who made a mysterious exit from this world, and they are the ones selected for a mysterious return in the N.T.1 The subject of their conversation with Jesus is not given in Mt., or Mk., but Lk. tells us that it was “his decease which he was to accomplish at Jerusalem” (9:31).
5. ἀορθὶ—answering. That is, responding not to something said, but done. What he said was drawn out not by the words of another, but by the occasion. Μϋε …κ ἩεᾳMoses and Elijah. Peter would gather from the conversation who the men were. What he proposed to build was three huts, such as could be constructed out of the material found on the mountain. σηά—is the word for any temporary structure.
6. ο γρᾔε τ ἀορθ—for he did not know what to answer. This implies the strangeness of his proposition. If he had known what to say, he would not have said any so foolish thing. The situation was not one to be prolonged. Heavenly visitors do not come to stay. ἔφβιγρἐέοτ—for they became completely frightened.2
This reading, instead of ἦα γρἔφβι(became, instead of were), Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBCL Δ33, most mss. Lat. Vet. ἀορθ, answer, instead of λλσ, say, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBC* L Δ1, 28, 33, one ms. Lat. Vet. Memph.
κὶἐέεοφν ἐ τῦορνῦ Οτςἐτνὁυό μυὁἀαηό—And a voice came out of the cloud, This is my beloved Son. These same words were uttered by the heavenly voice at the baptism, and they are repeated in 2Pe_1:17, in referring to the transfiguration. See Mat_3:17, Mat_17:5, Mar_1:11, Luk_3:22, Luk_9:35. For the meaning of Son, see note on 1:11.
ἐέεο instead of ἦθ, Tisch. Treg. marg. WH. RV, אBCL ΔMemph. Pesh. Harcl. marg. Omit λγυα saying, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBCN X Γ one ms. Lat. Vet. Memph.
8. ἐάιαsuddenly.3 The vision vanished suddenly, and things returned to their natural condition. There is a difference of opinion whether the adverb belongs with the participle or the verb. It can make little difference, since both denote parts of the same act, looking and seeing. But this very fact shows that the adv. belongs with the part., since to put it with the verb separates the two closely related parts of the same act. In accordance with this principle, we should say, suddenly they looked around and saw, not, they looked around and suddenly saw. And for the same reason, the Greek joins the adverb and the part. ἐάιαdenotes the quick transition from the heavenly vision to ordinary conditions.
ε μ before τνἸσῦ, instead of ἀλ, WH. RV. אBDN 33, 61, Latt. Memph. ἀλ is adversative, not meaning except, and irregular here, so that internal probability favors that reading.
ELIJAH AND THE SON OF MAN
9-13. Conversation with the disciples on the way down the mountain. They question him about the coming of Elijah.
On the way down the mountain, Jesus charges the disciples not to tell any one what they had seen, until the Son of Man is risen from the dead. This strange saying about the resurrection of the Messiah they seized upon, and debated its meaning. Then this appearance of Elijah suggests the question, why the Scribes put that appearance before the Messianic advent, and this question they put to Jesus. He answers that it is true, Elijah does come first, and that this is a fulfilment of prophecy which points to the fulfilment of the other prediction in regard to the suffering and rejection of the Son of Man. And to clinch the matter, he says that John’s fate is only carrying out another writing.
9. κὶκτβιότνἐ τῦὄοςAnd as they were coming down out of the mountain.1
Κὶκτβιότν instead of κτβιότνδ, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBCDLN Δ33, Latt. Memph. Pesh. ἐ, instead of ἀὸ Treg. marg. WH. BD 33.
ἵαμδν, etc.—that they tell no one. This command is given for the same reason as the injunction of secrecy in regard to his miracles. These external things are misleading to one who has not attained something like the inner point of view of Jesus. It coincided also with the charge to keep silence about his Messiahship. The misconception of the Messianic idea among the people led them to misunderstand everything that might point to his Messiahship. The people were excited with false hopes, which this marvellous story would only intensify. After the resurrection, when his death had put an end to false expectations, and the resurrection had pointed to his true glory, then, in that new time, stories of his earthly glory and power would help forward the truth.
ε μ ὅα—except whenever. ὅα, whenever, is intended to leave the time of the resurrection indefinite and contingent.
10. τνλγνἐρτσνnot to be connected with πὸ ἐυος—they kept the saying to themselves, which does not give ἐρτσνa proper meaning, and does not accord with the fact that Jesus restricted his announcement of the resurrection only to the twelve, not to the three; nor is it to be translated, they kept the saying, in the sense of obedience; but the meaning is, they seized this word about the resurrection, it clung to them, they did not let go of it.1 πὸ ἑυοςσνηονε τ ἐτ τ ἐ νκῶ ἀατνι—questioning among themselves what the rising from the dead is. Not what the resurrection means in general, which they as orthodox Jews at this time would know well enough; but what it meant in the case of Jesus, involving, as it did, his death.
