Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Mark 9:2 - 9:2
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
[117]–13
[117] A definite specification of time, similar to μεθʼ ἡμέρας ἕξ in this case, is only found again in Mark at Mar_14:1, and there, too, of a very important turning-point of the history.
Mar_9:2[118]–13. See on Mat_17:1-12, where on the whole the narrative is presented in its most original form; Matthew has followed a tradition mostly more accurate (in opposition to Schenkel and Weizsäcker) than Mark, and altogether more so than Luk_9:28-36 f.
τὸν Ἰάκ . κ . Ἰωάνν .] The one article embraces the pair of brothers.
Mar_9:3. ἐγένοντο ] plural (see the critical remarks), indicates the different articles of clothing, which became white (a vivid delineation), see Kühner, ad Xen. Anab. I. 2. 33.
οἷα γναφεὺς κ . τ . λ .] i.e. of such nature (they became) as that a fuller on earth is not able to furnish such a whiteness ( οὕτως λευκᾶναι , see the critical remarks). ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς is added with reference to the heavenly nature of that lustre. Bengel well says, moreover: “ χιών natura, λευκᾶναι arte.”
Mar_9:6.[119] ΤΊ ΛΑΛΉΣΕΙ ] what he shall say (future, see the critical remarks), not inappropriate (Fritzsche); but ᾔδει has reference to the point of time, when Peter was just desiring to begin the utterance of what is said at Mar_9:5; and ΤΊ ΛΑΛΉΣΕΙ expresses the unknown more strongly and more vividly than the deliberative ΤΊ ΛΑΛΉΣῌ (what he should say).
ἔκφοβοι γὰρ ἐγένοντο (see the critical remarks): for they became full of terror (Heb_12:21; Deu_9:19; Plut. Fab. 6; Arist. Physiogn. 6), namely, by reason of the appearances, Mar_9:3-4.
Mar_9:7. καὶ ἐγένετο ] and there became (there arose, came into manifestation) a cloud. Comp. Luk_9:34.
Mar_9:8. And of a sudden, having looked around, they saw, etc. ἐξάπινα occurs only here in the N. T., frequently in the LXX., but elsewhere is rare and late.
ΟὐΔΈΝΑ ] applies to the persons who had appeared; hence ἀλλά is: but, on the contrary, not equivalent to εἰ μή (Beza, and many others), which Matthew has.
The fear of the disciples is presented by Mat_17:6 with more of psychological accuracy as only subsequent to the voice (this is the climax of the event), but in such a manner that they fall down, and Jesus Himself delivers them from it. The saying about building tabernacles does not bear the impress of confusion, as Mark presents it, but that of a still fresh ingenuous joy at the ravishing spectacle; nor yet does it bear the impress of drowsiness, as Luke designates it, whose expression, according to Baur’s opinion (see Markusevang. p. 69), Mark has only wished to modify; comp. Baur’s very unfavourable judgment on the narrative of Mark in general in the theol. Jahrb. 1853, p. 82 f. In Luke the later tradition betrays itself; see on Luk_9:28 ff., and Holtzmann, p. 224 f. But all three narratives in this particular, as also in their other features, stand opposed to the boldness of Schenkel, who (following Weisse) reduces the whole matter to this, that Jesus had by His instructive teaching made the two representatives of the old covenant appear to the three confidential disciples on the mountain in a right light, in the light of His own Messianic destination; while, on the other hand, Weizsäcker abides by a vision as the culmination of a deeper process of faith. And assuredly a visionary element was combined with the marvellous event. See on Mat_17:12, Remark.
Mar_9:10. τὸν λόγον ] what Jesus had just said to them, Mar_9:9, not the occurrence of the glorification (Beza); see the following question.
