Mark 5

CHAPTER V

Mark 5:1

1 And they came to the other side into the country of the Gerasenes.

Mark speaks of Jesus and his disciples when he says “they came”; the men in the other boats (4:36) are no longer in the story. The phrase εἰςτὸπέραν is the same as that occurring in 4:35. Matthew calls the locality “the country of the Gadarenes,” he names it after the main city Gadara. The readings in the three synoptists vary between Gadarenes, Gerasenes, and Gergesenes. While Gadarenes seems assured as the reading in Matthew, in Mark the textual evidence would point to Gerasenes as the proper reading. The matter belongs to the text critics and the geographers.

In Mark the locality would be named after the famous city Gerasa, which was better known to Gentile readers than Gadara. Mark would thus name the general locality and include that section which is named from Gadara. The distance of either Gadara or Gerasa from the lake is immaterial for the narrative since this speaks of the region near the lake and not of the vicinity of either of the cities.

Mark 5:2

2 And he having gone out of the boat, there met him immediately out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit, who had his dwelling in the tombs. And no one yet was able to bind him with a chain on account of his having often been bound with fetters and chains, and the chains having been broken by him and the fetters torn to pieces; and no one had strength to tame him. And always by night and day in the tombs in the mountains he was yelling and cutting himself with stones.

Matthew reports that there were two demoniacs, but Mark and Luke do not say that there was only one, hence a contradiction in the accounts is excluded. One of the two was evidently the leader and spokesman, the other only his companion. These demoniacs met Jesus on the shore of the lake, not far from the water. Ἐνπνεύματι is explained by ἔχωνδαιμόνια in Luke 8:27; but ἐν itself means that the man was “in connection with” the unclean spirit; compare 1:23. The descriptions found in Matthew and in Luke are much briefer although they are to the same effect as the full record of Mark. On the question of demoniacal possession see 1:23.

Mark 5:3

3 The tombs were chambers that had been hewn into the rock walls of the cliffs some little distance from the lake and from the road that ran back from the shore. Some of these old tombs may have been abandoned, thus affording dens in which these demoniacs established themselves. In these unclean places of the dead these men, who were possessed by unclean spirits, made their habitation. Matthew states that their ferocity was so great that they rendered the road unsafe by rushing out with wild cries and horrible threats upon any that tried to pass. Luke adds the detail that they ran about naked. This is another instance in which the synoptists, while telling the same story, proceed with the most evident independence, none borrowing from the other, and no prior document serving as their source.

Note the imperfects εἶχε and ἠδύνατο with their durative sense. Attempts had been made to chain these dangerous demoniacs, δῆσαι, to bind them permanently, but no one (οὐκέτι) had as yet succeeded. Note the three negatives in the Greek, each strengthening the others.

Mark 5:4

4 The demoniacs had, indeed, been bound, and that often, not only with chains, but also with other fetters, but the chains had invariably been broken and the fetters rent in pieces. This was supernatural strength of the most astonishing kind. Note the construction διὰτό with perfect infinitives which indicate what had happened in the past and was thus true in the present. R. 1071 has διά express, not the evidence, but the reason; but R. 966 asks why the preposition does not express both. It certainly does. Πέδαις and ἁλύσεσι are datives of means, R. 533; and διασπάω means to draw in two and thus to break. Thus, Mark adds, no one had strength (ἴσχυε, imperfect) to tame them (δαμάσαι, aorist, actually to tame them). So these demoniacs were free and roamed at will; human power was unable to do anything to control them.

Mark 5:5

5 They roamed about constantly (διαπαντός), during the night as well as during the day (the genitives express time within, accusatives would mean all night and all day long). They were sometimes in their tombs, sometimes roamed in the mountains. The periphrastic ἦνκράζωνκαίκατακόπτων describes what they did constantly, yelling and cutting themselves with stones, striking terror into any that came near them, and wounding their own bodies. The latter is significant, for these demons always injured the persons whom they possessed.

Mark 5:6

6 And having seen Jesus from afar, he ran and made obeisance to him, and, yelling with a loud voice, he says, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, Son of God the Highest? I adjure thee by God that thou torment me not!

We might expect that the moment the demoniac saw Jesus from a distance the demon would have compelled him to run away with all his might and to hide from Jesus. Why does the opposite take place? Why is the man drawn to Jesus as by a magnet? He actually ran to Jesus and in Oriental fashion prostrated himself before him. It seems as though the will and the power of Jesus drew the demoniac to his feet. The words of the demon accord with this involuntary approach to Jesus, the supreme master of the demon world whose will and word the demons must obey. The obeisance is, of course, not “worship” (our versions) in the sense of adoration but mere prostration that is necessitated by the power of a Superior.

Mark 5:7

7 The aorist participle κράξας expresses time that is simultaneous with that of the narrative λέγει. The unnaturalness of thus yelling with all his might at Jesus while he is bowing before him reveals the ugliness and the viciousness of the demons that are controlling the man. Compare the demon’s action in 1:23, etc., who also yelled with a loud voice. The question τίἐμοὶκαὶσοί; is idiomatic, literally: “What is there for me and for thee?” It is here to be taken in the sense: “Do thou leave me alone!” In 1:23, etc., the one demon speaks for all; here the legion of demons speaks as one. In John 2:4 this idiom is used by Jesus in putting off an implied request while it is here used to ward off hostile action from Jesus, B.-P., 335, under ἐγώ.