11. Ὅιλγυι ο γαμτῖ—why do the Scribes say … The difficulty with this rendering is, that the direct question, rendered necessary by the introduction of λγνε, is introduced by the indirect interrogative ὅι An alternative rendering is, the Scribes say, the demonstrative ὅιbeing used to introduce a direct quotation. The difficulty with this is, that it is a statement, instead of the question required by ἐηώω. But the question is easily implied. However, the rendering of it as a question is on the whole more probable.3 It is suggested by this appearance of Elijah on the mountain, which leads them to ask how it is, that Elijah’s appearance is treated by the scribes as a sign of the advent of the Messiah, while this appearance follows the advent, and Jesus commands them to keep his appearing silent. πῶο—first, that is, before the manifestation of the Messiah.
12. Ὁδ ἔηAnd he said.
ἔη instead of ἀορθί, επν Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBCL ΔMemph. Pesh.
Ἡεα μνThe particle here is concessive; I grant you Elijah does come; and ἀλ introduces the modifying statement about the manner of his coming, which was not in keeping with their expectation. He comes, to be sure, but not as a mere appearance that keeps him out of the hands of men and the grasp of fate, but in such a way that men do as they please with him. ἀοαιτνιπναrestores all things.
ἀοαιτνι instead of ἀοαιτ, Tisch. Treg. א AB3 L Δ1, 28, 33, 118. ἀοαιτνι WH. B*. ἀοαάτνι א* D.
This is Jesus’ brief rendering of the prophecy (Mal_3:5, Mal_3:6), that Elijah will turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and of the children to the fathers. His coming, too, is put in connection with an injunction to remember the law of Moses, meaning that it signifies an enforcement of the Divine law. Such a restoration, bringing things back to their standard in the law, was accomplished in the work of John the Baptist, to whom evidently Jesus refers. Mat_17:13 says that the disciples understood him to refer to the Baptist. κ πςγγατιἐὶτ υὸ τ ἀθώο;—the question probably ends here—and how has it been written about the Son of Man? The answer is given in ἵαπλὰπθ κ ἐοδνθ,—that he suffer many things and be set at naught.1 Jesus matches their prophecy quoted by the scribes with another in regard to the Son of Man, meaning to imply that the fulfilment of the one makes probable the fulfilment of the other. The prophecy that the Messiah should suffer (in the prophecy itself it is the Servant of Jehovah) is found in Isa_53. ἐοδθεωηθ2—be set at naught.
13. ἀλ λγ ὑῖ ὅικ Ἡεα ἐήθνbut I say unto you, that also Elijah has come. κὶbefore Ἡεα means also, he too, as well as the Messiah. This contains the minor premise of the argument, which runs as follows: The fulfilment of the prophecy in regard to Elijah makes probable the fulfilment of that in regard to the Son of Man; the former prophecy has been fulfilled, therefore look for the fulfilment of the other. κ ἐοηα ατ, etc.,—and they did to him whatever they pleased, as it has been written in regard to him. Here is another fulfilment in regard to the same man, which increases the probability just named. Moreover, this prophecy in regard to his fate puts his case on precisely parallel lines to that of the Messiah. He too, like the Messiah, is the subject of expectation on the one hand, and of prophecy on the other, which are entirely inconsistent. In his case it is the adverse event of prophecy that has been accomplished, which strengthens the conviction that the like will happen to the Messiah. ὅαἤεο—whatever they wished. This might seem an inconclusive statement, without the addition of what it was that men wished. But in reality, this is a striking statement of the way in which the Divine plan differs from the human, which made the fate of John and of Jesus certain. Men expected it as a part of the Messianic programme that God would interpose in behalf of his servants, so that men could not do to them what they pleased. But in God’s spiritual kingdom, force is not opposed to force, and so men did to John what they pleased. The inference is, they will do to the Son of Man likewise. Only now, with the introduction of this
ἤεο, instead of ἠέηα, Tisch. Treg. WH. אBC* DL.
ὅαἤεο, it becomes no longer a mere fulfilment of prophecy, but an application of the immutable Divine principle to parallel cases.
κθςγγατιas it has been written. This might refer to the general statements in regard to the maltreatment of the prophets. But it is personal, something written about him, and this makes it more probable that the reference is to Elijah, who suffered for righteousness’ sake in the same way. It is this concrete case of such maltreatment that becomes a prophecy of the fate of the man who has succeeded to his spirit, and so to his fate. See 1 K. 18:17 sqq. 19:1 sqq. This becomes thus a good example of the broad way in which Jesus treats prophecy.
A DEMONIAC HEALED
14-29. Healing of a demoniac, on the return from the mountain, whom the disciples left behind had failed to heal, owing to their lack of faith.
On his return from the mountain, Jesus finds a multitude gathered, and a dispute going on between his disciples and some Scribes about a failure of the disciples to heal a demoniac boy, whom his father had brought to them. Jesus cries out against the unbelief which had caused this failure, and orders the boy to be brought to him. After some inquiries about the case, prompted apparently only by his interest in it, Jesus assures him that all things are possible to faith, which draws from the father the pathetic plea that he believes, but begs for help even in case of his unbelief. Whereupon Jesus orders the unclean spirit to leave his victim, which he does with a final convulsion, which seemed like death. But Jesus took him by the hand, and raised him up.
