Mark 13:32 Коментар

We have here the substance of that prophetical sermon which our Lord Jesus preached, pointing at the destruction of Jerusalem, and the consummation of all things; it was one of the last of his sermons, and not ad populum - to the people, but ad clerum - to the clergy; it was private, preached only to four of his disciples, with whom his secret was. Here is, I. The occasion of his prediction - his disciples' admiring the building of the temple (Mar 13:1, Mar 13:2), and their enquiry concerning the time of the desolation of them (Mar 13:3, Mar 13:4). II. The predictions themselves, 1. Of the rise of deceivers (Mar 13:5, Mar 13:6, Mar 13:21-23). 2. Of the wars of the nations (Mar 13:7, Mar 13:8). 3. Of the persecution of Christians (Mar 13:9-13). 4. Of the destruction of Jerusalem (Mar 13:14-20). 5. Of the end of the world (Mar 13:24-27). III. Some general intimations concerning the time of them (Mar 13:28-32). IV. Some practical inferences from all (Mar 13:33-37).

And as he went out of the temple,.... The Ethiopic version reads, "as they went out"; Christ and his disciples: for when Christ went out of the temple, the disciples went out with him; or at least very quickly followed him, and came to him, as appears from what follows; though the true reading is, "as he went out": and the Syriac and Persic versions are more express, and read, "as Jesus went out": for having done all he intended to do there, he left it, never more to return to it: one of his disciples: it may be Peter, who was generally pretty forward, and commonly the mouth of the rest, as this disciple was, whoever he was: the Persic version reads, "the disciples"; and Matthew and Luke represent them in general, as observing to Christ, the beauty and grandeur of the temple, as this disciple did: who saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here. The temple, as repaired by Herod, was a very beautiful building, according to the account the Jews give of it, and its stones were of a very great magnitude; See Gill on Mat 24:1.

For the son of man is as a man taking a far journey,.... Or this case of the son of man's coming to take vengeance on the Jewish nation, is like a man that takes a journey into a far country. This puts me in mind of a question asked (m) by the Jews: "what , "a far journey" from Modiim, and without.'' from Modiim, according to the Gemara (n), and commentators (o) on this passage, was a place fifteen miles from Jerusalem; so that, according to them, fifteen miles were reckoned a far journey (p). Who left his house; and his goods in it, to the care and management of others during his absence: and gave authority to his servants; to govern his house, and exercise power one over another, according to their different stations; and to every man his work; which he was to do, while he was gone, and to give him an account of when he returned: and commanded the porter to watch; his house, and take care that it was not broke open by thieves, and plundered of the substance that was in it. So Christ, when he ascended on high, went to heaven, the land afar off; left his house, his church, particularly in Judea, and at Jerusalem, to the care of his apostles, and gave authority to govern it, according to the laws, rules, and directions prescribed by him; and assigned every man his particular work, for which he gave him proper gifts and abilities; and ordered the porter to be on his watch, not Peter only, but all the apostles and ministers, whose business it is to watch over themselves, and the souls of men committed to their care. (m) Misn. Pesachim, c. 9. sect. 2. (n) T. Bab. Pesachim, fol. 93. 2. (o) Maimon. & Bartenora in Misn. ib. (p) Maimon. Hilch. Korban Pesach. c. 5. sect. 9.

The gnostics presumptuously assume acquaintance with the unspeakable mysteries of God. Remember that even the Lord, the very Son of God, allowed that the Father alone knows the very day and hour of judgment.… If then the Son was not ashamed to ascribe the knowledge of that day to the Father only, but declared what was true regarding the matter, neither let us be ashamed to reserve for God those enigmatic questions which come our way.

When his disciples asked him about the end, he said with precision: Of that day or that hour no one knows, not even he himself—that is, when viewed according to the flesh, because he too, as human, lives within the limits of the human condition. He said this to show that, viewed as an ordinary man, he does not know the future, for ignorance of the future is characteristic of the human condition. Insofar as he is viewed according to his divinity as the Word who is to come, to judge, to be bridegroom, however, he knows when and in what hour he will come.… For as upon becoming human he hungers, thirsts and suffers, along with all human beings, similarly as human he does not see the future. But viewed according to his divinity as the Word and wisdom of the Father, he knows, and there is nothing which he does not know.

