CHAPTER 13

Mark 13:2. ἈΠΟΚΡΙΘΕΊς] IS, WITH TISCH., TO BE DELETED, AS AT Mark 11:33, FOLLOWING B L א, MIN. VSS.

Mark 13:2. ὯΔΕ IS ADOPTED BEFORE ΛΊΘΟς BY GRIESB. FRITZSCHE, SCHOLZ, LACHM., IN ACCORDANCE DOUBTLESS WITH B D G L U Δ א, MIN. VSS., BUT IT IS AN ADDITION FROM Matthew 24:2. IT IS GENUINE IN MATTHEW ALONE, WHERE, MOREOVER, IT IS NOT WANTING IN ANY OF THE CODICES.

Mark 13:4. ΕἸΠΈ] B D L א, MIN. HAVE ΕἸΠΌΝ. SO FRITZSCHE, LACHM. TISCH. THIS RARER FORM IS TO BE ADOPTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SO CONSIDERABLE TESTIMONY; ΕἸΠΈ IS FROM MATTHEW.

WITH TISCH., FOLLOWING B L א, WE MUST WRITE ΤΑῦΤΑ ΣΥΝΤΕΛ. ΠΆΝΤΑ; DIFFERENT ATTEMPTS TO RECTIFY THE ORDER PRODUCED THE VARIATIONS.

Mark 13:8. BEFORE THE SECOND ἜΣΟΝΤΑΙ WE MUST, WITH TISCH., DELETE ΚΑΊ, IN ACCORDANCE WITH B L א**.

ΚΑῚ ΤΑΡΑΧΑΊ] SUSPECTED BY GRIESB., STRUCK OUT BY LACHM. AND TISCH., IN ACCORDANCE WITH B D L א, COPT. AETH. ERP. VULG. IT. VICT. BUT WHEREFORE AND WHENCE WAS IT TO HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED? ON THE OTHER HAND, IT WAS VERY EASILY LOST IN THE FOLLOWING ἈΡΧΑΊ.

Mark 13:9. ἈΡΧΑΊ] B D K L U Δ א, MIN. VSS. VULG. IT. ALSO HAVE ἈΡΧΉ, WHICH IS COMMENDED BY GRIESB., ADOPTED BY FRITZSCHE, SCHOLZ, LACHM. TISCH.; FROM Matthew 24:8.

Mark 13:11. INSTEAD OF ἌΓΩΣΙΝ ELZ. HAS ἈΓΆΓΩΣΙΝ, IN OPPOSITION TO DECISIVE EVIDENCE.

ΜΗΔῈ ΜΕΛΕΤᾶΤΕ] IS WANTING IN B D L א, MIN. COPT. AETH. AR. P. ERP. VULG. IT. VIGIL. CONDEMNED BY GRIESB., BRACKETED BY LACHM., DELETED BY TISCH. BUT THE HOMOIOTELEUTON THE MORE EASILY OCCASIONED THE OMISSION OF THE WORDS, SINCE THEY FOLLOW IMMEDIATELY AFTER ΤΊ ΛΑΛΉΣΗΤΕ. Luke 21:14, MOREOVER, TESTIFIES IN FAVOUR OF THEIR GENUINENESS.

Mark 13:14. AFTER ἘΡΗΜΏΣΕΩς ELZ. SCHOLZ, FRITZSCHE (LACHM. IN BRACKETS) HAVE: ΤῸ ῬΗΘῈΝ ὙΠῸ ΔΑΝΙῊΛ ΤΟῦ ΠΡΟΦΉΤΟΥ, WHICH WORDS ARE NOT FOUND IN B D L א, COPT. ARM. IT. VULG. SAX. AUG. THEY ARE FROM MATTHEW.

