Mk 1:29-31 This narrative, (i.e., Mk 1:29-34) too, follows the same order as Luke 4:38. Christ therefore went from the synagogue into the house of Peter, and that this took place on the Sabbath is also clear from Mk 1:32; cf. Mk 1:29, “and immediately (εὐθύς, straightway, immediately) after they went out of the synagogue.” For this indeed was the Lord’s custom: that almost always, when He had become renowned among the crowds through some miracle, He would withdraw Himself, content simply to have done good and not desirous of human glory, thereby teaching us to strive rather to do good than to hunt after praise (Jans., similarly Schegg). They came into the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John; here again Mark narrates more precisely by naming the companions of Jesus. By turning aside into the house of Simon, He already bestows a special honor upon this disciple. For since there had been such great admiration among the people in the synagogue, the citizens of the town would certainly have regarded it as the highest honor if He had turned in to anyone at all; indeed all were ready and eager, with the greatest joy, to receive so great a teacher as a guest. Since Peter and Andrew were originally from Bethsaida (John 1:44), some raise the question about their house in Capernaum. Perhaps it is not sufficient to say that this was the house of Peter’s wife and became Peter’s through his wife (which might seem plausible because his mother-in-law lived there), because it is called the house of Simon and Andrew; nor does it fit what others have thought, that it was merely a rented house so that they could sell fish more conveniently in the city. Therefore the obvious sense of the words should be retained. Peter and Andrew, then, just as they devoted themselves to fishing by united labors, so also possessed a house in the city under a common title.
It is also useless to ask whether Peter’s mother-in-law had been suffering from fever on the preceding night or on that very day. For the clearer demonstration of the reality of the miracle, and as more in keeping with the gathering of the people, it seems preferable to suppose that the illness was not of the briefest duration, but had already afflicted the woman for a longer time, so that everyone could be certain that it was a serious disease. Mk 1:30 says that Peter’s mother-in-law lay sick with a fever, πυρέσσουσα (suffering from fever, as though burning with it), and Luke likewise designates it as a serious illness: ἦν συνεχομένη πυρετῷ μεγάλῳ (she was held fast by a great fever), which also seems to indicate a prolonged disease. And immediately they tell Him about her. Who told Him? Some say the household members (Schegg, Keil), although no explicit mention is made of them, even though the manner of speaking could be taken quite generally. More often, however, it is explained that the disciples spoke, who, as Victor says, already had experience of Christ’s power (similarly Sylv.). Christ willed to be asked, He who had cast out the demon without being asked; “but this is the wisdom of God, that even though He thirsts more eagerly for our salvation, He nevertheless does not exclude helpers and ministers, so that by this means as well charity and humility may grow more firmly between us and those who intercede for us” (Salmeron, t. 6, tract. 11). Mark, from Peter’s narration, learned accurately the manner in which Christ healed (Mk 1:31): “and approaching, He raised her up, taking her by the hand, and immediately the fever left her.” By this he wished to signify that He healed her by the touch of His hand, in order to indicate, as Jansenius says, the sanctifying and healing power of His flesh because of the indwelling divinity, and that, for the spiritual reformation and salvation of man, the touch of His flesh offered for us was necessary (similarly Victor, Salm.). For the humanity of Christ was the organ or instrument of the Word for effecting miracles, yet in such a way that Christ as man, through the actions of His humanity, accomplished miraculous works not only in a moral way, but also in a real and physical manner. On this matter see Suarez, De Incarnatione, disput. 31, sect. 3 ff. The healing, just as it was sudden, was also perfect, and she ministered to them; the woman therefore at once became strong, and no trace of the disease remained, whereas in those who are relieved by the power of nature and the help of physicians, strength usually returns gradually after fevers (Jans.). And the woman showed herself grateful to the physician, teaching that the strength and resources granted and restored by God are also to be employed in His service (cf. Salm.); cf. Matthew 8:15.
