Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Mark 2:13 - 2:17
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Mar_2:13-17. See on Mat_9:9-13; Luk_5:27-32. Matthew deals with this in the way of abridgment, but he has, nevertheless, retained at the end of the narrative the highly appropriate quotation from Hos_6:6 (which Luke, following Mark, has not), as an original element from the collection of Logia.
ἐξῆλθε ] out of Capernaum. Comp. Mar_2:1.
πάλιν ] looks back to Mar_1:16.
Mark has peculiar to himself the statements παρὰ τ . θάλασσαν as far as ἐδίδασκεν αὐτούς , but it is arbitrary to refer them to his subjective conception (de Wette, comp. Köstlin, p. 335).
Mar_2:14. παράγων ] in passing along, namely, by the sea, by the place where Levi sat. Comp. Mar_2:16.
On Levi (i.e. Matthew) and Alphaeus, who is not to be identified with the father of James,[63] see Introd. to Matthew, § 1. Hilgenfeld, in his Zeitschr. 1864, p. 301 f., tries by arbitrary expedients to make out that Levi was not an apostle.
Mar_2:15. ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ αὐτοῦ ] is understood by the expositors of the house of Levi.[64] Comp. Vulg.: “in domo illius.” In itself this is possible, but even in itself improbable, since by αὐτόν just before Jesus was meant; and it is to be rejected, because subsequently it is said of those who sat at meat with Him, just as it was previously of Levi: ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ . Moreover, the absolute καλέσαι (to invite), Mar_2:17, which Matthew and Mark have, while Luke adds εἰς μετάνοιαν , appears as a thoughtful reference to the host, the καλεῖν on whose part will transplant into the saving fellowship of His kingdom. Accordingly, the account in Matthew (see on Mat_9:10) has rightly taken up Mark’s account which lies at its foundation, but Luke has not (Mar_5:29). It is not indeed expressly said in our text that Jesus went again into the city; this is nevertheless indirectly evident from the progress of the narrative ( παράγων .… ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ .… κατακεῖσθαι κ . τ . λ .).
ἦσαν γὰρ πολλοὶ κ . τ . λ .] A statement serving to elucidate the expression just used: πολλοὶ τελῶναι κ . τ . λ ., and in such a way that ἦσαν is prefixed with emphasis: for there were many ( τελ . κ . ἁμαρτ .); there was no lack of a multitude of such people, and they followed after Jesus. Against the explanation of Kuinoel, Fritzsche, de Wette, Bleek: aderant, it may be at once decisively urged that such an illustrative statement would be unmeaning, and that ἠκολούθησαν may not be turned into a pluperfect. And mentally to supply with ἦσαν , as Bleek does: at the calling of Levi, is erroneous, because the narrative lies quite beyond this point of time.
Mar_2:16. The corrected reading (see the critical remarks) is to be explained: and Pharisaic scribes when they saw, etc., said to His disciples. To attach this κ . γραμμ . τ . Φαρισ . to the previous ἠκολούθ . (Tischendorf) is unsuitable, because ἦσαν γὰρ πολλοί , taken by itself alone, would be absolutely pleonastic, and because ἠκολούθ ., in accordance with the context, can only mean the following of adherents.
Respecting ἰδόντες κ . τ . λ ., comp. on Mat_9:11. Here the direct seeing (coming to Him) of the γραμματ . is meant, not: cum intelligerent (Grotius and others, de Wette).
τί ὅτι ] quid est, quod, so that there needs to be supplied after τί , not γέγονεν (Schaefer, ad Bos. Ell. p. 591), but the simple ἐστί . Comp. Luk_2:49; Act_5:4; Act_5:9.
[63] A confusion that actually arose in very early times, which had as its consequence the reading Ἰάκωβον (instead of Δευίν ) in D, min., codd. in Or. and Vict. and codd. of It.
[64] Yet Bleek and Holtzmann have agreed with my view, and also Kahnis, Dogm. I. p. 409 f.