Verse 34. Because they knew him<\/B><\/I>] To be the Christ<\/I>, is added here by several ancient and respectable MSS. and versions; but it appears to be only a gloss<\/I>.<\/P> <\/p>\nFuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
34. And he healed many that weresick of divers diseases, and cast out many devils<\/B>In Mt8:16<\/span> it is said, “He cast out the spirits with His word”;or rather, “with a word”a word of command. <\/P> and suffered not the devilsto speak, because they knew him<\/B>Evidently they would<\/I>have spoken, if permitted, proclaiming His Messiahship in such termsas in the synagogue; but once in one day, and that testimonyimmediately silenced, was enough. See on Mr1:24<\/span>. After this account of His miracles of healing, we have inMt 8:17<\/span> this pregnantquotation, “That it might be fulfilled which was spoken byEsaias the prophet, saying (Isa53:4<\/span>), Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.”<\/P><\/p>\n And he healed many that were sick of divers diseases<\/strong>,…. Not that there were some, who had some sorts of diseases, whom he did not heal; but he healed all that came, or were brought to him, which were many, of every sort of disease, which were divers, with which they were afflicted:<\/p>\n and cast many devils<\/strong>; even as many as were brought to him, or were possessed with any:<\/p>\n and he suffered not the devils to speak<\/strong>; either for him, or against him; which shows his great power over them:<\/p>\n because they knew him<\/strong>, or “that they knew him”: he would not suffer them to say a word about him, because he knew that they knew that he was the Christ, the Son of God, or he would not permit them to say who he was; because he had others to bear witness of him, and better testimonies than theirs, and lest his enemies should reproach him with an agreement and familiarity with them.<\/p>\n Devils <\/B> (<\/SPAN><\/span>). Demons it should be translated always.<\/P> Suffered not <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Would not allow, imperfect tense of continued refusal. The reason given is “because they knew him” ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Whether “to be Christ” ( <\/SPAN><\/span>) is genuine or not, that is the meaning and is a direct reference to 1:24<\/span> when in the synagogue the demon recognized and addressed Jesus as the Holy One of God. Testimony from such a source was not calculated to help the cause of Christ with the people. He had told the other demon to be silent. See on Mt 8:29<\/span> for discussion of the word demon. <\/P> <\/p>\n Devils (<\/B><\/B><\/SPAN><\/span>)<\/B><\/P> The Rev., unfortunately, and against the protest of the American committee, retains devils <\/I>instead of rendering demons. <\/I>See on Mat 4:1<\/span>. The New Testament uses two kindred words to denote the evil spirits which possessed men, and which were so often east out by Christ: <\/SPAN><\/span>, <\/I>of which demon <\/I>is a transcript, and which occurs, according to the best texts, only at Mat 8:31<\/span>; and <\/SPAN><\/span>, <\/I>which is not a diminutive, but the neuter of the adjective <\/SPAN><\/span>, of, or belonging to a demon. <\/I>The cognate verb is <\/SPAN><\/span> to be possessed with a demon, <\/I>as in Mar 1:32<\/span>.<\/P> The derivation of the word is uncertain. Perhaps <\/SPAN><\/span>, to distribute, <\/I>since the deities allot the fates of men. Plato derives it from <\/SPAN><\/span>, knowing or wise. <\/I>In Hesiod, as in Pythagoras, Thales, and Plutarch, the word <\/SPAN><\/span> <\/I>is used of men of the golden age, acting as tutelary deities, and forming the link between gods and men. Socrates, in Plato’s Cratylus, quotes Hesiod as follows: Socrates<\/I>: You know how Hesiod uses the word? Hermogenes: <\/I>Indeed I do not. Soc.: <\/I>Do you not remember that he speaks of a golden race of men who came first? Her.: <\/I>Yes, I know that. Soc.: <\/I>He says of them,<\/P> But now that fate has closed over this race,<\/P> They are holy demons upon earth,<\/P> Beneficent, averters of ills, guardians of mortal men.’