Jansenius notes: “Just as all the Lord’s miracles consisting in the healing of bodies contain some mystery and are types of the spiritual benefits of God bestowed upon the soul, so also the order of the miracles is sometimes rightly understood as not lacking mystery. That on one and the same day He first heals a man and afterwards a woman signifies, according to Ambrose, that the Lord came to heal both sexes. Yet according to the same author it can also be understood otherwise, namely that by the man tormented by a demon is meant the soul of man subjected to the devil through sin and held by him in various errors, while by the fever-stricken woman is meant the flesh, liable to various heats of concupiscence.” From both these plagues the Savior frees us. He broke and conquered the power of the devil without being asked; but in order to heal the concupiscences of the flesh and the fevers of vices, He must be earnestly asked by us. Moreover, evil desires are especially restrained by the touch of His most sacred flesh received in the holy Eucharist, by which the tinder of sin is more and more bound day by day. But if we have received healing by Christ’s benefit or have experienced His help, we must be grateful; we must rise up to works of virtue and to ministries rendered to Christ and His members.
The healing of the demoniac in the synagogue was known throughout the city; the report of the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law, as happens with a deed full of wonder, also spread quickly. When therefore they recognized Jesus as so great, so powerful, and so kind and merciful, after the Sabbath had passed they brought to the physician the sick of every kind. Verse 32 says: “when evening had come, after the sun had set, they brought to Him all who were ill and those possessed by demons.” Why they waited for this time is rightly explained by the Sabbath (Victor, Theophylact, Jansenius, Maldonatus, etc.); for on the Sabbath, as is clear from John 5:10, according to the ruling of the doctors of the law it was not permitted to carry the sick, and that they waited for the end of the Sabbath and the beginning of the next day is indicated by the narrative itself, in that to the rather indeterminate notion “when evening had come” is added “when the sun had set”; for with the setting of the sun, according to Hebrew custom, the feast day ends. That the scribes surrounded the sacred rest of the Sabbath with strict prescriptions and added various interpretations to the commandments of the law (Ex 20:10; Ex31:15–17; Ex 35:2–3; Num. 15:32 ff.; Deut. 5:12–15) is sufficiently clear from the Gospels (cf. Matt. 12:1, 10; Luke 6:6; John 9:14, etc.). Moreover, since it is read in Jeremiah 17:21, “Do not carry burdens on the Sabbath day,” it is not surprising that the doctors of the law, according to their manner of interpretation, forbade the carrying of the sick for healing; indeed the ruler of the synagogue is not ashamed, with Jesus present, to say to the crowds: “There are six days on which work ought to be done; on those therefore come and be healed, and not on the Sabbath day” (Luke 13:14). Therefore Keil wrongly denies that by this indication of time it is declared that the people waited for the end of the Sabbath in order to bring the sick.
And how great the crowd was that gathered before the house of Peter is vividly set before the eyes in Mk 1:33: “and the whole city was gathered at the door,” a manner of speaking such as one uses who has witnessed with his own eyes such a gathering of people with amazement. Hence it is rightly to be thought that these are the very words with which Peter narrated the event. As the situation required, together with the sick and their attendants, many others also ran together, attracted by the novelty of the event. Jesus, however, with the greatest generosity, gave proofs of His power and mercy (Mk 1:34): “and He healed many who were afflicted with various diseases.” Luke 4:40 says, “laying His hands on each one, He healed them,” and Matthew 8:16, “He healed all who were ill.” Accordingly, when Mark says “He healed many,” it does not mean that not all were healed, either because of a lack of faith or right disposition of mind (Meyer), or because of lack of time with night coming on (Weiss); rather it indicates that a great number of sick were brought, and thus that all those who were healed were very many in number, so that we may understand the miracle to have been all the more illustrious (cf. Victor, Dionysius, Jansenius, Maldonatus, Lapide, Schegg, Schanz). Similarly, in Matthew it is said that many demon-possessed were brought to Him and that all the sick were healed by Him. His power shone forth especially in this, that by one and the same rite, the imposition of hands, He healed those afflicted with various diseases; from this it could easily be concluded that unlimited power was at His disposal. Moreover, He also showed His authority over evil spirits and cast out many demons, which, though they were many, neither dared nor were able to resist Him. It is indeed a spectacle worthy of pious meditation, how Christ, standing in the midst of so many manifestations of human misery, with His most abundant charity lovingly consoles each one and, having driven away diseases and cast out demons, restores them to health and happiness. From the connected narrative in the three Synoptics no other house can be understood than the house of Peter, of which alone mention has been made; Meyer and Keil deny this in vain, thinking that a house belonging to Jesus Himself in Capernaum is meant, since in Mk 1:32 it is said “they brought to Him.” But indeed this could and should be said even if He was in Peter’s house, for they were not bringing the sick to the house, but to Him; moreover, that Christ had His own house in Capernaum is nowhere clearly asserted.
