Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Mark 11:1 - 11:11
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Mar_11:1-11. See on Mat_21:1-11. Comp. Luk_19:29-44. Mark narrates with greater freshness and particularity than Matthew, who partly abridges, but partly also already comments (Mar_11:4-5) and completes (Mar_11:10 f.).
εἰς Βηθφ . κ . Βηθ .] a more precise local definition to εἰς Ἱεροσ .: when they come into the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, (namely) into the neighbourhood of Bethphage and Bethany, which places are situated on the Mount of Olives. Comp. the double εἰς , Mar_11:11.
Mar_11:2. εἰς τὴν κώμην κ . τ . λ .] Bethphage, which was first named as the nearest to them. See also Mat_21:1 f., where Bethany as explanatory is omitted.
πῶλον ] without more precise definition, but, as is obvious of itself, the foal of an ass. Jdg_10:4; Jdg_12:14; Zec_9:9; Gen_49:11.
ἐφʼ ὃν οὐδεὶς κ . τ . λ .] This notice, which in Matthew is not adopted[141] into the narrative, is an addition supplied by reflective tradition, arising out of the sacred destination of the animal (for to a sacred purpose creatures as yet unused were applied, Num_19:2; Deu_21:3; 1Sa_6:7; Wetstein in loc.). Comp. Strauss, II. p. 276 f.
On φέρετε (see the critical remarks), comp. Gen_47:16 : ΦΈΡΕΤΕ ΤᾺ ΚΤΉΝΗ ὙΜῶΝ , Hom. Od. iii. 117. Therefore it is not unsuitable (Fritzsche); even the change of the tenses ( λύσατε … φέρετε ) has nothing objectionable in it. See Kühner, II. p. 80.
Mar_11:3. ΤΊ ] wherefore; to this corresponds the subsequent ὅτι , because.
καὶ εὐθέως κ . τ . λ .] this Jesus says; it is not the disciples who are to say it (Origen; comp. the critical remarks), whereby a paltry trait would be introduced into the commission.
ὧδε , hither, Plato, Prot. p. 328 D; Soph. Trach. 496; O. T. 7; El. 1149. Not yet so used in Homer.
Mar_11:4. εὗρον … ἀμφόδου ] a description characteristic of Mark; ΤῸ ἌΜΦΟΔΟΝ and Ἡ ἌΜΦΟΔΟς (comp. ἈΜΦΌΔΙΟΝ in Lucian, Rhet. praec. 24, 25) is not simply the way, but the way that leads round (winding way). Jer_17:27; Jer_47:2; Jer_47:7; Aristot. de part. ani. III. 2, p. 663, 36 (codd., see Lobeck, Paralip. p. 248), and the examples in Wetstein, also Koenig and Schaefer, ad Gregor. Cor. p. 505.
Mar_11:5. τί ποιεῖτε κ . τ . λ .] Comp. Act_21:13.
Mar_11:8. On the only correct form ΣΤΙΒΆς , not ΣΤΟΙΒΆς , see Fritzsche. The meaning is: litter, ἀπὸ ῥάβδων καὶ χλωρῶν χόρτων στρῶσις καὶ φύλλων , Hesychius. Very frequent in the classical writers. Litter (branches and leaves) was cut from the fields that were near ( ἈΓΡῶΝ , see the critical remarks).
Mar_11:10. Ἡ ἘΡΧΟΜΈΝΗ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΊΑ ΤΟῦ ΠΑΤΡ . ἩΜ . Δ .] i.e. the coming kingdom of the Messiah. Its approaching manifestation, on the eve of occurring with the entry of the Messiah, was seen in the riding of Jesus into Jerusalem. And it is called the kingdom of David, so far as it is the fulfilment of the type given in the kingdom of David, as David himself is a type of the Messiah, who is even called David among the Rabbins (Schoettgen, Hor. II. p. 10 f.). Mark did not avoid mention of the “Son of David” (in opposition to Hilgenfeld; comp. Mar_10:47, Mar_12:35), but Matthew added it; in both cases without special aim. The personal expression, however (comp. Luke: βασιλεύς , which Weizsäcker regards as the most original), easily came into the tradition.
Mar_11:11. ΕἸς ἹΕΡΟΣ . ΕἸς ΤῸ ἹΕΡΌΝ ] After the rejection of ΚΑΊ (see the critical remarks) the second ΕἸς is to be understood as a more precise specification, similar to that in Mar_11:1.
ὀψίας ἤδη οὔσης τῆς ὥρας ] as the hour was already late. ὀψίας is here an adjective. Taken as a substantive, τῆς ὥρας (evening of the day-time) would not be applicable to it; expressions with ὈΨΈ (as Dem. 541, ult. ὈΨῈ Τῆς ὭΡΑς ἘΓΊΓΝΕΤΟ , Xen. Hell. ii. 1. 14, al.) are different. On the adjective ὄψιος , see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 51. It was already the time of day, which in the classical writers is called ὀψία δειλη (Herod. viii. 6; Thuc. viii. 26; Polyb. vii. 16. 4; Ruhnken, Tim. p. 75). According to Matthew and Luke, it was immediately after His entry, and not on the next day (Mark, Mar_11:12; Mar_11:15 ff.) that Jesus purified the temple. A real difference; Matthew has not only narrated the cleansing of the temple as occurring at once along with the entry, but assumed it so (in opposition to Ebrard, Lange, and many others); Mark, however, is original; the day’s work is completed with the Messianic entry itself, and only a visit to the temple and the significant look round about it forms the close. What the Messiah has still further to do, follows on the morrow. This at the same time in opposition to Baur (Markusevang. p. 89), who sees in the narrative of Mark only the later work of sober reflection adjusting the course of events; and in opposition to Hilgenfeld, who accuses Mark of an essential impropriety.
περιβλεψάμ . πάντα is a preparatory significant statement in view of the measure of cleansing purposed on the morrow. The look around was itself deeply serious, sorrowful, judicial (comp. Mar_3:5; Mar_3:34), not as though He Himself had now for the first time beheld the temple and thus had never previously come to the feast (Schenkel).
[141] By no means obvious of itself, moreover, in the case of the ass’s colt in the narrative of Matthew, since it was already large enough for riding,—in opposition to Lange and others.