ἘΣΤΏς] LACHM. HAS ἙΣΤΗΚΌς, FOLLOWING D 28; TISCH. HAS ἙΣΤΗΚΌΤΑ, FOLLOWING B L א. FRITZSCHE: ἙΣΤΌς, ACCORDING TO A E F G H V Δ, MIN. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE RECEPTA HAS PREPONDERANT EVIDENCE AGAINST IT; IT IS FROM Matthew 24:15. OF THE OTHER READINGS ἙΣΤΗΚΌς IS TO BE ADOPTED, BECAUSE B L א ALSO TESTIFY IN ITS FAVOUR BY ἙΣΤΗΚΌΤΑ;[153] WHILE ἙΣΤΌς LIKEWISE BETRAYS ITS ORIGIN FROM MATTHEW (VAR.; SEE THE CRITICAL REMARKS ON Matthew 24:15).

Mark 13:16. ὪΝ] IS WANTING IN B D L Δ ְ, MIN. LACHM. TISCH. BUT HOW EASILY IT DROPT OUT AFTER ἈΓΡΟΝ! THE MORE EASILY, BECAUSE ὪΝ STOOD ALSO IN Mark 13:15.

Mark 13:18. Ἡ ΦΥΓῊ ὙΜῶΝ] IS WANTING IN B D L Δ ְ * MIN. ARM. VULG. IT., AND IN OTHER WITNESSES IS REPRESENTED BY ΤΑῦΤΑ. CONDEMNED BY GRIESB. AND RINCK, DELETED BY FRITZSCHE, LACHM. TISCH. RIGHTLY SO; IT IS FROM Matthew 24:20, FROM WHICH PLACE ALSO CODD. AND VSS. HAVE AFTER ΧΕΙΜῶΝΟς ADDED: ΜΗΔῈ ΣΑΒΒΆΤῼ, OR ΜΗΔῈ ΣΑΒΒΆΤΟΥ, OR Ἢ ΣΑΒΒΆΤΟΥ, AND THE LIKE.

Mark 13:19. Ἧς] LACHM. TISCH. HAVE ἭΝ, FOLLOWING B C* L ְ, 28. A CORRECTION. THE OMISSION OF Ἧς ἜΚΤ. Ὁ ΘΕΌς IN D 27, ARM. CODD. IT. IS EXPLAINED BY THE SUPERFLUOUSNESS OF THE WORDS.

Mark 13:21. THE OMISSION OF Ἤ, WHICH GRIESB., FOLLOWING MILL, COMMENDED, AND FRITZSCHE AND TISCH. HAVE CARRIED OUT, IS TOO WEAKLY ATTESTED. IN ITSELF IT MIGHT AS WELL HAVE BEEN ADDED FROM MATTHEW AS OMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LUKE.

INSTEAD OF ΠΙΣΤΕΎΕΤΕ ELZ. HAS ΠΙΣΤΕΎΣΗΤΕ, IN OPPOSITION TO PREPONDERANT EVIDENCE; IT IS FROM Matthew 24:23.

Mark 13:22. ALTHOUGH ONLY ON THE EVIDENCE OF D, MIN. CODD. IT., ΨΕΥΔΌΧΡΙΣΤΟΙ ΚΑΊ IS TO BE DELETED, AND ΠΟΙΉΣΟΥΣΙΝ IS TO BE WRITTEN INSTEAD OF ΔΏΣΟΥΣΙ. MOREOVER (WITH TISCH.), ΚΑΊ IS TO BE OMITTED BEFORE ΤΟῪς ἘΚΛ. (B D ְ). THE RECEPTA IS A FILLING UP FROM MATTHEW.

Mark 13:23. ἸΔΟῦ] IS WANTING IN B L 28, COPT AETH. VERC. BRACKETED BY LACHM., DELETED BY TISCH. AN ADDITION FROM MATTHEW.

Mark 13:25. ΤΟῦ ΟὐΡΑΝΟῦ ἜΣΟΝΤΑΙ] A B C ְ, MIN. VSS. HAVE ἜΣΟΝΤΑΙ ἘΚ ΤΟῦ ΟὐΡΑΝΟῦ. SO FRITZSCHE, LACHM. TISCH. INSTEAD OF ἘΚΠΊΠΤ. B C D L ְ, MIN. CODD. IT. HAVE ΠΊΠΤΟΝΤΕς (SO FRITZSCHE, LACHM. TISCH.). THUS THE MOST IMPORTANT CODICES ARE AGAINST THE RECEPTA (D HAS ΟἹ ἘΚ ΤΟῦ ΟὐΡΑΝΟῦ ἜΣΟΝΤΑΙ ΠΊΠΤΟΝΤΕς), IN PLACE OF WHICH THE BEST ATTESTED OF THESE READINGS ARE TO BE ADOPTED. INTERNAL GROUNDS ARE WANTING; BUT IF IT HAD BEEN ALTERED FROM MATTHEW, ἈΠΌ WOULD HAVE BEEN FOUND INSTEAD OF ἘΚ.