ἘΚΡΆΤΗΣΑΝ ] kept the saying fast; did not let it go out of their consideration, “non neglectim habuerunt” (Bengel). Comp. Test. XII. patr. p. 683: ἐν ψυχῇ σου μὴ κρατήσῃς δόλον , Sir_21:14 : ΠᾶΣΑΝ ΓΝῶΣΙΝ Οὐ ΚΡΑΤΉΣΕΙ . Comp. Bar_4:1; Son_3:4 : ἘΚΡΆΤΗΣΑ ΑὐΤῸΝ ΚΑῚ ΟὐΚ ἈΦῆΚΑ ΑὐΤΌΝ . To explain it in harmony with the ἘΣΊΓΗΣΑΝ in Luk_9:36, we must neither attach to the ΚΡΑΤΕῖΝ in itself the meaning: to keep concealed (on behalf of which Theodotion, Dan_5:12, and the Scholiast Aesch. Choëph. 78, have wrongly been appealed to), nor bring out that meaning by the addition to it of πρὸς ἑαυτούς (Vulg.: continuerunt apud se; comp. Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Lachmann, Ewald, and many others, including even Euthymius Zigabenus; see, on the other hand, Mar_9:16; Mar_1:27; Luk_22:23; Act_9:29; comp. Schulz); but simply explain it with Fritzsche, comp. Bretschneider: they held fast to the prohibition of Jesus, that is, they were silent on the matter. But this entire explanation does not agree with πρὸς ἑαυτοὺς συζητοῦντες κ . τ . λ ., wherein is contained the accompanying more precise definition of the κρατεῖν τὸν λόγον .
πρὸς ἑαυτούς prefixed with emphasis: among themselves discussing, not questioning Jesus thereupon. To Him they have another question, Mar_9:11. Comp. on Mar_1:27.
τί ἐστι τὸ ἐκ νεκρ . ἀναστ .] relates not to the resurrection of the dead in general (which was familiar as a conception, and expected in fact as a Messianic work), but to the rising just mentioned by Jesus, namely, that the Messiah would rise from the dead, which, in fact, presupposed His dying, and on that account was so startling and enigmatical to the disciples. Comp. Mar_9:32; Joh_12:34. And in reference to the historical character of the prediction of the resurrection, see on Mat_16:21.
Mar_9:11. ὅτι λέγουσιν κ . τ . λ .] wherefore say, etc.; that, indeed, is not in keeping with thy prohibition! It is, with Lachmann, to be written: ὅ , τι (“quod est διὰ τὶ , simillimum illi notissimo εἴ interrogativo,” Praefat. p. xliii.); and the indirect character of the question (Thucyd. i. 90. 4) lies in the thought that governs it: I would fain know, or the like. See Stallbaum, ad Plat. Euth. p. 271 A; Lücke on Joh_8:25, p. 311 f.; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 218 [E. T. 253]. Comp. Mar_9:28, and Homer, Il. x. 142: ὅ , τι δὴ χρειὼ τόσον ἵκει , Barnab. 7, and Dressel in loc. Ewald likewise appropriately takes ὅτι as the recitativum, so that the question would be veiled in an affirmative clause (but at Mar_9:28 : wherefore). Comp. Bleek. Still the bashful expression, which according to our view the question has, appears more in keeping with the circumstances.
Mar_9:12. Ἠλίας … πάντα ] a concession of the correctness of the doctrinal proposition (comp. on Mat_17:11), the theoretical form of which (hence the present) is retained.[120] Bengel appropriately says: “Praesens indefinitum uti Mat_2:4.”