The astounding thing is that the demons openly display their supernatural knowledge. The demoniac had never seen Jesus, yet the demons in him call Jesus by his name. The spirits always know who Jesus is and in a malicious fashion yell out their mysterious knowledge. So the demon voice shouts: “Son of God the Highest.” The demons are determined to publish the deity of Jesus as if to spite him who wanted men to arrive at this knowledge by faith in his words and his works. Jesus usually silences them at once. Those who deny the possibility of demoniacal possession resort to radical means to explain these facts.

In the second place the demons know what the coming and the presence of Jesus mean for them, namely that “he might destroy the works of the devil,” 1 John 3:8. Luke has the milder expression that the demon begged Jesus not to torment him; Matthew adds “ahead of the time,” and Luke supplies the detail that the demons entreated Jesus not to send them into the abyss, i.e., already now, before the final judgment. Mark makes the entreaty an adjuration: “I adjure thee by God that thou torment me not,” i.e., by now sending me into the abyss. Ὁρκίζω is regularly construed with two accusatives. The demons recognize and openly acknowledge the absolute power of Jesus over them. That is why they obey every command of his without the slightest resistance.

Mark 5:8

8 For he went on to say to him, Come forth, unclean spirit, out of the man!

There is a question regarding the imperfect tense ἔλεγε and the force of γάρ. This particle explains the adjuration of the demon, and that implies that Jesus had already ordered the demon to leave his victim. Note that the imperfects continue in the next verses. They are, of course, descriptive, but they are more. These imperfects are open tenses, they intimate that something final is to follow. We see what follows in the aorists that occur in v. 12, 13.

Mark 5:9

9 And he went on to question him, What is thy name? And he says to him, Legion is my name because we are many.

We could not construe “he went on to say to him” to be followed at once by “he went on to question him” if the command and the question were uttered in the same breath. The demon’s words recorded in v. 7 were spoken between these two statements. As far as the peremptory aorist ἔξελθε, “come forth,” is concerned, this was effective, and the spirit had to leave; but ἔλεγε and the following imperfects show that in this case the coming forth was not all that Jesus had in mind. For one thing, Jesus wants his disciples and the men from the other boats to know that he is dealing, not with one demon only, but with a host of them. That is why Jesus asks about the name. The datives σοι and that in the answer, μοι, are idiomatic: “What name to?” The evil spirit’s name is “legion” because all these other spirits were associated with him.

This one spirit did the speaking, and he alone had the name “legion” for the reason stated. We know regarding Mary Magdalene that Jesus freed her from seven devils (16:9; Luke 8:2); and Jesus tells of a devil’s returning with seven others who are worse than himself in order to possess a man (Matt. 12:43, etc.; Luke 11:24, etc). The astounding thing is that these two demoniacs were possessed by so many demons that their leader was called legion. A Roman legion consisted of over 6, 000 men. In metaphorical use the word refers to a large number whether that is exactly 6, 000 or not.

Mark 5:10

10 And he went on to beseech him earnestly not to send them away out of the country. Now there was there over against the mountain a great herd of swine feeding. And they entreated him, saying, Send us into the swine that we may go into them!

The moment the number of the demons is revealed their spokesman begs Jesus most fervently (πολλά, “many” or “much,” used adverbially) not to order them away out of the country. We regard ἵνα as sub-final, as introducing the entreaty that was made. “Out of the country” is explained by Luke’s “into the abyss.” The idea expressed is not that the demons wanted to stay in this particular country of the Gerasenes and not in some other country. For what difference would there be between one country and another? Why would Jesus order them from one territory to another? The demons feared to be sent out of the country in the sense of being ordered to enter the abyss and to stay there now, before the final judgment (Matt. 8:29). The imperfect παρεκάλει holds us in suspense as to the outcome of this entreaty.

Mark 5:11

11 The δέ indicates a parenthetical remark, something that is necessary in order to understand what follows, the presence of a great herd of swine near the mountain, πρός in the sense of “near,” “facing” (R. 624), or “over against.”

It is hasty to assume that the country was altogether Gentile, and that the owners of the hogs were pagan. The eastern shore of the lake was in the tetrarchy of Philip and was a part of the Jewish land; Jesus, who confined himself to his own people, traveled as far north as Cæsarea Philippi in this tetrarchy. He was thus on Jewish territory when he was in the land of the Gerasenes. It would have been strange if the Jews, who were scattered over the entire Roman empire at this time, should not have been found in Philip’s tetrarchy, especially on the shore of the lake opposite the populous Jewish cities on the other side. All the evidence is to the effect that the owners of these hogs, like the two demoniacs, were Jews.

Mark 5:12

12 Having this information about the swine, we understand what follows. But note that Mark now writes the aorist παρεκάλεσαν, which indicates that the matter comes to a close. Moreover, Mark now uses the plural to designate all the demons whereas up to this point he had used the singular to indicate the spokesman of these demons. Why should demons wish to enter swine? We can say only this, that according to the law which God gave the Jews swine were unclean, and these spirits were also morally and spiritually unclean and were thus in affinity with the unclean swine. Beyond this we can say nothing.

The demons did not remain in the swine—where did they go after drowning the swine? As far as the demon world is concerned, we must not expect to know too much. Moreover, devilish actions are always more or less irrational—we see this already in men—and are thus beyond the domain of proper reason.

Mark 5:13

13 And he permitted them. And the unclean spirits, having gone out, went into the swine; and the herd rushed down the steep bank into the sea, about two thousand, and they were choked in the sea.

