The Casting Out of a Demon (1:21–28; Luke 4:31–37).
Now, in the Gospel of Mark, there begins the detailed, concrete mode of presentation that remains perceptible up to the disputed ending. Mk 15–20 still had in part a preparatory character, insofar as they reported the calling of the principal apostles, who were bound to be witnesses of the teaching and healing activity of Jesus that is now to be described. This activity is now portrayed vividly, because the aim is not a mere historical enumeration, but rather to show how Jesus, in each individual action, at the same time sketched a faithful picture of his entire activity at that moment—one that was rich in instruction for the disciples and the people, and that even now, in the narrative itself, must contribute to completing and strengthening in the hearts of believers the image of the person of the God-man Redeemer received in faith.
This intention already becomes evident in the choice of the first narrative. It is lacking in Matthew (Mk 9:32–34 is too dissimilar) and was taken up by Mark from the tradition of Peter. Perhaps this event followed immediately upon Peter’s call and was therefore told by him in this context; or—what is more probable because of the καί (“and”)—Mark, who did not wish to include the Sermon on the Mount, could not place the healing of the leper (Matt 8:1–4) at the head of his work because of its polemical character vis-à-vis Judaism, and, with regard to his Roman readers, had to pass over the account of the centurion’s servant at Capernaum (Matt 8:5–13). He therefore regarded a casting out of demons as especially suitable for illustrating the exalted superiority of the Son of God over the rulers of the pagan world. In general, Mark loves to emphasize Jesus’ power over the realm of unclean spirits (Mk 1:39; Mk 3:15; Mk 6:13), because by doing so he could both present the proof from miracles with particular force and bring home to his readers the overwhelming impression made by the appearance of Jesus.
If Luke places this narrative before the calling of the disciples, this is to be attributed to his placing first the visit to Nazareth. Alongside the rejection at Nazareth, the general admiration at Capernaum had to appear. Since it seemed inappropriate to let Jesus appear simply as a miracle-worker without further preparation, and since miracle-working as such was of subordinate importance—even though it forms the main content of Mark’s Gospel—Mark at least had to mention beforehand, in a few verses, the teaching activity and its effect: a weak substitute for Matthew’s beautiful Sermon on the Mount, but nevertheless a proof that the discourses are to be placed before the miracles. Just as I could not regard the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew as a mere discourse addressed to disciples, so here too I cannot concede that Mark wishes us to think of the four called apostles as chiefly present (as Klostermann suggests). For Mark narrates more with a view to what happened to the people than to what the first disciples experienced in following Jesus. Only this is to be maintained: that the disciples always appear in the company of the Lord and are thus prepared for their calling.
Mark 1:21
Εἰσπορεύονται (“they enter”) is a historical present, which Mark frequently uses to sketch the situation. The subject is Jesus and the four disciples. According to Mk 1:16, Jesus called the disciples on the shore of the lake. Since they were from Bethsaida (John 1:45), the region of Bethsaida (cf. Matthew, pp. 314 and 562) is to be thought of as the point of departure. For Mark does not wish, as Luke 4:31 does, to narrate the first arrival in Capernaum, but only to emphasize Jesus’ transition to a new activity. Otherwise he would surely have added a motive or an explanatory remark. Because Luke combines this narrative with the scene at Nazareth, many exegetes (Victor, Euthymius, Theophylact) have mistakenly assumed Nazareth as the point of departure for εἰσπορεύονται.
τοῖς σάββασιν (“on the Sabbath”) may be explained either as plural or singular; the singular, however, is required by εὐθύς (“immediately”), that is, on the very next Sabbath. The emphasis lies on σάββασιν, not on εὐθύς, though σάββασιν is indeed determined by εὐθύς. Teaching on other Sabbaths is of course not excluded, but Mark wishes to mention only the first teaching, in order to show what a deep impression Jesus’ teaching made already at his first appearance. As elsewhere he particularizes in order to characterize what is general, so it must also be assumed here.