14. κὶἐθνε …εδν(-δν—and having come, they saw.
ἐθνε …εδν(WH. -δν instead of ἐθν…εδν having come, he saw, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBL Δone ms. Lat. Vet.
κὶγαμτῖ σνηονα πὸ ατύ—and Scribes disputing against them. The prep. denotes the hostility of the Scribes better than the dat.
πὸ ατύ, instead of ατῖ, with them, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. א c. , BCGIL Δ1, 28, 118, 124, most mss. Lat. Vet. Vulg.
This incident of the Scribes is introduced by Mk. alone, who, as usual, brings the scene before us, and not the bare event. The cause of the dispute was the failure of the disciples to cure the demoniac, which gave the Scribes a chance to throw doubt on their healing power.
15. πςὁὄλςἰότςατν ἐεαβθσνall the crowd, having seen them, were utterly astonished.1
ἰότςἐεαβθσν instead of ἰὼ, ἐεαβθ Tisch. Treg. WH. אBCDIL Δ1, 13, 27, 28, 33, 69, 124, 209, 346, mss. Lat. Vet. Memph. Pesh. Harcl. marg.
Different reasons are given for this astonishment. Either Jesus’ person still retained some of the glory of the transfiguration, or the people were astonished at his sudden and opportune appearance. Against the former it seems conclusive that he treats the transfiguration as an esoteric event, which would not have permitted him to make his appearance among the people until the effect had entirely passed away. Their surprise was a joyous surprise at this unexpected coming, so that they ran and greeted him.
16. ἐηώηε ατύ—he asked them. The pronoun evidently refers to the multitude just mentioned.
ατύ, instead of τὺ γαμτῖ, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBDL Δ1, 28, 209, mss. Lat. Vet. Vulg. Memph.
Τ σνηετ πὸ ατύ;—What are you disputing with them? ατύ here refers to the disciples.
17. κὶἀερθ ατ εςAnd one …answered him. εςone made answer, though the question was addressed to the crowd. εςis not like the indefinite τς but calls attention to the number.
ἀερθ ατ, instead of ἀορθὶ …επ, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBDL Δ28, 33, mss. Lat. Vet. Memph.
πεμ ἄαο—a dumb spirit. For other instances of this accompaniment of the disease, see Mat_9:32, Mat_12:22.
18. ὅο ἐνwherever.
ἐν instead of ἂ, Tisch. Treg. WH. א ABK ΔΠ
ῥσε—convulses. This meaning of the word is not very well established, but in σαάσ, the meaning tear passes over into that of convulse, and it is so used in v. 20. This establishes a precedent for the like transformation in this word. The congenital relation of these two verbs makes it improbable that they would be employed in a different sense about the same matter, and is so far against the Revisers’ Translation, dasheth him down. ξρίεα—is wasting away. The symptoms mentioned are those of epilepsy. The ῥσε, κ ἀρζικ τίε are connected with ὅο ἐνκτλβ; but ξρίεα is a general symptom of the disease. The Eng. Ver. connects ἀρζι κ τίε, κ ξρίεα, and puts ῥσε by itself. It should read, whenever it seizes him, it convulses him, and he foams and gnashes his teeth; and he is wasting away. τῖ μθτῖ—As the man did not find Jesus, he brought him to the disciples. See v. 17.
Omit ατῦafter ὀότς Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBC* DL Δ1, 13, 33, 59, 69, 73, 209, mss. Lat. Vet. Vulg.
κὶεπ τῖ μθτῖ συἵαατ ἐβλσ—and I spoke to thy disciples that they should cast it out.1
επ, instead of επν Tisch. Treg. WH. אBFL 1, 28, 209.
19. Ὁδ ἀορθὶ ατῖ, λγιAnd he answering them, says.
ατῖ, instead of ατ, him, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אABDL Δ* 1, 28, 33, most mss. Lat. Vet. Vulg. Memph. Syrr.
ατῖ—to them. Jesus’ reply is not addressed to the man, who seems not to have shown any lack of faith, but to the disciples, who have just been mentioned by the father, and to whom the words specially apply, since it was their unbelief that led to the fiasco. Later, the man seems to have lost heart over the failure of the disciples, so that he puts an if you can into his appeal to Jesus (v. 22).
῏ γνὰἄιτς ἕςπτ πὸ ὑᾶ ἔοα; ἕςπτ ἀέοα ὑῶ;—O unbelieving generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you?
γνὰIt is possible to translate this race, meaning men of a certain stock or family; but it is more in accordance with almost invariable N.T. usage to translate it generation, men of that time. ἄιτςthe translation faithless, EV., means generally unfaithful, perfidious, and is therefore ambiguous. It should be translated unbelieving. ἕςπτ—literally, until when.2 πὸ ὑᾶ ἔοα;—shall I be with you? The question, as appears from the next question, arises from the almost intolerable nature of his intercourse with a generation so spiritually dull and unsympathetic. It is the question of one who feels that his surroundings have become almost unbearable, and who wonders how long they are going to last. ἀέοα ὑῶ;3—shall I bear with you?