Matthew records the word of permission: “Be off!” Swine were an illegal possession for Jews; their destruction through the permission of Jesus was therefore the execution of God’s law. The fact that devils were used in this instance is quite in accord with God’s practice, for he uses devils to punish the wicked, and sin and crime to do away with sinners in judgment. The fact that these devils destroyed the swine is in harmony with their nature; nor can we suppose that they would be content to make their abode in brutes. All the evangelists say that the demons actually entered into the swine. They were first feeding peacefully and then suddenly went into a frenzied rush down the declivity and on into the sea and were drowned; the imperfect pictures how one after another perished. Mark alone states that the number was about two thousand.

While this is graphic it is more. The owners made an extensive business of raising hogs. Their transgression was flagrant and on a grand scale, a fact that all the more called for God’s judgment.

If these swine were owned by Gentiles, we should be left without an adequate explanation for their destruction. Those who think of Gentile ownership have a moral problem on their hands in regard to Jesus. This problem is not removed by saying that the demons were ordered merely to leave the men, and that their entering the swine was their own act; for this contradicts the records that the demons asked Jesus to enter the swine, and that he gave them permission. Equally unsatisfactory is the idea that when the swine felt the touch of the demons, they reacted of their own volition by rushing into the sea. The demons deliberately drove the swine into the sea. We may agree that Jesus desired this action of the demons and this fate of the swine because it afforded an ocular demonstration of the greatness of the deliverance of the two men—even a host of demons had to obey his word. The view that the demons went out of the men in a violent paroxysm is nowhere indicated in the text and is introduced from other accounts about the expulsion of demons.

Mark 5:14

14 And those feeding them fled and made report to the town and to the farms. And they came to see what it was that had occurred. And they come to Jesus and view the demoniac, sitting, having been clothed, and being in his right mind, him who has had the legion; and they were afraid.

The reason for the flight of the herdsmen is their consternation at seeing the swine rush into the sea. To speak of terror because of the magic power of Jesus is to slander Jesus. He never acted as a sorcerer, and no man ever thought him a magician. These herdsmen were responsible for the swine, and this fact lent speed to their feet. They hurried to make a report so that they would not be blamed for the loss of the swine.

The city referred to must have been a small place that was situated not far from the lake. The ἀγροί, “fields,” are farms (this is the sense of the plural). Some of the owners of the swine lived in town, some on farms. But ἧλθον, “they came to see,” etc., with its unexpressed subject, refers to the people of the town and country generally. Excitement filled them all—the thing the herdsmen reported seemed incredible. So they hurried out “to see (aorist, actually see) what it was (the Greek keeps the tense of the direct discourse in the indirect) that had occurred (Greek: has occurred).”

Mark 5:15

15 Mark now writes in vivid narrative present tenses. He wants us to see how the people come to Jesus, and how they stand and view everything, in particular the demoniac (Mark and Luke say nothing about the second one) whom they all knew so well. They see him “sitting down” in all quietness beside Jesus. They see him “having been clothed with a robe” and thus now wearing this robe (perfect participle), Mark indicating that the man had roamed about naked. They see him “now in his right mind” (present participle), literally, “self-controlled,” no longer raging and yelling in demoniacal possession.

To heighten the contrast between what the man now is and what he once was Mark adds: “him who has had the legion,” ἐσχηκότα, a kind of past perfect since the man no longer has the demons, R. 1117. We see that Mark is at pains to paint fully the blessed change that has taken place in the man, and his purpose is to make us feel the abnormality of the action of the people in this town and neighborhood who could see this blessed work of Jesus and yet ask him to leave. Mark adds that already what they thus viewed and took in with their eyes made them afraid, the aorist stating the fact in which the descriptive tenses culminated. “They did fear” is to be connected with what they now saw in the delivered demoniac. Instead of being drawn to Jesus they shrank from him. They were blind to his mercy, they feared only his power. This reaction was wholly abnormal and unreasonable as all the reactions of unbelief are.

Mark 5:16

16 And they that saw it described to them how it went with the demoniac and concerning the swine. And they began to beseech him to go away from their borders.

In addition to the report already made (v. 14) by the herdsmen the people now hear a detailed description of what had happened, and they hear it right here on the actual scene from those who saw it, the disciples and the men who had come in the other boats (4:36). “How it went with the demoniac,” a complete clause, is set against the mere phrase “and concerning the swine.” The man is more important than the swine. R. 1032 states that πῶς encroaches on ὅτι. The point of this verse is to show how the people of the locality were fully informed by incontestable eyewitness. They did not act on half-knowledge or in ignorance. The herdsmen might prevaricate and try to shield themselves, but not these others, οἱἰδόντες, who had no interest except to tell the exact truth.

Mark 5:17

17 It should be noted at this point that, although the swine have just been mentioned again, none of their owners venture to blame Jesus for their destruction. This again shows that the owners must have been Jews. Pagans could not but have blamed Jesus severely. “They began to beseech him to leave” sounds as if some started to ask this, and others then joined in. They did not want Jesus anywhere in their borders. The freeing of the demoniacs meant nothing to these people; they regretted the loss of the swine. Any further deliverances of poor human sufferers at such a cost of material values, even if they were owned in contravention of the divine law, seemed to them to be paid for at too great a price. Some people themselves left Jesus, but here Jesus himself was asked to leave.

Mark 5:18

18 And while he was going into the boat, he who had been possessed beseeches him to be in his company. And he did not let him but says to him, Depart to thy house unto thy relatives and report to them what great things the Lord has done for thee and did have mercy on thee. And he went away and began to herald in the Decapolis what great things Jesus did for him; and all were marvelling.

