32<\/strong>. if we shall say, Of men<\/em> ] Observe the impressive abruptness here, which is more significant than the full expression of St Matthew (Mat 21:26<\/span>) and St Luke (Luk 20:6<\/span>). They dared not face the alternative, and were driven to a feeble evasion.<\/p>\n Verse 32<\/span>. They feared the people<\/B><\/I>] Or rather, We fear<\/I>, c. Instead of , they feared<\/I> the Codex Bezae<\/I>, seven others, later Syriac, Arabic, Coptic, AEthiopic, Armenian, Vulgate<\/I>, and all the Itala<\/I>, read , or . The common reading appearing to me quite improper.<\/P> <\/P> WE fear the people<\/I>. , if<\/I>, before , we shall<\/I> say<\/I>, is omitted by ABCEFGHLS, and more than fifty others. Bengel leaves it out of the text, and puts a note of interrogation after ; and then the whole passage reads thus: But shall we<\/I> say, Of men? They feared the people<\/I>, c. This change renders the adoption of , we fear<\/I>, unnecessary. Several critics prefer this mode of distinguishing the text. However the critics may be puzzled with the text, the scribes, chief priests, and elders were worse puzzled with our Lord’s question. They must convict themselves or tell a most palpable falsehood. – They told the lie, and so escaped for the present.<\/P> <\/P> 1. ENVY, malice, and double dealing have always a difficult part to act, and are ultimately confounded by their own projects and ruined by their own operations. On the other hand, simplicity and sincerity are not obliged to use a mask, but always walk in a plain way.<\/P> <\/P> 2. The case of the barren fig-tree which our Lord cursed has been pitifully misunderstood and misapplied. The whole account of this transaction, as stated above, I believe to be correct it is so much in our Lord’s usual manner that the propriety of it will scarcely be doubted. He was ever acting the part of the philosopher, moralist<\/I>, and divine<\/I>, as well as that of the Saviour<\/I> of sinners<\/I>. In his hand, every providential occurrence and every object of nature, became a means of instruction: the stones<\/I> of the desert, the lilies<\/I> of the field, the fowls<\/I> of heaven, the beasts<\/I> of the forest, fruitful<\/I> and unfruitful<\/I> trees, with every ordinary occurrence, were so many grand texts<\/I>, from which he preached the most illuminating and impressive sermons, for the instruction and salvation of his audience. This wisdom and condescension cannot be sufficiently admired. But shall the example of the fruitless<\/I> fig tree<\/I> be lost on us<\/I> as well as on the Jews<\/I>? God forbid! Let us therefore take heed, lest having been so long unfruitful, God should say, Let no fruit appear on thee hereafter for ever<\/I>! and in consequence of this, we wither and die away! See Clarke on Mr 11:27<\/span>.<\/P> <\/p>\n But if we shall say, of men<\/strong>,…. That John’s baptism was an human invention, and he had no authority from God to preach and administer it,<\/p>\n they feared the people<\/strong>; lest being enraged thereby they should, at once, rise up, and destroy them:<\/p>\n for all men counted John, that he was a prophet indeed<\/strong>; a real prophet, one truly sent from God, and had his commission and credentials from him: this was the general sentiment of the people;<\/p>\n [See comments on Mt 21:26]<\/span>.<\/p>\n But should we say <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Deliberative subjunctive with aorist active subjunctive again. It is possible to supply <\/SPAN><\/span> from verse 31<\/span> and treat it as a condition as there. So Mt 21:26<\/span> and Lu 20:6<\/span>. But in Mark the structure continues rugged after “from men” with anacoluthon or even aposiopesis–“they feared the people” Mark adds. Matthew has it: “We fear the multitude.” Luke puts it: “all the people will stone us.” All three Gospels state the popular view of John as a prophet. Mark’s “verily” is <\/SPAN><\/span> really, actually. They feared John though dead as much as Herod Antipas did. His martyrdom had deepened his power over the people and disrespect towards his memory now might raise a storm (Swete). <\/P> <\/p>\n Comments;<\/strong><\/p>\n 1) “But if we shall say, Of men;-<\/strong> (alla eipomen eks anthropomen) “But what if we should say out of men?” May we say out of men? They reasoned in worldly wisdom, what was best to save face for them, a wisdom that was moronic in comparison with Divine wisdom and reasoning, Isa 55:8-9<\/span>; 1Co 3:19-20<\/span>.