20. ἰὼ—having seen. Regularly, the part. agrees with neither τ πεμ, nor ατνafter σνσάαε. According to the sense, since the action of the verb belongs to the spirit, and is occasioned by the action denoted by the participle, it would be the spirit which is described as having seen Jesus. But he does this with the eyes of the man, and hence the masc. form of the part.
In all these stories, the man and the evil spirit get mixed up in this way. The outward acts belong to the man, but the informing spirit is sometimes that of the man, and sometimes the evil spirit. σνσάαε—convulsed him.1
σνσάαε, instead of ἐπρξν Tisch. Treg. marg. אBCL Δ33, mss. Lat. Vet. Memph. Syrr.
ἐυίτ—he rolled around. Wallow suggests things not implied in this verb.
21. ὡ τῦογγννατ—since this has come to him. This conversation with the father has been preserved by Mk. alone, with his customary fulness in the narration of events. All attempts to discover special motives for this question of Jesus, aside from the general interest of a sympathetic person in the case, are unavailing. It has no special bearing on the cure to be performed. Ἐ πιιθνfrom childhood.2
Insert ἐ before πιιθν Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBCDGILN Δ1, 33, 118, 209.
22. κὶεςπρ…κ εςὕααboth into fire and into waters. The plur. = bodies of water. ε τ δν—if you are at all able. There is no inf. implied here, the pronoun being construed with the verb immediately according to the Greek idiom.3
23. Τ ε δν4—(omit πσεσι If thou canst. Jesus repeats the father’s words in order to call attention to them, and to the doubt expressed in them, which would stand in the way of his petition. The art. adds to the emphasis with which he points to these words, as we say, That “if you can.” πναδντ τ πσεοτ—Over against the father’s doubt, the Lord puts the omnipotence of faith, which places at man’s disposition the Divine power.
Omit πσεσι Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBC* L Δ1, 118, 209, 244, one ms. Lat. Vet. Memph.
24. Εθςκάα ὁπτρτῦπιίυἔεε πσεω βήε μυτ ἀιτᾳImmediately the father of the boy cried out and said, I believe; help my unbelief. This does not mean “help me to turn my unbelief into belief,” but “help me out of my trouble, in spite of any unbelief that you may find in me.” He claims at first, that he does believe, notwithstanding any appearance to the contrary in his language. And yet, he does not rest his case there, but pleads with Jesus to show him mercy in any case. He pleads the compassion of Jesus, instead of his own faith, and so unconsciously showed a genuine faith.
Omit κὶTisch. (Treg.) WH. RV. א BL Δone ms. Lat. Vet. Memph. Omit μτ δκύν with tears, אA* BC* L Δ28, one ms. Lat. Vet. Memph. Omit Κρε lord, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אABC* DL 346 mss. Lat. Vet. one ms. Vulg. Syrr.
25. ὅιἐιυτέε (ὁ ὄλςthat a (the) crowd is running together besides (those already gathered). The evidence for the insertion or omission of the art. is evenly divided. The anarthrous noun is more consistent with the meaning of ἐιυτέε. ἐιadds to σνρχι is running together, the meaning besides, i.e. in addition to those already collected.1 The part. ἰὼ is causal; it was because Jesus saw this, that he rebuked the demon. He did not wish to attract a larger crowd by prolonging the scene, and so, without any further delay, he proceeded with the cure. It is his usual avoidance of any notoriety in his miracles. τ ἄαο κὶκφνπεμ—thou dumb and deaf spirit. The story has grown by so much, since the first mention of the spirit. Then it was dumb, which was more than the other Gospels tell us, now it has become deaf and dumb.
τ ἄαο κὶκφνπεμ, instead of τ πεμ τ ἄαο κὶκφν Tisch. Treg. WH. אBC* DL Δ1, 33, 73, 118, Latt. Memph.
26. κὶκάα κὶπλὰσαάα, ἐῆθ—And having cried out and convulsed (him) violently, he came out.
κάα κὶ σαάα, instead of the neuter, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBC* DL (Δ Omit ατν him, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. א BC* DL Δmss. Lat. Vet.
κάα κ σαάα—The masc. gender shows that the writer thought of the spirit as a person.
ἐέεοὡε νκό—he became as if dead. It is impossible to account for this final convulsion. If Jesus, e.g., were restoring a drowned person, would the horrible feelings attending a natural restoration be avoided? And whether any such violent wrench of mind and body would attend a sudden cure of insanity, we do not know.
ὥτ τὺ πλοςλγι2—so that the most said.
Insert τὺ before πλοςTisch. Treg. WH. RV. אABL Δ33.
27. καήα τςχιὸ ατῦhaving taken his hand.
τςχιὸ ατῦ instead of ατντςχιό, him by the hand, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBDL Δ1, 13, 28, 53, 69, 118, 209, Latt. Memph.
