Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Mark 4:26 - 4:29
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Mar_4:26-29. Jesus now continues, as is proved by Mar_4:33 f. (in opposition to Baur, Markusevang. p. 28), His parabolic discourses to the people; hence ἔλεγεν is here used without αὐτοῖς (Mar_4:21; Mar_4:24), and Mar_4:10-25 are to be regarded as an inserted episode (in opposition to de Wette, Einl. § 94b, who holds ὅτε δὲ ἐγένετο καταμόνας as absurd).
Mark alone has the following parable, but in a form so thoughtful and so characteristically different from Mat_13:24 f., that it is without sufficient ground regarded (by Ewald, Hilgenfeld, Köstlin) as founded on, or remodelled[85] from, Matt. l.c., and therefore as not originally belonging to this place,—a view with which Weiss agrees, but traces the parable of Mark to the primitive form in the collection of Logia, and holds the enemy that sowed the tares, Matthew 13, to have been brought into it by the first evangelist; while Strauss (in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1863, p. 209) has recourse to the neutral character of Mark, in accordance with which he is held to have removed the ἐχθρὸς ἄνθρωπος (by which Paul is meant!). See, on the other hand, Klöpper in the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1864, p. 141 ff., who, with Weizsäcker, discovers the point aimed at in the parable to be that of antagonism to the vehement expectations of a speedy commencement of the kingdom,—which, however, must have been directly indicated, and is not even implied in Matthew 13 (see Mar_4:37 ff.). Without foundation, Weizsäcker (p. 118) finds in the parable a proof that our Gospel of Mark was not written till after the destruction of Jerusalem, when the delaying of the Parousia had become evident. Here the establishment of the kingdom is not at all depicted under the specific form of the Parousia, and there is nothing said of a delaying of it.
ἡ βασιλεία τ . Θεοῦ ] The Messianic kingdom, conceived of as preparing for its proximate appearance, and then (Mar_4:29) appearing at its time.
τὸν σπόρον ] the seed concerned.
Observe the aorist βάλῃ , and then the presents which follow: has cast, and then sleeps and arises, etc.
νύκτα κ . ἡμέραν ] With another form of conception the genitives might also be used here. See on the distinction, Kühner, II. p. 219. The prefixing of ΝΎΚΤΑ is here occasioned by the order of ΚΑΘΕΎΔῌ ΚΑῚ ἘΓΕΊΡ . See, further, on Luk_2:37. Erasmus erroneously refers ἘΓΕΊΡ . to the seed, which is only introduced as subject with βλαστ .
μηκύνηται ] is extended, in so far, namely, as the shoot of the seed comes forth and mounts upwards (increscat, Vulgate). Comp. LXX. Isa_44:14. In the shoot the seed extends itself.
ὡς οὐκ οἶδεν αὐτός ] in a way unknown to himself (the sower); he himself knows not how it comes about. See the sequel.
αὐτομάτη ] of itself, without man’s assistance.[86] Comp. Hesiod, ἜΡΓ . 118; Herod ii. 94, viii. 138; and Wetstein in loc.
εἶτα πλήρης σῖτος ἐν τ . στ .] the nominative (see the critical remarks) with startling vividness brings before us the result as standing by itself: then full (developed to full size) grain in the ear! See on this nominative standing forth in rhetorical relief from the current construction, Bernhardy, p. 68 f.
Mar_4:29. παραδῷ ] is usually explained intransitively, in the sense: shall have delivered itself over, namely, by its ripeness to the harvesting. Many transitive verbs are confessedly thus used in an intransitive signification, in which case, however, it is inappropriate to supply ἑαυτόν (Kühner, II. p. 9 f.). So, in particular, compounds of ΔΙΔΌΝΑΙ (see Viger., ed. Herm. p. 132; Valckenaer, Diatr. p. 233; Jacobs, ad Philostr. p. 363; Krüger, § 52. 2. 9); and see in general, Bernhardy, p. 339 f.; Winer, p. 225 [E. T. 315]. But of this use of παραδιδόναι there is found no quite certain instance[87] (not even in 1Pe_2:23, see Huther); moreover, the expression itself, “the fruit has offered itself,” would be foreign to the simplicity of the style, and has a modern sound. Hence (comp. Kaeuffer, de ζωῆς αἰων . not. p. 49) παραδιδ . is rather to be explained as to allow, in accordance with well-known usage (Herod v. 67, vii. 18; Xen. Anab. vi. 6. 34; Polyb. iii. 12. 4): but when the fruit shall have allowed, i.e. when it is sufficiently ripe. Quite similar is the expression: τῆς ὥρας παραδιδούσης , Polyb. xxii. 24. 9 : when the season permitted. Bleek assents to this view.
ἀποστέλλει τὸ δρέπανον ] Comp. Joel 4:13; Rev_14:15.
The teaching of the parable is: Just as a man, after performing the sowing, leaves the germination and growth, etc., without further intervention, to the earth’s own power, but at the time of ripening reaps the harvest, so the Messiah leaves the ethical results and the new developments of life, which His word is fitted to produce in the minds of men, to the moral self-activity of the human heart, through which these results are worked out in accordance with their destination (to δικαιοσύνη —this is the parabolic reference of the πλήρης σῖτος ), but will, when the time for the establishment of His kingdom comes, cause the δικαίους to be gathered into it (by the angels, Mat_24:31; these are the reapers, Mat_13:39). The self-activity on which stress is here laid does not exclude the operations of divine grace, but the aim of the parable is just to render prominent the former, not the latter. It is the one of the two factors, and its separate treatment, keeping out of view for the present the other, leaves the latter unaffected. Comp. Mar_4:24. Bengel aptly observes on αὐτομάτη , Mar_4:28 : “non excluditur agricultura et coelestis pluvia solesque.” Moreover, Jesus must still for the present leave the mode of bringing about the δικαιοσύνη (by means of His ἱλαστήριον and faith thereon) to the later development of His doctrine. But the letting the matter take its course and folding the hands (Strauss) are directly excluded by αὐτομάτη , although the parable is opposed also to the conception of a so-called plan of Jesus.[88]
[85] A “tame weakening,” in the opinion of Hilgenfeld, comp. Strauss; “of a secondary nature,” in that of Weizsäcker.
[86] Hence there is no inconsistency with ver. 27 (Weiss). The germinative power of the seed is conditioned by the immanent power of the earth, which acts upon it.
[87] In Jos_11:19 the reading varies much and is doubtful; in Plat. Phaedr. p. 250 E, παραδούς is not necessarily reflexive.
[88] Comp. Schleiermacher, L. J. p. 348 ff.