6—11.
. Καὶ ) μεταβὰς ἐκεῖθεν, ἦλθεν εἰς τὴν συναγωγὴν αὐτῶν. 9 Pp η πῃ yor
183
χο. j Ch. xi.1.
καὶ ἴδού, ἄνθρωπος ἦν τὴν] χεῖρα ἔχων “inpdv- καὶ ἐπηρώτησαν kparall.and
αὐτόν, λέγοντες, “Ei ἔξεστι τοῖς σάββασι θεραπεύειν2;
γορήσωσιν αὐτοῦ.
is John v. 3. ινα κατη-
11. Ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, “Tis ἔσται ὃ ἐξ ὑμῶν
ἄνθρωπος, ὃς ἕξει πρόβατον ἕν, καὶ ἐὰν ἐμπέσῃ τοῦτο τοῖς σάββασιν
SSBC omit ην την. Mk. (iii. 1).
The text of Mt. as in T. R. has been influenced by that in
2 So in BC (W.H.), θεραπευσαι in SDL (Tisch.), 3 εσται is omitted in CLX&, and bracketed in W.H.; it is found in SBA al.
think. It points to Jesus, but to Him not as an exceptional man (“der einzigartige,” Weiss), but as the representative man, maintaining solidarity with humanity, standing for the human interest, as the Pharisees stood for the supposed divine, the real divine interest being identical with the human. The radical anti- thesis between Jesus and the Pharisees lay in their respective ideas of God. It is interesting to find a glimpse of the true sense of this Jogion in Chrysostom: περὶ ἑαυτοῦ λέγων. ‘O δὲ Μάρκος καὶ περὶ τῆς κοινῆς φύσεως αὐτὸν τοῦτο εἰρηκέναι φησίν. Hom. χκχἰχ.- «κύριος, not to the effect of abrogaticn but of in- terpretation and restoration to true use. The weekly rest is a beneficent institu- tion, God’s holiday to weary men, and the Kingdom of Heaven, whose royal law is love, has no interest in its abolition. Vv. 9-14. A Sabbath cure (Mk. iii. 1-6; Lk. vi. 6-11): not necessarily happening immediately after. Matthew and Luke follow Mark’s order, which is topical, not historical; another instance of collision as to Sabbath observance.— Ψετ.ο. καὶ μεταβὰς . . . αὐτῶν. The αὐτῶν seems to imply that our evangel- ist takes the order as one of close tem- poral sequence (Mark says simply “‘ into a synagogue,” iii. 1). In that case the αὐτῶν would refer to the fault-finding Pharisees of the previous narrative, piqued by Christ’s defence and bent on further mischief (vide Weiss-Meyer). The narrative comes in happily here as illustrating the scope of the principle of humanity laid down in connection with the previous incident.—Ver. το. καὶ ἰδοὺ, here, as in viii. 2, ix. 2, introducing in a lively manner the story.—tnpdv, a dry hand, possibly a familiar expression in Hebrew pathology (De Wette) ; use- less, therefore a serious enough affliction for a working man (a mason, according to Hebrew Gospel, Jerome ad loc.), especially if it was the right hand, as
Luke states. But the cure was not urgent for a day, could stand over; therefore a good test case as between rival conceptions of Sabbath law.—éanpo- τησαν. The Pharisees asked a question suggested by the case, as if eager to provoke Jesus and put Him to the proof. Mark says they observed Him, waiting for Him to take the initiative. The former alternative suits the hypothesis of immediate temporal sequence. —ei ἔξεστιν, etc. After λέγοντες we expect, according to classic usage, a direct ques- tion without ei. The εἰ is in its place in Mark (ver. 2), and the influence of his text may be suspected (Weiss) as ex- plaining the incorrectness in Matthew. But εἰ in direct questions is not un- usual in N. T. (Mt. xix. 3; Lk. xiii. 23, xxil. 49), vide Winer, § 57, 2, and Meyer ad loc. In Mark’s account Christ, not the Pharisees, puts the ques- tion.
Vv. 11, 12. Christ’s reply, by two home-thrusting questions and an irre- sistible conclusion.—ris . . . ἄνθρωπος. One is tempted here, as in vii. 9, to put emphasis on ἄνθρωπος: who of you not dead to the feelings of a man? Such questions as this and that in Lk. xv. 4 go to the root of the matter. Humanity was what was lacking in the Pharisaic character.—mpéBarov ἕν: one sheep answering to the one working hand, whence perhaps Luke’s ἡ δεξιὰ (vi. 6).— ἐὰν ἐμπέσῃ. The case supposed might quite well happen; hence in the protasis éav with subjunctive, and in the apodosis the future (Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, § 250). A solitary sheep might fall into a ditch on a Sabbath; and that is what its owner would do if he were an ordinary average human being, viz., lift it out at once. What would the Pharisee do? It is easy to see what he would be tempted to do if the one sheep were his own. But would he have allowed such action as a general rule? One would