The plural σάββατα in this sense is already found in the Old Testament and in Josephus, and is probably an imitation of the names of feasts (ἄζυμα, “Unleavened Bread”; γενέσια, “birthdays”; ἐγκαίνια, “Dedication”), not a reproduction of the Aramaic form שַׁבָּתָא (as Frische, Ewald, and Volkmar think), since the Septuagint shows no regard for the Chaldean (cf. Matthew, p. 318). The dative σάββασι is a metaplasm (Winer §8.62); the Septuagint writes σαββάτοις (1 Macc 2:38 has σάββασι), and Josephus alternates.
The reason why Jesus appeared on the Sabbath is naturally to be sought in the large attendance at the worship assembly of the community on that day. On the two other synagogue days (Monday and Thursday; cf. Matthew, p. 153) the gathering was less numerous. The religious mood of the Sabbath must also have made the hearers more receptive. Mark contents himself with the simple ἐδίδασκεν (“he was teaching”), because his concern is not the presentation of the content of the teaching, but of its effect.
Mark 1:22.
With the exception of οἱ ὄχλοι (“the crowds”), this verse also stands in Matthew 7:28–29, where it is entirely in place, since the long Sermon on the Mount has preceded. ἐκπλήσσεσθαι means “to be struck,” “to be astonished,” “to be seized by something.” Proponents of the Markan hypothesis count this verb among Mark’s characteristic vocabulary; he uses it in the same sense, with ἐπί, again at Mk 11:18; without an object at Mk 7:37; and in the sense of actual fright at Mk 6:2 and Mk 10:26. Matthew has it four times in parallels (Mt 7:28; Mt 22:33; Mt 13:54; Mt 19:25), whereas in the parallel to Mk 7:37 he uses θαυμάζειν (“to marvel”; Mt 15:31). From this, however, it does not follow that Matthew’s source is to be sought in Mark, for Mt 7:28 andMt 22:33 are parallel not in narrative but only in formula; accordingly it must be assumed that this formula was common currency in apostolic tradition. Mark, as elsewhere, remains more consistent in expression and adheres more closely to Matthew than Luke does, who in the parallel (Lk 4:32) indeed has ἐκπλήσσεσθαι but renders ἦν διδάσκων (“he was teaching”) etc. with: ὅτι ἐν ἐξουσίᾳ ἦν ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ (“because his word was with authority”). Greater variation is generally lacking in Mark.
The subject of ἐξεπλήσσοντο (“they were astonished”) is those present in the synagogue, not the disciples. ἐξουσία (“authority, power”) is to be understood primarily not as rhetorical skill, but as the authority of the speaker. A conception of this authoritative power in speech is given to us by Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount: there Jesus places himself alongside the Lord (YHWH) of the Old Testament, over against Moses.
In the formula ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη τοῖς ἀρχαίοις … ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν (“You have heard that it was said to the ancients … but I say to you”) the authoritative manner of Jesus’ appearance is admirably characterized, and the ἐκπλήσσεσθαι (“astonishment, being struck”) is thereby explained. This saying cannot even in a fourth, most remote line, as Jansen proposes, be referred to confirmation by miracles.
The particle ὡς with the participle can represent a causal, final, or object clause. Here the last is the case, yet the content of the object clause is not meant to be presented as an uncertain conjecture, but as a conception corresponding to reality (Krüger 69, 63, 3). The γραμματεῖς (“scribes”) taught as those who had no authority, that is, they were compelled to appeal to Holy Scripture and tradition and therefore could not speak with full personal claim. Victor, however, is surely mistaken when he finds the tertium comparationis in the striving for praise. The expression καὶ οὐχ ὡς (“and not as”) fits quite well here (Fritzsche), since the contrast is not between utterly opposite things, but between things essentially different. In the case of full antitheses, asyndeton is to be used, although variations occur according to the individual perception of the writer. The article with γραμματεῖς is again generic (cf. v. Mk 1:11).
Mark 1:23.
Εὐθύς (“immediately”) is not to be weakened into ἰδού (“behold”), as Schegg suggests. Rather, Mark—who, as the placement of the demon-healing at the beginning already shows, attaches special importance to this—wishes to emphasize that immediately at the first appearance of Jesus there occurred an encounter with a demonic power. The pronoun αὐτῶν (“their”) stresses the identity of the spectators with the hearers just mentioned, since in Capernaum, as in all larger cities, there were several synagogues. The very same people who had just been witnesses of the power of Jesus’ word were now also to become witnesses of his miraculous power, and thus be still further confirmed in their astonishment. In this way Jesus proved himself right at the beginning of his ministry to be the Son of God, who has power over the hearts of human beings.
