Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Mark 1:40 - 1:45
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Mar_1:40-45. Comp. on Mat_8:2-4, where this history follows immediately after the sermon on the Mount, and that in a shorter, more comprehensive form in accordance with Mark. In Luke (Mar_5:12 ff.) the narrative of the draught of fishes is previously inserted.
γονυπετῶν αὐτόν ] see on Mat_17:14.
Mar_1:41.[60] ΣΠΛΑΓΧΝΙΣΘ .] subordinated to the participle ἘΚΤΕΊΝΑς ; see Winer, p. 308 [E. T. 433]; Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. p. 249.
Mar_1:42. ἀπῆλθεν ἀπʼ αὐτοῦ ] so also Luke. But he has omitted the following Κ . ἘΚΑΘΑΡ ., to which Matthew has adhered.
Mar_1:43. ἘΜΒΡΙΜΗΣΆΜ . ΑὐΤῷ after He had been angry at him, wrathfully addressed him (comp. Mar_14:5, and on Mat_9:30). We are to conceive of a vehement begone now! away hence! With this is connected also the forcible ἐξέβαλεν . Observe the peculiar way in which Mark depicts how Jesus with very earnest zeal desired and urged the departure of the man that was healed. Moreover, the statement that the cure took place in a house ( ἐξέβαλεν ) is peculiar to Mark, who in the entire narrative is very original and cannot be following the colourless narrative of Luke (Bleek). It is true that, according to Lev_13:46, comp. Num_5:2, lepers were forbidden to enter into a house belonging to other people (see Ewald in loc., and Alterth. p. 180); but the impulse towards Jesus and His aid caused the sick man to break through the barrier of the law, whence, moreover, may be explained the hurried and vehement deportment of Jesus.
Mar_1:44. As to the prohibition, see on Mat_8:4, and on Mar_5:43.
The prefixing of σεαυτόν (thyself) is in keeping with the emotion, with which the withdrawal of the person is required.
περὶ τοῦ καθαρ . σου on account of thy cleansing, i.e. in order to become Levitically clean.
Mar_1:45. Comp. Luk_5:15 f. Mark has peculiar matter.
ἐξελθών ] from the house. Comp. Mar_1:43.
ἬΡΞΑΤΟ ] ΕὐΓΝΏΜΩΝ ὪΝ Ὁ ΛΕΠΡῸς , ΟὐΚ ἨΝΈΣΧΕΤΟ ΣΙΓῇ ΚΑΛΎΨΑΙ ΤῊΝ ΕὐΕΡΓΕΣΊΑΝ , Euthymius Zigabenus. The beginning of this breach of the imposed silence is made prominent.
τὸν λόγον ] Euthymius Zigabenus: ὋΝ ΕἼΡΗΚΕΝ ΑὐΤῷ Ὁ ΧΡΙΣΤῸς , ΔΗΛΑΔῊ ΤῸ ΘΈΛΩ , ΚΑΘΑΡΊΣΘΗΤΙ . So also Fritzsche. But Mark, in order to be intelligible, must have led men to this by a more precise designation pointing back to it. It is the story, i.e. the narrative of the occurrence (Luther appropriately has the history), not: the matter (so usually; even de Wette and Bleek), which λόγος in the N. T. never directly means (not even at Mar_2:2, Mar_8:32; Luk_1:4; Act_10:36); as, indeed, also in classical writers (see Wolf, ad Dem. Lept. p. 277) it never absolutely means the matter in itself, but the point spoken of, the state of things that is under discussion, or the like. As to the distinction between λόγος and ΦΉΜΗ , see Bremi, ad Isocr. Paneg. p. 32.
μηκέτι ] no longer, as He could hitherto.
ΔΎΝΑΣΘΑΙ ] moral possibility, if, namely, He would not occasion any tumult.
ΚΑΊ ] not: and yet (Kuinoel, de Wette, Bleek, and others), but the simple and. Instead of going publicly into the city, He was outside in solitary places, and people came to Him from all quarters. A simple account of what was connected with His sojourn in the solitude; He did not withdraw from this concourse, but He would not excite any sensation in the city.
[60] If the leper had come to Jesus when he was already substantially healed, as Schenkel in spite of ver. 45 thinks probable, what charlatanry would the Lord have been practising at ver. 41 f.! And yet, even according to Schenkel (p. 373), Mark is assumed to have had the narrative from the mouth of Peter.