<\/P> After some further conversation, Socrates goes on: And therefore I have the most entire conviction that he called them demons, <\/I>because they were <\/SPAN><\/span> <\/I>(knowing <\/I>or wise<\/I>). <\/I>Now, he and other poets say truly that, when a good man dies, he has honor and a mighty portion among the dead, and becomes a demon, which is a name given to him signifying wisdom. And I say, too, that every wise man who happens to be a good man is more than human (<\/SPAN><\/span>) <\/I>both in life and death, and is rightly called a demon. Mr. Grote (History of Greece) observes that in Hesiod demons are invisible tenants of the earth, remnants of the once happy golden race whom the Olympic gods first made – the unseen police of the gods, for the purpose of repressing wicked behavior in the world. In later Greek the word came to be used of any departed soul.<\/P> In Homer <\/SPAN><\/span> <\/I>is used synonymously with <\/SPAN><\/span> and <\/SPAN><\/span>, god and goddess, <\/I>and the moral quality of the divinity is determined by the context: but most commonly of the divine power<\/I> or agency, <\/I>like the Latin numen, <\/I>the deity considered as a power <\/I>rather than as a person<\/I>. Homer does not use <\/SPAN><\/span> substantively, but as an adjective, always in the vocative case, and with a sorrowful or reproachful sense, indicating that the person addressed is in some astonishing or strange condition. Therefore, as a term of reproach – wretch! sirrah! madman! <\/I>(Iliad, 2:190, 200; 4:31; ix., 40). Occasionally in an admiring or respectful sense (Odyssey, xiv., 443; xxiii., 174); Excellent stranger! noble sir! <\/I>Homer also uses <\/SPAN><\/span> <\/I>of one’s genius <\/I>or attendant spirit, and thence of one’s lot <\/I>or fortune<\/I>. So in the beautiful simile of the sick father (Odyssey, 5:396), Some malignant genius has assailed him. Compare Odyssey, x., 64; xi., 61. Hence, later, the phrase <\/SPAN><\/span> <\/I>is nearly equivalent to by chance.<\/I><\/P> We have seen that, in Homer, the bad sense of <\/SPAN><\/span> <\/I>is the prevailing one. In the tragedians, also, <\/SPAN><\/span>, though used both of good and bad fortune, occurs more frequently in the latter sense, and toward this sense the word gravitates more and more. The undertone of Greek thought, which tended to regard no man happy until he had escaped from life (see on Mat 5:3<\/span>, blessed<\/I>), <\/I>naturally imparted a gloomy and forbidding character to those who were supposed to allot the destinies of life.<\/P> In classical Greek it is noticeable that the abstract <\/SPAN><\/span> <\/I>fell into the background behind <\/SPAN><\/span>, <\/I>with the development in the latter of the notion of a fate <\/I>or genius <\/I>connected with each individual, as the demon of Socrates; while in biblical Greek the process is the reverse, this doctrine being rejected for that of an overruling personal providence, and the strange gods, obscure to human knowledge and alien to human life, taking the abstract term uniformly in an evil sense.<\/P> Empedocles, a Greek philosopher, of Sicily, developed Hesiod’s distinction; making the demons of a mixed nature between gods and men, not only the link between the two, but having an agency and disposition of their own; not immortal, but long-lived, and subject to the passions and propensities of men. While in Hesiod the demons are all good, according to Empedocles they are both bad and good. This conception relieved the gods of the responsibility for proceedings unbecoming the divine nature. The enormities which the older myths ascribed directly to the gods – thefts, rapes, abductions – were the doings of bad demons. It also saved the credit of the old legends, obviating the necessity of pronouncing either that the gods were unworthy or the legends untrue. Yet, though devised for the purpose of satisfying a more scrupulous religious sensibility, it was found inconvenient afterward when assailants arose against paganism generally. For while it abandoned as indefensible a large portion of what had once been genuine faith, it still retained the same word demons <\/I>with an entirely altered signification. The Christian writers in their controversies found ample warrant among the earlier <\/I>pagan authors for treating all the gods as demons; and not less ample warrant among the later<\/I> pagans for denouncing the demons generally as evil beings (Grote, History of Greece).