Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Mark 6:1 - 6:6
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Mar_6:1-6. See on Mat_13:54-58, who follows Mark with slight abbreviations and unessential changes. As respects the question of position, some advocates of the priority of Matthew have attributed to Mark an unthinking mechanism (Saunier), others a very artistic grouping (Hilgenfeld, who holds that the insusceptibility of the people was here to be represented as attaining its climax).
The narrative itself is not to be identified with that of Luk_4:16 ff. See on Matt.
ἐξῆλθεν ἐκεῖθεν ] from the house of Jairus. Matthew has an entirely different historical connection, based on a distinct tradition, in which he may have furnished the more correct τάξις .
ἤρξατο ] for the first emergence and its result are meant to be narrated.
After elimination of ὅτι , the words from πόθεν to αὐτῷ are to be taken together as an interrogative sentence, and καὶ δυνάμεις on to γίνονται forms again a separate question of astonishment.
δυνάμεις τοιαῦται ] presupposes that they have heard of the miracles that Jesus had done (in Capernaum and elsewhere); these they now bring into association with His teaching.
διὰ τῶν χειρ . αὐτοῦ ] that is, by laying on of His hands, by taking hold of, touching, and the like; Mar_6:5. Comp. Act_5:12; Act_19:11.
Mar_6:3. ὁ τέκτων ] According to the custom of the nation and of the Rabbins (Lightfoot, p. 616; Schoettgen, II. p. 898; Gfrörer in the Tub. Zeitschr. 1838, p. 166 ff.), Jesus Himself had learned a handicraft. Comp. Justin, c. Tryph. 88, p. 316, where it is related that He made[94] ploughs and yokes; Origen, c. Celsum, vi. 4. 3, where Celsus ridicules the custom; Theodoret, H. E. iii. 23; Evang. infant. 38; and see generally, Thilo, ad Cod. Apocr. I. p. 368 f. The circumstance that Mark has not written ὁ τοῦ τέκτονος υἱός , as in Mat_13:55, is alleged by Hilgenfeld, Evang. p. 135 (“Mark tolerates not the paternity of Joseph even in the mouth of the Nazarenes”), Baur, Markusevangel. p. 138, and Bleek, to point to the view of the divine procreation of Jesus. As though Mark would not have had opportunity and skill enough to bring forward this view otherwise with clearness and definitely! The expression of Matthew is not even to be explained from an offence taken at τέκτων (Holtzmann, Weizsäcker), but simply bears the character of the reflection, that along with the mother the father also would have been mentioned. And certainly it is singular, considering the completeness of the specification of the members of the families, that Joseph is not also designated. That he was already dead, is the usual but not certain assumption (see on Joh_6:42). In any case, however, he has at an early date fallen into the background in the evangelical tradition, and in fact disappeared: and the narrative of Mark, in so far as he names only the mother, is a reflection of this state of things according to the customary appellation among the people, without any special design. Hence there is no sufficient reason for supposing that in the primitive-Mark the words ran: ὁ τέκτων , ὁ υἱὸς Ἰωσήφ (Holtzmann).
ἸΩΣῆ ] Matthew, by way of correction, has ἸΩΣΉΦ . See on Mat_13:55. The brother of James of Alphaeus was called Joses. See on Mat_27:56; Mar_15:40.
Mar_6:4. The generic προφήτης is not to be misapplied (so Schenkel) to make good the opinion that Jesus had not yet regarded Himself as the Messiah.
καὶ ἐν τοῖς συγγ . κ . τ . λ .[95]] graphic fulness of detail; native town, kinsfolk, house, proceeding from the wider to the narrower circle; not a glance back at Mar_3:20 (Baur, p. 23).
Mar_6:5. ΟὐΚ ἨΔΎΝΑΤΟ ] neither means noluit (Verc. Vind. Brix. Germ. 2), nor is ἠδύν . superfluous; but see on Mat_13:58. Theophylact says well: οὐχ ὅτι αὐτὸς ἀσθενὴς ἦν , ἀλλʼ ὅτι ἐκεῖνοι ἄπιστοι ἦσαν .
Mar_6:6. διὰ τὴν ἀπιστ . αὐτῶν ] on account of their unbelief. ΔΙΆ is never thus used with ΘΑΥΜΆΖΕΙΝ in the N. T. (not even in Joh_7:21) and in the LXX. But the unbelief is conceived not as the object, but as the cause of the wondering. Comp. Ael. V. H. xii. 6, xiv. 36: αὐτὸν θαυμάζομεν διὰ τὰ ἔργα . Jesus Himself had not expected such a degree of insusceptibility in His native town. Only a few among the sick themselves (Mar_6:5) met Him with the necessary condition of faith.
καὶ περιῆγε κ . τ . λ .] seeking in the country a better field for His ministry.
κύκλῳ ] as Mar_3:34, belonging to περιῆγε .
[94] Whether exactly “with an ideal meaning,” so that they became symbols under His hand, as Lange, L. J. II. p. 154, thinks, may be fitly left to the fancy which is fond of inventing such things. No less fanciful is Lange’s strange idea that the brothers of Jesus (in whom, however, he sees sons of his brother Alphaeus adopted by Joseph) would hardly have allowed Him to work much, because they saw in Him the glory of Israel! Comp., on the other hand, Mar_3:21; Joh_7:5.—We may add that, according to the opinion of Baur, Mark here, with his ὁ τέκτων , “stands quite on the boundary line between the canonical and the apocryphal” (Markusevang, p. 47).
[95] The form συγγενεῦσι , which, though erroneous, had been in use, is here recommended by Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 22 [E. T. 25]; and it is so adequately attested by B D** E F G, al. (in à * the words κ . ἐ . τ . συγγ . are wanting) that it is, with Tischendorf, to be adopted. In Luk_2:44 the attestation is much weaker. Mark has not further used the word.