Mark 13:27. ΑὐΤΟῦ] AFTER ἈΓΓΈΛ. IS WANTING IN B D L, COPT. CANT. VERC. VIND. CORB. BRACKETED BY LACHM., DELETED BY TISCH.; IT IS FROM MATTHEW.

Mark 13:28. THE VERBAL ORDER ἬΔΗ Ὁ ΚΛΆΔΟς ΑὐΤῆς (FRITZSCHE, LACHM.) HAS PREPONDERATING EVIDENCE, BUT IT IS FROM MATTHEW. THE MANIFOLD TRANSPOSITIONS IN THE CODICES WOULD HAVE NO MOTIVE, IF THE READING OF LACHM. HAD BEEN THE ORIGINAL, AS IN THE CASE OF MATTHEW NO VARIATION IS FOUND.

ΓΙΝΏΣΚΕΤΕ] A B** D L Δ, MIN. HAVE ΓΙΝΏΣΚΕΤΑΙ, WHICH IS APPROVED BY SCHULZ AND ADOPTED BY FRITZSCHE AND TISCH. THE RECEPTA IS FROM THE PARALLELS.

Mark 13:31. INSTEAD OF ΠΑΡΕΛΕΎΣΕΤΑΙ, ELZ. LACHM. TISCH. HAVE ΠΑΡΕΛΕΎΣΟΝΤΑΙ. THE PLURAL (B D K U Γ ְ) IS TO BE MAINTAINED HERE AND AT Luke 21:33; THE REMEMBRANCE OF THE WELL-KNOWN SAYING FROM MATTH. SUGGESTED ΠΑΡΕΛΕΎΣΕΤΑΙ IN THE SINGULAR. MOREOVER, IT TELLS IN FAVOUR OF THE PLURAL, THAT B L ְ, MIN. (TISCH.) HAVE ΠΑΡΕΛΕΎΣΟΝΤΑΙ AGAIN AFTERWARDS INSTEAD OF ΠΑΡΈΛΘΩΣΙ, ALTHOUGH THIS IS A MECHANICAL REPETITION.

Mark 13:32. INSTEAD OF Ἤ ELZ. HAS ΚΑΊ, IN OPPOSITION TO DECISIVE EVIDENCE.

Mark 13:33. ΚΑΊ ΠΡΟΣΕΎΧΕΣΘΕ] IS WANTING IN B D 122, CANT. VERC. COLB. TOLET. DELETED BY LACHM. RIGHTLY; AN ADDITION THAT EASILY OCCURRED (COMP. Matthew 24:41 AND THE PARALLELS).

Mark 13:34. ΚΑΊ IS TO BE DELETED BEFORE ἙΚΆΣΤῼ (WITH LACHM. AND TISCH.), IN CONFORMITY WITH B C* D L ְ, MIN. CODD. IT.

Mark 13:37. BETWEEN Ἅ IN ELZ. SCHOLZ, AND Ὅ WHICH GRIESB. HAS APPROVED, AND FRITZSCHE, LACHM. HAVE ADOPTED, THE EVIDENCE IS VERY MUCH DIVIDED. BUT Ὅ IS AN UNNECESSARY EMENDATION, ALTHOUGH IT IS NOW PREFERRED BY TISCH. (B C ְ, ETC.). D, CODD. IT. HAVE ἘΓῺ ΔῈ Λ. ὙΜ. ΓΡΗΓ.

[153] The masculine was introduced by the reference, frequent in the Fathers, to the statue (τὸν ἀνδριάντα) of the conqueror.