<\/P> This evil sense the words always bear in the New Testament as well as in the Septuagint. Demons are synonymous with unclean spirits<\/I> (Mar 5:12<\/span>, Mar 5:15<\/span>; Mar 3:22<\/span>, Mar 3:30<\/span>; Luk 4:33<\/span>). They appear in connection with Satan (Luk 10:17<\/span>, Luk 10:18<\/span>; Luk 11:18<\/span>, Luk 11:19<\/span>); they are put in opposition to the Lord (1Co 10:20<\/span>, 1Co 10:21<\/span>); to the faith (1Ti 4:1<\/span>). They are connected with idolatry (Rev 9:20<\/span>; Rev 16:13<\/span>, Rev 16:14<\/span>). They are special powers of evil, influencing and disturbing the physical, mental, and moral being (Luk 13:11<\/span>, Luk 13:16<\/span>; Mar 5:2-5<\/span>; Mar 7:25<\/span>; Mat 12:45<\/span>).<\/P><\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n 1) “And He<\/strong> healed many that were sick of divers diseases”<\/strong> (kai ‘etherapeusen pollous kakos echontas poikilais nosois) “And He healed many who were ill with various (kinds of) diseases.” Many were brought and all who were brought were healed, Mat 8:16-17<\/span>.<\/p>\n 2) “And cast<\/strong> out many devils;- <\/strong>(kai diamonia polla eksebalen) “And He expelled or tossed out many demons;- The term “devils” is derived from the (Gk. daimonia) which means demons or deranged spirits. The root word for Devil is never in the plural in the Greek language of the New Testament. There is only one Devil, but there are innumerable demons.<\/p>\n 3) “And suffered not the<\/strong> devils to speak,” <\/strong>(kai ouk ephien lalein ta daimonis) “And He did not allow or permit the demons to speak,” He restrained them from uttering a word, for or against. They were muzzled, as fallen angels, or deranged spirits, 2Pe 2:4<\/span>.<\/p>\n 4,) “Because<\/strong> they knew Him.” <\/strong>(hoti edeisan auton) “Because they perceived Him,” or knew who He was, evidently from their fall, as rebellious angels against God, Jud 1:6<\/span>. These demon spirits still know Him and are at enmity with Him, as they await their judgement, serving Satan among men, Heb 2:2-3<\/span>; Mat 8:28-29<\/span>.<\/p>\n Mar 1:34<\/span><\/p>\n . He did not permit the devils to speak. There might be two reasons why he did not permit them: a general reason, because the time of the full revelation was not yet come; and a special reason, which we hinted at a little ago, that he refused to have, as heralds and witnesses of his divinity, those whose praise could have no other effect than to soil and injure his character. This latter reason is undoubtedly true: for he must have known, that the prince of death, and his agents, are in a state of irreconcileable enmity with the Author of eternal salvation and life. <\/p>\n (34) And suffered not the devils to speak.<\/strong>St. Luke (Luk. 4:41<\/span>) gives the reason of the prohibition more distinctly. The demoniacs had cried out, Thou art the Son of God. They knew that He was the Christ.<\/p>\n 34<\/strong>. <\/strong> Suffered not the devils to speak <\/em> See notes on Mar 1:25<\/span>. Some good critics render this clause, “suffered not the devils to say that they knew him.” His peremptory and stern dealing with these malignant beings was to show his abhorrence, of their malignant nature. Moreover, he thereby taught us at this day not to found our faith on pretended spiritualistic manifestations from unknown supernatural sources or sorceries. If we trust in that class of deceptions we are liable to be betrayed by them into damnable falsehood and delusion.<\/p>\n Mar 1:34<\/span> . ] therefore not all<\/em> , which, nevertheless, does not presuppose attempts that were without result. It was already late<\/em> , and in various cases, moreover, the conditions<\/em> of healing might be wanting.<\/p>\n ] as in Mar 11:16<\/span> . Imperfect, from the form , with the augment on the preposition; see Winer, p. 74 [E. T. 97].