28. κὶεσλότςατῦ—And he having entered.
εσλότςατῦ instead of the acc., Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBCDL Δ1, 13, 28, 69, 118, 209, 346 (Latt.).
ὅιἡεςοκἠυήηε—Why could not we? On the use of ὅι see on v. 11. There seems to be no reason whatever here for supposing that this is a statement, instead of a question. There is a kind of challenge in the statement, that is evidently not in their minds. They mean simply to ask the question, why they could not perform this miracle, when Jesus had given them power over unclean spirits.
29. τῦοτ γνςthis kind of thing, i.e. the genus evil spirit; not this kind of spirit, as if this was a specially vicious kind of spirit, that it took a good deal to exorcise. ἐ ποεχ—in prayer. κὶνσεᾳ and fasting, is an evident gloss. It is one of the things that a later asceticism imported into the spiritual teaching of Jesus. It seems to be implied in the question of the disciples that they had expected to cast out the demon, so that their lack of faith in the matter had not taken the shape of doubt of their power. But what was lacking was prayer, which is the expression of faith considered as dependence on the Divine power and confidence in that. It is the sense of God that conveys all kinds of spiritual power. But this power was not subjective, it did not reside in themselves, but was power to move God, and this precludes the idea that a special degree of this power was necessary in the case of so stubborn a demon as this. But it is a general statement that miracles of any kind are possible only to him who prays.
Omit κὶνσεᾳ Tisch. (Treg. marg.) WH. RV. א B one ms. Lat. Vet. It is one of the things that would stand no chance of omission, if found in the original. Evidence shows that it was interpolated in a like passage (1Co_7:5).
SECOND PREDICTION OF DEATH
30-32. Jesus returns through Galilee, and again seeks to hide his presence, in order to convey to his disciples the esoteric teaching about his death. The same particulars are given as in the previous announcement, that he will be delivered up, and put to death, and will rise again after three days. But they did not know what he was saying, and were afraid to question him.
30. κκῖε ἐεθνε (πρ ἐοεοτ—and having gone out from that place, they were coming. The place which they left was the vicinity of Cæ Philippi. Their journey through Galilee to Capernaum would take them on the west side of the Jordan.
ἐοεοτ, instead of πρπρύνο Treg. WH. B* Dgr. mss. Lat. Vet.
κὶοκἤεε ἵατςγο—and did not wish that any one should know it.1 Jesus’ desire to escape notice is a continuation of the policy pursued by him since his departure to Tyre and Sidon(7:24). Since that time, he has been mostly in strange places, accompanied by his disciples alone, and preparing them for the approaching crisis in his life.
γο, instead of γῷ Tisch. Treg. WH. אBCDL.
31. ἐίακνγρetc.—for he was teaching his disciples. This esoteric teaching was the reason of his desire to escape observation. Prediction of things to be done by men is apt to prejudice the event. It was necessary that the disciples should be prepared for so startling an issue, but the world is left wisely to the tutelage of unforeseen events. πρδδτιis delivered over. The present is used to denote the certainty of the future event.2 μτ τεςἡέα—after three days. The resurrection was really on the third day. But the usage of speech allowed this to be spoken of in either way.
32. ἠνοντ ρμ—they did not understand the word. This passage and the parallel (Luk_9:45) are the only ones in which this verb is used with the meaning understand, and the peculiar use in passages relating to the same event is strongly corroborative of the interdependence of the accounts. ἐοονοατνἐεωῆα—they feared to question him. They were afraid that further questions would not alleviate, but only aggravate, the situation, and they feared to know the worst.
MEANING OF GREATNESS
33-37. Dispute among the disciples over the question of precedence among them. Jesus defines true greatness for them.
The journey from Cæ Philippi brings them to Capernaum, where Jesus begins to question them about a dispute which they had had on the road, and which they evidently desire to conceal from him. We learn elsewhere that James and John actually asked him for first and second place among his followers, when the time should come to distribute these honors (10:35). And probably, this was an outcropping of the same spirit. The first three places were conceded to these two and to Peter. But which was to be primus? Jesus answers this question by putting before them the paradox of the kingdom, that last is first, and service is greatness. Then he takes a child, and teaches them that the spirit of the child is the mark of the king, to receive one such is to receive him, and to receive him is to receive God.
33. κὶἦθνεςΚφραύ—And they came to Capernaum.
ἦθν instead of ἦθν he came, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אB (D) 1, 118, 209, most mss. Lat. Vet. Vulg. Pesh.
γνμνςbeing (AV.), and when he was (RV.), do not translate this verb, which denotes becoming not being. Having come to be, or having come, translates it. Τ ἐ τ ὁῷδεοίεθ—The verb is impf. and means were disputing.
Omit πὸ ἑυος among yourselves, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBCDL mss. Lat. Vet. Vulg. Memph.
