Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Mark 2:1 - 2:12
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Mar_2:1-12. Comp. on Mat_9:1-8; Luk_5:17-26. At the foundation of both lies the narrative of Mark, which they follow, however, with freedom (Matthew more by way of epitome), while not only Matthew but Luke also falls short of the vivid directness of Mark.
According to the reading εἰσελθών (see the critical remarks), this participle must be taken as anacoluthic in accordance with the conception of the logical subject of the following: it was heard that He, etc. See Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 256 [E. T. 298].
διʼ ἡμερῶν ] interjectis diebus, after the lapse of intervening days. See on Gal_2:1.
εἰς οἶκον ἔστι ] just our: “He is into the house.” The verb of rest assumes the previous motion; Mar_13:16; Joh_1:18; Herod, i. 21, al. See Buttmann, p. 286 [E. T. 333]. Comp. even εἰς δόμους μένειν , Soph. Aj. 80, and Lobeck in loc.; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. 537. The house where Jesus dwelt is meant (but not expressly designated, which would have required the use of the article).
Mar_2:2. μηκέτι ] from the conception of the increasing crowd.
μηδέ ] not even the space at the door, to say nothing of the house. Köstlin, p. 339, arbitrarily finds exaggeration here.
τὸν λόγον ] κατʼ ἐξοχήν : the Gospel. Comp. Mar_8:32; Luk_1:2, al.
Mar_2:3-4. Here also Mark has the advantage of special vividness. Jesus is to be conceived of as in the upper chamber, ὑπερῷον (where the Rabbins also frequently taught, Lightfoot in loc.; Vitringa, Synag. p. 145 f.). Now, as the bearers could not bring the sick man near[61] to Him through the interior of the house by reason of the throng, they mounted by the stair, which led directly from the street to the roof, up to the latter, broke up—at the spot under which He was in the ὙΠΕΡῷΟΝ —the material of which the floor of the roof consisted, and let down the sick man through the opening thus made. The conception that Jesus was in the vestibule, and that the sick man was lowered down to Him after breaking off the parapet of the roof (Faber, Jahn, Köster, Imman. p. 166), is at variance with the words ( ἈΠΕΣΤΈΓΑΣΑΝ ΤῊΝ ΣΤΈΓΗΝ , comp. Luk_5:19), and is not required by Mar_2:2, where the crowd has filled the fore-court because the house itself, where Jesus is tarrying, is already occupied (see above on μηδέ , Mar_2:2); and a curious crowd is wont, if its closer approach is already precluded, to persevere stedfastly in its waiting, even at a distance, in the hope of some satisfaction. Moreover, the fact of the unroofing is a proof that in that house roof and upper chamber were either not connected by a door (comp. Joseph. Antt. xiv. 15. 12), or that the door was too narrow for the passage of the sick man upon his bed (Hug, Gutacht. II. p. 23); and it is contrary to the simple words to conceive, with Lightfoot and Olshausen, only of a widening of an already existing doorway. Mark is not at variance with Luke (Strauss), but both describe the same proceeding; and the transaction related by both bears in its very peculiarity the stamp of truth, in favour of which in the case of Mark the testimony of Peter is to be presumed, and against which the assertion of the danger to those who were standing below (Woolston, Strauss, Bruno Bauer) is of the less consequence, as the lifting up of the pieces of roofing is conceivable enough without the incurring of that risk, and the whole proceeding, amidst the eager hurry of the people to render possible that which otherwise was unattainable, in spite of all its strangeness has no intrinsic improbability.
As to κράββατος , or ΚΡΆΒΑΤΟς , or ΚΡΆΒΑΤΤΟς (Lachmann and Tischendorf), a couch-bed, a word rejected by the Atticists, see Sturz, Dial. Mac. p. 175 f.; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 62 f.
ἀφέωνται κ . τ . λ .] See on Mat_9:2.
Mar_2:6. τῶν γραμματ .] So correctly also Matthew. But Luke introduces already here (too early, see in Mar_2:16) the Pharisees as well. As to διαλογιζ . comp. on Mat_16:7.
Mar_2:7. According to the reading βλασφημεῖ (see the critical remarks), this word answers to the question, What speaketh this man thus? by saying what He speaks.
ΟὟΤΟς ΟὝΤΩ ] this man in this manner, an emphatic juxtaposition. The former is contemptuous (Mat_13:54); the latter designates the special and surprising manner, which is immediately pointed out in what follows.
Mar_2:8. Observe the intentional bringing into prominence of the immediate knowledge of the thoughts.
ΑὐΤΟΊ ] is not the unaccented they, but designates with ἐν ἑαυτοῖς , ipsi in semet ipsis, the element of self-origination, the cogitationes sua sponte conceptas.
As to Mar_2:9-12,[62] see on Mat_9:5-8; Mat_9:33.
σοὶ λέγω ] σοί prefixed with emphasis, because the speaker now turns to the sick man. Comp. Luk_5:24. According to Hilgenfeld, the “awkward structure of the sentence,” Mar_2:10 f., betrays the dependence on Mat_9:6. Why, then, not the converse?
καὶ ᾄρας κ . τ . λ .] Thus the assurance of the remission of sins, according to Schenkel, must have stimulated the paralyzed elasticity of the nerves! A fancy substituted for the miracle.
οὕτως … εἴδομεν ] not equivalent to τοιοῦτο εἴδ . (see on Mat_9:33), but: so we have never seen, i.e. a sight in such a fashion we have never met with. Comp. the frequent ὡς ὁρᾶτε . It is not even requisite to supply τί (Fritzsche), to say nothing of mentally adding the manifestation of the kingdom of God, or the like.
[61] Προσεγγίσαι , active (Aquila, 1Sa_30:7; Lucian, Amor. 53), hence the reading of Tischendorf, προσενέγκαι , following B L à , min. vss., is a correct interpretation of the word, which only occurs here in the N. T. This view is more in keeping with the vivid description than the usual intransitive accedere.
[62] Respecting the Messianic designation—which presupposes Messianic consciousness—coming from the mouth of Jesus: ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου , see on Mat_8:20, and the critical exposition of the different views by Holtzmann in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1865, p. 212 ff., and Weizsäcker, p. 426 ff. Observe, however, that the passage before us, where Jesus thus early and in the face of His enemies, before the people and before His disciples, and in the exercise of a divine plenary power, characterizes Himself by this Danielic appellation, does not admit of the set purpose of veiling that has been ascribed to His use of it (Ritschl, Weisse, Colani, Holtzmann, and others). For the disciple especially the expression, confirmed as it is, moreover, by John from his own lively recollection (see on Joh_1:41), could not but be from the outset clear and unambiguous, and the confession of Peter cannot be regarded as the gradually ripened fruit of the insight now for the first time dawning. See on Mat_16:13; Mat_16:17. How correctly, moreover, the people knew how to apprehend the Danielic designation of the Messiah, is clearly apparent from Joh_12:34.