Jesus thrusts himself on no one! He leaves at once. The present participle ἐμβαίνοντος states that, when he was in the act of embarking, the man who had been possessed requested to be allowed to remain in his company (μετʼ αὐτοῦ). Mark now calls him ὁδαιμονισθείς and uses the aorist participle to designate the mere act of possession whereas before he had used the present participle ὁδαιμονιζόμενος to express the continuous condition of being possessed. The man could be described in either manner after his deliverance, R. 1117. We see how he clung to his mighty deliverer.

Mark 5:19

19 This is a case where Jesus does not command silence on the part of the person whom he had delivered but orders the man to herald and publish what the Lord (namely God) had done for him. The present imperative ὕπαγε bids the man to be on his way, and the aorist imperative ἀπάγγειλον bids him to report in a complete way the miracle he had experienced. “To thy house unto thy relatives,” πρὸςτοὺςσούς, “unto thine own,” is not restrictive, “only unto thine own”; and πρός has in it something intimate and almost personal, R. 624. What reason would Jesus have for such a severe restriction? He himself was ordered to leave, but so great is his saving love that, while he is constrained to leave, he appoints a preacher who shall remain and be his substitute. He therefore gives the man the message he is to proclaim; he is to report “what great things (ὅσα) the Lord has done for thee and did have mercy on thee,” literally, “did mercy thee.”

ὉΚύριος is Yahweh, the Old Testament name for the covenant God. The Jews would understand that name, it would have to be explained to pagans. The man himself and all who hear his message are to know that Jehovah has come into their land and has done this great deed through his servant Jesus. Not too much is imposed upon this inexperienced preacher and yet enough to stir the hearts of all who may hear him and to move them to find out more about Jesus. The difference in tenses between πεποίηκε and ἠλέησε is undoubtedly intentional: by one act of mercy (aorist) the Lord did something permanent (perfect) for this man.

Mark 5:20

20 The man did what Jesus told him to do. He went away and began to herald abroad “what great things Jesus did for him.” The substitution of “Jesus” for “the Lord” is not identification, nor is it substitution. The man felt that by praising Jesus he was praising the Lord. “He began” is punctiliar, and “to herald” is durative—the proclamation went on and on, how long is left unsaid. “In the Decapolis” means in the region of the Ten Cities after which this territory was called which was located southeast of the lake.

It is often supposed that the man exceeded the commission he had received from Jesus when he extended his proclamation of the miracle so far. We should rather say that he interpreted his commission quite correctly. Surely, Jesus did not intend that he was to tell only his own relatives. He was to begin with them; how far he was to extend his proclamation is nowhere indicated—let him go as far as he is able. If his relatives needed to know, many others were like them in this respect. Jesus thus left a diligent preacher behind.

“And all were marvelling” summarizes the effect briefly. The imperfect ἐθαύμαζον matches the durative κηρύσσειν. This verb “to marvel” is often used when the effect falls short of actual faith, and we take it in this sense here. But this does not mean that the effect was negligible, for why, then, should Jesus have sent the man out? The effect was preparatory, for this preacher could report little more than the miracle. In due time the Decapolis, too, would get to hear more and be able to arrive at more than marvelling.

Mark 5:21

21 And Jesus having crossed over again in the boat to the other side, there was assembled a great multitude unto him; and he was by the sea.

Jesus came back to Capernaum on the same day on which he had delivered the two demoniacs in the country of the Gerasenes. He used the same boat as the article indicates. But we should not suppose that the great multitude gathered at once when he landed at Capernaum. For why should Mark add that Jesus was now by the sea? Where else could he have landed except on the shore at the water’s edge. We see that Mark merely sketches the circumstances.

From Matt. 9:1, etc., we learn that after landing Jesus went home, healed the paralytic, called Matthew, dined at Matthew’s house, and on leaving that house cleared up some matters. Now Matthew’s house was by the seaside, which explains Mark’s mention of his being “by the sea.” Here the crowd was gathered when Jesus left the house. All that intervened between the landing of Jesus and the coming of Jairus, Mark has narrated in 2:1–22, much as Matthew has. The evangelist John, as his pupil Papias reports, stated that Mark did not follow the τάξις or chronological order of events; this is another plain instance in which that statement is verified.

Mark 5:22

22 And there comes one of the synagogue rulers by name Jairus and, having seen him, falls at his feet and beseeches him earnestly, saying, My little daughter is at her last. Having come, place the hands upon her in order that she may be saved and live! And he went away with him; and there was following him a great multitude, and they were pressing him on all sides.

From Matthew we learn that Jairus arrived while Jesus was still speaking to those who had questioned him after he left Matthew’s feast. The narrative is told vividly in present tenses. “One of the synagogue rulers” is one of the elders, a group of whom managed the services and other affairs of the synagogue. We may have either the nominative absolute ὄνομα with a name or, as here, the dative ὀνόματι, “by name Jairus.” Everything in the narrative points to the prominence of the man. He comes in haste, and the moment he sees Jesus he falls prostrate at his feet. This was, of course, Oriental demonstrativeness, but in the case of Jairus, who was weighted down with fears for his daughter’s life, the prostration was entirely natural—Jairus acted as he felt.

Mark 5:23

23 Παρακαλεῖπολλά (compare v. 10) uses the neuter accusative adverbially: “he beseeches him much,” i. e., earnestly. Jairus first states his trouble. “My little daughter (the diminutive is an expression of tender affection) is at her last,” i. e., on the point of death. The verb ἔχειν with an adverb is translated “to be,” and regarding this idiomatic intransitive use R. 546 remarks that “one must be willing for the Greek to have his standpoint.”