It is sometimes turned into a reproach against the only begotten God that he did not know the day and the hour. It is said that, though God, born of God, he is not in the perfection of divine nature, since he is subjected to the limitation of ignorance, namely, to an external force stronger than himself, triumphing, as it were, over his weakness. The heretics in their frenzy would try to drive us to this blasphemous interpretation: that he is thus captive to this external limitation, which makes such a confession inevitable. The words are those of the Lord himself. What could be more unholy, we ask, than to corrupt his express assertion by our attempt to explain it away? But, before we investigate the meaning and occasion of these words, let us first appeal to the judgment of common sense. Is it credible, that he, who stands to all things as the author of their present and future, should not know all things?… All that is derives from God alone its origin, and has in him alone the efficient cause of its present state and future development. Can anything be beyond the reach of his nature, through which is effected, and in which is contained, all that is and shall be? Jesus Christ knows the thoughts of the mind, as it is now, stirred by present motives, and as it will be tomorrow, aroused by the impulse of future desires.… Whenever God says that he does not know, he professes ignorance indeed, but is not under the defect of ignorance. It is not because of the infirmity of ignorance that he does not know, but because it is not yet the time to speak, or in the divine plan to act.… This knowledge is not, therefore, a change from ignorance, but the coming of a fullness of time. He waits still to know, but we cannot suppose that he does not know. Therefore his not knowing what he knows, and his knowing what he does not know, is nothing else than a divine economy in word and deed.

(de Trin. ix) This ignorance of the day and hour is urged against the Only-Begotten God, as if, God born of God had not the same perfection of nature as God. But first, let common sense decide whether it is credible that He, who is the cause that all things are, and are to be, should be ignorant of any out of all these things. For how can it be beyond the knowledge of that nature, by which and in which that which is to be done is contained? And can He be ignorant of that day, which is the day of His own Advent? Human substances foreknow as far as they can what they intend to do, and the knowledge of what is to be done, follows upon the will to act. How then can the Lord of glory, from ignorance of the day of His coming, be believed to be of that imperfect nature, which has on it a necessity of coming, and has not attained to the knowledge of its own advent? But again, how much more room for blasphemy will there be, if a feeling of envy is ascribed to God the Father, in that He has withheld the knowledge of His beatitude from Him to whom He gave a foreknowledge of His death. But if there are in Him all the treasures of knowledge, He is not ignorant of this day; rather we ought to remember that the treasures of wisdom in Him are hidden; His ignorance therefore must be connected with the hiding of the treasures of wisdom, which are in Him. (Col. 2:3) For in all cases, in which God declares Himself ignorant, He is not under the power of ignorance, but either it is not a fit time for speaking, or it is an economy of not acting. But if God is said then to have known that Abraham loved Him, when He did not hide that His knowledge from Abraham, it follows, that the Father is said to know the day, because He did not hide it from the Son. (Gen. 22:12) If therefore the Son knew not the day, it is a Sacrament of His being silent, as on the contrary the Father alone is said to know, because He is not silent. But God forbid that any new and bodily changes should be ascribed to the Father or the Son. Lastly, lest He should be said to be ignorant from weakness, He has immediately added, Take ye heed, watch and pray, for ye know not when the time is.

The last day and hour no one knows, not even the Son himself, but the Father. Yet how can the source of wisdom be ignorant of anything—that is, wisdom who made the world, who perfects all, who remodels all, who is the limit of all things that were made, who knows the things of God and the spirit of a person, knowing the things that lie deep within? For what can be more perfect than this knowledge? How then can you say that all things before that hour he knows accurately, and all things that are to happen about the time of the end, but of the hour itself he is ignorant? For such a thing would be like a riddle. It is as if one were to say that he knew accurately all that was in front of the wall, but did not know the wall itself. Or that, knowing the end of the day, he did not know the beginning of the night. Yet knowledge of the one necessarily implies the other. Thus everyone must see that the Son knows as God, and knows not as man (if we may for the purposes of argument distinguish that which is discerned by sight from that which is discerned by thought alone). For the absolute and unconditioned use of the name “the Son” in this passage, without the addition of whose Son, leads us to conclude: We are to understand the ignorance in the most reverent sense, by attributing it to his human nature, and not to the Godhead.

According to “the form of God” everything that the Father has belongs to the Son: for “All things that are mine are yours, and yours are mine.” According to the form of a slave, however, his teaching is not his own, but of the One who sent him. Hence “Of that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.” He is ignorant of this in the special sense of making others ignorant. He did not “know it” in their presence in such a way as to be prepared to reveal it to them at that time. Recall that in a similar way it was said to Abraham: “Now I know that you fear God,” in the sense that now I am taking you through a continuing journey to know yourself, because Abraham came to know himself only after he had been tried in adversity.… Jesus was “ignorant” in this sense, so to speak, among his disciples, of that which they were not yet able to know from him. He only said that which was seasonally fitting for them to know. Among those with mature wisdom he knew in a different way than among babes.

