Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Mark 10:17 - 10:27
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Mar_10:17-27. See on Mat_19:16-26. Comp. Luk_18:18-27. As well in the question at Mar_10:17, and in the answer of Jesus Mar_10:18-19, as also in the account of the address to the disciples Mar_10:23 f., and in several little peculiar traits, the narrative of Mark is more concrete and more direct.
εἰς ὁδόν ] out of the house, Mar_10:10, in order to prosecute His journey, Mar_10:32.
γονυπετ .] not inappropriate (de Wette), but, in connection with προσδραμών , representing the earnestness of the inquiry; both words are peculiar to the graphic Mark. With an accusative, as at Mar_1:40. See on Mat_17:14.
Mar_10:18. The variation from Matthew is so far unessential, as in the latter also the predicate ἀγαθός is attributed to God only. But in Matthew it has become necessary to give to it, in the relation to the question, a turn which betrays more a later moulding under reflection[134] than the simple and direct primitive form, which we still find in Mark and Luke.
ΤΊ ΜΕ ΛΈΓΕΙς ἈΓΑΘΌΝ ; ΟὐΔΕῚς Κ . Τ . Λ .] Ingeniously and clearly Jesus makes use of the address ΔΙΔΆΣΚΑΛΕ ἈΓΑΘΈ , in order to direct the questioner to the highest moral Ideal, in whose commands is given the solution of the question (Mar_10:19). He did this in such a manner as to turn aside from Himself and to ascribe to God only the predicate ἀγαθός , which had been used by the young man in the customary meaning of holding one in esteem (excellent teacher, Plat. Men. p. 93 C; comp. the familiar Attic ὦ ἀγαθέ or Ὦ ʼΓΑΘΈ ; and see Dorvill. ad Charit. p. 642), but is taken up by Jesus in the eminent and absolute sense. “Thou art wrong in calling me good; this predicate, in its complete conception, belongs to none save One,—that is, God.” Comp. Ch. F. Fritzsche in Fritzschior. Opusc. p. 78 ff. This declaration, however, is no evidence against the sinlessness of Jesus; rather it is the true expression of the necessary moral distance, which the human consciousness—even the sinless consciousness, as being human—recognises between itself and the absolute perfection of God.[135] For the human sinlessness is of necessity relative, and even in the case of Jesus was conditioned by the divine-human development that was subject to growth (Luk_2:52; Heb_5:8; Luk_4:13; Luk_22:28; comp. Ullmann in the Stud. u. Krit. 1842, p. 700); the absolute being-good, that excludes all having become and becoming so, pertains only to God, who is “verae bonitatis canon et archetypus” (Beza). Even the man Jesus had to wrestle until He attained the victory and peace of the cross.[136] This is overlooked from dogmatic misunderstanding in the often attempted (see as early as Augustine, c. Maxim, iii. 23; Ambros. de fide, ii. 1) and variously-turned makeshift (see Theophylact, Erasmus, Bengel, Olshausen, Ebrard; comp. also Lange, II. 2, p. 1106 f.), that Jesus rejected that predicate only from the standpoint of the questioner (if thou regardest me as only a human teacher, then thou art wrong in calling me good, etc.). Wimmer (in the Stud. u. Krit. 1845, p. 115 ff.) thinks that the young man had been ambitious, had said διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ as captatio benevolentiae, and presupposed the existence of ambition also in Jesus; that, therefore, Jesus wished to point his attention by the τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν to his fault, and by the ΟὐΔΕῚς ἈΓΑΘῸς Κ . Τ . Λ . to bring to his knowledge the unique condition of all being-good, in the sense: “Nobody is to be called good, if the only God be not called good, i.e. if He be not assumed and posited as the only condition of all goodness.” In this explanation the premisses are imported, and the interpretation itself is incorrect; since with οὐδεὶς κ . τ . λ ., λέγεται cannot be supplied, but only ἘΣΤΊ , as it so frequently is in general propositions (Kühner, II. p. 40), and since ΟὐΔΕῚς ΕἸ ΜΉ means nothing else than nemo nisi, i.e. according to the sense, no one except (Klotz, ad Devar. p. 524).
