The Healing of Peter’s Mother-in-Law
(Mk 1:29–34; Matt. 8:14–17; Luke 4:38–41).
Mark and Luke connect this narrative so closely with the preceding one that one must assume a historical unity between the two. Since Mark, by naming the two pairs of brothers—at whose head stands Peter, his informant—indicates his source and preserves the connection with their calling, there is no reason to suppose that he is dependent on another source. Nor can the dependence of Matthew on Mark be demonstrated. If Matthew mentions only Peter, this accords with the position of the narrative, which is far removed from the account of the calling of the two brother-pairs. Just as he, writing later, could omit the other names from his prior source, so too, writing earlier, he could easily restrict himself to what was necessary for his purpose. His arrangement, however, depended on the Sermon on the Mount, with which the account of the centurion’s servant was connected. Since Mark omitted both of these and also did not wish to place the healing of the leper at the head of the miracle narrative, he also came—taking Matthew into account—to the account of the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law. This was of particular interest for his readers, as former hearers of Peter, and it provided an opportunity to let an image of the merciful benefactor follow upon the image of the mighty Son of God who conquers evil spirits.
Mk 1:29.
The subject includes, besides Jesus, Peter and Andrew. The other two are named separately as companions. Why Mark could not write, “they (Jesus, Simon, Andrew) came into the house” (as Scholten suggests), is inexplicable, but it is also unnecessary to include James and John in the subject. The participle ἐξελθόντες (“having gone out”) does not serve to explain εὐθύς (“immediately”), but belongs to ἦλθον (“they came”): immediately after they had come out of the synagogue, they came, etc. The ἐξελθόντες makes the action vivid, just as in Mk 1:21 the striking εἰσελθών (“having entered”). The emphasis lies less on the departure itself than on the rapid succession of miracles (Maldonatus).
The phrase εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν (“into the house”) occurs in all three Synoptics, from which it follows that the apostle, originally from Bethsaida, had settled in Capernaum. The addition of Andrew’s name in Mark does not justify the conclusion that the house was Peter’s paternal home (Hilgenfeld), but is explained by the calling of the brothers just previously narrated, who probably lived in the same house. Mark even adds the names of the sons of Zebedee. Since the illness cannot have arisen only on that same day (κατέκειτο πυρέσσουσα, “she lay sick with fever”; Matthew: βεβλημένην καὶ πυρέσσουσαν, “lying down and feverish”; Luke: ἦν συνεχομένη πυρετῷ μεγάλῳ, “she was afflicted with a great fever”), Jesus must already have spent the previous night in Peter’s house. It is likely that he and his disciples chose either a public inn or the house of a hospitable person for lodging.
Mk 1:30.
κατακεῖσθαι (“to lie down”) is used of the sick lying ill (John 5:6; Acts 28:8; Herodotus 7.229). πυρέσσουσα means “feverish, suffering from fever.” The expression λέγειν τινὶ περί τινος (“to speak to someone about someone”) occurs also in Mk 8:30; Matt. 11:7. Luke writes instead ἠρώτησαν (“they asked”), from which some (Jansenius, Fritzsche, Schegg, and others) infer that the disciples were not the subject, because they never asked anything for themselves (Schegg). This latter claim, however, cannot be accepted without qualification in view of Mark 10:35 and Matt. 19:27 ff. The former inference is supported by the fact that Mark often prefers an indefinite subject (“they”). Yet the αὐτῷ (“to him”) with λέγουσι (“they say”) seems to require the disciples as subject; otherwise the household would not have addressed Jesus alone in order to excuse the expected lack of service. Moreover, this would introduce a deviation from Luke. If the embarrassment caused by the sudden illness of the mistress of the house (the mother-in-law) had been so great, it would not have occurred to the household to ask Jesus for healing. The apostles, however, had just witnessed the expulsion of a demon and were thereby naturally prompted to approach Jesus for healing. Jesus intended to take the meal with the disciples in the house, and he did so (διηκόνει, Mk 1:31, “she was serving”). On the Sabbath the meal was usually taken late, since according to Josephus it was customary to eat breakfast only about the sixth hour. Whether it was generally customary to take the main meal only in the evening (as Schegg claims) is doubtful.
Mk 1:31.