Mark 13:1-8. See on Matthew 24:1-8. Comp. Luke 21:5-11. Mark has preserved the introduction in its original historical form. But Matthew has the discourse itself, although more artistically elaborated, in its greatest completeness from the collection of Logia and with some use of Mark; and that down to the consummation of the last judgment.[154]

ΠΟΤΑΠΟῚ ΛΊΘΟΙ] qualcs lapides! ᾠκοδομήθη ὁ ναὸς ἐκ λίθων μὲν λευκῶν τε καὶ καρτερῶν, τὸ μέγεθος ἑκάστων περὶ πέντε καὶ εἴκοσι πηχῶν ἐπὶ μῆκος, ὀκτὼ δὲ ὕψος, εὖρος δὲ περὶ δώδεκα, Joseph. Antt. xv. 11. 3. See Ottii Spicileg. p. 175. Who uttered the exclamation? (Was it Peter? or Andrew?) Probably Mark himself did not know.

On the ποταπός belonging to later usage, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 56 f.; Fritzsche, p. 554 f.

Mark 13:2. Ὃς Οὐ ΜῊ ΚΑΤΑΛ.] for Οὐ ΜΉ in the relative clause, see Winer, p. 450 [E. T. 635 f.] The conception here is: there shall certainly be no stone left upon the other, which (in the further course of the destruction) would be secure from being thrown down. Comp. Luke 18:30.

Mark 13:3. As previously, Mark here also relates more vividly (ΚΑΤΈΝΑΝΤΙ ΤΟῦ ἹΕΡΟῦ) and more accurately (ΠΈΤΡΟς Κ.Τ.Λ.) than Matthew. According to de Wette (comp. Saunier, p. 132; Strauss, Baur), Mark is induced to the latter statement by the ΚΑΤʼ ἸΔΊΑΝ of Matthew—a specimen of the great injustice which is done to Mark as an alleged compiler.

ΕἸΠΌΝ] Thus, and not ΕἾΠΟΝ, is this imperative (which is also current among the Attic writers; see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 348) to be accented in the N. T. See Winer, p. 49 [E. T. 58].

τὸ σημεῖον] scil. ἜΣΤΑΙ: what will be the fore-token (which appears), when all this destruction is to enter on its fulfilment?

ΤΑῦΤΑ ΣΥΝΤΕΛ. ΠΆΝΤΑ] (see the critical remarks) applies not to the buildings of the temple (Fritzsche, who takes συντελεῖσθαι as simul exscindi, comp. Beza), but, just like ΤΑῦΤΑ, to the destruction announced at Mark 13:2. To explain it of “the whole world” (as ΤΑῦΤΑ is well known to be so used by the philosophers, Bernhardy, p. 280) or of “all things of the Parousia” (Lange), is a forced course at variance with the context, occasioned by Matthew 24:3[155] (in opposition to Grotius, Bengel). Moreover, the state of the case is here climactic; hence, while previously there stood merely ταῦτα, now πάντα is added; previously: ἔσται, now συντελεῖσθαι (be consummated).

Mark 13:5. Jesus now begins His detailed explanation as to the matter (ἤρξατο).

Mark 13:7. τὸ τέλος] the end of the tribulation (see Mark 13:9), not the end of the world (so even Dorner, Lange, Bleek), which only sets in after the end of the tribulation. See on Matthew 24:6.

Mark 13:8. καὶ ἔσονται … καὶ ἔσονται] solemnly.

καὶ ταραχαί] Famines and (therewith connected) disturbances, not exactly revolts (Griesbach), which the context does not suggest, but more general. Plat. Legg. ix. p. 861 A: ταραχή τε καὶ ἀξυμφωνία. Theaet. p. 168 A: ταρ. καὶ ἀπορία, Alc. ii. p. 146, 15 : ταρ, τε καὶ ἀνομία, 2Ma 13:16. Comp. τάραχος, Acts 12:18; Acts 19:23.