That Jesus commanded the demons by a mere nod of His will is shown to describe His power: “and He did not permit them to speak, because they knew Him.” The translation “because” (quoniam) must be retained absolutely, nor can ὅτι (that) be translated in such a way (as some wish) that what the demons wanted to say is assigned; for λαλεῖν (to speak) in the New Testament is not used in the same way as λέγειν (to say) (Schegg, Schanz, Keil, Weiss); hence Dayle translates badly: “He did not allow them to say that they knew Him.” “Thus Paul also forbade the pythonic spirit saying that those men were servants of the Most High God; for the saint did not wish to be commended by an unclean mouth or to receive testimony from it” (Theophylact). Christ wished that men should be led gradually to faith by His own works and testimonies, and not that they should learn who He was from the voices of demons; He did not wish, as Maldonatus says, His divinity to be declared so openly and so quickly, in order to avoid the envy of the Pharisees. Perhaps the demons, in their malice, since they knew well what kind of Messiah the people desired, by their cries announcing the Messiah would have wished to stir up in the people a great and pernicious agitation and expectation of a temporal kingdom, the destruction of enemies, and the like, and in this way to hinder men’s minds from being applied to the doctrine of Jesus and the amendment of morals.
Jesus leaves Capernaum
(Mk 1:35–39)
By His preaching and miracles Christ so instructed the inhabitants of the city that, if they were willing to cooperate with the teaching they had received, they were sufficiently prepared to accept the Kingdom of God that was being offered to them and that was later to be proclaimed more fully by the apostles after Christ’s return to the Father. Therefore Jesus, having left the city, also spread His doctrine—confirmed by miracles—in other towns and villages.
Mk 1:35: And rising very early, while it was still dark, He went out and departed to a deserted place. πρωί (early in the morning), which is explained more precisely (as something similar is seen in Mk 1:32) by ἔννυχα λίαν, as Euthymius explains it, νυχτὸς ἔτι οὔσης (while it was still night). Thus, while it was still deep night, very early, Jesus went out of the house, namely so that it might not be noticed where He was going and so that He Himself might not be hindered by human importunity. Secretly, therefore, He withdrew to a deserted place, to a solitary spot, withdrawing Himself from human praise and admiration, so that He might also teach us not to hunt after human applause nor to seek from men, as it were, praise and reward for good deeds done (cf. Victor, Theophylact, Euthymius, Maldonatus, Dionysius, Lapide).
He provides an example, as Jansenius notes, especially for preachers: after beneficence has been bestowed upon others, one ought to withdraw, lest one seem to expect reward or praise from those whom one has benefited; and there He prayed, earnestly commending to the Father the work which He was now about to undertake by preaching throughout Galilee. The evangelists present Jesus to us praying before works of greater moment: thus before the choice of the apostles, before He promised primacy to Peter, before greater miracles, before the Passion (cf. Mark 6:46; Luke 6:12; Lk 9:18, 28; Lk 11:1; John 6:11; Jn 11:51; Jn 17:1, etc.). How He prayed for His own we have a most splendid example in His prayer in John 17:1 ff., and it may be supposed that He poured forth similar prayers also at this time.
He prays, however, as Victor says, not because He Himself needed prayer—for He is the one who receives the prayers of men—but acting οἰκονομικῶς (economically, according to a certain dispensation), He was made for us a form and example of good action. At the same time He shows us that a quiet and solitary place is especially suited to that intimate intercourse with God (Dionysius), and, as Cajetan notes, He provides an example for preachers of seizing some time for prayer, for lifting the mind to God, for asking in prayer for the things that belong to salvation; or, as Jansenius observes, He insinuates to us that “after teaching, withdrawal and prayer are needed, both so that the fruit of preaching may be obtained from God in the hearers, and so that by contemplation and elevation of the mind to God the spirit may be rendered more eager for teaching and helping one’s neighbors in every way.”