The phrase ἐν πνεύματι ἀκαθάρτῳ (“in an unclean spirit”), sc. ὤν (“being”), is to be connected with ἄνθρωπος (“man”), not with ἦν (“was”), as Fritzsche proposes: “a man with an unclean spirit,” that is, a man who stands under the dominion of an unclean spirit (Buttmann 83, 11). Analogous expressions are ἐν πνεύματι or ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ / θεοῦ (“in the Spirit,” “in the Holy Spirit / of God”: Matt 22:43; Mark 12:36; Luke 2:27; 1 Cor 12:3; Rev 17:3; 21:10), or ἐν ἑαυτῷ εἶναι (“to be in oneself,” i.e. in one’s right mind; Krüger 47, 6, 6). Yet the inhabitatio is not to be understood as purely spiritual, but rather as a kind of dwelling in the body, accompanied by a binding of the spiritual powers of the possessed person.
The term πνεῦμα ἀκάθαρτον (“unclean spirit”) denotes a spirit that is unholy, turned away from God, and fallen under the power of evil. Among the Greeks ἀκάθαρτος was used primarily of moral impurity in the narrower sense, that is, of licentiousness, and this meaning appears also in Ephesians 5:5 and Revelation 17:4; likewise ἀκαθαρσία (“uncleanness”) in the Pauline letters (Rom 1:24; 6:19; and 2 Cor 12:21, etc.). In the Old Testament the levitically unclean person is called ἀκάθαρτος (Lev 15:30–33; Lev 11:34–39; Lev 18:19), and this usage has passed over into the New Testament (Acts 10:14; Acts 11:8; Acts 10:28; 1 Cor 7:14; Rev 18:2). Since, however, levitical purity was not merely a sanitary regulation but an ethical one, connected with sinful conditions of sexual life, death, and decay, the notion of moral impurity is at the same time bound up with ἀκάθαρτος.
Because the pagan idols were demons (Ps 96:5; Deut 32:17; Ps 106:35; 1 Cor 8:4; 1 Cor 10:19), and everything pagan was not merely unclean but also led to moral impurity, πνεῦμα ἀκάθαρτον is the designation of the evil spirit that would be most readily intelligible to Gentile Christians: the author of idolatry and sin. Mark prefers this expression. Matthew uses it only at Mt 10:1 and Mt 12:43; Luke at 4:33 (πνεῦμα δαιμονίου ἀκαθάρτου, “a spirit of an unclean demon”), Lk 4:36; Lk 6:18. Matthew 12:43, however, stands in a parabolic discourse and therefore cannot derive from Mark; consequently Matthew 10:1 (= Mark 6:7) need not necessarily depend on Mark either. On demonic possession, see Matthew, p. 155.
The verb ἀνακράζειν (“to cry out”) means, according to its composition with ἀνά, “to cry aloud,” “to shout,” and this sense suits the New Testament usage. Luke intensifies it further with φωνῇ μεγάλῃ (“with a loud voice,” Lk 4:33). According to what precedes, ἄνθρωπος (“man”) is the grammatical subject, yet the following words are the speech of the spirit; for in cases of possession there appears the peculiar phenomenon that the human personality is most intimately united with the demonic, and all utterances of the possessed person are at the same time utterances of the spirit.
Mark 1:24.
The Hebrew formula τί ἡμῖν καὶ σοί (“What have we to do with you?” literally, “What is between us and you?”) is to be compared with Matthew, p. 264; it need only be added that the same expression is also found in Greek usage. The plural (“us”; cf. 5:7 singular) is explained by Mark’s intention, in this first case, to depict Jesus’ confrontation with the god-alienated powers ruling among the people in general, so that there is no need to appeal to the apostolic source of Matthew 8:29, where many spirits are mentioned (against Weiss). The evil spirit speaks in the name of his companions, with whom he is bound together as a hostile power. Hence the singular οἶδα (“I know”) is entirely appropriate, because it expresses the concrete knowledge of the individual spirit in this encounter with Jesus.