There is much difference of opinion regarding the first ἵνα. Even R. 994 calls it an “elliptical” imperative, and many supply something on which this ἵνα may depend. Nothing is to be supplied; ἵνα depends on nothing; R. 933 is right, ἵνα is merely an introductory expletive, and what it introduces is imperative in sense, R. 943. We, therefore, do not translate this idiomatic ἵνα, we translate only the imperative sense: “Having come, place the hands upon her!” This is the imperative of prayer. We cannot make an issue of the request that Jesus lay his hands on the dying girl, for all that Jairus asks is that Jesus do what he so often did: touch the person to be healed.

The second ἵνα is the ordinary conjunction to introduce purpose: “in order that she may be saved and live.” The passive σωθῇ means “saved” through the intervention of Jesus, and this verb always combines the idea of rescue and the idea of being placed permanently into the condition of safety. The ζήσῃ states what this condition is, the present tense implies that she may go on living. Some texts have the future indicative instead of the present subjunctive; this is quite proper in the Koine, especially when a second verb follows ἵνα. Jairus is pleading for the life of his dear child. Luke supplies the detail that this was an only child who was about twelve years old.

Mark 5:24

24 Jesus accedes to the petition of Jairus. The faith which the man displayed in hurrying to Jesus will be tried most severely as the sequel shows. All medical help had failed; the child was sinking away in death, and even the time needed to bring Jesus to her bedside might be too long to enable him to reach her while she was still alive. Jesus could not go rapidly enough for the anxiety of Jairus. The multitude that had gathered at the house of Matthew was following, curious to see what would happen, and the crowd was not considerate, for it kept pressing him on all sides (this is the force of σύα in the verb). This point is mentioned because of the action that now intervenes.

Mark 5:25

25 And a woman being with an issue of blood for twelve years and suffering much by many physicians and having spent everything from her own means and having in no way been benefited but rather having come to worse, after having heard the things concerning Jesus, after having come in the crowd from behind, touched his garment.

Mark’s description is most elaborate and remarkable in its use of no less than seven participles, the first five of which are attributive and describe the woman herself, and the last two predicative and describe her action in touching Jesus’ garment. Eusebius calls her Veronica, a heathen from Paneas; the Acts of Pilate call her Bernice. We believe neither, least of all that she was a heathen. “Being with an issue of blood for twelve years” (accusative to indicate extent of time) states and yet veils the woman’s ailment; it is useless to guess just what it was. The woman herself was ashamed to expose her case, her ailment also rendered her Levitically unclean.

Mark 5:26

26 A second present participle states that she suffered much from many doctors all along. Although παθοῦσα is active it is construed like a passive with ὑπό of the agent, not because of the voice, but because of the sense of πάσχω. Mark wants us to know that these wise doctors bungled the poor woman’s case thoroughly. To suffer by physicians is ironical; if all they can do is to make the patient suffer, we had better dispense with their services.

After two present participles, which describe how the woman’s condition continued up to the present time, we have three aorist participles to describe finished effects. She had spent all her means, τὰπαρʼ ἑαυτῆςπάντα, “everything (coming) from herself (in the way of means).” This money was wasted. She had been benefited in no respect (μηδέν) i. e., by the doctors, she had actually come to what was worse (εἰςτὸχεῖρον). This was, indeed, a notable case—all these years of human effort, not only affording no help, but even adding to the patient’s distress.

Mark 5:27

27 The two aorist participles that follow are predicative and state actions that preceded the main verb. The poor woman had heard “the things concerning Jesus,” especially the reports concerning his miracles. These had impressed her to such an extent that, despairing of all human help, she had come here this day “in the crowd” (where she thought she would be unnoticed) “from behind” (where even Jesus, she thought, would never notice her). Her motive was not to steal healing but to keep her ailment hidden. If she had come to Jesus openly as Jairus did, like him, she would have felt that she must tell what her disease was.

In spite of the crowd the woman succeeded in getting close enough to Jesus to touch his garment. Matthew, in spite of all his brevity, adds to Mark’s account by telling us what part of the garment the woman touched. Like all true Jews, Jesus wore the shimla, a large, square cloth that was used as an outer robe (ἱμάτιον) and had tassels (tsisith, κράσπεδον) at the four corners according to the requirement stated in Deut. 22:12. The tassels were attached to blue cords, and the Pharisees loved to make these tassels large and prominent in order to display their compliance with the law. Two of the corners of the shimla were thrown back over the shoulder so that two of the tassels hung down behind. One of these, Matthew tells us, the woman touched.

Mark 5:28

28 For she kept saying, If I touch at least his robes I shall be saved. And immediately the spring of her blood was dried up, and she realized in her body that she had been healed of her scourge.

The reason she touched Jesus is stated by γάρ, her strong faith in Jesus that even by only touching his robes she would be healed. “Kept saying” describes how the woman had repeated what she said ever since she heard the things concerning Jesus. In κἄν we have a particle that means “even,” R. 1018, footnote; we do not regard κἄν as repeating ἐάν but translate it according to the connection, “if only” or “at least,” R. 1025. The verb σωθήσομαι means, “I shall be restored.”

Mark 5:29

29 The woman’s faith was absolutely justified. The objective fact is first stated: “on the instant dried up was the spring of her blood.” The verb has the emphasis; what had kept flowing like a spring and no man had been able to stanch had now disappeared, dried up as if it had never oozed blood. Secondly we have the subjective realization: “realize did she regarding her body that she had been healed from her scourge.” In both statements the aorists record the facts. The second verb, ἔγνω, is as strong as the first, ἐξηράνθη. The woman’s ailment was covered up, hence we have the statement that she realized in her body the miracle that had occurred. All editors accent the first syllable ἴαται, which makes this the perfect tense, and not ἰᾶται, the present. She said: “I have been healed”; the Greek retains the perfect when the thought is made indirect while we change to the past perfect. “Scourge” is the word, not merely “plague” (our versions), which brings out fully what the woman had suffered all these years (see 3:10).