[154] Weizsäcker, p. 125, conjectures from Barnabas 4 (א), where a saying of Enoch is quoted about the shortening (συντέτμηκεν) of the days of the final offence (comp. ver. 20; Matthew 24:22), that the properly apocalyptic elements of the discourse as to the future are of Jewish origin, from an Apocalypse of Enoch; but the conjecture rests on much too bold and hasty an inference, hazarded as it is on a single thought, which Jesus Himself might very fairly share with the Jewish consciousness in general.

[155] Nevertheless, between the passage before us and Matt. l.c. there is no essential diversity, since the disciples conceived of the destruction of Jerusalem as immediately preceding the Parousia. See on Matthew 24:3. Comp. also Dorner, de orat. Chr. eschatologica, p. 45.

Mark 13:9-13. See on Matthew 24:9; Matthew 14:10-13; Luke 21:12-18. Mark has here interwoven some things from the discourse which is found at Matthew 10:17-22.

ἀρχαί] prefixed with emphasis: beginnings of sorrows (comp. τὸ τέλος, Mark 13:7) are these.

βλέπετε δὲ κ.τ.λ.] but look ye (ye on your part, in the midst of these sorrows that surround you) to yourselves, how your own conduct must be. Comp. on βλέπ. ἑαυτ., 2 John 1:8; Galatians 6:1.

συνέδρια] judicial assemblies, as Matthew 10:17.

καὶ εἰς συναγωγ.] attaches itself, as εἰς συνέδρια precedes, most naturally to this (Luther, Castalio, Erasmus, Beza, Calovius, Elz., Lachmann), so that with δαρήσεσθε begins a further step of the description. The more usual connection with δαρήσεσθε, preferred also by Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 287 [E. T. 333] and Bleek, is inadmissible, because εἰς cannot be taken in the pregnant meaning (instead of ἐν; for the element of “motion towards” is not implied in δαρήσ.), and because the explanation (see my first edition): ye shall be brought under blows of scourges into synagogues (comp. Bengel, Lange), is not accordant with fact, since the scourging took place in the synagogues; see on Matthew 10:17; Acts 22:19. That δαρήσ. comes in asyndetically, is in keeping with the emotional character of the discourse.

εἰς μαρτύρ. αὐτοῖς] i.e. in order that a testimony may be given to them, the rulers and kings, namely, regarding me (comp. previously ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ), regarding my person and my work (not: “intrepidi, quo causam meam defendatis, animi,” Fritzsche)—which, no doubt, involves their inexcusableness in the event of their unbelief; but it is arbitrary to explain the dative here just as if it were εἰς κατηγορίαν κ. ἔλεγχον αὐτῶν (Euthymius Zigabenus, Theophylact, and many others). Comp. on Matthew 10:18.

Mark 13:10. And this your vocation fraught with suffering will not soon pass away; among all nations (πάντα has the emphasis) must first (before the end of the sorrows appears, comp. ἀρχαὶ ὠδίνων, Mark 13:9), etc. These words are neither disturbing nor inappropriate (as Köstlin judges, p. 352, comp. Schenkel and Weiss); they substantially agree with Matthew 24:14, and do not betray a “more advanced position in point of time” on Mark’s part (Hilgenfeld), nor are they concocted by the latter out of κ. τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, Matthew 10:18 (Weiss).

Mark 13:11. μελετᾶτε the proper word for the studying of discourses. See Wetstein. The opposite of extemporizing. Comp. Dem. 1129, 9 : μελετᾶν τὴν ἀπολογίαν ὑπὲρ ἑαυτῶν.

δοθῇ] has the emphasis.

οὐ γάρ ἐστε ὑμεῖς] of them it is absolutely denied that they are the speakers. Comp. on Matthew 10:20.

Mark 13:12. See on Matthew 10:21. From that hostile delivering up, however (comp. παραδιδόντες, Mark 13:11), neither the relationship of brother nor of child, etc., will protect my confessors.

Mark 13:13. ὑπομείνας] according to the context here: in the confession of my name. See above, διὰ τὸ ὄνομά μου. See, moreover, on Matthew 24:13. The τέλος is that of the ὠδίνων, Mark 13:9, not that “of the theocratic period of the world’s history” (Schenkel).

Mark 13:14-23. See on Matthew 24:15-26. Comp. Luke 21:20-24, who, however, has freely elements that are peculiar.