From what the devil had experienced at the temptation, he could no longer be in doubt that a struggle for his long-established dominion in the world was impending. He sought as much as possible to evade the power of Jesus or at least to impair it. Therefore he later attacked the Lord repeatedly and instigated Judas against him. The assumption that, as soon as the lowliness of the Lord again concealed his strength, the devil abandoned his belief (as J. Grimm suggests) seems to me just as improbable as the conjecture of others that, in this instance, the devil resorted to cunning and dissimulation.
The designation Ναζαρηνός (“Nazarene”) occurs only in Mark (Mk 10:47;Mk 14:67; Mk 16:6) and Luke (4:34). Matthew and Luke elsewhere write Ναζωραῖος (see Matthew, p. 114). Matthew has the address “Son of David,” which Mark uses only at Mk 10:47 (in the address of the blind man) and at Mk 12:35 in an argument. Mark had to avoid as far as possible the theocratic–political side of the Messiah, whereas this aspect was self-evident in Jewish eyes. Hence the Gospel of Matthew corresponds most closely to the original state of affairs, and in the general consideration of the content I repeatedly return to that standpoint. As a Nazarene, Jesus is the Jew despised and persecuted by his own people, who neither could nor wished to think of dominion in any sense.
The verb ἀπολέσαι (“to destroy, to bring to ruin”) means to hand over to eternal condemnation, whereas until the coming of Christ the demons exercised a dominion upon the earth. The punctuation varies. The now almost universally accepted punctuation (Fritzsche, Tischendorf, Weiss), which conforms to the context, places a colon after ἀπολέσαι ἡμᾶς; the Textus Receptus, Lachmann, Schegg, and Tregelles, however, place a question mark. The latter would presuppose a doubt on the part of the spirit, which contradicts the οἶδα (“I know”). What Jansen objects would require πρὸ καιροῦ (“before the time”) as a supplement.
The construction οἶδά σε (“I know you”) with a dependent clause (ὅτι) is a well-known attraction, whereby something from the subordinate clause is drawn into the main clause. The title ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ (“the Holy One of God”; John 6:69; Acts 4:30; ὁ ἅγιος παῖς τοῦ θεοῦ, “the holy servant of God”; 1 John 2:20: ὁ ἅγιος) denotes the one chosen by God, הַקָּדוֹשׁ (“the Holy One”), the one consecrated to God, as which Jesus was solemnly proclaimed at his baptism. The expression follows Old Testament usage, where it is applied to God, to priests, and to the people of Israel; Isaiah in particular is fond of ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ Ἰσραήλ (“the Holy One of Israel”). Yet the expression also has meaning for a Greek ear, though it occurs rarely among the Greeks: the holy stands over against the unholy, the divine over against the diabolical. The devil, however, is compelled to this recognition by the majestic appearance of the person of the Lord, and he does not use the expression as a captatio benevolentiae.
Mark 1:25.
The verb ἐπιτιμᾶν (“to rebuke”), in conjunction with φιμώθητι (“be silent,” literally “be muzzled”), does not refer to a prohibition of speaking in order to prevent the demonstration of Jesus’ power (as Bede and Euthymius think, interpreting it as ἀντὶ τοῦ ἐπεστόμισεν, “instead of ‘he stopped his mouth,’” followed by Weiss), but rather to the prohibition of confessing Jesus’ messiahship. Jesus did not wish the confession either before its proper time or from such a mouth. Mark wished to show that Jesus attached no value to such a confession and prevented its influence upon the people, in order to forestall all agitation and excitement.
Nor may it be objected that these prohibitions refer to the time after the expulsion (as Meyer and Weiss claim), for in Mk 1:34 ἐξέβαλεν (“he cast out”) and οὐκ ἤφιεν λαλεῖν (“he did not allow [them] to speak”) are to be taken simultaneously. Nowhere in the New Testament do we find an example of an expelled spirit still attempting to speak with Jesus; this always happens only so long as the spirit still inhabits the possessed person. In Mk 3:12, admittedly, πνεύματα ἀκάθαρτα (“unclean spirits”) are the subject, but that they have not yet been expelled is clear from the words ὅταν αὐτὸν ἐθεώρουν, προσέπιπτον αὐτῷ (“whenever they saw him, they fell down before him”). The pronoun αὐτῷ refers to the demon who had been speaking, which is why the main subject Ἰησοῦς is explicitly added.