<\/p>\n ] He allowed them not to speak<\/em> , enjoined on them silence, because<\/em> they knew Him. They would otherwise, had they been allowed to speak<\/em> , have said<\/em> that He was the Messiah. Kuinoel, Bleek, and others erroneously take it as if the expression was . The two verbs (comp. on Joh 8:43<\/span> ; Rom 3:19<\/span> ) are never interchanged in the N. T., not even in such passages as Rom 15:18 ; 2Co 11:17<\/span> ; 1Th 1:8<\/span> ; hence “ to say that<\/em> ” is never expressed by , .<\/p>\n As to the reason<\/em> of the prohibition, see on Mar 5:43<\/span> and Mat 8:4<\/span> .<\/p>\n 34 And he healed many that were sick of divers diseases, and cast out many devils; and suffered not the devils to speak, because they knew him. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n Ver. 34. Suffered not the devils to speak<\/strong> ] For what calling had they to preach the gospel? <\/p>\n Mar 1:34<\/span> . , many; not all? In Matthew many<\/em> are brought and all<\/em> are healed. , allow, imperfect, as if from with augment on preposition, again in Mar 11:16<\/span> ; prorsus barbara<\/em> (Fritzsche). ., because they knew Him. On the insight of demoniacs cf.<\/em> at Mat 8:28<\/span> ff.<\/p>\n devils = demons. See note on Mar 1:32. <\/p>\n Mar 1:34. , He suffered not) So ch. Mar 11:16. The second aorist of the verb , as Sylberg shows in his Not. ad Clenard., p. 468.-, because) They were attempting to speak.<\/p>\n devils <\/p>\n demons. (See Scofield “Mat 7:22”) <\/p>\n and suffered: Mar 1:25, Mar 3:12, Luk 4:41, Act 16:16-18 <\/p>\n speak, because they: or, say that they <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Mat 8:16 – and he Mat 17:18 – rebuked Mar 1:23 – a man Luk 4:34 – what Act 16:18 – being Act 19:15 – General<\/p>\n 4<\/p>\n Divers diseases means many kinds of diseases. Suffered not the devils to speak, because they knew him. These devils would not have deserved any credit for proclaiming the divinity of Christ; that is, it would not have been an act of faith but of knowledge. They made such a declaration once and were rebuked for it (verses 24, 25), and Jesus still was not willing to be upheld by such characters.<\/p>\n Mar 1:34. And he healed many, etc. This does not imply that some were not healed, either because there was not time, or because they lacked faith; both Matthew (Mat 8:16) and Luke (Luk 4:40) say that all were healed.<\/p>\n Suffered not the demons to speak. This was usual. See Mar 1:25; comp. the more particular account of Luke (Luk 4:41). Our Lord could be Himself the witness to His claims (comp. Joh 8:14-18); practically no man ever believes in Christ without first believing Christ Himself independently of other witnesses. Besides these were unworthy witnesses; it was not the right time for the truth they stated. But Satan and Satans emissaries can speak the truth when it will serve an evil end.<\/p>\n Verse 34 <\/p>\n They knew that he was the Messiah. Jesus often endeavored to moderate the public excitement, by restraining the desire of those who had been the subjects of his most astonishing miracles, to proclaim them to others.–Because they knew him. It is remarkable that the demoniacs seemed always to recognize Jesus as the Messiah.<\/p>\n 1:34 And he healed many that were sick of divers diseases, and cast out many devils; and {f} suffered not the devils to speak, because they knew him.<\/p>\n (s) For it is not proper for the demons to preach the gospel; Act 16:18<\/p>\n And he healed many that were sick of divers diseases, and cast out many devils; and suffered not the devils to speak, because they knew him. Verse 34. Because they knew him] To be the Christ, is added here by several ancient and respectable MSS. and versions; but it appears to be only a gloss. … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Mark 1:34”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-24237","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24237","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=24237"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24237\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=24237"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=24237"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=24237"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"