ὅπου οὐ δεῖ] thoughtful, but more indefinite designation of the sacred temple-area than in Matthew, where the more definite expression, as well as the reference by name (not merely suggested by the use of the set expression τὸ βδέλ. τ. ἐρημ.) to Daniel 9:27, betrays a later manipulation.

Mark 13:16. ὁ εἰς τὸν ἀγρὸν ὤν] he who is (has gone) into the field. See on Mark 2:1.

Mark 13:18. Mark has, with a view to his Gentile-Christian readers, passed over the μηδὲ σαββάτῳ, which was in the collection of Logia, in Matthew 24:20.

Mark 13:19. ἔσονται … θλίψις] “Tempori adscribitur res, quae in tempore fit; una et continua erit calamitas,” Wetstein.

οἵα οὐ γέγονε κ.τ.λ.] Comp. Plato, Rep. vi. p. 492 E: οὔτε γὰρ γίγνεται, οὔτε γέγονεν, οὔτʼ οὖν μὴ γένηται.

τοιαύτη] after οἵα. See Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 14; Kühner, II. p. 527.

κτίσεως ἧς ἔκτισ. ὁ Θεός] Comp. Mark 13:20 : διὰ τοὺς ἐκλεκτοὺς οὓς ἐξελέξατο, Herod, iii. 147: ἐντολάς τε, τὰς … ἐνετέλλετο, Philostr. V. Ap. iv. 13. 150: τῆς μήνιδος ἣν ἐμήνισας. The mode of expression has for its object “gravius eandem notionem bis iterari,” Lobeck, Paralip. p. 522. A contrast with the Jewish state as a human κτίσις (Lange) is fanciful. κτίσις, that which is created, see on Romans 8:19.

ὀποπλαν.] 1 Timothy 6:10.

Mark 13:23. In Matthew at this point the saying about the lightning and the carcase, which certainly belongs originally to this place, is added (Mark 13:27-28).

Mark 13:24-27. See on Matthew 24:29-31. Comp. Luke 21:25-28.

ἀλλʼ] breaking off and leading over to a new subject. Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 34 f.

ἐν ἐκείναις τ. ἡμέρ. μετὰ τ. θλίψ. ἐκ.] Thus in Mark also the Parousia is predicted as setting in immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem, since it is still to follow in those days[156] (comp. Mark 13:19-20). The εὐθέως of Matthew is not thereby avoided (de Wette, Bleek, and others), but this εὐθέως is only a still more express and more direct definition, which tradition has given to the saying. To refer ἐν ἐκ. τ. ἡμ., to the times of the church that are still continuing, is an exegetical impossibility. Even Baur and Hilgenfeld are in error in holding that Mark has conceived of the Parousia as at least not following so immediately close upon the destruction.

Mark 13:25. οἱ ἀστέρες τοῦ οὐρανοῦ κ.τ.λ.] the stars of heaven shall be, etc., which is more simple (comp. Revelation 6:13) than that which is likewise linguistically correct: the stars shall from heaven, etc. (Hom. Od. xiv. 31, II. xi. 179; Soph. Aj. 1156; Aesch. ii. 34; Galatians 5:4; 2 Peter 3:17).

ἔσονται ἐκπίπτ.] more graphic and vividly realizing than the simple πεσοῦνται (Matt.).

Mark 13:26. Mark has not the order of sequence of the event, as Matthew depicts it; he relates summarily.

Mark 13:27. ἀπʼ ἄκρου γῆς ἕως ἄκρου οὐρανοῦ] From the outmost border of the earth (conceived as a flat surface) shall the ἐπισυνάγειν begin, and be carried through even to the opposite end, where the outmost border of the heaven (κατὰ τὸ φαινόμενον of the horizon) sets limit to the earth. The expression is more poetical than in Matthew; it is the more arbitrary to think (with Bleek) in the case of γῆς of those still living, and in that of οὐρ. of those who sleep in bliss.