Mar_10:19. The certainly original position of the μὴ φονεύσ . is to be regarded as having at that time become traditional. Comp. Weizsäcker, p. 356.
ΜῊ ἈΠΟΣΤΕΡ .] is not a renewed expression of the seventh commandment (Heupel, Fritzsche), against which may be urged its position, as well as the unsuitableness of adducing it twice; neither is it an expression of the tenth commandment, as far as the coveting applies to the plundering another of his property (Bengel, Wetstein, Olshausen, de Wette), against which may be urged the meaning of the word, which, moreover, does not permit us to think of a comprehension of all the previous commands (Beza, Lange); but it applies to Deu_24:14 ( οὐκ ἀποστερήσεις μισθὸν πένητος , where the Roman edition has ΟὐΚ ἈΠΑΔΙΚΉΣΕΙς Μ . Π .), to which also Mal_3:3, Sir_4:1, refer. Comp. also LXX. Exo_21:10. Jesus, however, quotes the originally special command according to its moral universality: thou shalt not withhold. According to Kuinoel, He is thinking of Lev_19:13 ( οὐκ ἀδικήσεις κ . τ . λ .), with which, however, the characteristic ἈΠΟΣΤΕΡΉΣῌς is not in accordance. Least of all can it be taken together with ΤΊΜΑ Κ . Τ . Λ ., so that it would be the prohibitory aspect of the commanding ΤΊΜΑ Κ . Τ . Λ . (so Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 391), against which may be decisively urged the similarity of form to the preceding independent commands, as well as the hallowed and just as independent τίμα κ . τ . λ .; moreover, Mark must have written ΜῊ ἈΠΟΣΤΕΡ . ΤΙΜῊΝ ΤῸΝ ΠΑΤΈΡΑ Κ . Τ . Λ ., in order to be understood. In Matthew this command does not appear; while, on the other hand, he has the ἈΓΑΠΉΣΕΙς ΤῸΝ ΠΛΗΣΊΟΝ Κ . Τ . Λ ., which is wanting in Mark and Luke. These are various forms of the tradition. But since ἈΓΑΠΉΣΕΙς Κ . Τ . Λ . (which also occurred in the Gospel of the Hebrews) is most appropriate and characteristic, and the ΜῊ ἈΠΟΣΤΕΡΉΣῌς is so peculiar that it could hardly have been added as an appendix to the tradition, Ewald’s conjecture (Jahrb. I. p. 132) that the original number of these commandments was seven is not improbable. That which did not occur in the Decalogue was more easily omitted than (in opposition to Weizsäcker) added.
Mar_10:20. διδάσκαλε ] not ἈΓΑΘΈ again.
Mar_10:21. ἨΓΆΠΗΣΕΝ ΑὐΤΌΝ ] means nothing else than: He loved him, felt a love of esteem (dilectio) for him, conceived an affection for him, which impression He derived from the ἐμβλέπειν αὐτῷ . He read at once in his countenance genuine anxiety and effort for everlasting salvation, and at the same time fervid confidence in Himself. The conception of meritum de congruo is altogether foreign to the passage. Grotius appropriately remarks: “amat Christus non virtutes tantum, sed et semina virtutum, suo tamen gradu.” The explanation: blandis eum compellavit verbis (Casaubon, Wolf, Grotius, Wetstein, Kuinoel, Vater, Fritzsche, and others), is founded merely on the passage in Homer, Od. xxiii. 214, where, nevertheless, it is to be explained likewise as to love.[137]
ἕν σοι ὑστερεῖ ] see on Joh_2:2. Yet, instead of σοι , according to B C M D à , min., σε is, with Tischendorf, to be read. Comp. Psa_23:1. The σοι occurred more readily (comp. Luke) to the transcribers.