What follows is, with Heinsius and Lachmann, to be punctuated thus: καὶ πῶς γέγραπται ἐπὶ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ; ἵνα πολλὰ πάθῃ κ . ἐξουδ .: and how stands it written as to the Son of man? He is to suffer many things, and be set at nought. The truth of that proposition of Elias as the theocratic restorer, who is destined to precede the Messiah, has side by side with it the Scriptural testimony of the suffering of the Messiah. καί is the simple and, linking what stands written of the Messiah to what was said of Elias. Mark ought, after beginning the construction of the discourse with μέν , to have followed it up by δέ ; but he passes over in an anacoluthic fashion from the form of contrast with which he began into the subjunctive. See Nägelsbach on the Iliad, Exc. i. p. 173; Maetzner, ad Antiph. p. 257; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 659. The answer follows in ἵνα κ . τ . λ ., and that conceived under the form of the design of the γέγραπται ἐπὶ τ . υἱὸν κ . τ . λ . The entire καὶ πῶς … ἐξουδ . is usually regarded as a question, containing an objection against the prevailing way in which that doctrine regarding Elias was understood: But how does it agree with this, that it is written of the Messiah that He is to suffer many things? The solution would then be given in Mar_9:13 : “Verum enim vero mihi credite, Elias venit, non est talis apparitio expectanda, qualem expectant Judaei, jam venit Elias, Johannes baptista … et eum tractarunt, etc., neque ergo mihi meliora sunt speranda,” Kuinoel. Comp. Euthymius Zigabenus, Theophylact, Grotius, Bengel, and many others, including de Wette. In substance so also Hofmann, Weissag. und Erfüll. II. p. 80 f. In opposition to this entire view, it may be decisively urged that it would need an adversative particle instead of καί , and that, in Mar_9:13, instead of ὅτι καὶ Ἠλίας ἐλήλυθε , the expression would have run: ὅτι καὶ ἐλήλυθεν Ἠλίας . Fritzsche, following the reading[121] καθώς too weakly attested (instead of καὶ πῶς ), says: “Quod Judaici doctores perhibent, venturum esse Eliam, non minus certum est, quam e V. T. oraculis illud, fore ut ego Messias multa exantlem.” But Fritzsche himself does not fail to see the want of internal connection herein, and hence he conjectures as to Mar_9:12-13 : Ἠλίας μὲν ἐλθὼν πρῶτον , ἀποκαθιστᾷ πάντα · ἀλλὰ λέγω ὑμῖν , ὅτι καὶ ἐποίησαν αὐτῷ ὅσα ἠθέλησαν , καθὼς γέγραπται ἐπὶ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου , ἵνα πολλὰ κ . τ . λ . Ewald also, with whom Holtzmann agrees, comes ultimately to a conjecture that in Mark, Mar_9:13, there is wanting before καθὼς γέγραπται the clause of Mat_17:12 : οὕτως καὶ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου μέλλει πάσχειν ὑπʼ αὐτῶν . He supposes the discourse to have proceeded thus: “What is said in Malachi 3. of Elias—that, coming before the Messiah, he shall restore all things—retains, doubtless, its truth; but also what the Holy Scripture says about a suffering of the Messiah (as in Isa_53:7 f.) must be fulfilled; if, thus, both are to be true, the Elias who is to precede the historical Messiah must in fact have come already, and have been mistaken and set at nought by men, just in the same way as, according to the Holy Scripture, this destiny awaits the Messiah Himself.” [In this view it is at the same time assumed that the clause, Mar_9:12, καὶ πῶς γέγραπται κ . τ . λ . is omitted in Matthew.] According to Mark, however, as his narrative lies before us,[122] the discourse of Jesus rather contains a syllogism with a suppressed conclusion,—in such a way, namely, that the major proposition is conveyed in Mar_9:12, and the minor in Mar_9:13 : “the doctrine of the prior advent and the prior work of Elias is correct, and of the Messiah it is written that He has to endure much suffering and setting at nought (Mar_9:12). But I say unto you, that Elias also (before the Messiah) has come, and they have done to him everything that they have pleased, according to the Scripture (Mar_9:13).” The suppressed conclusion is: “consequently there is now impending over the Messiah the Scriptural destiny of suffering, since the fate of the Elias is already fulfilled.” The suppression of this sad closing inference, to which Matthew, Mar_9:12, gives expression, is dictated by tender forbearance towards the disciples, whom, after so transporting a vision, the Lord will not now introduce any further into the gloomy future. This is assuredly an original feature, in which Mark has the advantage over the narrative of Matthew, who in this history has, on the whole, the more original account.[123]
ἐξουδενωθῇ ] The form ἐξουδενηθῇ (Lachmann), as being that which is less prevalent in the LXX., is to be preferred. On the later Greek character of the word in general (only used here in the N. T.—not in 2Co_10:10), see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 182. The signification may be either: to be esteemed as nothing (contemnatur, Vulgate, and most expositors), as Psa_15:4; Psa_53:6; 1Ma_3:14; Sir_34:22; or: to be annihilated, as Psa_44:6 (5), Psa_60:12, Psa_119:117; Jdt_13:17; Sir_47:7. The latter is here most in harmony with the context after πολλὰ παθῇ .