<\/p>\n 2) “They feared the people:- <\/strong>(ephobounto ton ochlon) “They were in a state of fear of the crowd,” what the masses might do to them, more than they feared God, though forbidden in the very word of God that they claimed to hold dear, Mat 10:28<\/span>, “The fear of man bringeth a snare,” and they were snared in this, Pro 29:25<\/span>, Mat 14:5<\/span>; Mar 6:20<\/span>.<\/p>\n 3) ”For all men counted John,”<\/strong> (hapantes gar eichon ton loannen) “For all men held-considered, or esteemed John the Baptist,” held him in respect, Luk 20:6<\/span>; Mat 3:5-6<\/span>; Mar 6:20<\/span>.<\/p>\n 4) “That<\/strong> he was a prophet indeed.” <\/strong>(ontos hoti<\/p>\n prophetes en) “That he was actually, really, or truly a, prophet,” Mat 21:26<\/span>; Even Herod had accepted John as a prophet, Mat 14:1-2<\/span>; Mat 14:9<\/span>.<\/p>\n (32) That he was a prophet indeed.<\/strong>The intensifying adverb is one of St. Marks graphic touches of emphasis.<\/p>\n 32 But if we shall say, Of men; they feared the people: for all men<\/em> counted John, that he was a prophet indeed. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n Ver. 32. See Trapp on “<\/em> Mat 21:26 “<\/em> <\/p>\n 32.<\/strong> ] The being omitted as spurious, a note of interrogation must be set after <\/strong> .<\/strong> a question which is answered by the Evangelist<\/em> , ‘quoniam haud facile quisquam sibi aperte timorem adscribere consuevit.’ Rinck. in Meyer.<\/p>\n Mar 11:32<\/span> . , ; = but suppose we say, from men? . Here Mk. thinks for them instead of letting them think for themselves as in Mt. (Mat 11:26<\/span> , ) = they were afraid of the multitude. , etc.: here again the construction is somewhat crude by attraction, object of the verb instead of the subject of , and by trajection separated from the verb it qualifies, , giving this sense: for all held John truly that he was a prophet = for all held that John was indeed a prophet.<\/p>\n say, Of men. Supply the logical Ellipsis, thus: “Of men [it will not be wise]; for they feared the people”, &c. <\/p>\n 32.] The being omitted as spurious, a note of interrogation must be set after .-a question which is answered by the Evangelist, quoniam haud facile quisquam sibi aperte timorem adscribere consuevit. Rinck. in Meyer.<\/p>\n they: Mar 6:20, Mar 12:12, Mat 14:5, Mat 21:46, Luk 20:19, Luk 22:2, Act 5:26 <\/p>\n for: Mat 3:5, Mat 3:6, Mat 21:31, Mat 21:32, Luk 7:26-29, Luk 20:6-8, Joh 10:41 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Mat 21:26 – we fear Mar 11:18 – feared Mar 14:2 – lest Luk 1:76 – shalt be<\/p>\n Verse 32 <\/p>\n Counted; considered, regarded.<\/p>\n 11:32 {6} But if we shall say, Of men; they feared the people: for all [men] counted John, that he was a prophet indeed.<\/p>\n (6) The reward of their evil conscience is to be afraid of those who should have been afraid of them.<\/p>\n But if we shall say, Of men; they feared the people: for all [men] counted John, that he was a prophet indeed. 32. if we shall say, Of men ] Observe the impressive abruptness here, which is more significant than the full expression of St Matthew (Mat 21:26) and St Luke (Luk 20:6). They dared … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Mark 11:32”<\/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-24659","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24659","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=24659"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24659\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=24659"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=24659"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=24659"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the 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: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament<\/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: The Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/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":"