Mark 8:26

8:26 The story ends with Jesus telling the healed man to keep the event a secret (see 3:11-12).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Mar 8:26. Εἰς τὸν οἶκον—μηδὲ εἰς τὴν κώμην, into the house—nor into the village) His house therefore was in the remote extremity of the village.—μηδὲ εἴπης, nor tell) Jesus avoided celebrity, especially at that time. [For this miracle is the last in the Evangelists before the Feast of Tabernacles (and before the discourses recorded in John ch. 7–10—V. g.); and He forbade this miracle to be published abroad, just as He did the healing of the deaf and dumb man, ch. Mar 7:36. The people, after having celebrated the Passover, repaired to their country employments: His adversaries were thenceforth honoured with no further sign; and whatever effects were needful to be produced in the case of the disciples by miracles of this kind, had now already reached their highest point. Behold the year of grace now completed in Galilee!—Harm., p. 348.]—τινὶ, to any one) who is in the town.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mar 8:26 . εἰς οἶκον , home. μηδὲ , etc., go not into the village; to avoid creating a sensation. It has been suggested that the gradual restoration of sight in this case was meant to symbolise the slowness of the Twelve in attaining spiritual insight. They got their eyes opened very gradually like the blind man of Bethsaida. So Klostermann.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Christ will not have his miracles to be separated from his doctrine.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Verse 26. He sent him away to his house] So it appears that this person did not belong to Bethsaida, for, in going to his house, he was not to enter into the village.

This miracle is not mentioned by any other of the evangelists. It affords another proof that Mark did not abridge Matthew's Gospel.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(26) Neither go into the town.—As in other works of healing, so in this, our Lord seems to have prescribed quietude after, as well as before, the miracle, as a spiritual discipline—partly, we may believe, because the work that had been done called for prayer for the right use of the new, or the restored, power; partly (as in Mat_12:16), because He would not seem Himself to court the fame of publicity. Following the line of thought taken in the Note on Mar_8:24, we may extend the application to the work of spiritual illumination. Here also it is not good that the first clear apprehension of spiritual truths should be followed by the hasty utterances of the excitement of the new-born life.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

26. to his house] Bethsaida, therefore, was not the place of his residence; he was to go immediately from the place to his own home—not even to the village to which he had already come, and he was not to mention it to any one dwelling in that village, or whom he might meet by the way.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And he sent him away to his house,.... Which seems to have been in one of the neighbouring villages or was one of the houses scattered about in the fields for the conveniency of rural business.

Saying, neither go into the town: or "that town", as the Syriac, the town or city of Bethsaida:

nor tell it to any in the town; to any of the inhabitants of the town that he should meet with any where or at any time: the reason of this was not merely or only because Christ would have the miracle concealed; but chiefly because the inhabitants of this place were notorious for their impenitence and unbelief. Christ had done many wonderful works among them and yet they repented not; nor did they believe in him; but despised him, his doctrine and his miracles; and therefore for their neglect and contempt of such means he was determined to withdraw them from them. So Christ sometimes deals with nations cities and towns that disbelieve reject and despise his Gospel; he takes it away from them he orders his ministering servants to preach no more to them; no more to tell them of the good news of life and salvation by him: thus he dealt with the Jews who contradicted and blasphemed and judged themselves or by their conduct made themselves appear to be unworthy of the words of eternal life; he took away the kingdom of God or the Gospel from them and sent it among the Gentiles: and thus he threatened the church of Ephesus for leaving its first love to remove the candlestick out of its place in case of non-repentance; and a grievous judgment it is upon a place and people when God commands the clouds to rain no rain upon them, Isa 5:6; or, in other words when he enjoins his ministers no more to tell, or publish his Gospel to them; he determining to withdraw from them and have no more to do with them; so Christ and his disciples departed from this place, declared in the following verse.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

26 And he sent him away to his house, saying, Neither go into the town, nor tell it to any in the town.

Ver. 26. Neither go into the town] Christ would not vouchsafe such an ungrateful people the benefit of one more preacher, though never so mean. This was a greater judgment upon them than if he had turned some other way that arm of the sea that brought so much wealth into their town.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The town - The town of Bethsaida.

Nor tell it ... - Lest it excite the jealousy of the Pharisees, and produce commotion and danger.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

26. Nor tell it to any in the town — Any man residing in the town. Very probably there was at this time a special suspicion existing of the authorities in regard to Jesus. Herod Philip (resident so near as Cesarea Philippi) may have been in Bethsaida. This supposition would account both for Jesus taking the man out of the town and for this prohibition to tell any man in it.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

This verse, according to the best reading, runs thus: And he sent him away to his home, saying, Do not even enter into the village. It thus appears that Bethsaida was not the home of this blind man. He might naturally have wished to exhibit himself in Bethsaida, where many must have known him, and to have sung the praises of his great Benefactor. But this was far from what Christ wished. He wished to be in seclusion. He had no desire to excite more than could be helped the idle curiosity of the multitude. His miracles were for the sake of his doctrine, and not his doctrine for the sake of his miracles. The whole character of his administration was retiring and gentle. "My doctrine shall distil as the dew." "He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any hear his voice in the streets."