Mark 5:30

30 And immediately Jesus, having realized in himself the power that went out of him, having turned in the crowd, began to say, Who touched my robes? And his disciples went on to say to him, Thou seest the multitude pressing thee on all sides, and sayest thou, Who touched me?

The woman was not healed without the knowledge of Jesus, and this means also, not without his will. Many touched the garments of Jesus, and no power went out from him to them. They had no desire or purpose in touching him, but this woman came purposely and touched him with her faith. To that touch Jesus responded by letting his power go out to heal her.

To say that this outgo of power from Jesus was without conscious volition on his part is to misconceive the entire operation of this power. It is always under the control of Jesus’ conscious will. To think of a somatic mediation of this power, to think that it required physical contact with Jesus, for instance, the touch of his hand, makes Jesus a magnetic medium or a magician. Jesus healed many without a touch, some even at a distance. Touch of hand or of garment is symbolic, an aid to faith and nothing more. The miracles were wrought by Jesus’ almighty will. The instant the woman touched Jesus he knew it, knew her ailment, willed her healing, and thus realized in himself (2:8, “in his spirit”) the power that went out of him to work this miracle.

This means that his action in making the woman reveal herself is taken for the sake of the woman herself and thus also for the sake of the people who were thronging around him. The miracles were performed for publicity, not for secrecy. When Jesus forbade certain persons whom he had healed to go and publish the fact, this was done because these persons were not qualified for this task. Jesus sometimes gave this order when he healed in the presence of a multitude; note Matt. 8:1, 4 where the reason for the silence was the fact that the priests should be kept in ignorance of the miracle until after they had pronounced the leper clean; also Matt. 9:30 where the reason was the one stated above; likewise Mark 5:43.

The miracle performed upon the woman is to be revealed. She had touched Jesus secretly. Jesus does not want her ever to feel that she had done anything improper in securing her healing thus. It involved more than the woman at first thought when she was required to appear openly as one whom the power of Jesus had healed. She was not to harbor superstitious ideas concerning the way in which she had secured her healing. Finally, she was to understand that there was nothing to be ashamed of or to hide in regard to her ailment and its miraculous removal.

Mark 5:31

31 So Jesus turns around in the throng and asks who touched him. The disciples, with Peter as their spokesman (Luke), remind him that the crowd is pressing upon him on all sides, and that many are inadvertently touching him. How, then, can he say: “Who touched me?” βλέπεις is construed in regular fashion with a direct object, τὸνὄκλον, which is modified by a present participle, συνθλίβοντάσε. According to Luke, Jesus insists that somebody had touched him, not in the ordinary way, but so that power went out from him. All are to understand that Jesus is speaking of no common touch.

Mark 5:32

32 And he was looking around to see her that had done this, not indefinitely: who had done this. Jesus knew who the woman was. Whereas the imperfect “he was looking around” described his action, the aorist ἰδεῖν intimates that his eyes all at once rested upon the woman. She had not been able to slip away.

Mark 5:33

33 But the woman, becoming afraid and trembling since knowing what had occurred to her, came and fell down before him and told him all the truth.

Mark often brings out emotions and their manifestation. The aorist participle φοβηθεῖσα states how fear set in (R. 858, ingressive); the present participle τρέμουσα states how trembling went on as the result of the fear; and εἰδυῖα states the cause of both fear and trembling, the woman’s knowing what had happened to her (the perfect γέγονε is retained from the direct discourse).

The idea that the woman was frightened because she had caused Jesus to lose power is ridiculous and is contradicted by the text. The power that goes out to heal is never lessened by going out thus. Even when we exert physical or mental strength, that strength remains what it is. The woman was frightened and trembling because she knew what had occurred to her. She had wanted to keep it secret, for she was ashamed to have it known. That is why she slipped up behind Jesus to touch him and had not come to him openly for help.

But now the poor soul finds herself discovered, and that in the midst of this multitude. That is why she comes with fear and trembling and throws herself down before Jesus and then tells him the whole truth. But while she dreaded this public ordeal, it was a blessed experience for her in spite of her shame and her fear.

Mark 5:34

34 But he said to her, Daughter, thy faith has saved thee. Go in peace and be well from thy scourge!

There is not one word of blame or reproach but only words to cheer and to lift up. The very address “daughter” speaks of loving concern. Many nominatives are used as vocatives, R. 264. When Jesus attributes the woman’s restoration to her faith, i. e., her trust and confidence in Jesus, he does not make her faith the causa efficiens, for this was his own will and power, but only the causa instrumentalis as the ὄργανονληπτικόν, the hand that receives the gift. Jesus himself had inspired that faith (v. 27). This faith wrought the woman’s restoration by moving her to touch Jesus.

The idea that this faith rested only on this physical touch is erroneous; it rested on the person touched. Luther has the correct view: she believes that divine, omnipotent power resides in Jesus; that he can answer the secret, unspoken trust of her heart; that all she needs is the Word and preaching by which he has made himself known and uses the touch only in some way to come into contact with him. Who has seen such wonderful people, this Jairus who trusts that the hand of Jesus touching his child can bring back her life, and this woman who trusts that her touch of his garment will bring her restoration? No wonder that Jesus rewarded such faith.