On the prayer of Christ, see St. Thomas, Summa Theologiae III, q. 91, aa. 1–4, and Suarez, De Incarnatione, disput. 45, sect. 1. As the Gospels teach and as St. Paul states in Hebrews 5:7, Christ truly and properly prayed, asking and supplicating something from the Father. “From this it follows that often, by divine providence and ordination, things were so disposed and predetermined that many things were to be obtained by Christ as man through prayer, which would not have happened without that prayer. For just as He would not have redeemed men unless He had suffered for them—because thus it had been prescribed and preordained by God—so neither would He have obtained without prayer those things that were to be obtained only through prayer according to divine preordination. Hence, just as it was necessary for Him to suffer in order thus to enter into His glory and to bring us into it with Him, so it was necessary for Him to pray in order to obtain many things which He did obtain through prayer. Yet just as the necessity of the Passion for our redemption was not from any defect of the person, nor because Christ was not sufficient to accomplish it by infinitely many other ways or works, but because for fitting reasons God ordained it as the necessary means to that end, so this necessity of prayer was not from any indigence of His person, nor because He was not sufficient of Himself to accomplish through His humanity, without petition, whatever He obtained or effected by praying, but because for fitting reasons pertaining to the divine honor and our utility it was thus ordained and disposed by God” (Suarez, loc. cit., n. 3).
For God willed, as Suarez says, that Christ as man should need prayer, in order that the due order of the lower nature to the higher might be preserved and that the due worship of prayer might be rendered to the divinity. For just as Christ as man most excellently exercised the virtue of charity and the other cardinal virtues, so surely it could not be that He would omit the virtue of religion and its exercise, prayer. Indeed, Christ could, through knowledge infused into Him and through the vision of the divinity which His soul continuously enjoyed, contemplate divine things without any dependence on the senses and without any interruption; yet at the same time it was most fitting that, according also to the natural powers of intellect, will, imagination, and appetite, He should immerse Himself wholly in divine things in a far more perfect way than would be possible while dealing with other sensible matters. Therefore it was altogether fitting that, in order to engage in such prayer, He should at times withdraw Himself to a solitary place. See Suarez, De mysteriis vitae Christi, in III, q. 44, disput. 29, sect. 4, n. 1.
Mk 1:36-37 Christ had inspired a great desire for Himself both in the disciples and in the crowds. Hence, with the greatest eagerness they seek Him as soon as they discover that He has withdrawn. Mk 1:36: And Simon followed Him—χατεδίωξεν (he pursued Him eagerly), that is, he ardently followed, pursued, and at last overtook Him—Simon, from whose house He had withdrawn, and those who were with him; that is, the three remaining disciples (Mk 1:29). By this manner of speaking, “Simon and those with him” (Σίμων καὶ οἱ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ), Peter is already indicated as the leader and chief of the others (Maldonatus, Filas), and Meyer himself admits that a higher dignity than he later formally acquired is here suggested. Nor does Weiss’s objection hold, that Simon is named because Jesus had stayed in his house; for if that were the reason, Andrew also should have been named, since the house was that of Simon and Andrew (Mk 1:29). From Luke 4:42 we learn that the crowds were seeking Him and came as far as Him; that is, as the situation suggests, it quickly became known that He had departed, and after the disciples others also sought such a teacher and helper and tried to keep Him with them. Moreover, from Mark’s narrative itself it is clear that the crowds also anxiously sought Jesus; for Mk 1:37 says: and when they found Him, they said to Him, “Everyone is looking for You.” By this common desire of all they wish to persuade Jesus to remain longer in the city. This manner of narrating the event and the words themselves express the situation more vividly than in St. Luke; “everyone is looking for you” is an expression entirely natural, such as people are accustomed to use in such a situation toward someone who is being anxiously sought by many and whose whereabouts are not immediately discovered. Here too, then, one may easily suppose that Peter’s narration underlies the account.
