Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Mark 12:1 - 12:12
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Mar_12:1-12. See on Mat_21:33-46. Comp. Luk_20:9-19. Matthew makes another kindred parable precede, which was undoubtedly likewise original, and to be found in the collection of Logia (Mar_12:28-32), and he enriches the application of the parable before us in an equally original manner; while, we may add, the presentation in Mark is simpler and more fresh, not related to that of Matthew in the way of heightened and artificial effect (Weiss).
ἤρξατο ] after that dismissal of the chief priests, etc.
αὐτοῖς ] therefore not as Luke has it: πρὸς τὸν λαόν , to which also Matthew is opposed.
ἐν παραβολαῖς ] parabolically. The plural expression is generic; comp. Mar_3:22, Mar_4:2. Hence it is not surprising (Hilgenfeld). Comp. also Joh_16:24.
Mar_12:2. According to Mark and Luke, the lord receives a part of the fruits; the rest is the reward of the vine-dressers. It is otherwise in Matthew.
Mar_12:4. Observe how compendiously Matthew sums up the contents of Mar_12:4-5.[146]
κἀκεῖνον ] The conception of maltreatment lies at the foundation of the comparative also, just as at Mar_12:5. Comp. on Mat_15:3.
ἐκεφαλαίωσαν ] they beat him on the head. The word is not further preserved in this signification (Vulg.: in capite vulnerarunt), but only in the meaning: to gather up as regards the main substance, to set forth summarily (Thuc. iii. 67. 5, viii. 53. 1; Herod. iii. 159; Sir_35:8); but this is wholly inappropriate in this place, since it is not, with Wakefield, Silv. crit. II. p. 76 f., to be changed into the meaning: “they made short work with him.”[147] We have here a veritable solecism; Mark confounded κεφαλαιόω with ΚΕΦΑΛΊΖΩ , perhaps after the analogy of ΓΝΑΘΌΩ and ΓΥΙΌΩ (Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 9 5).
ἠτίμησαν (see the critical remarks): they dishonoured him, treated him disgracefully, the general statement after the special ἐκεφαλ . The word is poetical, especially epic (Hom. Il. i. 11, ix. 111; Od. xvi. 274, al.; Pind. Pyth. ix. 138; Soph. Aj. 1108; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 251), as also in this sense the later form ἀτιμόω , of frequent use in the LXX. (Eur. Hel. 462, al.), which in the prose writers is used in the sense of inflicting dishonour by depriving of the rights of citizenship (also in Xen. Ath. i. 14, where ἀτιμοῦσι is to be read).
Mar_12:5. Κ . ΠΟΛΛΟῪς ἌΛΛΟΥς ] Here we have to supply: they maltreated—the dominant idea in what is previously narrated (comp. κἀκεῖνον , Mar_12:4-5, where this conception lay at the root of the ΚΑΊ ), and to which the subsequent elements ΔΈΡΟΝΤΕς and ἈΠΟΚΤΕΝΝΌΝΤΕς are subordinated. Comp. Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 252 [E. T. 293]. But Mark does not write “in a disorderly and slipshod manner,” as de Wette supposes, but just like the best classical writers, who leave the finite verb to be supplied from the context in the case of participles and other instances. See Bornemann, ad Xen. Sympos. iv. 53; Hermann, ad Viger. p. 770; Nägelsbach, Anm. z. Ilias, ed. 3, p. 179.
Mar_12:6. The ἔτι ἕνα εἶχεν υἱὸν ἀγ . (see the critical remarks), which is peculiar to the graphic Mark, has in it something touching, to which the bringing of ἝΝΑ into prominence by the unusual position assigned to it contributes. Then, in vivid connection therewith stands the contrast of Mar_12:7-8; and the trait of the parable contained in Mar_12:7 f. certainly does not owe its introduction to Mark (Weiss).
Mar_12:8. Not a hysteron proteron (Grotius, Heumann, de Wette), a mistake, which is with the greatest injustice imputed to the vividly graphic Mark; but a different representation from that of Matthew and Luke: they killed him, and threw him (the slain) out of the vineyard. In the latter there is the tragic element of outrage even against the corpse, which is not, however, intended to be applied by way of special interpretation to Jesus.
Mar_12:9. ἐλεύσεται κ . τ . λ .] not an answer of the Pharisees (Vatablus, Kuinoel, following Mat_21:41); but Jesus Himself is represented by Mark as replying to His own question.[148]
Mar_12:10. οὐδέ ] What Jesus has set before them in the way of parable concerning the rejection of the Messiah and His divine justification, is also prophesied in the Scripture, Psa_118:22; hence He continues: have ye not also read this Scripture, etc.? On γραφή , that which is drawn up in writing, used of individual passages of Scripture, comp. Luk_4:21; Joh_19:37; Act_1:16; Act_8:35.
Mar_12:12. καὶ ἐφοβ . τ . ὄχλ .] καί connects adversative clauses without changing its signification, Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 147 f.; Winer, p. 388 [E. T. 545]. It is an emphatic and in the sense of: and yet. Especially frequent in John.
The words ἔγνωσαν γὰρ … εἶπε , which are not to be put in a parenthesis, are regarded as illogically placed (see Beza, Heupel, Fritzsche, Baur, Hilgenfeld, and others), and are held to have their proper place after κρατῆσαι . But wrongly. Only let ἔγνωσαν be referred not, with these interpreters, to the chief priests, scribes, and elders, but to the ὄχλος , which was witness of the transaction in the temple-court. If the people had not observed that Jesus was speaking the parable in reference to ( πρός ) them (the chief priests, etc., as the γεωργούς ), these might have ventured to lay hold on Him; but, as it was, they might not venture on this, but had to stand in awe of the people, who would have seen at once in the arrest of Jesus the fulfilment of the parable, and would have interested themselves on His behalf. The chief priests, etc., were cunning enough to avoid this association, and left Him and went their way. In this manner also Luk_20:19 is to be understood; he follows Mark.
[146] All the less ought the several δοῦλοι to be specifically defined; as, for instance, according to Victor Antiochenus, by the first servant is held to be meant Elias and the contemporary prophets; by the second, Isaiah, Hosea, and Amos; by the third, Ezekiel and Daniel. That the expression in vv. 2–4 is in the singular, notwithstanding the plurality of prophets, cannot in a figurative discourse be surprising, and cannot justify the conjecture that here another parable—of the three years of Christ’s ministry—has been interwoven (Weizsäcker).
[147] This explanation is set aside by αὐτόν , which, moreover, is opposed to the view of Theophylact: συνετέλεσαν καὶ ἐκορύφωσαν τὴν υβριν . The middle is used in Greek with an accusative of the person ( τινά ), but in the sense: briefly to describe any one. See Plat. Pol. ix. p. 576 B.
[148] That the opponents themselves are compelled to pronounce judgment (Matthew), appears an original trait. But the form of their answer in Matthew ( κακοὺς κακῶς κ . τ . λ .) betrays, as compared with Mark, a later artificial manipulation.