34. ἐιπνwere silent. But kept silent is better, which is another meaning of the impf. The merging of all these different shades of meaning into the simple past tense is one of the imperfections of the AV. This silence was due to their shame. They knew Jesus’ opinion of such disputes. δεέθσνthey had disputed.1 τςμίω—who is greatest? That is, which of them? Winer contends, that the compar. is used here with perfect regularity, since the object with which the comparison is made is really only one.2 But this would make it possible to substitute the compar. for the superl. in all cases, since the greatest is always greater than all the rest, the comparison being made always not with individuals, but with all taken together. But this confusion is one of the signs of degeneracy in a decadent language.
35. πνω ἔχτςκὶπ δαοο—he shall be last of all, and servant of all. This is the way to be great among the disciples of Jesus. It does not point out the penalty of ambition, as we might gather from the certain disapproval of the ordinary ambition by Jesus, but the way of satisfying Christian ambition. But the method is a paradox, like the beatification of sorrow. The Christian way to be first is to be last, to fall to the rear, to efface yourself. But it is not only humility that is demanded, but service. This again is a paradox, since primacy means dominion, the faculty not of serving, but of levying service on others. But these things, humility and service, in the kingdom of God, not only lead to greatness, they are greatness, i.e. they are the supreme marks of the Christian quality. And it is one of the signs that the world is becoming a seat of the kingdom of God, that rulers, leaders, employers, and others, are beginning to recognize this idea of service as the meaning of their position.
36. ἐακλσμνςa Biblical word, corresponding exactly to our embrace, en bras, for which the Greeks said ἐ ἀκλι λμάω
37. ἕ τνπιίντιύω—one of such little children. The child meant by our Lord is not a child in years, but in spirit, a person possessed of the childlike quality. The child is the best example of the type just held up before the disciples by our Lord, and he is himself the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. When he says then, that to receive such a childlike person is the same as to receive him, he is affirming again, in his striking way, that humility and service are the marks of greatness in his kingdom; they are, that is, the things that identify a man with him.1
ὅ ἂ, instead of ὅ ἐν Tisch. Treg. WH. אABCDL Δ1, 13, 28, 69. In the second clause the same, Tisch. Treg. WH. BDL Δ
ἐὶτ ὀόαίμυupon my name, i.e. on the strength of my name. The prep. denotes the basis, the ground of the reception. This use of the word ὄοαto denote the various things about a person recalled by his name, especially in the phrase ἐ or ἐὶτ ὀόαι is not Greek, but Hebrew. The phrase indicates that a person is so connected with another, that he receives whatever consideration belongs to that other. The connection of thought, however, shows that, just as the personal consideration is excluded by this phrase, showing that the man is not received for himself, but because of Jesus; so it cannot be a mere outward connection with our Lord, but because the man’s childlikeness makes him like Jesus, so that men are reminded of Jesus when they see him. οκἐὲδχτι ἀλ τνἀοτίατ μ—receives not me but him who sent me. Christ did not represent himself in the world, but the Father, a fact developed at great length in the fourth Gospel. This representative character belongs to him as the one sent by the Father into the world. But in this case also, the connection is not outward, but inward. To be sent by God is to be inspired by him, to be filled with His Spirit, and so the spirit of humility and service, in the disciple, and in Jesus himself, is here carried a step farther back, and is shown to be that of the Father. In such a child, Jesus says, you see me, yes, and God himself.
EXCLUSIVENESS CONDEMNED
38-50. The disciples tell Jesus of their interference with one casting out demons in his name, but not following them. Jesus’ reply.
The belief of the disciples in the near approach of the kingdom seems to have wrought in them other effects than ambition. So far, the power to work miracles had been confined to themselves. And it seemed to them a mark of superiority to which they had the exclusive right. So we find John, apparently in the course of this same conversation, telling Jesus of the case of an outsider who had used his name in casting out demons, and had been forbidden by them any further exercise of a power appropriated to them. Jesus’ answer is substantially that they are right, that the work of a disciple does belong to a disciple; but that they have turned this the wrong way. It does not lead to officialism, but just the opposite. It follows, not that any one who is outside their circle should be forbidden their work, but that the doing of the work shows that he is like them inwardly, though not outwardly. Their complaint is, that he is doing their work. Very well, Jesus says, that shows that he is on your side. It is not necessary to do a miracle to show this; a cup of water given to them because they are disciples shows the same thing. But if any one causes the fall of one of the humblest of these disciples, it would be better for him to be cast into the sea, with a millstone round his neck. And since to fall away is so grievous an evil, they would better cut off hand, or foot, or eye, than have any member cause their fall, since this means Gehenna and its fires to them. Fire is to salt them all, either the fire of affliction here, or the fire of Gehenna there. Fire is salt, and salt is good; but if any salt loses its flavor, how is salt to be salted? Hence they must have salt in themselves to render these outward purifiers effective, and especially must be at peace among themselves, an injunction which their jealousies and rivalries rendered necessary.
38. Ἔηατ ὁἸάνς Δδσαε εδμντν ἐ τ ὀόαίσυἐβλοτ διόι, κὶἐωεοε ατν ὅιοκἠοοθιἡῖ—John said to him, Teacher, we saw one casting out demons in thy name, and we forbade him, because he was not following us.
