Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Mark 9:14 - 9:29
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Mar_9:14-29. See on Mat_17:14-21. Comp. Luk_9:37-43. The narrative of Mark is more original, characteristic, fresher, and, for the most part, more detailed than the other two.
συζητ .] according to Mar_9:16-18, on occasion of the circumstance that the disciples had not been able to perform the cure, and so concerning their power of miracles which was now so doubtful.
ἐξεθαμβ .] they were very much amazed (Orph. Arg. 1217; Sir_30:9; Polyb. xx. 10. 9 : ἔκθαμβοι γεγονότες ; in the N. T., used by Mark only). But at what? Euthymius Zigabenus leaves the open choice between two explanations: either at the approach of Jesus so exactly opportune, or at the brightness of His countenance ( καὶ γὰρ εἰκὸς ἐφέλκεσθαί τινα χάριν ἐκ τῆς μεταμορφώσεως , comp. Bengel, de Wette, Bisping). But the latter must have been expressed; moreover, this cause of astonishment would rather have been followed by a remaining at a distance than a προστρέχειν and ἀσπάζειν . Hence (comp. also Bleek) the first explanation of Euthymius Zigabenus (comp. Theophylact and Victor Antiochenus) is, in accordance with the connection, to be preferred. It was the amazement of joyously startled surprise, that, whilst the disciples, who had not been able to help, were in so critical a situation, as was also the father with his unfortunate son, just at that moment the mighty miracle-worker Himself came to their aid. According to Fritzsche, there is denoted generally: “quanta fuerit Jesu … et admiratio in plebe et veneratio.” Much too general and aloof from the context. According to Lange, what is meant is, “the starting back of a multitude, that had become somewhat profanely disposed, at the sudden emergence of a manifestation of punishment”. But Mark has nothing of these psychological presuppositions, and προστρέχοντες κ . τ . λ . is not in keeping therewith. According to Baur, Markusev. p. 70, Mark has only attributed to the people the impression, “with which he himself accompanied the Lord, as He descended from the mount of transfiguration.” With such modes of dealing all exegesis is at an end.
Mar_9:16. ἐπηρώτ . αὐτούς ] This αὐτούς cannot without arbitrariness be referred to any but those mentioned immediately before—therefore to the people,[124] who are accordingly to be conceived, Mar_9:14, as likewise taking part in the ΣΥΖΗΤΕῖΝ , so that there ΣΥΖΗΤΟῦΝΤΑς also applies jointly to the ὌΧΛΟΝ ΠΟΛΎΝ . So also Bleek; comp. Ewald. The usual reference to the ΓΡΑΜΜΑΤΕῖς is consequently to be rejected (although Fritzsche adopts this, and Lange, who, however, assumes a sympathetic participation of the people); and so, too, is the reference to the disciples and scribes (Griesbach, Paulus, Kuinoel), or merely to the disciples (Mill, Bengel). From the above reference it is plain at the same time that in what follows there must be written, not πρὸς αὑτούς (so usually; hence also the readings πρὸς ἑαυτούς , A à *, and ἘΝ ὙΜῖΝ , D, Vulg.), but ΠΡῸς ΑὐΤΟΎς (with Bengel, Fritzsche, Lachmann, Tischendorf), since ΑὐΤΟΎς , like ΑὐΤΟῖς in Mar_9:14, applies to the disciples.
Mar_9:17. The father, included among this ὌΧΛΟς , begins to speak in the natural impulse of the paternal heart, not as if no other would have ventured to do so (Euthymius Zigabenus, Bengel, de Wette). He is designated, in apt delineation of what occurred, as ΕἿς ἘΚ Τ . ὌΧΛΟΥ , since it is by his utterance that he first shows himself as father.
ΠΡΌς ΣΕ ] that is, thither, where I might presume Thy presence, because Thy disciples were there.
ἌΛΑΛΟΝ ] according to the point of view, that the condition of the sick man is the effect of the same condition in the demon. Comp. Luk_11:14; Wetstein in loc.
Mar_9:18. καὶ ὅπου ἂν κ . τ . λ .] and wherever he has taken hold of him. The possession (Mar_9:17) is not conceived as constant, but as such that the demon leaves the sick man (epileptic) at times, and then again returns into him (Mat_12:44), and lays hold of him, etc. Hence Mar_9:35 : ΜΗΚΈΤΙ ΕἸΣΈΛΘῌς ΕἸς ΑὐΤΌΝ . The ἜΧΟΝΤΑ of Mar_9:17 is not opposed to this (de Wette), for the son had the demon—even although at intervals the latter left him—so long as the μηκέτι εἰσέλθῃς was not yet realized.
