Lange Commentary - Mark 11:27

Lange Commentary - Mark 11:27 - 11:33

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

Lange Commentary - Mark 11:27 - 11:33

(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)

This Chapter Verse Commentaries:

SECOND SECTION

THE DECISIVE CONFLICT OF JESUS WITH HIS ENEMIES IN JERUSALEM, AND HIS WITHDRAWAL TO THE MOUNT OF OLIVES

s Mar_11:27 to Mar_13:37

________

1. The Attack of the Sanhedrim; or the Question concerning Christ’s Authority, and His Counter-question concerning the Baptist’s. Mar_11:27-33.

(Parallels: Mat_21:23-27; Luk_20:1-8.)

²⁷ And they come again to Jerusalem: and as he was walking in the temple, there ²⁸ come to him the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders, And say unto him, By what authority doest thou these things, and who gave thee this authority to do these things? ²⁹And Jesus answered and said unto them, I will also ask of you one question, ³⁰ and answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? answer me. ³¹And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say, Why then did ye not believe ³² him? But if we shall say, Of men; they feared the people: for all men counted John, that he was a prophet indeed. ³³And they answered and said unto Jesus, We cannot tell. And Jesus answering, saith unto them, Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

See on the parallels of Matthew and Luke.—According to Mark’s representation, this day of Christ’s conflict falls on Tuesday of the Passion Week. But the conflict is subdivided into three parts: 1. The official demand as to Jesus’ abode and supremacy in the temple, exhibited in the question of the Sanhedrim touching His authority; with its reply, as in our present section. 2. The ironical acknowledgment, on the side of the inimical party, of Christ’s Messianic dignity, exhibited in a series of tempting questions and answers; with the great counter question, of Jesus. 3. The Lord’s words to the people, and departure from the temple. Mark’s account has in our text no prominent peculiarities; he agrees rather with Luke than with Matthew. His vivid style of delineation is seen in the trait that Jesus went round about the temple, while according to Matthew, He was in the act of teaching (though these are not inconsistent with each other); as also the second clause of the Sanhedrim’s pondering—“But if we shall say.” The Evangelist’s choice of the expression ëÝãåé áὐôïῖò , Mar_11:33, seems appropriate; while Matthew says ἔöç , and Luke åἶðåí . As the Sanhedrim refused Him a decisive declaration concerning John, who had prophetically authenticated Him as the Messiah, He also refused to them the decisive declaration they sought. This was, however, in itself decisive; but not in the form of an express statement.

Mar_11:27. Doest Thou these things?—See Matthew. This meant, doubtless, the public appearance and work of Jesus in the temple under the Messiah-name which the people gave Him; amongst the rest, certainly, as an individual act, the cleansing of the temple also. The law ordained that prophets were to be tried, Deu_13:1. The most essential requisite was agreement with the faith of the God of Israel; the accidental requirement was the performance of miracles. The latter was not valid without the former; but it was not said that the former without the latter was not valid. (Comp. Deu_18:20; Eze_13:1). The Sanhedrim could hold themselves justified only in asking for the authority of Jesus. They could not deny that He had approved Himself by miracles. They were disposed, however, to make it a reproach, that He taught other gods, and a new religion. Hence they ask Him: 1. After the divine source of His power, prophetic inspiration; 2. after His theocratic authentication. By the latter the former also was approved, and therefore Jesus appealed to John. John was the most recent monument of the truth and validity of the prophetic order in Israel. And this John had marked Him out as the Messiah. They had been compelled to allow his validity as a prophet, although they did not afterwards acknowledge him. They would entangle Jesus by making Him appeal to His divine dignity; but the word of Jesus entangled them and smote them at the same time. It was a reference to His theocratic legitimation, the bearer of which they durst not openly impeach; and at the same time a remembrancer that they themselves had, since the days of John, been falling deep into apostasy.

Mar_11:31. If we shall say.—The abrupt form is expressive, and more significant than the full unfolding of it in Matthew and Luke, “We fear,” which certainly declares the motive of their silence.