[156] It is, in fact, to impute great thoughtlessness and stupidity to Mark, if people can believe, with Baur, Markusev. p. 101, that Mark did not write till after Matthew and Luke, and yet did not allow himself to be deterred by all that had intervened between the composition of Matthew’s Gospel and his own, from speaking of the nearness of the Parousia in the same expressions as Matthew used. This course must certainly be followed, if the composition of Mark (comp. also Köstlin, p. 383) is brought down to so late a date.

Mark 13:28-32. See on Matthew 24:32-36. Comp. Luke 21:29-33.

αὐτῆς] prefixed with emphasis (see the critical remarks) as the subject that serves for the comparison: When of it the branch shall have already become tender, so that thus its development has already so far advanced. The singular ὁ κλάδος, the shoot, belongs to the concrete representation.

τὸ θέρος] is an image of the Messianic period also in the Test. XII. Patr. p. 725.

Mark 13:30. ἡ γενεὰ αὔτη] i.e. the present generation, which γενεά with αὕτη means throughout in the N. T., Matthew 11:16; Matthew 12:41-42; Matthew 12:45; Matthew 23:36; Mark 8:12-13; Luke 7:31; Luke 11:29-32; Luke 11:50-51. Comp. Hebrews 3:10 (Lachmann). Nevertheless, and although Jesus has just (Mark 13:29) presupposed of the disciples in general, that they would live to see the Parousia—an assumption which, moreover, underlies the exhortations of Mark 13:33 ff.—although, too, the context does not present the slightest trace of a reference to the Jewish people, there has been an endeavour very recently to uphold this reference; see especially Dorner, p. 75 ff. The word never means people,[157] but may in the signification race, progenies, receive possibly by virtue of the connection the approximate sense of people, which, however, is not the case here. See, moreover, on Matthew 24:34.

οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός] Observe the climax: the angels, the Son, the Father. Jesus thus confesses in the most unequivocal words that the day and hour of His Parousia are unknown[158] to Himself, to Him the Son of God (see subsequently ὁ πατήρ),—a confession of non-omniscience, which cannot surprise us (comp. Acts 1:7) when we consider the human limitation (comp. Luke 2:52) into which the Son of God had entered (comp. on Mark 10:18),—a confession, nevertheless, which has elicited from the antipathy to Arianism some strange devices to evade it, as when Athanasius and other Fathers (in Suicer, Thes. II. p. 163 f.) gave it as their judgment that Jesus meant the not-knowing of His human nature only (Gregor. Epist. 8:42: “in natura quidem humanitatis novit diem et horam, non ex natura humanitatis novit”); while Augustine, de Genesi c. Manich. 22, de Trinit. i. 12, and others were of opinion that He did not know it for His disciples, in so far as He had not been commissioned by God to reveal it unto them. See in later times, especially Wetstein. Similarly Victor Antiochenus also and Theophylact suggest that He desired, as a wise Teacher, to keep it concealed from the disciples, although He was aware of it. Lange, L. J. II. 3, p. 1280, invents the view that He willed not to know it (in contrast with the sinful wish to know on the part of the disciples), for there was no call in the horizon of His life for His reflecting on that day. So, in his view, it was likewise with the angels in heaven. The Lutheran orthodoxy asserts that κατὰ κτῆσιν He was omniscient, but that ΚΑΤᾺ ΧΡῆΣΙΝ He had not everything in promptu.[159] See Calovius. Ambrosius, de fide, v. 8, cut the knot, and declared that οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός was an interpolation of the Arians. Nevertheless it is contained implicite also in the εἰ μὴ ὁ πατὴρ μόνος of Matthew, even although it may not have stood originally in the collection of Logia, but rather is to be attributed to the love of details in Mark, whose dependence not on our Matthew (Baur, Markusev. p. 102, comp. his neut. Theol. p. 102), but on the apostle’s collection of Logia, may be recognised in this more precise explanation.

[157] The signification “people” is rightly not given either by Spitzner on Homer, Il. Exc. ix. 2, or in Stephani Thes., ed. Hase, II. p. 559 f.; in the latter there are specified—(1) genus, progenies; (2) generatio, genitura; (3) aetas, seculum. Comp. Becker, Anecd. p. 231, 11; also Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 353.