Mar_9:13. ἀλλά ] is the continuative jam vero, atqui, which introduces a new thought in contrast with the previous one. If the continuation of the discourse were formed purely syllogistically (consequently without λέγω ὑμῖν , ὅτι ), the classical language would have chosen ἀλλὰ μήν (Becker, Anecd. II. p. 839).
καὶ Ἠλίας ] Elias also, not merely the Messiah. That the latter had come, was to the disciples undoubted; but as to the advent of the Elias they had scruples. The second καί therefore is and. De Wette wrongly considers the two uses of καί as corresponding, et … et; in that case καὶ ἐλήλ . Ἠλίας must have been read.
καθὼς γέγραπται ἐπʼ αὐτόν ] has reference to the immediately preceding καὶ ἐποιήσαν κ . τ . λ ., not to Ἠλίας ἐλήλ ., as Euthymius Zigabenus, Robert Stephens, Heinsius, Clericus, Homberg, Wolf, Bengel, and many others ambiguously connect it. But in these words Jesus does not mean what is written of the unworthy treatment of the prophets in general (Kuinoel), against which may be urged the definite ἐπʼ αὐτόν , but what the Scripture relates of the fate of Elias (1 Kings 19) as type of the fate of John. Comp. Grotius, Wetstein, Fritzsche. See also Hengstenberg, Christol. III. 2, p. 89. The reference to a lost writing (a conjecture of Bleek) is very unnecessary.
[118] A definite specification of time, similar to μεθʼ ἡμέρας ἕξ in this case, is only found again in Mark at Mar_14:1, and there, too, of a very important turning-point of the history.
[119] In this remark (by way of excuse) about Peter Hilgenfeld finds Petrinism; and Baur, a dependence of the writer on Luk_9:33. As to the latter, the converse is the case. The former springs from the endeavour to discover tendency everywhere, even when, as here, it is the most innocent explanatory remark, in which indeed Baur only sees (Markusev. p. 68) the character of incompleteness in the writer’s combination of the other two Gospels. In opposition to such unfairness, however, Holtzmann, p. 88 f. 194, goes too far in his defence of Mark, inasmuch as he does not even acknowledge the excusing character of the οὐ γὰρ ᾔδει κ . τ . λ ., which even Bleek, Weiss, and Hilgenfeld have recognised.
[120] The conjecture of Hitzig in the Züricher Monatsschr. 1856, p. 64: ἀποκαθισταναι , is quite as unnecessary as it is grammatically clumsy.
[121] Which Linder also follows in the Stud. u. Krit. 1862, p. 558, arbitrarily enough supplying a fiet.
[122] Which does not exhibit a distinction between Scripture and fulfilment, as Weizsäcker judges, but the harmony of the two. Weizsäcker is also mistaken in his extending the question from πῶς to ἐξουδ . Accordingly it is assumed to have the meaning, that the Messiah’s suffering, according to the prevailing view, is not treated of.
[123] Holtzmann thinks that in the question and answer Mark lays the stress upon the resurrection of the dead, while Matthew emphasizes the appearance of Elias. But in Mark too the disciples ask no question whatever about the rising from the dead, but only have their difficulties about it among themselves.