Indeed (of a truth).—According to the reading o̓́ íôùò ü ̓ ôé , which Tisch. adopts from B. C. L., Meyer translates “They were inwardly sure that John was a prophet.” But A. D. and others form a counterpoise; as well as the consideration that this would attribute to the people altogether, and as a whole, the full and believing acceptance of John.

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. See on the parallels.

2. The counter-question of Jesus arose as the simple consequence of the question addressed to Him. That question was addressed to His theocratic authority. This was already involved in the authentication by John. If they acknowledged John, they must acknowledge also his witness to Jesus as the Messiah. If they did not acknowledge him, they were in a theocratic sense rebels; and Christ could, in the consciousness of His real, human-divine authority, transcending all theocratic authorization, refuse to give them an answer.

3. From heaven or of men.—Divine mission or human enthusiasm. The antithesis is here laid down, with reference to the contrast between the divine and the human in the human sphere, and does not prejudice the union of the divine and human in the Christological sphere.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

See Matthew.—Christ in His temple assaulted by the official rulers of the place.—Vainly would hierarchical official authority suppress the divine mission of Jesus.—The misuse of spiritual prerogatives against the rights of the Spirit of Christ a guilt which brings after it the severest punishments: 1. Misuse of dignity calls down the judgment of disgrace; 2. misuse of office calls down displacement and rejection from office.—The Spirit of Christ triumphs over the false spirituality of His enemies: 1. With His counter-question opposing their question; 2. with His counter-declarations against their declarations.—The authority of Christ to take possession of the temple of God, as opposed to the impotence of His foes: 1. The authority: a. His theocratic authority; b. His personal divine-human authority; c. the authority which rose out of His actual Passion-conflict. 2. The impotence of His foes: a. as rejecters of the God-sent Baptist, forsaken of human justice; b. as rejecters of Christ, forsaken of the Spirit; c. as enemies and murderers of Christ, forsaken of God in His government of the world.—The obedience of Christ as confronting the Jewish priesthood, an emblem of Christian faith confronting churchly office: 1. The Lord regards the office as under the condition of obedience to the revelation of God, because it issues from that Revelation 2. He regards Himself as under the obligation to obey the revelation of God, because He is the consummation of it. Or, 1. In His suffering a question; 2. in His declining to answer; 3. in His willingness to submit to officials, so long as their rejection is not complete.—The heavenly prudence of the Lord in its triumph over the human wisdom of His enemies.—How the spirit of the New Covenant confronts the false representatives of the Old Covenant in God’s temple: 1. With the clear word of knowledge; 2. with the firm word of assurance; 3. with the sharp word of judgment; 4. with the abundant word of life and of freedom.

Starke:—Nova Bibl. Tub.:—Zeal for God’s house and for its purity is sure to awaken enemies.—Conscience bears witness against the worst of men: they are their own accusers, judges, condemners.—Osiander:—They who will not suffer the Church’s amendment in rule and discipline must fall.—Canstein:—When those in the teaching and ruling office are unfaithful to their calling, and God raises up others extraordinarily, the former take all pains to deny to the latter the power that God Himself has given them.—Hedinger:—The good need prudence in their intercourse with cunning and wicked people, lest their simplicity and openness bring harm to them and their cause.—Quesnel:—Miserable case when the men of light use their knowledge of the truth to oppose that truth.—How many will not in religious matters be sincere, and reveal the truth, lest they be assaulted and tried!—Bibl. Wirt.:—The scorners of the truth, God will in the end count not worthy of the truth they scorn; but, instead of it, will send them strong delusions, that they should believe a lie, 2Th_2:11-12.

Braune:—He might have appealed to many prophets (yet not in the same sense as to John). They would then have said: But that was in a former age. He takes the latest example (of a prophetic vocation).

Footnotes:

Mar_11:28.—Tischendorf reads, with B., C., L., Ä ., ἔëåãïí , and ἤ for êáὶ ( ôßò ) with B., L., D.

Mar_11:31.—The ïὖí is wanting in A., C.*, L., Versions, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Meyer.

Mar_11:32.—The ἐÜí is wanting in the best Codd.; omitting it, the sentence takes a very characteristic interrogatory form.

Mar_11:33.—The ἀðïêñéèåßò is wanting in B., C., [L., Tischendorf, Meyer,] and elsewhere varies in its position.