The verb ἐγείρειν (“to raise”) does not mean “to heal” in itself, nor is it taken so by Theophylact; he merely summarizes the whole action under the notion of healing. The healing is mentioned separately as the immediate consequence of the raising effected by taking her by the hand: ἀφῆκεν κτλ. (“the fever left her, etc.”). Since ἀφῆκεν (“left”) follows ἤγειρεν (“he raised”), Mark’s account gives the impression that only the physical raising from the bed is meant. Matthew places ἀφῆκεν first and uses the passive ἠγέρθη (“she was raised”), which Luke renders by ἀναστάς (“having risen”). In the same sense ἐγείρειν appears in 9:27 and Acts 3:7. Correspondingly, κρατήσας τῆς χειρός (“having taken her by the hand”; cf. Mk 5:41; Matt. 9:25; Luke 8:54) does not mean “to seize firmly with power,” but simply “to take hold.” Matthew emphasizes the healing method with ἥψατο (“he touched”), while Luke mentions only the words spoken. Ordinarily both were combined; only demoniacs were always healed by the word alone (Matt. 8:16, 32; Mt 9:33; Mt 12:22; Mark 1:25, 34; Mk 5:12; Luke 4:41). Some exegetes see in this a proof of the true union of the divine and human natures, yet the laying on of hands—and thus touching—was generally regarded as a symbol of the communication of supernatural gifts. In any case, neither explanation can be reduced to a merely sympathetic influence, since such an instantaneous cure of fever cannot be empirically demonstrated. Rationalistic explanations either turn Jesus’ reputation itself into a miracle or must reject everything altogether.
The verb διηκόνει (“she was serving”), which appears in all the Synoptics, briefly but vividly depicts the beautiful scene in Peter’s house, often—rightly—compared with the wedding at Cana, though with the added advantage of quiet intimacy. That not the mistress of the house but the mother-in-law renders this service may seem striking. Jerome inferred from the non-mention of the mistress that she was no longer alive, but this conclusion would only be valid if the evangelist intended to give a family portrait based on Peter’s testimony, which he did not. That διηκόνει is said of the mother-in-law proves her complete recovery. What is otherwise reported about the woman and daughter in the Periodoi Petrou is so apocryphal as to be without value.
Eusebius reports from Clement of Alexandria that Peter was cited as husband and father against those who condemned marriage. Peter is said to have encouraged and comforted his wife with joy over her salvation as she was led to martyrdom. That 1 Cor. 9:5 is not to be explained as Peter’s wife accompanying him on missionary journeys—as Protestant exegetes commonly assume—was already noted by the Fathers, who referred to Matt. 18:27 ff. and Mark 10:28 ff.
Mk 1:32-34.
After Jesus had already performed two characteristic miracles, his fame spread through the whole city, so that the sick were brought to him from all sides. Mark depicts this scene—unlike the idyllic picture briefly sketched with the imperfect διηκόνει—in order to give a general characterization of Jesus’ healing activity. The precise time indication is added because of the Sabbath, since before sunset no work was permitted, and therefore no sick could be brought or healed. ὀψίας γενομένης (“when evening came”) would be too vague for Gentile-Christian circles; therefore Mark adds, in accordance with his vivid narrative style, ὅτε ἔδυσε ὁ ἥλιος (“when the sun set”). Matthew has only ὀψίας γενομένης, while Luke writes δύνοντος τοῦ ἡλίου (“as the sun was setting”), avoiding Mark’s doubling.
Because twilight in Palestine is brief, the healings had to be carried out quickly, which also explains οὐκ ἤφιεν λαλεῖν τὰ δαιμόνια (“he did not allow the demons to speak”). Luke notes that Jesus laid hands on each individual sick person. The phrase πρὸς αὐτόν (“to him”) means into the house where he was staying, which, given the context, can only be Peter’s house. Mark distinguishes clearly between the sick and the possessed. As healed persons Mark names πολλοὺς κακῶς ἔχοντας (“many who were ill”), Matthew πάντας τοὺς κακῶς ἔχοντας (“all who were ill”). The latter is in itself more probable, since Jesus would not have dismissed individual sick persons unhealed. Mark’s wording, however, can be explained by the preceding πάντας (“all”), which in fact constituted a “many.”
The verb ἤφιεν (from ἀφίω, “to permit”) appears here and in Mk 11:16; the imperfect indicates repeated prohibition. The conjunction ὅτι means “because,” not an object clause. What the demons knew about Jesus Luke explains: ὅτι ᾔδεισαν τὸν Χριστὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι (“because they knew that he was the Christ”). The prohibition is to be explained as in Mk 1:25, and its regular repetition is indicated by the imperfect tense.
The Withdrawal from Capernaum
(Mk 1:35–39; Luke 4:42–44).
Jesus withdrew from Capernaum, in which, through teaching and miracles, he had sufficiently made his person and mission understood, in order to escape the great press of the crowds and to proclaim the word of God to others as well. Mark wishes to show that Jesus revealed himself not only in one place but everywhere in Galilee, and proved himself to be the Son of God. For Jesus did not seek his own honor; rather, he avoided the outward recognition of his miracles and desired only that the benefits of his teaching and of his healing activity might be shared with as many receptive and afflicted people as possible.