Mk 1:26.
The verb σπαράσσειν (“to tear to and fro, to convulse violently”)—Luke adds μηδὲν βλάψαν αὐτόν (“having done him no harm,” that is, without essentially injuring any part of his body)—occurs in the New Testament only here and again in Mark 9:26 and Luke 9:39, though it is frequent among Greek writers. The evil spirit, since he must in any case abandon his dwelling, wishes before his departure to display his power once more and to vent his rage (Pseudo-Chrysostom, Gregory, Maldonatus). Even if this does not prove that the spirit spoke from the possessed man, it does show that he held him completely in his power. Yet the greater the exertion of strength and malice on the demon’s part, the more magnificent appears the power of the Holy One of God, who with a single word compels him to leave his dwelling.
Mk 1:27.
The impression made by the miracle upon the spectators was so overwhelming that they were thrown into astonishment. The verb θαμβεῖν among the Greeks means “to be amazed, to be startled”; with the accusative, “to gaze at in amazement, to be startled at something”; in the passive, “to be put into amazement or terror.” In the Septuagint it has only the latter meaning (1 Macc 6:8; Wis 17:3). Nevertheless, in Mark’s Gospel—which alone in the New Testament uses this verb (Mk 10:32; with ἐπί in Mk 10:24)—this restrictive sense cannot be maintained (against Schegg). Rather, the meaning “to be filled with amazement” is to be preferred (Meyer, W. Grimm). For if the other meaning were retained even here, it would already be difficult in Mk 10:24 (οἱ μαθηταὶ ἐθαμβοῦντο ἐπὶ τοῖς λόγοις αὐτοῦ, “the disciples were astonished at his words”) and impossible in Mk 10:34, where θαμβεῖσθαι stands in contrast to φοβεῖσθαι (“to fear”). The parallel cited by Schegg, Acts 9:6 (τρέμων τε καὶ θαμβῶν εἶπε, “trembling and astonished, he said”), apart from its textual uncertainty (Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles omit it), proves nothing, since it is undisputed that θαμβεῖν could be used in that way. In any case, sheer amazement corresponds better to Mark’s purpose, since throughout this section he wishes to emphasize the favorable impression. To believe merely in one “before whom one trembles” is less in keeping with New Testament theology, for even the demons believe and tremble (James 2:19).
The natural consequence of amazement was mutual questioning as to the source of all this. συζητεῖν means “to examine together,” and in the New Testament “to dispute.” The reading πρὸς ἑαυτούς could, after Luke, be explained as πρὸς ἀλλήλους (“with one another”). An inward deliberation, as expressed by διαλογίζεσθαι ἐν, is never conveyed by συζητεῖν in the New Testament. The excited mood of the spectators explains why they first gather everything they have seen into a general exclamation—τί ἐστιν τοῦτο; (“What is this?”)—and then specify the two impressions they have received. For in every textual arrangement, teaching and miracle must be distinguished.
If, with Tischendorf, one places a colon after ἐξουσίαν, the sense is: “A new teaching—in authority! And he commands even the unclean spirits.” The transition to the finite verb suits the lively excitement well. κατ’ ἐξουσίαν (“with authority, in authority”) corresponds to ὡς ἐξουσίαν ἔχων (“as one having authority”) in Mk 1:22. The contrast with the scribes does not lie in the expulsion of demons—otherwise v. 22 would be unintelligible. This parallel might be urged against Tischendorf’s punctuation in favor of Lachmann (Bisping, Schegg, Volkmar, Tregelles), who attaches κατ’ ἐξουσίαν to what follows; but it is not decisive, since κατ’ ἐξουσίαν can easily be linked in either direction, and Luke 4:36 (ἐν ἐξουσίᾳ) actually connects it with what follows.