The perfect σέσωκε reaches back to the instant in which Jesus restored her and includes her continuing restoration. Jesus wants this woman to realize the value of her faith and trust. “Be going in peace” dismisses her, but with the gift of peace. The εἰς means no more than ἐν; in the Koine the two are regularly used with the force of “in” with the idea of sphere. The εἰρήνη is, first of all, the condition of peace in the sense of well-being, when Jesus is our friend, and nothing need disturb us; secondly, the feeling that goes with this condition. The condition remains, the feeling may fluctuate more or less. Peace is the fruit of faith.

When Jesus adds: “Be well from thy scourge!” he seals the restoration he had already bestowed upon the woman with this word of his. She now hears his will from his own lips.

The present imperative ἴσθι is, of course, durative. Freed of her scourge, she is to be ὑγιής, “healthy” and well. She need fear no return of the old ailment. Mark does not record what the woman’s feelings were at this blessed moment. They must have been deepest gratitude and highest joy. Jesus had completed what he could do in this woman’s case, and she departed with more than restored health.

Mark 5:35

35 Jairus is usually pictured as burning with impatience because of the delay caused by the woman. But the records report nothing of this impatience, and the delay caused by the woman took only a few moments at the most. While he was still speaking, they came from the synagogue ruler’s house, saying, Thy daughter did die—why dost thou trouble the Teacher further?

These were either relatives of Jairus or friends who had come to the family in its affliction; they were hardly servants since servants would not likely tell their master what to do. In the phrase “from the synagogue ruler’s” we supply “house,” R. 502. So Jairus had started for Jesus too late. Death outran him and won the race. With crushing force came the news: “Thy daughter did die.” The Greek uses the aorist to express the simple fact; the English would use the perfect tense to indicate something that has just happened: “has died.”

“Why further trouble the Teacher?” reveals what these messengers thought, and the interrogative form of the remark implies that Jairus, no doubt, thought the same way: since the child was dead, Jesus could do nothing. The matter of going to Jesus as a last resort had been discussed before Jairus had left home. All had agreed that Jesus should be called. All, too, in a way at least, believed that Jesus could restore the girl if he could reach her before she passed away. But none of them entertained the thought even for a moment that Jesus could restore the child after she had died. Note the pathetic tone in the question, the sad resignation that gives up in complete hopelessness. Σκύλλω, “to flay,” is greatly softened in its metaphorical use.

Mark 5:36

36 Before Jairus is able to say a word Jesus takes command of the situation. But Jesus, having disregarded the word that was being spoken, says to the synagogue ruler, Have no fear, only continue to believe! And he allowed no one to follow along in company with him except Peter and James and John, the brother of James.

Jesus attends to Jairus first. We see that he understands fully what the announcement of his daughter’s death must do to the heart of the distressed father. He had come to Jesus with faith in his power while his daughter was still alive although she was near death. Now the news of the death would quench what faith Jairus had had. Jesus proceeds to keep that faith alive and fulfills Isa. 42:3 as this is quoted regarding him in Matt. 12:20. He pays no heed to what is being said (λαλούμενον) by the messengers; he acts as if the dread news of death disturbs or stops him in no way. It is his concern that Jairus may not give up under the blow of this message.

Both imperatives are durative presents: “Be not fearing!” i. e., do not give way to fear, let it not take control of your heart. On the contrary: “Only go on believing!” i. e., trusting me and my divine power. It is easier to imagine than to describe the conflict between fear and faith in Jairus’ heart. The masterful attitude of Jesus and his double command (negative and positive in one breath) must have had their effect on the man’s heart. His faith, however slight it might have been, survived in the face of this mighty helper and the implied promise, stupendous though it was, that lay in his commands.

Mark 5:37

37 In a masterful manner Jesus rids himself of the crowd that was surging around him. It had to leave right here and now, and “he did not leave a single one to follow along in company with him” (μετά and σύν in the verb). He sent away even his own disciples, all but three whom he chose as witnesses of what he was about to do. We should not pass over this action without appreciating the authority and the control that were exercised in it. Curiosity to see what Jesus would do about the dead girl must have been tremendously strong, but it had to give way before the orders of Jesus. He perhaps waited right where he stood until all had gone except those who were to go with him.

The three disciples named formed an inner circle among the Twelve. We see this here and in two other instances, at the Transfiguration and in the Garden of Gethsemane. On each occasion these three were chosen as the witnesses—three, because two or three were required by law to establish any fact that might otherwise be questioned. Mark mentions John as being the brother of James in the same way as he did in 3:16.

Mark 5:38

38 And they come to the house of the synagogue ruler, and he beholds a din and people sobbing and wailing greatly. And having gone in, he says to them, Why are you making a din and sobbing? The little child did not die but is sleeping. And they were laughing him to scorn.

After the crowd had gone, Jesus and those whom he had selected arrive at the house of Jairus, and there Jesus beholds a scene. The place is filled with a din, people are sobbing and wailing with unrestrained noise. Matthew mentions the hired flute players, Luke adds the detail that those who were wailing beat their breasts. We should not be surprised at the rapidity with which this demonstration was staged. In the Orient the dead were buried either on the day of death or the next morning. Judging from the time referred to in the present case, the child must have died toward evening and would thus be buried the next morning. So the Jewish mourning had started by the time Jesus arrived.

The wailing women and the flute players were paid professionals, and we may be sure that they staged their best performance for this prominent family and because of the loss of an only child. With hair streaming wildly, beating their breasts violently, these women uttered loud, heart-rending wails and bursts of sobs. The standing of the family called for a goodly number of these women. Rising above their noise, came the piercing sounds of the flutes. Many condoling friends of the family were also no doubt present. The whole house was thus full of commotion and the most disturbing din. And this is what greeted Jesus when he arrived. The custom of this artificial type of mourning extends far back, past even the times of Jeremiah (9:17), and is found among both Jews and pagans.