I am by no means of the opinion that a figurative mode of expression can be rightly termed a falsehood. For it is no falsehood to call a day joyous because it makes people joyous. A lupine seed is not sad because it lengthens the face of the eater because of its bitter taste. So also we say that God “knows” something when he makes his hearers know it (an instance quoted by yourself in the words of God to Abraham, “Now I know that you fear God”). These are by no means false statements, as you yourself readily see. Accordingly, the blessed Hilary threw light on an obscure point by this kind of figurative expression, showing how we ought to understand the words that “he did not know the day,” with no other meaning than this: In proportion as he had made others ignorant by concealing his meaning, he spoke of it figuratively as his own lack of knowledge. So by concealing it, he so to speak caused others not to know it. He did not by this explanation condone lying, but he proved that it was not lying to use the common figures, including metaphors, as a form of speech available to all, a mode of expression entirely familiar to all in daily conversation. Would anyone call it a lie to say that vines are jeweled with buds, or that a grainfield waves, or that a young man is in the flower of his youth, because he sees in these objects neither waves nor precious stones, nor grass, nor trees to which these expressions would literally apply?

No one should arrogate to oneself the knowledge of that time by any computation of years. For if that day is to come after seven thousand years, everyone could learn its advent simply by adding up years. What comes then of the Son’s even “not knowing” this? This is said with this meaning, that his hearers do not learn this from the Son, not that he by himself does not know it. It is to be understood according to that form of speech by which “The Lord your God tries you that he may know,” which means, that he may make you know. Again, the phrase “arise, O Lord” means make us arise. Thus when the Son is said not to know this day, it is not because he is ignorant of it, but because he causes those to know it not for whom it is not yet expedient to know it, for he does not show it to them.

It was not part of his office as our master that through him the day should become known to us. It remains true that the Father knows nothing that the Son does not know, since his Son, the Word, is his wisdom, and his wisdom is to know. But it was not for our good to know everything which was known to him who came to teach us. He surely did not come to teach us that which it was not good for us to know. As master he both taught some things and left other things untaught. He knew both how to teach us what was good for us to know, and not to teach us what was not for our good to know. It is according to this common form of speech that the Son is said “not to know” what he does not choose to teach. We are in the daily habit of speaking in this way. Accordingly he is said “not to know” what he causes us not to know.

For, as we speak of a glad day, not meaning that the day itself is glad, but that it makes us glad, so also the Almighty Son says that He does not know the day which He causes not to be known; not that He Himself does not know it, but that He does not allow it to be known. Whence also the Father alone is said to know it, because the Son Who is consubstantial with Him has His knowledge of what the angels are ignorant of from His divine nature, whereby He is above the angels. Whence also it may be more nicely understood thus; that the Only-begotten, being incarnate and made for us a perfect man, knew indeed in the nature of His humanity the day and hour of the judgment, but still it was not from the nature of His humanity that He knew it. What then He knew in it He knew not from it, because God, made man, knew the day and hour of the judgment through the power of His Deity.

However, of that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Arius and Eunomius rejoice as if the ignorance of the master is the glory of the disciples: and they say: "He who knows and he who is ignorant cannot be equal." But since Jesus, that is, the Word of God, made all times (for all things were made by Him, and without Him nothing was made, and in all times the day of judgment must also be, can He who knows the whole, be ignorant of a part? Therefore, a reason must be given why He is said to be ignorant. The Apostle wrote concerning the Savior: "In whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" (Colossians 2). Why hidden? After the resurrection, being questioned by the apostles about the day of judgment, He answered more clearly: "It is not for you to know the times or the moments which the Father has set by His own authority" (Acts 1). When He says, it is not for you to know, He shows that He Himself knows, but it is not expedient for the apostles to know, so that, always uncertain of the coming of the Judge, they may live daily as if they were to be judged that day. Furthermore, the subsequent discourse of the Gospel makes it clear. Also teaching that the Father alone knows, He includes the Son in the Father. For every father’s name is of the son.

Wishing to restrain the disciples from curiosity about the last day and hour, the Lord says that neither the Angels nor the Son know of this. If He had said, "I know, but I do not wish to reveal it to you," then He would have grieved them. But now, when He says that neither the Angels nor I know, He acts most wisely and completely restrains them from the desire to know and to pester Him. You can understand this from an example. Small children, seeing something in their fathers' hands, often ask them for it, and if the fathers do not wish to give it, the children, not receiving what they ask for, begin to cry. In such a case, fathers usually hide the thing held in their hands and, showing the children their empty hands, restrain them from tears. So also the Lord, dealing with the apostles as with children, hid the last day from them. Otherwise, if He had said, "I know, but I will not tell you," they would have been grieved that He did not wish to tell them. But that the Lord knows about the last day and hour is obvious, for He Himself created the ages. How then could He not know what He Himself created?

The Lord wishing to prevent His disciples from asking about that day and hour, says, But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. For if He had said, I know, but I will not reveal it to you, He would have saddened them not a little; but He acted more wisely, and prevents their asking such a question, lest they should importune Him, by saying, neither the Angels nor I.