Mk 1:38 But Christ had already sown the seeds which, given the time, were sufficient for preparation; therefore He resolved to impart the benefit of His teaching also to other regions. Mk 1:38: And He said to them, “Let us go into the neighboring villages and towns,” χωμοπόλεις—a single Greek word which is explained as referring to larger villages, similar to cities in size and population, that is, rural towns which may appear either as villages or as towns (Erasmus). Euthymius explains that πόλις denotes a city surrounded by walls, χώμη a village lacking walls, while χωμόπολις is partly fortified with walls and partly lacking fortifications. Josephus affirms (Vita 45) that there were two hundred and four cities and villages in Galilee.
Jesus declares to the disciples that this is His task: that I may preach there also. Doctrine, by which true moral amendment and a greater knowledge of God are effected, is at that time the first and principal part of His mission; miracles merely accompany it, in order to render men more ready to accept the doctrine, to confirm His teaching and mission with a divine seal, to show His mercy, and to reward pious faith and trust. Thus He testifies that He has come to preach, to teach men: for this is why I came (διὰ τοῦτο γὰρ ἦλθον), Luke 4:43, for I was sent for this purpose. In the same way it is easily explained when He says elsewhere: For this I came into the world, to bear witness to the truth (John 18:37). So Alphonsus, Dionysius, Jansenius, Maldonatus. Nor do Victor and Euthymius understand ἐξῆλθον otherwise: Victor (ἐξελήλυθα) as manifesting the authority and supreme dominion (αὐθεντία) of His divinity and the self-emptying voluntarily undertaken; Euthymius: I was sent as man, He says, ἐξελήλυθα as God; and among more recent authors Bisping, Filas, Keil: I came forth from the Father (cf. John 8:42; Jn 13:3; Jn 16:27, 30: He went out from God, from the Father). Others, however, because ἐξῆλθον is placed alone and not added, as usual, παρὰ or ἀπὸ, ἐκ θεοῦ, etc., explain it as meaning: for this reason I went out of the house, as is indicated in Mk 1:35 (rising, He went out and departed); thus Calmet, Schegg, Schanz, Meyer, Weiss. But it must be admitted that this meaning is rather meager and thin, and too slight for Christ to be considered as meeting by such a reply the great desire of all—everyone is looking for You—nor does it fit with the reply in Luke 4:43, in which alone there is contained a truly effective and genuinely sublime reason why He leaves the city and to which all must acquiesce.
Mk 1:39 Accordingly, He went about through Galilee and was preaching in their synagogues and throughout all Galilee (εἰς ὅλην τὴν Γαλιλαίαν). Therefore one must explain either that He went into the synagogues is joined with ἦλθεν, or that synagogue is taken as an assembly of people (Acts 13:43; James 2:2; Rev. 2:9; Rev 3:9) to whom the preaching is addressed. Yet this seems to be hindered by the fact that elsewhere among the Synoptics synagogue is used not of the gathered multitude but of the building of assembly. It is then added how far His journeys were directed and extended—through all Galilee—namely, ἦλθεν κηρύσσων (He went about preaching), and casting out demons; He confirms His doctrine by miracles, and by these also renders the minds of men more ready to embrace salutary instruction. He breaks the power and dominion of demons, showing that He has come in order that the kingdom of the devil and of sin might be destroyed and the kingdom of God and of justice might be established in the souls of men. From doctrine He passed to miracles, so that those whom speech did not attract might be attracted by the power of miracles, as Euthymius says; so you too, says Theophylact, when you have taught, also perform good works, lest your speech be empty and vain (μάταιος).
Victor says that Christ preached in synagogues in order to unite the teaching of the old covenant with that of the new and to show that He is the one author and God of both. That in this preaching throughout Galilee those doctrines were proposed which we read in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5–7 is the opinion of some and is not improbable (cf. St. Augustine, De consensu evangelistarum 2.19.43; Migne 35, 1098; Bede, Catena aurea).
Comments
Post a Comment