Jesus gives as the reason for this only his teaching activity, not because the healing activity had, as it were, been forced upon him (Klostermann), but because it had the sole purpose of confirming the teaching and establishing it firmly in the hearts of believers. At least in the Gospel of Mark, which devotes great attention to miracle narratives, this purpose clearly comes to the fore. In the Gospel of Matthew, on the other hand, the other aspect of the healing activity is emphasized more strongly, namely that Jesus is a redeemer from sin and misery. Holzmann calls this narrative “one of the most eloquent pieces for the originality of Mark’s account” (p. 72). In Matthew and Luke, he claims, everything is blurred. Yet Matthew has no parallel account; consequently, Mark in any case inserted the narrative independently. With regard to Luke, the judgment may be correct. Still, the principal divergence between Mark and Luke lies only in Mark’s special emphasis on the disciples, especially Peter, which his purpose required.
Mk 1:35.
The Hebrew expression בִּיקָם (“he rose up”) corresponds to the action described. The Greek adjective ἔννυχος (“by night”) occurs in Homer, Pindar, and the tragedians, but in the New Testament it is a ἅπαξ λεγόμενον (a word occurring only once). ἔννυχα is the accusative plural used adverbially. The phrase ἔννυχα λίαν (“while it was still very much night”) explains more precisely πρωΐ (“early”), just as above in Mk 1:32 ὅτε ἔδυσε ὁ ἥλιος (“when the sun had set”) explains ὀψίας γενομένης (“when evening came”).
The sequence ἀναστὰς ἐξῆλθε (“having risen, he went out”) is a vivid, almost pictorial description, for ἀναστάς does not simply mean “he departed” (as in Mk 2:14; Mk 7:24; Matt. 9:9; Luke 1:39), but, because of the preceding overnight stay, is meant to emphasize the act of rising from sleep (Winer, §65.4). The point of departure is the house of Peter.
The expression ἔρημος τόπος (“a deserted place”) is used according to the basic sense of the word, in contrast to the populated city (Mk 6:32; Matt. 14:13; Luke 4:42, etc.), and not in the sense of ἡ ἔρημος (“the wilderness”). Jesus wished, away from the crowd that from now on threatened to press upon him in Capernaum, to devote himself in quiet solitude to prayer and to inner recollection and strengthening. This was particularly necessary for him as the God-man, after he had so magnificently inaugurated his messianic activity (Heb. 5:7). From this the prayer to the Father in heaven becomes intelligible—a prayer which was certainly for our benefit and example, but which also had its meaning for the human nature in the person of Jesus. Luke in particular is accustomed to emphasize Jesus’ love for solitary prayer.
Mk 1:36.
The verb καταδιώκειν (“to pursue”) is sometimes used by Greek writers (more commonly διώκειν) in a transferred sense, meaning to follow after a matter or to seek it (Polybius 6.42.1). In the Septuagint it often stands for רָדַף (“to pursue”) in a positive sense, that is, to go after someone in order to find or win him (Ps. 23:6; 1 Sam. 30:22; Hos. 2:7; Sir. 27:17). In the New Testament it occurs only here. The preposition κατά- denotes “after,” “behind,” up to the point of overtaking.
The phrase οἱ μετ’ αὐτοῦ (“those with him”) refers to Andrew, John, and James. In Mk 1:29 Mark had still placed Andrew alongside Peter and added the other two with μετά (“with”). The restriction here to Simon therefore cannot be explained merely by the fact that Jesus lodged in his house (as Weiss suggests), since according to Mark it is the house of Simon and Andrew; rather, it is explained by the fact that Simon is regarded by the evangelist as the principal figure (Maldonatus, Meyer). It is indeed likely that Mark is here drawing on his Petrine source, but that source would hardly have suppressed the name of Andrew. Luke, who did not have the same interest and had not yet narrated the calling, makes the crowds (ὄχλοι) the subject, whereas Mark merely says that they were seeking Jesus, without mentioning an actual overtaking. In itself it is more probable that the people followed after the apostles.
Mk 1:37.
The statement πάντες ζητοῦσίν σε (“everyone is seeking you”) does not refer to the crowd of the previous day that had not yet been satisfied (Weiss), nor to those whom Jesus had immediately benefited (Schegg, W. and J. Grimm, and others), for there is no indication of either. Rather, it was self-evident that, if Jesus had performed so many healings and exorcisms on the previous day, the press of people on the following day would have been even greater. Everything was drawn by the report of the miracles, and people feared that Jesus might depart again. Therefore πάντες (“all”) is best explained, with Fritzsche, as: not “all (the inhabitants of Capernaum) are seeking you,” but “there is no one who is not seeking you”—in other words, everyone.
Mk 1:38–39.
The expression ἄγωμεν (“let us go”) occurs elsewhere only in Matt. 26:46; Mark 14:42; John 14:31; with πρός τινα in John 11:15, and with εἰς plus accusative of place in John 11:7. Greek usage does not otherwise recognize this intransitive meaning, for where ἄγειν appears to be intransitive, the object can easily be supplied. As with other verbs of motion, in the intransitive use a reflexive reference to the subject is to be assumed, without the need to supply ἑαυτούς (“ourselves”) (Winer §38.1).