Ἔη instead of ἀερθ δ …λγν And …answered, saying, Tisch. Treg. (who, however, retains λγν WH. RV. אB L Memph. Pesh. Insert ἐ before τ ὀόαιTisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBCDLN Δ1, 69, etc. Omit ὅ οκἀοοθῖἡῖ, who does not follow us, WH. RV. אBCL Δ10, 115, 346, one ms. Lat. Vet. Memph. Pesh. ἐωύμν instead of λσμν Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBDgr. L Δ1, 209. ἠοοθι instead of ἀοοθῖ after ὅιοκ Tisch. WH. RV. אB Δ
ΔδσαεTeacher, not Master. The word in the vernacular used by him would be Rabbi. ἐ τ ὀόαίσυin thy name. See on v. 37. In this case, it means, by the authority of Jesus. ὅιοκἠοοθιbecause he was not following. The impf. takes us back to the time of the transaction, when the disciples saw him casting out demons. They were right in assuming this to be an abnormal case, because the proper place for the disciple assuming such powers was with Jesus. The Master kept such in his immediate company for instruction, and even his immediate disciples he sent out on such errands only very rarely. But all such restrictions are themselves limited by the method of the Spirit’s working, which is like the wind, blowing where it will. The disciples had a right to expect that one who had come under the influence of Jesus would, like them, desire to be with him. But they did not take into account the fact that one might, under the influence of such a life, be awakened himself to the want and wretchedness of the world, and wish to put the mysterious power that he felt within him to the test, and that this might overpower even the desire for the companionship of the Lord.
39. κκλγσιto speak evil.1 Jesus puts the matter immediately upon its proper footing, showing the disciples that, reasoning from the facts within their possession, they ought to have drawn a favorable conclusion. To be sure, it was so far against the man, that he did not company with them; but that was not conclusive. Whereas it was conclusive, that he was able to perform the miracle. The test whether one is fit to perform an act is the performance of the act. A man’s fitness to write poetry, to preach, to paint, to perform miracles, is proved by his performance in each case. Can he do the thing? But here there was a further question involved, whether the man really belonged to the disciples of Jesus, and so had a right to use the name that he had used in casting out the demons. The fact, that he did not follow the disciples, seemed to be against his own right as a disciple, but this was entirely overborne by the effect that followed his use of the name. He could not cast out demons, actually cast them out, in the name of Jesus, and then turn around and revile it. Or, as Jesus says, he could not do it τχ, quickly. The two things are incongruous, so that they could not follow each other rapidly.
40. ὃ οκἔτνκθ ἡῶ ὑὲ ἡῶ—he who is not against us is for us. This is not the opposite of “he that is not with me is against me,” but its complement (Mat_12:30). There Jesus is talking about this same matter of casting out demons, which he had been accused of doing in the name of Beelzebub. But he answers that the act is one of hostility to Satan, and cannot therefore proceed from Satan himself. One cannot be for and against at the same time. Then he applies the same principle to himself, saying that he who is not for him is against him. Here, he shows that this same act of casting out demons is friendly to himself, as it is hostile to Satan, and that he who shows himself thus friendly, cannot be at the same time hostile. The use which is often made of Mat_12:30, to show that there is no such thing as indifference to Jesus, but that seeming indifference is real hostility, is unwarrantable. The real meaning of both passages is, that friendliness and hostility are incongruous, and cannot therefore exist together.
ἡῶ, us, instead of ὑῶ, you, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBCΔ1, 13, 69, 209, one ms. Lat. Vet. Memph. Harcl. marg.
41. ὅ γρἂ πτσ ὑᾶ πτρο ὕαο ἐ ὀόαιὅιχιτῦἐτ—For whoever gives you a cup of water to drink on the ground that you belong to Christ. ὀόαιis used here like the Latin nomen to denote cause or season. RV. because ye are Christ’s. This confirms the preceding by showing that even a small service done in his name will be taken as showing friendliness to him, and so will not lose its reward. It gets its character from its motive of attachment to him.
Omit τ before ὀόαιTisch. Treg. WH. RV. אABCLNC Γ. Omit μυ my, after ὀόαιTreg. WH. RV. א ABC* KLN Π 1, 229, 238, 435, Pesh. Harcl. text. Insert μυTisch. א C3 DX ΓΠ Latt. Memph. Harcl. marg. The pleonasm favors this reading, as Tisch. says. Insert ὅι that, before ο μ ἀοέῃ Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBC* DL Δmss. Lat. Vet. one ms. Vulg. Syrr. Memph.
42. κὶὅ ἂ σαδλσ ἕατύω τνμκῶ πσεότν κλνἐτνατ μλο, ε πρκια μλςὀιὸ—And whoever causes the fall of one of these little ones who believe, it is well for him rather, if an upper millstone is hung around his neck.
