Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Mark 8:14 - 8:21
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Mar_8:14-21. See on Mat_16:5-11, whose narrative is less concise and more explanatory.
ἐπελάθοντο ] quite as in Mat_16:6, and therefore not: viderunt se oblitos esse (Fritzsche, Kuinoel). The disciples (Mar_8:15) form the subject, as is evident of itself; for they ought to have taken care as to the provision of bread, but forgot it.
εἰ μὴ ἕνα κ . τ . λ .] a statement, which is quite in keeping with the peculiarity of Mark, and perhaps proceeds from Peter (in opposition to Hilgenfeld).
Mar_8:15. ὁρᾶτε is absolute; and ἀπὸ τῆς ζ . κ . τ . λ . belongs only to βλέπετε , the construction of which with ἀπό (comp. Mar_12:33) is not, with Tittmann, Synon. p. 114, and Kuinoel, to be analysed: avertere oculos, but: take heed on account of, etc. Comp. προσέχειν ἀπό (Mat_16:6); φόβος ἀπὸ τῶν πολεμίων (Xen. Cyr. iii. 3. 53), al.
τῆς ζύμης τῶν Φαρισαίων ] According to Matthew (see on Mar_16:6), ζύμη is a figure for pernicious doctrine, and there appears no reason for assuming any other reference here, such as to the mali mores, the character (Bleek, Holtzmann), the mental tendency (Schenkel), and the like. See on Mat_16:6. Jesus warns against the soul-perilling doctrines, which at that time proceeded as well from the leaders of the hierarchy (the Pharisees) as from the political head (Herod Antipas). Herod was a frivolous, voluptuous, unprincipled man (see Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 47 f.); and the morally vile principles and maxims, given forth by him, and propagated by the Jews who adhered to him (the Herodians, iii. 6; see on Mat_22:16), are the ζύμη Ἡρώδου . A wrong attempt at harmonizing will have it that Herod is mentioned (Heupel) as a Sadducee (which, however, he never was; see on Mat_14:2), because Mat_16:6 has καὶ Σαδδουκαίων .
Mar_8:16. According to the correct reading (see the critical remarks): and they considered with one another, that they would have no bread. With respect to the indicative present ἔχουσι , comp. on Mar_6:45, and Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. p. 203.
Mar_8:19-20. This dialogue form is characteristic of Mark’s vivid mode of representation.
πόσων σπυρίδ . πληρώματα κλασμάτων ] See on Mar_6:43. Observe here, also, as well as in Matthew, the alternation of κοφίνους and σπυρίδων , in accordance with Mar_6:43 and Mar_8:8.
By the fact that, after those two miraculous feedings, they still could take thought one with another about want of bread, they show how much they still lack discernment. The reproach of Mar_8:17-18[113] refers to this. But in ΟὔΠΩ ΣΥΝΊΕΤΕ , Mar_8:21 (see the critical remarks), the ΟὔΠΩ applies to the instruction that has just been catechetically conveyed Mar_8:19-20, and is therefore a later οὔπω than that in Mar_8:17, standing related thereto by way of climax. Schenkel regards as incorrect all that is said of this reference to the miraculous feedings, in consistency with his view that these did not happen at all in the manner narrated.
[113] On the thought of ver. 18, comp., besides Isa_6:9 f., Xen. Cyr. iii. 1. 27: ὦ θαυμασιώτατε ἄνθρωπε , σὺ δέ γε οὐδὲ ὁρῶν γινώσκεις , οὐδὲ ἀκούων μέμνησαι , Dem. 797. 3 : οὕτως ὁρῶντες … ὥστε τὸ τῆς παροιμίας ὁρῶντας μὴ ὁρᾶν καὶ ἀκούοντας μὴ ἀκούειν .