Tif. A pousLe PersoNaALITy. The change of subject with respect to the verbs used in this description brings into view « startling fact and exhibits a strange complication, Two personalities, or two personal agencies, are here combined, and the union between them is so close and complete that the transition from the one to the other is as singular as sudden. Thus the first two verbs descriptive of the sad condition of this wretched suffrrer have for their subject, though not directly expressed, yet distinctly implied, the demon. He it is of whom the poor father of the unhappy boy says, “ Wheresoever it taketh him ”—or, more literally, wheresoever ¢t seizeth (xataddBp) him—“ it teareth, or dasheth down, or breaketh (fhece) him.” This is very graphic, and as terrible as graphic. The demon so convulsed the lad as if he would dislocate the entire frame or dismember his whole body, breaking limb from limb. But the remain= ing verbs in the description, as it passes rapidly from the agent to the sufferer, require a different subject; for it is only the poy of whom it can be said, “ He foameth,” “grindeth his teeth,” “becomes parched ” (tnpalveras), or “ pines away.” The same curious commingling of terms—some applicable to the demon, and others to the possessed, ccours in describing the paroxysm which came on when the lad was brought into our Lord’s presence, In the expression, “when he saw him,” the participle is used, and ig in the masculine gender, so that it appears to refer to the boy, and if so, it must be used absolutely ; but if it apply to the unclean spirit, the word wveiya, spirit, is neuter, and thus it must be constructed ad senswm, and indicate the personality of that spirit; in either case, there is an irregularity of construction arising from this unusual blend- ing of personal agencies, Further, when the demoniac or the demon saw Jesus, the demon or unclean spirit grievously tore (¢exdpater, from oxdw, whence spasm, and signi- fying “to pull to pieces,” not the same verb as that used in ver. 18) or convulsed the poor demoniac; while he fell on the earth and wallowed (akin to the Latin volvo), that is, rolled himself (cvAlw, equivalent to «vAlvydw, used of rolling in the dust, in token of grief ), foaming.
ou. x. 1—50.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MARK. 49
IV. THE ARRIVAL OF JESUS ON THE SCENE. Soon as the crowd saw him, they were quite amazed—perfectly astounded, the prepositional element in the compound verb implying the greatness of their astonishment. But what caused their excessive amazement? It might be (1) the suddenness of the appearance of one whom they had been looking for in vain; but now that they had ceased to expect him, all at once, to their surprise, he is seen approaching ; or (2) it is concluded by some, on rather slender grounds, that the term used does not denote mere surprise, much less joyful surprise, at the sudden and unexpected appearance of the Saviour, but rather a degree of alarm or ponlenity on account of expressions to which utterance had been given in the dispute
tween the disciples and the scribes in our Lord’s absence, and in reference to his power of casting out devils. There is much more probability (3) in the opinion that the astonishment was occasioned by some remnant of the heavenly radiance still beaming on and brightening his countenance. This view is strongly supported by the analogous case of Moses, of whom we read that, on his descent from Mount Sinai, “the skin of his face shone,” so that Aaron and the children of Israel “ were afraid to come nigh him.” If this explanation be accepted, there is in the two cases @ similarity and a dissimilarity: the brightness of Moses’ face made the onlookers afraid, and deterred them from approaching him; the heavenly splendour that still lingered on the countenance of the Saviour affected the spectators in the very opposite way, attracting them tohim. Accordingly, while some waited for his approach, as appears from St. Matthew’s account, which speaks of his coming to the multitude, others, detaching themselves from the crowd, salliediforth to meet him, running to him, as we learn here from St. Mark; while St. Luke informs us that on his coming down from the hill much people methim. The accounts of St. Matthew and St. Luke are thus harmonized by St. Mark’s statement, from which we rightly conclude that part of the crowd went to meet him, and part waited where they were for his approach. Their salutation, including, as we think, welcome and friendly greeting, if not from the scribes, at least from the rest of the crowd, is opposed to the notion of perplexity or alarm referred toin (2). Our Lord’s popularity with the multitude had not yet suffered any diminution, nor begun to wane. He finds on his arrival that a somewhat keen discussion had been going on between two parties very unequally matched—the scribes, with their general learning and special Biblical lore, on the one hand, and his disciples, illiterate and imperfectly enlightened, on the other. The surrounding crowd, divided, most likely, in sentiment, and acting as partisans—some favouring the disciples and some the scribes—expressed approbation and disapprobation accordingly. The subject of disputation may be readily inferred from the sequel. Meantime our Lord asks the scribes with authority, “ What question ye with [rather at, or against (xpds)] them?” or, better perhaps, “ Why question ye with them?” What proper ground is there for such acrimonious questioning? What sufficient reason can be shown for itt But another reading, having the reflexive pronoun, is represented by the margin—“ among yourselves,” or “with one another;” in which case both scribes and disciples are addressed in common.