Mark 5:39

39 Jesus, however, deals with the situation. After entering the house he confronts all the professional mourners and tells them that their demonstration is entirely out of place—this is not a death at all, and they are acting as if it were. These professionals must have been taken aback for a moment but they recovered quickly. The word with which Jesus checked the doleful noise has often been misinterpreted as though the girl had merely lapsed into coma and appeared to be dead while she was still holding to a thread of life. “Did not die” is stressed to deny the actuality of the death, and “sleepeth” is stressed to mean mere sleep. But how did Jesus know about this coma? Was it a mere guess on his part?

He had not as yet seen the child. The people, however, knew better; from their loud wailing they turned to scornful laughter at the word of Jesus, κατεγέλων, sie lachten ihn aus, the imperfect pictures the derisive laughing.

The explanation that Jesus spoke as he did because he wanted to cover up his miracle is unwarranted. He never equivocates or deceives. “Did not die but is sleeping” (note the tenses, punctiliar and then durative) is spoken in view of the omnipotent power and the will of him who changes death into life with a word. The word is true because of him who makes it true. Moreover, what is gained by the rationalistic assumption of a coma? Can human power abolish a coma with a grasp of the hand and a word?

Mark 5:40

40 But he, having put them all out, takes along the father of the little child and the mother and those with him and goes in where the little child was.

Αὐτός makes the subject prominent; Jesus was the one who cleared out the crowd of paid mourners and thus removed the noise. The dignity of Jesus and the miracle he was about to perform demanded proper silence. Mark states whom Jesus took with him into the room where the body lay; “those with him” are the three disciples mentioned in v. 37. That the parents should witness their only child’s return to life was certainly proper and an added kindness on the part of Jesus. Thus all is properly ready for Jesus to proceed.

Mark 5:41

41 And having grasped the hand of the little child, he says to her, Talitha, qumi! which is interpreted, Maiden, I say to thee, arise! And immediately the maiden stood up and started to walk, for she was twelve years old. And they were amazed with a great amazement.

On the touch of Jesus see the remarks on v. 30. Jesus used his hand freely in touching those whom he healed, but he healed many without touching them. Lazarus was raised without this contact. In v. 23 Jairus asked Jesus to place his hands on his daughter, but Jesus did not do this. What he did was to combine his word that was addressed to the dead girl with the appropriate gesture. He grasped her hand as one grasps the hand of the living. It is not said that Jesus raised her up, but this, it seems, is why he took hold of her hand.

Mark preserved the original Aramaic words which Jesus uttered in connection with this miracle, Talitha, qumi, and, of course, translated them into Greek for his Greek readers. The readers are to have the very sound of the spoken words and not merely their meaning. All that Jesus did was to bid the girl arise. In his translation Mark adds, “I say to thee,” which is merely interpretative. On the article with the nominative-vocative see R. 461. Robertson 1215 claims that the aorist imperative ἔγειραι does not appear in the New Testament, and that we should here read the present imperative ἔγειρε, “be arising.” Either could be used; the question is one for the text critics to decide.

Mark 5:42

42 The miraculous effect is recorded in a few words: first the aorist “she stood up” to indicate the one immediate act, then the imperfect “she started to walk” to describe the action that followed. Luke writes: “her spirit did return,” which leaves no shadow of a doubt that the girl had been dead. Life, health, and full strength returned to the lifeless body, and, let us not forget, no trace of the disease that had caused the death remained. Since the child has been called “little daughter” (v. 23), “little child,” “little maid,” all diminutives, we now have the explanation (γάρ) that she was twelve years old. This is done in order to avoid any misunderstanding. The effect of the miracle produced on the five witnesses, the parents and the three disciples, is described in strong language: “they were amazed at once with great amazement,” the verb and the noun double the idea of amazement.

With a word Jesus robbed death of its prey. With a word he put life where death had been. Taking this in addition to the other miracles, the deity of Jesus shines out brilliantly.

Mark 5:43

43 And he charged them much that no man know this; and he said that it be given her to eat.

According to Luke the command to tell no one applied especially to the parents. The miracle itself could not, of course, remain unknown; for as the girl’s death was known to many, so her appearing alive would be known likewise and reveal that Jesus had restored her to life. That was enough for Jesus in this case. He did not want the girl’s parents to act as heralds of the miracle and therefore bound them to silence. The ἵνα clause is subfinal and states what Jesus ordered; we may read either γνοῖ (R. 1214) or γνῷ; both are subjunctive but contracted differently.

During the illness that had brought on the death the girl had remained without food. Now that she was alive and well she needed food. Because of the amazement at her restoration the parents might forget this, wherefore Jesus gives orders “that it be given her to eat,” he uses the impersonal construction with the passive infinitive δοθῆναι (R. 1085), the aorist φαγεῖν means actual eating. Mark and Luke furnish an example of the tender thoughtfulness of Jesus. Despite all his mighty power to rob death of this tender victim Jesus is not too great to think of this ordinary need of food. It is a tender and a lovely touch in the narrative. To say that the girl’s eating was to prove to the parents that she was fully restored is to view the miracle in a rather superficial manner.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.

B.-P. Griechisch-Deutsches Woerterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments, etc., von D. Walter Bauer, zweite, etc., Auflage zu Erwin Preuschens Vollstaendigem Griechisch-Deutschen Handwoerterbuch, etc.