Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Mark 12:28 - 12:34
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Mar_12:28-34. See on Mat_22:34-40.
Mark, however, has much that is peculiar, especially through the characteristic and certainly original amplification in Mar_12:32-34.
The participles are to be so apportioned, that ἀκούσας is subordinated to the προσελθών , and εἰδώς belongs to ἐπηρώτηρεν as its determining motive.
εἰδώς ] not inappropriate (Fritzsche, de Wette); but the scribe knew from his listening how aptly Jesus had answered them ( αὐτοῖς , emphatically placed before ἀπεκρ .); and therefore he hoped that He would also give to him an apt reply.
πάντων ] neuter. Compare Xen. Mem. iv. 7. 70: ὁ δὲ ἥλιος … πάντων λαμπρότατος ὤν , Thucyd. vii. 52. 2. See Winer, p. 160 [E. T. 222]; Dorvill. ad Charit. p. 549.
Mar_12:29-30. Deu_6:4-5. This principle of morality, which binds all duties into unity (see J. Müller, v. d. Sünde, I. p. 140 f.), was named pre-eminently ÷øéàä , or also from the initial word ùÑîò , and it was the custom to utter the words daily, morning and evening. See Vitringa, Synag. ii. 3. 15; Buxtorf, Synag. 9.
ἰσχύος ] LXX. δυνάμεως . It is the moral strength, which makes itself known in the overcoming of hindrances and in energetic activity. Comp. Beck, bibl. Seelenl. p. 112 f., and on Eph_1:19. Matthew has not this point, but Luke has at Mar_10:27.[150]
Mar_12:32. After ΔΙΔΆΣΚΑΛΕ there is only to be placed a comma, so that ἘΠʼ ἈΛΗΘΕΊΑς (comp. on Mar_12:14) is a more precise definition of ΚΑΛῶς .
ὍΤΙ ΕἿς ἘΣΤΙ ] that He is one. The subject is obvious of itself from what precedes. As in the former passage of Scripture, Mar_12:29, so also here the mention of the unity of God is the premiss for the duty that follows; hence it is not an improbable trait (Köstlin, p. 351), which Mark has introduced here in the striving after completeness and with reference to the Gentile world.
Mar_12:33. συνέσεως ] a similar notion instead of a repetition of ΔΙΑΝΟΊΑς , Mar_12:30. It is the moral intelligence which comprehends and understands the relation in question. Its opposite is ἈΣΎΝΕΤΟς (Rom_1:21; Rom_1:31), Dem. 1394, 4 : ἈΡΕΤῆς ἉΠΆΣΗς ἈΡΧῊ Ἡ ΣΎΝΕΣΙς . Comp. on Col_1:9.
ὉΛΟΚΑΥΤ .] “Nobilissima species sacrificiorum,” Bengel. ΠΆΝΤΩΝ ΤῶΝ applies inclusively to ΘΥΣΙῶΝ . Krüger, § 58. 3. 2.
Mar_12:34. ἸΔῺΝ ΑὐΤῸΝ , ὍΤΙ ] Attraction, as at Mar_11:32 and frequently.
ΝΟΥΝΕΧῶς ] intelligently, only here in the N. T. Polybius associates it with φρονίμως (1:83. 3) and ΠΡΑΓΜΑΤΙΚῶς (2:13. 1, 5:88. 2). On the character of the word as Greek, instead of which the Attics say ΝΟΥΝΕΧΌΝΤΩς (its opposite: ἈΦΡΌΝΩς , Isocr. Mar_5:7), see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 599.
οὐ μακρὰν κ . τ . λ .] The (future) kingdom of the Messiah is conceived as the common goal. Those who are fitted for the membership of this kingdom are near to this goal; those who are unfitted are remote from it. Hence the meaning: There is not much lacking to thee, that thou mightest be received into the kingdom at its establishment. Rightly does Jesus give him this testimony, because in the frankly and eagerly avowed agreement of his religious-moral judgment with the answer of Jesus there was already implied a germ of faith promising much.
καὶ οὐδεὶς οὐκέτι κ . τ . λ .] not inappropriate (de Wette, Baur, Hilgenfeld, Bleek); but it was just this peculiar victory of Jesus—that now the result of the questioning was even agreement with Him—which took from all the further courage, etc.
[150] The variations of the words in Matthew, Mark, and Luke represent different forms of the Greek tradition as remembered, which arose independently of the LXX. (for no evangelist has δύναμις , which is in the LXX.).
REMARK.
The difference, arising from Matthew’s bringing forward the scribe as πειράζων (and how naturally in the bearing of the matter this point of view suggested itself!), is not to be set aside, as, for instance, by Ebrard, p. 493,[151] who by virtue of harmonizing combination alters Mar_12:34 thus: “When Jesus saw how the man of sincere mind quite forgot over the truth of the case the matter of his pride,” etc. The variation is to be explained by the fact, that the design of the questioner was from the very first differently conceived of and passed over in different forms into the tradition; not by the supposition, that Mark did not understand and hence omitted the trait of special temptation (Weiss), or had been induced by Luk_20:39 to adopt a milder view (Baur). Nor has Matthew remodelled the narrative (Weiss); but he has followed that tradition which best fitted into his context. The wholly peculiar position of the matter in Mark tells in favour of the correctness and originality of his narrative.
[151] He follows the method of reconciliation proposed by Theophylact: πρῶτον μὲν αὐτὸν ὡς πειράζοντα ἐρωτῆσαι · εἶτα ὠφεληθέντα ἀπὸ τῆς ἀποκρίσεως τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ νουνεχῶς ἀποκριθέντα ἐπαινεθῆναι . Comp. Grotius and others, including already Victor Antiochenus and the anonymous writer in Possini Cat.; Lange, again, in substance takes the same view, while Bleek simply acknowledges the variation, and Hilgenfeld represents Mark as importing his own theology into the conversation.