The expression κατ’ ἐξουσίαν καί (“with authority, and…”) is simple, good Greek, and readily intelligible, whereas διδαχὴ καινὴ κατ’ ἐξουσίαν (“a new teaching according to authority”) would be unusual and harsh in both position and construction (Schegg). Yet καί, in conjunction with the preceding κατ’ ἐξουσίαν, does point back to another ἐξουσία, namely that of the teaching itself; this explains why Luke, who replaces διδαχή with the more general λόγος and omits καινή, avoids the difficulty by the phrase ἐν ἐξουσίᾳ καὶ δυνάμει (“with authority and power”). Still, it must be conceded that the combination of κατ’ ἐξουσίαν with καινή is awkward. Therefore it should be abandoned, and κατ’ ἐξουσίαν explained adverbially as “with authority, powerfully,” according to well-known Greek usage (Krüger; cf. Philem 14; 1 Pet 3:7; Rom 10:2; Acts 3:17). Even so, it is to be connected with what precedes; for from τί ἐστιν τοῦτο; one must supply ἐστιν with διδαχὴ καινή, and take κατ’ ἐξουσίαν as the predicate of the whole: “It is a new teaching—in authority,” just as in Philem 14: ἵνα μὴ ὡς κατ’ ἀνάγκην τὸ ἀγαθόν σου ᾖ ἀλλὰ κατὰ ἑκούσιον (“that your good might not be as of necessity but of free will”).
That in Mk 1:22 the authority in the sense of commission refers to the teacher and not to the teaching does not argue against this explanation, since here too it is the mode of teaching (διδάσκειν), not the content (διδαχή), that is being characterized. The reflection implied by the backward reference to Mk 1:22—presupposing that they quickly rose from their astonishment to a calm, cool judgment—is of little weight; for a reflection is already contained in διδαχὴ καινή, so that a further element does not significantly burden the sense. Moreover, in view of Luke’s parallel, might not the reflection lie rather on Luke’s side? Indeed, the reflection belongs to Luke, who took offense at the mention of the teaching after the miracle and therefore laid the emphasis on the impression produced by the miracle. Even if Luke knew Mark, this is not a faulty copy but a conscious and permissible deviation. Such an approach avoids the error of modern criticism, which everywhere assumes slavish dependence and therefore faults wherever differences appear, without retreating into catechetical hypotheses.
By reporting this weighty utterance of the hearers and spectators, Mark demonstrates that Jesus already at his first appearance manifested his supernatural authority and, in his whole presence, swept people away into admiration. The emphasis does not fall on καινή (“new”), but on κατ’ ἐξουσίαν (“with authority”). For this was the distinguishing mark the hearers had already perceived beforehand. In a strict sense, the teaching of Jesus could not appear “new” to Jews at all, since Jesus himself in the Sermon on the Mount closely adhered to the Old Testament and merely advanced toward spiritual perfection, thereby creating a contrast while preserving the unity of principle. Later too, the reproach of the Jews is directed not against the novelty of the teaching but against the transgression of the Law and the traditions. They would have taken less offense at novelty, had only their political messianic hopes been fulfilled.
Mark 1:28.
Mark does not content himself with reporting the effect upon the immediate spectators, but immediately adds that the report about him (Jesus) spread at once in all directions. ἀκοή (from ἀκούειν, “to hear”) means “hearing,” “what is heard,” “report, fame,” with the genitive of the object. Here again Luke provides an explanation (ἦχος περὶ αὐτοῦ, “a sound/report about him”). The expression ἡ περίχωρος τῆς Γαλιλαίας (“the surrounding region of Galilee”) was already interpreted by Euthymius, because of Matthew 4:24 (εἰς ὅλην τὴν Συρίαν, “into all Syria”), as the land surrounding Galilee. Philological reasons support this interpretation, but the context argues against it. Otherwise the statement would sound excessively hyperbolic, and Galilee itself would be passed over, whereas in Matthew it is included within Syria. Therefore Γαλιλαίας is to be taken as a genitive of content: “the Galilean surrounding region,” that is, the environs of Capernaum within Galilee (Luke 8:37; Winer 30.1.2). Luke removes the difficulty by writing εἰς πάντα τόπον τῆς περιχώρου (“into every place of the surrounding region”).
CONTINUE
Comments
Post a Comment