The adverbs ἀλλαχοῦ, ἀλλαχῆ, ἀλλόθι mean “elsewhere.” The adjective ὁ ἐχόμενος (“adjacent, neighboring”) corresponds to Latin vicinus, finitimus, proximus; it occurs also among Greek authors (Herodotus 1.134; Isocrates 60C) and frequently in Josephus (Ant. 11.8.6). In the New Testament it appears again in Heb. 6:9 with reference to place, and elsewhere with reference to time (Luke 13:33; Acts 20:15).
The noun κωμόπολις (“town-like village”) occurs only here and in Strabo; it denotes a settlement resembling a small town, comparable to what might be called a market town. Why Mark chooses precisely this expression (Luke: ταῖς ἑτέραις πόλεσιν, “the other cities”) is difficult to explain. It is possible that he wished to suggest an avoidance of larger cities (Schegg) and a visitation of other sizeable localities (Klostermann), thus indicating a middle course between full public exposure and withdrawal.
With this the narrative refers back to the beginning of Jesus’ activity in Mk 1:14–15 and at the same time prepares what follows. The verb ἐξῆλθον (“they went out”) can, after Mk 1:35, be understood only of departure from the house in Capernaum, since it explains the leaving, and ἐκεῖ (“there”) points to the preaching in Capernaum. The interpretation of “going out from the Father” (Victor, Euthymius, Jansenius, Maldonatus, Grotius, Bretschneider, and others) is suggested by Luke (ἐπὶ τοῦτο ἀπεστάλην, “for this purpose I was sent”), but Luke in general understands the event differently, as the addition εὐαγγελίσασθαί με δεῖ τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ (“I must preach the kingdom of God”) shows. The attempt to reconcile the difference by distributing the two sayings over two different occasions (Euthymius) does not succeed. In John, ἐξέρχεσθαι is regularly accompanied by ἐκ, ἀπό, παρὰ θεοῦ (“from God”) (John 8:42; Jn 13:3; Jn 17:8).
With regard to κηρύσσειν εἰς (“to preach to”), compare Mk 1:21. Neither the examples cited by Meyer and Grimm from Passow nor appeals to grammar suffice to prove that Jesus is to be imagined as standing in the synagogue before the assembled congregation and speaking into it (Meyer, Bisping, Weiss, W. Grimm), or as turning toward the synagogue in his teaching (Klostermann). For expressions such as Thucydides 1.72 ἐς τὸ πλῆθος αὐτῶν εἰπεῖν (“to speak to their multitude”), 5.45 ἐς τὸν δῆμον λέγειν (“to speak to the people”), or Xenophon, Anabasis 5.6.37 εἰς τὴν στρατιὰν εἰπεῖν (“to speak to the army”) mean simply “to speak to” or “before” someone. This is also confirmed by Krüger (§68.21.6), whom Grimm himself cites. Here, however, the reference is not to persons but to place. To take συναγωγή directly as meaning the congregation assembled in the synagogue is prevented by synoptic usage, whereas in John 8:26 εἰς τὸν κόσμον (“into the world”) can clearly be explained as referring to people. On the other hand, εἰς should not be identified with ἐν (“in”), as Schegg proposes, for even Winer, whom Schegg cites, does not allow this. The notion of direction must always be preserved, and here it lies in the movement from synagogue to synagogue.
By frequently mentioning Jesus’ appearance in the synagogue, Mark intends to emphasize the purely religious character of Jesus’ activity within his Church. A political itinerant preacher would have appeared in the public marketplaces. The ancient explanation that this reflects the connection between the new and the old covenant (Victor) would be more appropriate in Matthew. The phrase εἰς ὅλην τὴν Γαλιλαίαν (“into the whole of Galilee”) can be connected either with ἦλθεν (“he went,” Weiss) or, as a geographical determination, with εἰς τὰς συναγωγάς (“into the synagogues,” Meyer, W. Grimm). The latter is to be preferred, since ἦλθεν εἰς ὅλην τὴν Γαλιλαίαν could only with difficulty be taken to mean “he traversed the whole of Galilee,” and in that case the imperfect tense would be expected. When connected with συναγωγάς, however, εἰς ὅλην τὴν Γαλιλαίαν explains the extent: throughout all Galilee.
Finally, the second participle ἐκβάλλων (“casting out [demons]”) is better connected with the first, since both aspects of the Galilean ministry are to be set side by side. Even on the alternative interpretation no special emphasis would fall on ἐκβάλλων, for the stress lies on the preceding κηρύσσων (“preaching”).
CONTINUE
Comments
Post a Comment