Insert τύω, these, before τνμκῶ, little ones, Tisch. Treg. (Treg. marg.) WH. RV. אABC* and 2 DLM2 N Δ1, mss. of Lat. Vet. Memph. Harcl. Omit εςἐέ in me, after τνπσεότν who believe, Tisch. WH. RV. (Treg. marg.) אΔmss. Lat. Vet. also C* D one ms. Lat. Vet., which read πσι ἐότν have faith, without εςἐέ μλςὀιὸ, upper millstone, instead of λθςμλκς a millstone, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBCDL ΔLatt. Pesh.
This presents the other side, the result of injuring one of his disciples. But it is noticeable that the injury is a spiritual one. Not that other hurts inflicted on them would not be taken as indicating hostility to him, but that Jesus, when he thinks of such injuries, singles out those inflicted on their spiritual nature as the only ones that will really harm them, though others show the disposition to harm them. κλνἐτνατ μλο—it is well for him rather.1 Regularly, the form of conditional sentence employed would correspond to the assumption that the condition is contrary to the fact; i.e. past tenses of the ind. would be employed. The English Version indicates this by its translation, it were better, were hung, and were cast. The present construction, making it a pure condition, leaves out of sight that the clause ὃ ἄ σαδλσ has already assumed σαδλζι,—causing to fall, as the actual case. μλςὀιό—an upper millstone. Both words are Biblical, and ὀιό is found only here and in the parallel passage (Mat_18:6). This is another case, therefore, in which only the interdependence of the written accounts will account for the identity of the language. The grist was ground in a mill between an upper and under stone, the under one being stationary, and the upper one turned by an ass, whence the name ὀιό.
43. κὶἐνσαδλσ σ ἡχί συ ἀόοο ατν κλνἐτνσ κλὸ etc.—and if your hand causes you to fall, cut it off; it is well for you to enter into life maimed, etc.
σαδλσ, instead of -ζ, Tisch. WH. RV. אBL Δmss. Lat. Vet. Vulg. ἐτνσ, instead of σιἐτ, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBCL Δ13, 28, 69 **, 346.
σαδλσ—This word forms the connection between this and the preceding discourse. Jesus has begun by speaking of what it is to be identified with him, and incidentally has introduced the subject of the injury inflicted on him by causing the fall of one of his disciples. And in connection with this has come up the question of comparative values, spiritual and material. This leads him to speak of the things in the man himself that would lead to his fall, and to continue the subject of comparative values in connection with that. It is well to cut off hand, or foot, or eye, sooner than run the risk through either of them of absolute spiritual loss. εσλενεςτ ζή—to enter into life. Life is the word used in the Bible to express the reward of righteousness. And it is the word which expresses the natural, instead of the imposed consequence of conduct. Conduct reacts on the life, the being of the man, and right conduct conduces to health and fulness of life. εςτ Γεννinto Gehenna. This is the Græ form of גיהנֹ the Vale of Hinnom, which is the valley on the SE. side of Jerusalem. This valley had been desecrated by the sacrifice of children to Moloch, and had been used as an accursed place, for the refuse and garbage of the city. Here worms consumed the dead matter, and fires were kept burning to destroy the refuse. Hence it came to be used as a name for the place of future punishment. εςτ πρτ ἄβσο—into the unquenchable fire. This is borrowed from the continual fires of Hinnom spoken of above. And the material figure expresses the idea of destruction, as life denotes the opposite side of retribution. The contrast with ζή would indicate that this is the meaning of the figure here, rather than torment. Jesus follows here his usual habit of borrowing current language, which lends itself, however, to the expression of more radical spiritual ideas than it conveyed to the common understanding. This is not a necessary deduction from the language, but its aptness for the expression of the deeper thought, and the aptness of Jesus for the deeper thought, combine to create a strong probability of its correctness.
Omit v. 44, Tisch. WH. RV. אBCL Δ1, 28, 118, 251.
45. κλνἐτνσ—it is well for you.
ἐτνσ, instead of ἐτ σι Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אABCEFGHKLVX Δ Omit εςτ πρτ ἄβσο, into the unquenchable fire, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBCL Δ1 28, 118, 251, two mss. Lat. Vet. Pesh.
Omit v. 46, same authorities as v. 44.
47. κλνσ ἐτνμνφαμνεσλενεςτνβσλίντῦΘο, ἠδοὀθλοςἔοτ βηῆα εςτνγενν ὅο, etc.—It is well for you to enter one-eyed into the kingdom of God, than having two eyes to be cast into Gehenna, where, etc.
σ ἐτν instead of σιἐτ, Tisch. Treg. WH. (RV.) אB; ἐτνσ of L Δ Omit τῦπρς of fire, after γενν(Gehenna of fire, not hell fire), Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBDL Δ1, 28, 118, 209, mss. Lat. Vet. Memph.
Kingdom of God is substituted in this case for life. The contrast with γεννshows that it is the future, rather than the present form of the kingdom, that is strictly meant. But in the mouth of Jesus, such a term as kingdom of God has a permanent meaning, which is never lost among the minor changes. To him it meant simply the realm in which the will of God is done. It is well,1 he says, to enter that realm at any cost.
48. ὅο ὁσώη ατνο τλυᾷ &k