ἄρας τ . σταυρ .] Mat_16:24; Mar_8:34. It completes the weighty demand of that which he still lacks for the attainment of salvation; which demand, however, instead of bringing salutarily to his knowledge the relation of his own inward life to the divine law, was the rock on which he made shipwreck.
Mar_10:22. ΣΤΥΓΝΆΣΑς ] having become sullen, out of humour. Except in the Schol. Aesch. Pers. 470, and Mat_16:3, the verb only occurs again in the LXX. at Eze_27:35; Eze_28:19; Eze_32:10.
ἮΝ ΓᾺΡ ἜΧΩΝ ] for he was in possession of much wealth.
Mar_10:23. On the significant and solemn περιβλέπειν , comp. Mar_3:5; Mar_3:34; Luk_6:10. Comp. also ἐμβλέψας , Mar_10:21; Mar_10:27.
οἱ τὰ χρήματα ἔχοντες ] The article τά is to be explained summarily. The possessions are regarded as an existing whole, which is possessed by the class of the wealthy.
Mar_10:24. The repetition of the utterance of Jesus is touched with emotion ( ΤΈΚΝΑ ) and milder ( ΤΟῪς ΠΕΠΟΙΘΌΤΑς Κ . Τ . Λ .), but then, at ver, 25, again declaring the state of the case with decision and with enhanced energy,—an alternation of feeling, which is to be acknowledged (in opposition to Fritzsche), and which involves so much of what is peculiar and psychologically true, that even in ΤΟῪς ΠΕΠΟΙΘΌΤΑς Κ . Τ . Λ . there is not to be found a modification by tradition interpreting the matter in an anti-Ebionitic sense, or a mitigation found to be necessary in a subsequent age (Baur, Köstlin, p. 329, Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann). These words, which are intended to disclose the moral ground of the case as it stands, belong, in fact, essentially to the scene preserved by Mark in its original form.
Mar_10:25. ΔΙᾺ Τῆς ΤΡΥΜΑΛ . Κ . Τ . Λ .] through the eye of the needle. The two articles are generic; see Bernhardy, p. 315. Observe also the vivid change: to go through … to enter into.
Mar_10:26. καί ] at the beginning of the question: “cum vi auctiva ita ponitur, ut is, qui interrogat, cum admiratione quadam alterius orationem excipere ex eaque conclusionem ducere significetur, qua alterius sententia confutetur.” Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 3. 10; Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 146 f. Comp. Joh_9:36; Joh_14:22.
[134] This primitive form is alleged, indeed, by Hilgenfeld (in the theol. Jahrb. 1857, p. 414 ff.; comp. in his Zeitschr. 1863, p. 364 f.) to have been no longer preserved even in Mark and Luke. He finds it rather in the form of the words which has been preserved in Justin, c. Tryph. 101, and among the Marcosians (similarly in Marcion): τί με λέγ . ἀγαθόν ; εἷς ἐστὶν ἀγαθὸς , ὁ πατήρ μου , ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς ; and holds these words to have been altered, in order to deprive them of their probative force in favour of the Gnostic distinction between the perfect God and the imperfect Creator of the world. But the Gnostic exegesis might find this probative force just as suitably in our form of the text (in behalf of which Justin, Apolog. i. 16, testifies), if it laid stress, in the εἷς ὁ Θεός , on the reference to the supreme God, the Father of Christ. See also on Luk_18:19.
[135] Comp. Dorner, Jesu sündlose Vollkommenh. p. 14.
[136] Comp. Keim, geschichil. Chr. p. 39 ff., and, moreover, at p. 108 ff.
[137] Penelope in this passage says to her husband: be not angry that I loved thee not thus ( ὧδʼ ἀγάπησα ) as soon as I saw thee,—namely, thus as I do now, when I have embraced thee, etc., v. 207 f.