Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Mark 2:23 - 2:28
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Mar_2:23-28. See on Mat_12:1-8. Comp. Luk_6:1-5, who follows Mark in the order of events, which in Matthew is different.
παραπορεύεσθαι ] not: to walk on, ambulare (Vulgate, Luther, and many others, including de Wette), so that παρά would refer indefinitely to other objects, but to pass along by. Comp. Mat_27:39; Mar_11:20; Mar_15:29. Jesus passed through the corn-fields alongside of these, so that the way that passed through the fields led Him on both sides along by them. Just so Mar_9:30, and Deu_2:4.
ὁδὸν ποιεῖν κ . τ . λ .] is usually explained as though it stood: ὁδὸν ποιούμενοι τίλλειν τοὺς στάχυας , to pluck the ears of corn as they went. Against the mode of expression, according to which the main idea lies in the participial definition (see Hermann, ad Aj. 1113; Electr. 1305; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Gorg. p. 136; Phil. p. 58), there would be in itself nothing, according to classical examples, to object; but in the N. T. this mode of expression does not occur (Winer, p. 316 [E. T. 443 f.]), and here in particular the active ποιεῖν is opposed to it, since ὁδὸν ποιεῖν is always viam sternere, and ὁδὸν ποιεῖσθαι (as also πορείαν ποιεῖσθαι ) is iter facere. See Viger. ed. Herm. p. 116; Kypke, I. p. 154; Krebs, p. 81; Winer, p. 228 [E. T. 320]. Comp. also ὁδοποιεῖν (Xen. Anab. v. 1. 14; Dem. 1274, 26, frequently in the LXX.) and ὁδὸν ὁδοποιεῖν ; Kühner, ad Xen. Anab. iv. 8. 8. The assumption that Mark had missed this distinction is wholly without exegetical warrant, as is also the recourse to a Latinism (Krebs). The only correct explanation is: they began to make a way (to open a path) by plucking the ears of corn; not, as Bretschneider and Fritzsche alter the meaning of the words: “evellisse spicas et factum esse, ut projectis, quum iis essent demta grana, spicis exprimeretur via.” We must rather conceive of the field-path on which they are walking—perhaps at a place where it leads through a field of corn which it intersects—as overgrown with ears, so that they must of necessity, in order to continue their journey, make a path, which they do by plucking the ears of corn that stand in their way. According to Matthew and Luke, the chief point lies in the fact that the disciples pluck the ears and eat them; and the Pharisees find fault with their doing this—which in itself is allowable—on the Sabbath. According to Mark, however, who has not a word[65] of the disciples eating, their act consists in this, that by the plucking of the ears of corn they open a way through the field; and the Pharisees, Mar_2:24, find fault that they do that, which in itself is already unallowable,[66] on the Sabbath. The justification of Jesus amounts then, Mar_2:25 ff., to the two points: (1) that according to David’s precedent the proceeding of the disciples, as enjoined by necessity, is by no means unallowable; and (2) that the Sabbath makes no difference in the matter.
The origin of this difference itself is easily explained from the fact, that Jesus adduces the history of the eating of the shew-bread, by means of which also the eating of the ears of corn came into the tradition of this incident. Mark betrays by his ὁδὸν ποιεῖν abandoned by Matthew and Luke, and by the less obvious connection of it with the eating of the shew-bread, the original narrative, which perhaps proceeded from Peter himself.
τοὺς στάχυας ] the article designates the ears of corn that stood in the way.
Mar_2:24. They do not ask, as in Matthew and Luke, why the disciples do what is unallowable on the Sabbath, but why they do on the Sabbath something (already in itself) unallowable.
Mar_2:25. αὐτός ] and He on His part, replying to them. He put a counter-question.
ὅτε χρείαν ἔσχε ] In this lies the analogy. The disciples also were by the circumstances compelled to the course which they took. The demonstrative force of this citation depends upon a conclusion a majori ad minus. David in a case of necessity dealt apparently unlawfully even with the shew-bread of the temple, which is yet far less lawful to be touched than the ears of grain in general.