[158] Matthew has not οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός; according to Köstlin, Holtzmann, and others, he is held to have omitted it on account of its dogmatic difficulty. But this is to carry back the scruples of later prepossession into the apostolic age. Zeller (in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1865, p. 308 ff.) finds in the words, because they attribute to Christ a nature exalted above the angels, an indication that our Mark was not written until the first half of the second century; but his view is founded on erroneous assumptions with respect to the origin of the Epistles to the Colossians, Ephesians, and Philippians, and of the fourth Gospel. Moreover, Paul places Christ above the angels in other passages (Romans 8:38; 2 Thessalonians 1:7), and even as early as in the history of the temptation they minister to Him. Zeller believes that he gathers the like conclusion in respect of the date of the composition of our Gospel (and of that of Luke also), but under analogous incorrect combinations, from the fact that Mark (and Luke) attaches so studious importance to the narratives of the expulsion of demons.

[159] See, on the other hand, Thomasius, Chr. Pers. u. Werk. II. p. 156 f.

Mark 13:33-37. Comp. Matthew 24:42, Matthew 24:44 ff., Matthew 25:14. By way of an energetic conclusion Mark has here a passage, which has been formed by the aggregation of several different portions—belonging to this connection, and most completely preserved in Matthew from the collection of Logia—on the part of tradition or of the evangelist himself into a well-adjusted, compact, and imposing unity.

Mark 13:34. ὡς] an anantapodoton, as at Matthew 25:14. See in loc. With ὡς the plan of the discourse was, after Mark 13:34, to subjoin: so do I also bid you: watch! Instead of this, after ἵνα γρηγορῇ, with an abandonment of the plan of sentence introduced by ὡς, there follows at once, with striking and vivid effect, the exhortation itself: γρηγορεῖτε, which now, just because the ὡς is forgotten, is linked on by οὖν.

ἀπόδημος] is not equivalent to ἀποδημῶν (Matthew 25:14), but: who has taken a journey. Pind. Pyth. iv. 8; Plut. Mor. p. 299 E. At the same time ἐνετείλατο is not to be taken as a pluperfect, but: “as a traveller, when he had left his house, after having given to his slaves the authority and to each one his work, gave to the doorkeeper also command, in order that he should watch.” In this we have to observe: (1) the ἐνετείλατο took place after the ἀπόδημος had gone out of his house; (2) καὶ δοὺς κ.τ.λ., in which καί is also, is subordinate to the ἀφεὶς κ.τ.λ., because prior to the leaving of the house; (3) ἄνθρωπος ἀπόδημ.] forms one notion: a man finding himself on a journey, a traveller; comp. ἄνθρωπος ὁδίτης, Horn. Il. xvi. 263; Od. xiii. 123; ἄνθρ. ἔμπορος, Matthew 13:45, al.; (4) the ἐξουσία, the authority concerned in the case, is according to the context the control over the household. This He gave to all in common; and, moreover, to every one in particular the special business which he had to execute. Fritzsche is wrong in making the participles ἀφείς … καὶ δούς dependent on ἀπόδημος: “homo, qui relicta domo sua et commissa servis procuratione assignatoque suo cuique penso peregre abfuit.” Against this may be urged, partly that ἀφεὶς τ. οἰκ. αὐτοῦ would be a quite superfluous definition to ἀπόδημος, partly that δοὺς κ.τ.λ. would need to stand before ἀφεὶς κ.τ.λ., because the man first made the arrangement and then left the house.

Mark 13:35. γρηγορεῖτε οὖν] the apostles thus are here compared with the doorkeeper.

As to the four watches of the night, see on Matthew 14:24. They belong to the pictorial effect of the parable; the night-season is in keeping with the figurative γρηγορεῖτε, without exactly expressing “a dark and sad time” (Lange). Singularly at variance with the text as it stands, Theophylact and many others interpret it of the four ages of human life.

Mark 13:37. The reference to one thought is not at variance with the use of the plural ἅ (see the critical remarks). See Kühner, ad Xen. Anab. iii. 5. 5.

πᾶσι] to all who confess me.