ῥήσσει ] he tears him, which convulsive effect is not more precisely to be defined (Euthymius Zigabenus and many others: ΚΑΤΑΒΆΛΛΕΙ ΕἸς ΓῆΝ ). See on the word, Ruhnken, ep. crit. I. p. 26; Duncan, Lex., ed. Rost, p. 1016. Comp. ῬΆΣΣΕΙΝ (of the gladiators); Salmasius, ad Ach. Tat. p. 657; and Jacobs, p. 821.
ἀφρίζει ] change of the subject; Winer, p. 556 [E. T. 787]. The permanent effect of these paroxysms is: ξηραίνεται , becomes withered, wasted away. Comp. Mar_3:1. See generally the description of the morbus comitialis in Celsus, III. 23.
εἶπον … ἵνα ] I told it … that they.
Mar_9:19. ΑὐΤΟῖς ] the disciples, Mar_9:18. See, moreover, on Mat_17:17.
Mar_9:20. ἸΔῺΝ ΑὐΤῸΝ Κ . Τ . Λ .] when the demoniac (not: the demon, Bleek) had looked upon Jesus, the demon tore him (the patient). On the anacoluthic use of the nominative participle, see Matthiae, ad Eurip. Phoen. 283; Bernhardy, p. 479; Winer, p. 501 [E. T. 711]. Comp. also Nägelsbach, Anm. z. Ilias, ed. 3, p. 385 f.
ἐπὶ τ . γῆς ] belongs to ΠΕΣΏΝ (comp. Mar_14:35; Xen. Cyr. iv. 5. 54).
Mar_9:21-24. It is only the specially graphic Mark that has this dialogue.
Mar_9:21. ὡς ] Particle of time: how long ago is it, when this fell upon him?
Mar_9:22. ΚΑῚ ΕἸς ΠῦΡ ] even into fire. In Joh_15:6 also the article is not necessary (in opposition to Fritzsche), although critically attested.
εἴ τι δύνῃ ] Euthymius Zigabenus rightly says: ὁρᾶς , πῶς οὐκ εἶχε πίστιν ἀδίστακτον . Hence the answer of Jesus at Mar_9:23; hence also the utterance of the father at Mar_9:24, who felt his faith not to be sufficiently strong. On the form δύνῃ instead of δύνασαι , see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 359.
ἩΜῖΝ ] the father of the family speaks.
Mar_9:23. After deletion of πιστεῦσαι (see the critical remarks), τὸ εἰ δύνῃ is to be regarded (Winer, p. 163, 506 [E. T. 225, 718]) as nominative absolute: The “if thou canst” … “Everything is possible to him, that believeth,” i.e. as far as concerns thy just expressed “if thou canst,” the matter depends on the faith; the believer is able to attain everything. The article embracing the ΕἸ ΔΎΝῌ substantivally (Kühner, § 492) takes up the word just spoken by the father, and puts it with lively emphasis without connecting it with the further construction, in order to link its fulfilment to the petitioner’s own faith. Griesbach, Tischendorf, Ewald take ΤῸ ΕἸ ΔΎΝῌ interrogatively, and πάντα δύν . τ . πιστ . as answering it: “Tune dubitans si potes aiebas? Nihil non in ejus, qui confidat, gratiam fieri potest,” Griesbach. Comp. Ewald: Askest thou, that: if thou canst? etc. But the assumption of a question is not indicated by the non-interrogative address of the father (whence we should have expected ΤΊ ΤῸ ΕἸ ΔΎΝῌ , or the like), and so we are not warranted in mentally supplying an aiebas or askest thou? Comp. Bornemann in the Stud. u. Krit. 1843, p. 122. With the Recepta πιστεῦσαι or δύνῃ the explanation is: if thou canst believe (I will help thee); everything is possible, etc., in which interpretation, however, the τό is without warrant disregarded, as if it were of no significance (but comp. Mat_19:18; Luk_22:37), and taken only “as a sign of quotation of the direct discourse” (de Wette). So also Linder in the Stud. u. Krit. 1862, p. 559. Lachmann[125] places no point at all after πιστεῦσαι , and we might accordingly explain it thus: if thou art in a position to believe that everything is possible to him that believeth (so in my second edition). But even thus the τό causes difficulty, and the thought and the expression would be too diffuse, not in keeping with the concise representation of Mark, especially in so impassioned a connection. Lange takes it thus: “the if thou canst means: canst believe.” How enigmatically would Jesus have so spoken! Bleek takes εἰ interrogatively. But neither the deliberative character of this question (see on Mat_12:10) nor the τό would be appropriate. Bengel’s interpretation also is impossible: ‘Hoc, si potes credere, res est; hoc agitur.” But he well observes on the state of the case: “Omnipotentiae divinae se fides hominis quasi organon accommodat ad recipiendum, vel etiam ad agendum.” Fritzsche has conjectured either: εἶπεν αὐτῷ · εἰ δύνασαι ; πίστευε · πάντα δυνατὰ κ . τ . λ ., or: εἶπεν αὐτῷ · τί ἐστι τὸ εἰ δύνασαι ; πίστευε · πάντα κ . τ . λ ., and Bornemann, l.c. p. 123: εἶπεν αὐτῷ τὸ πάντα δυνατὰ τῷ πιστ .