Jesus predicts the destruction of the temple, Mar 13:1, Mar 13:2. His disciples inquire when this shall be, and what previous sign there shall be of this calamity, Mar 13:3, Mar 13:4; which questions he answers very solemnly and minutely, vv. 5-27; illustrates the whole by a parable, Mar 13:28, Mar 13:29; asserts the absolute certainty of the events, Mar 13:30, Mar 13:31; shows that the precise minute cannot be known by man, Mar 13:32; and inculcates the necessity of watchfulness and prayer, Mar 13:33-37.

Neither the Son - This clause is not found either in Matthew or Luke; and Ambrose says it was wanting in some Greek copies in his time. To me it is utterly unaccountable, how Jesus, who knew so correctly all the particulars which he here lays down, and which were to a jot and tittle verified by the event - how he who knew that not one stone should be left on another, should be ignorant of the day and hour when this should be done, though Daniel, Dan 9:24, etc., could fix the very year, not less than five hundred years before it happened: how he in whom the fullness of the Godhead dwelt bodily, and all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, should not know this small matter, I cannot comprehend, but on this ground, that the Deity which dwelt in the man Christ Jesus might, at one time, communicate less of the knowledge of futurity to him than at another. However, I strongly suspect that the clause was not originally in this Gospel. Its not being found in the parallel places in the other evangelists is, in my opinion, a strong presumption against it. But Dr. Macknight, and others, solve this difficulty in the following manner. They suppose the verb οιδεν to have the force of the Hebrew conjugation Hiphel, in which verbs are taken in a causative, declarative, or permissive sense; and that it means here, make known, or promulge, as it is to be understood in Co1 2:2. This intimates that this secret was not to be made known, either by men or angels, no, not even by the Son of man himself; but it should be made known by the Father only, in the execution of the purposes of his justice. I am afraid this only cuts the knot, but does not untie it.

THE CONSPIRACY OF THE JEWISH AUTHORITIES TO PUT JESUS TO DEATH--THE SUPPER AND THE--ANOINTING AT BETHANY--JUDAS AGREES WITH THE CHIEF PRIESTS TO BETRAY HIS LORD. ( = Mat. 26:1-16; Luk 22:1-6; Joh 12:1-11). (Mar 14:1-11) After two days was the feast of the passover, and of unleavened bread--The meaning is, that two days after what is about to be mentioned the passover would arrive; in other words, what follows occurred two days before the feast. and the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might take him by craft, and put him to death--From Matthew's fuller account (Mat. 26:1-75) we learn that our Lord announced this to the Twelve as follows, being the first announcement to them of the precise time: "And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished all these sayings" (Mat 26:1) --referring to the contents of Mat. 24:1-25:46, which He delivered to His disciples; His public ministry being now closed: from His prophetical He is now passing into His priestly office, although all along He Himself took our infirmities and bare our sicknesses--"He said unto His disciples, Ye know that after two days is [the feast of] the passover, and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified." The first and the last steps of His final sufferings are brought together in this brief announcement of all that was to take place. The passover was the first and the chief of the three great annual festivals, commemorative of the redemption of God's people from Egypt, through the sprinkling of the blood of a lamb divinely appointed to be slain for that end; the destroying angel, "when he saw the blood, passing over" the Israelitish houses, on which that blood was seen, when he came to destroy all the first-born in the land of Egypt (Exo 12:12-13) --bright typical foreshadowing of the great Sacrifice, and the Redemption effected thereby. Accordingly, "by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, who is wonderful in counsel and excellent in working," it was so ordered that precisely at the passover season, "Christ our Passover should be sacrificed for us." On the day following the passover commenced "the feast of unleavened bread," so called because for seven days only unleavened bread was to be eaten (Exo 12:18-20). See on Co1 5:6-8. We are further told by Matthew (Mat 26:3) that the consultation was held in the palace of Caiaphas the high priest, between the chief priests, [the scribes], and the elders of the people, how "they might take Jesus by subtlety and kill Him."

But of that day and that hour--that is, the precise time. knoweth no man--literally, no one. no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father--This very remarkable statement regarding "the Son" is peculiar to Mark. Whether it means that the Son was not at that time in possession of the knowledge referred to, or simply that it was not among the things which He had received to communicate--has been matter of much controversy even among the firmest believers in the proper Divinity of Christ. In the latter sense it was taken by some of the most eminent of the ancient Fathers, and by LUTHER, MELANCTHON, and most of the older Lutherans; and it is so taken by BENGEL, LANGE, WEBSTER and WILKINSON, CHRYSOSTOM and others understood it to mean that as man our Lord was ignorant of this. It is taken literally by CALVIN, GROTIUS, DE WETTE, MEYER, FRITZSCHE, STIER, ALFORD, and ALEXANDER.