Mar_2:26. ἐπὶ Ἀβιάθαρ τοῦ ἀρχιερ .] tempore Abiatharis pontificis maximi, i.e. under the pontificate of Abiathar. Comp. Luk_3:2; Mat_1:11. According to 1Sa_21:1 ff., indeed, the high priest at that time was not Abiathar, but his father (1Sa_22:20; Joseph. Antt. vi. 12. 6) Aḥ. Mark has erroneously confounded these two, which might the more easily occur from the remembrance of David’s friendship with Abiathar (1Sa_22:20 ff.). See Korb in Winer’s krit. Journ. IV. p. 295 ff.; Paulus, Fritzsche, de Wette, Bleek. The supposition that father and son both had both names (Victor Antiochenus, Euthymius Zigabenus, Theophylact, Beza, Jansen, Heumann, Kuinoel, and many others), is only apparently supported by 2Sa_8:17, 1Ch_18:16, comp. 1Ch_24:6; 1Ch_24:31; as even apart from the fact that these passages manifestly contain an erroneous statement (comp. Thenius on 2 Sam. l.c.; Bertheau judges otherwise, d. Bücher der Chron. p. 181 f.), the reference of our quotation applies to no other passage than to 1 Samuel 21. Grotius thought that the son had been the substitute of the father. Recourse has been had with equally ill success to a different interpretation of ἐπί ; for, if it is assumed to be coram (Wetstein, Scholz), 1 Sam. l.c. stands historically opposed to it; but if it is held to mean: in the passage concerning Abiathar, i.e. there, where he is spoken of (Mar_12:26; Luk_20:37), it is opposed by the same historical authority, and by the consideration that the words do not stand immediately after ἀνέγνωτε (in opposition to Michaelis and Saunier, Quellen d. Mark. p. 58).
Mar_2:27 f. καὶ ἒλεγ . αὐτοῖς ] frequently used for the introduction of a further important utterance of the same subject who is speaking; Bengel: “Sermonem iterum exorsus.” Comp. Mar_4:9. As Jesus has hitherto refuted the reproach conveyed in ὁ οὐκ ἔξεστι , Mar_2:24, He now also refutes the censure expressed by ἐν τοῖς σάββασιν , Mar_2:24. Namely: as the Sabbath has been made (brought into existence, i.e. ordained) for the sake of man, namely, as a means for his highest moral ends (Gen_2:3; Exo_20:8 ff.), not man for the sake of the Sabbath,[67] it follows thence: the Messiah has to rule even over the Sabbath, so that thus the disciples, who as my disciples have acted under my permission, cannot be affected by any reproach in respect of the Sabbath. The inference ὥστε depends on the fact that the υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου , i.e. the Messiah (not with Grotius and Fritzsche to be taken as man in general), is held ex concesso as the representative head of humanity.[68] On the mode of inference in general, comp. 1Co_11:9; 2Ma_5:19.
κύριος ] emphatically at the beginning: is not dependent, but Lord,[69] etc.; whereby, however, is expressed not the prerogative of absolute abolition (see against this Mat_5:17 ff., and the idea of the πλήρωσις of the law makes its appearance even in Mar_7:15 ff; Mar_10:5 ff; Mar_12:28 ff.), but the power of putting in the place of the external statutory Sabbath observance—while giving up the latter—something higher in keeping with the idea of the Sabbath, wherein lies the πλήρωσις of the Sabbath-law. Comp. Lechler in the Stud. u. Krit. 1854, p. 811; Weizsäcker, p. 391.
καί ] also, along with other portions of His κυριότης .
[65] Mark has been blamed on this account. See Fritzsche, p. 69. But the very evangelist, who knew how to narrate so vividly, should by no means have been charged with such an awkwardness as the omission of the essential feature of the connection—which is just what the latest harmonizing avers. It ought to have been candidly noted that in Mark the object of the plucking of the ears is the ὁδὸν ποιεῖν ; while in Matthew it is the eating on account of hunger. The occasions of the necessity, in which the disciples were placed, are different: in the former case, the ὁδοποΐα ; in the latter, the hunger.
[66] To this view Holtzmann and Hilgenfeld have acceded, as also Ritschl, altkath. K. p. 29; Schenkel, Charakterbild, p. 86; and as regards the ὁδὸν ποιεῖν in itself, also Lange. The defence of the usual explanation on the part of Krummel in the allgem. K. Zeit. 1864, No. 74, leaves the linguistic difficulty which stands in its way entirely unsolved. He should least of all have sought support from the reading of Lachmann ( ὁδοποιεῖν ); for this also never means anything else than viam sternere, and even in the middle voice only means to make for oneself a path. Weiss (Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1865, p. 363) calls my explanation “somewhat odd;” this, however, can matter nothing, if only it is linguistically correct, and the usual one linguistically erroneous.
[67] Comp. Mechilta in Exo_31:13 : “Vobis sabbatum traditum est, et non vos traditi estis sabbato.” According to Baur, ver. 27 belongs to “the rational explanations,” which Mark is fond of prefixing by way of suggesting a motive for what is historically presented. To the same class he would assign Mar_9:39, Mar_7:15 ff. Weizsäcker finds in the passage before us a later reflection. This would only be admissible, if the idea facilitated the concluding inference, which is not the case, and if Mark were not in this narrative generally so peculiar. The connecting link of the argumentation preserved by him might more easily have been omitted as something foreign, than have been added.
[68] For Him, as such, in the judgment to be formed of the obligatory force of legal ordinances, the regulative standard is just the relation, in which man as a moral end to himself stands to the law. Comp. Ritschl, altkathol. Kirche, p. 29 ff.
[69] With this the freedom of worship is given as well as assigned to its necessary limit, but not generally “proclaimed” (Schenkel).