Mar_9:24. βοήθει μου τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ ] help me unbelieving; refuse me not Thy help, notwithstanding my unbelief. Calovius, Bengel,[126] and many others render: assist my unbelief, strengthen my weak faith, which, however, is at variance with the contextual meaning of βοήθει (Mar_9:22). Moreover, the answer of the father, who has just said πιστεύω , but immediately afterwards, in consideration of the greatness of the issue made to depend on his faith, designates this faith in respect of its degree as ἀπιστία , is quite in keeping with the alternation of vehemently excited feeling. Victor Antiochenus rightly says: διάφορός ἐστιν ἡ πίστις · ἡ μὲν εἰσαγωγικὴ , ἡ δὲ τελεία .
The substantive τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ brings more strongly into prominence the condition than would have been done by an adjective. See Winer, p. 211 [E. T. 296]. And the prefixed μου represents at the same time the mihi of interest (Mar_5:30; Rom_11:14, and frequently Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 117 A): render for me to my unbelief Thy help.
Mar_9:25. ὅτι ἐπισυντρέχει ὄχλος ] that people were thereupon running together. He wished to avoid still greater publicity.
ἐγώ ] emphatically, in contrast to the disciples.
μηκέτι ] no more, as hitherto. See on Mar_9:18.
Mar_9:26. κράξας … σπαράξας ] κράξας : crying out, not speaking. The masculines belong to the constructio κατὰ σύνεσιν ; Mark has conceived to himself the πνεῦμα as a person (as δαίμων ), and has used the attributive participles accordingly, not therefore by mistake (Fritzsche, de Wette). Comp. Xen. Cyr. vii. 3. 8 : φεῦ , ὦ ἀγαθὴ καὶ πιστὴ ψυχὴ , οἴχῃ δὴ ἀπολιπὼν ἡμᾶς ; see in general, Matthiae, p. 975; Bornemann in the Sächs. Stud. 1846, p. 40.
τοὺς πολλούς ] the multitude. The entire description is true and lifelike, and does not aim, as Hilgenfeld thinks, at attaining a very great miracle.
Mar_9:28 f. εἰς οἶκον ] as Mar_7:17.
ὅτι ] is to be written ὅ , τι , and, as at Mar_9:11, to be explained as wherefore.
τοῦτο τ . γένος ] this kind of demons—a view of the words which Ewald also, in his Gesch. Chr. p. 385 (not in his Evang. p. 78, 277), recognises “in the present Mark,” but not in Matthew.
ἐν οὐδενί ] by nothing, by no means. That prayer ( κ . νηστ . is not genuine) is meant as a means of increasing faith (Mat_17:20), Mark does not say indeed, but it follows from Mar_9:19; hence it is not to be concluded that the utterance contains in his case the sense of a reproach that the disciples had not prayed (and fasted) enough (de Wette).
[124] To whose ἠσπάζοντο αὐτόν Jesus replies with His question.
[125] Who nevertheless, Praef. II. p. vii., conjectures ΠΙΣΤΩΣΑΙ : “Istud si potes,” in quo dubitatio est, facito ut certum et confirmatum des, ut fiat “potes.” Ingenious, but very artificial; and πιστοῦν only occurs in the N. T. at 2Ti_3:14.
[126] Who, however, also admits our view.