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

26. Sent him away to his house. Evidently he did not live in Bethsaida, as he was forbidden to go into the town, or to tell the story there.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

26. The confusion in this verse is great; see WH., Introd. § 140. [1717][1718][1719] omit μηδὲ εἴπῃς κ.τ.λ.

[1717] Codex Sinaiticus. 4th cent. Discovered by Tischendorf in 1859 at the Monastery of St Katharine on Mount Sinai. Now at St Petersburg. The whole Gospel, ending at Mar 16:8. Photographic facsimile, 1911.

[1718] Codex Vaticanus. 4th cent., but perhaps a little later than א. In the Vatican Library almost since its foundation by Pope Nicolas V., and one of its greatest treasures. The whole Gospel, ending at Mar 16:8. Photographic facsimile, 1889.

[1719] Codex Regius. 8th cent. An important witness. At Paris. Contains Mar 1:1 to Mar 10:15; Mar 10:30 to Mar 15:1; Mar 15:20 to Mar 16:20, but the shorter ending is inserted between Mar 16:8 and Mar 16:9, showing that the scribe preferred it to the longer one.

26. εἰς οἶκον αὐτοῦ. Cf. Mar 2:19, Mar 5:11, Mar 7:30. There is no command to keep silence; see crit. note. But quiet meditation, free from intercourse with curious neighbours, is best for him; and over-exercise of his newly recovered power of sight is guarded against.

Μηδὲ εἰς τ. κώμην εἰσέθῃς. Do not even enter into the village (R.V.). No doubt he could reach his home without doing so. Christ had lamented over the people of Bethsaida for their callousness respecting His mighty works (Mat 11:21), and their influence on the newly healed would not be for good. The prohibition is only temporary (aor.). Contrast μηδὲ ὀνομαζέσθω (Eph 5:3) and μηδὲ ἐσθιέτω (2Th 3:10), where perpetual abstention is enjoined. In both these passages Vulg. has nec instead of ne quidem for μηδέ: here it follows a corrupt reading. The reading adopted “is simple and vigorous, and it is unique in N.T. The peculiar initial Μηδέ has the terse force of many sayings as given by St Mark, but the softening into Μή by [1836][1837] shows that it might trouble scribes” (W.H.). Even if there were a second μηδέ, “neither … nor” (A.V.) would be wrong; it should be not even … nor yet.

[1836] Codex Sinaiticus. 4th cent. Discovered by Tischendorf in 1859 at the Monastery of St Katharine on Mount Sinai. Now at St Petersburg. The whole Gospel, ending at Mar 16:8. Photographic facsimile, 1911.

[1837] An asterisk denotes that the word is not found elsewhere in N.T., and such words are included in the index, even if there is no note on them in the commentary.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

26.] See above in this note,—and var. readd. The first and second μηδέ both carry a separate climax with them: he was not even to go into the village, no, nor so much as tell it to any who dwelt in the village.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

26. Μηδὲ εἰς τὴν κώμην εἰσελθῇς—do not even go into the village. The man was to return to his house, which was outside of the village, and so far from publishing his cure in the village, he was not even to enter it.

Omit μηδὲ εἴπῃς τινὶ ἐν κώμῃ, nor tell it to any one in the village, Tisch. (Treg. marg.) RV. WH. א * and c BL 1, 209, Memph.2

Attention should be called to the characteristics of the two miracles narrated by Mk. alone, both of which, moreover, belong to the period of Jesus’ retirement, and to localities inhabited by a mixed Jewish and heathen population, and unfrequented by him in his previous ministry. In both the healing of the deaf and dumb man in Decapolis, and that of the blind man at Bethsaida, Jesus takes the man aside before performing the cure, and uses spittle on the parts affected. In the second, the healing of the blind man, the cure is gradual. As to the withdrawal from the multitude, the purpose is obvious. The miracles belong to the period of retirement, and Jesus takes more than usual pains to guard against notoriety. A secondary effect, if not purpose, in the case of the deaf and dumb man, would be to fix his attention on what Jesus was about to do for him. As to the use of the spittle, it is commonly regarded as extraordinary, and naturally so, as these are the only cases in the Synoptical Gospels in which Jesus employs any other means than the laying on of hands. In the case of the deaf and dumb man, the reason for this exceptional treatment appears in the condition of the man. The thrusting of the hands into the man’s ears, the spitting into them, the looking up to heaven, are the language of signs, by which Jesus seeks to awaken the faith of the man necessary to his cure. Certainly the thrusting of the hands into his ears is that, and the rest goes along with this symbolical act. In the case of the blind man, extraordinary conditions are not lacking, though not of the same kind. Jesus is in an unfamiliar region, and the man’s blindness withdraws him more or less from even the knowledge that those about him would have of this extraordinary personage. In these circumstances, Jesus uses something more than the ordinary laying on of hands, which would tell its story so quickly to a Jew accustomed to his ordinary procedure, and substitutes what we may call a more elaborate and significant ritual of cure. The gradualness of the cure in this case would arise out of the same extraordinary conditions. Jesus is contending here against a dull, slow-moving faith, which hinders the ordinary immediateness of the cure. This explanation matches the extraordinary methods and process of the cure with the extraordinary conditions of the case.

On the other hand, Weiss, ignoring the peculiar conditions, treats both the process and the gradualness of the cure as representing Jesus’ ordinary method and the rationale of the miracles. These are the two cases, he says, in which Mk. goes into details in telling the story of the miracles, and the matter contained in them, therefore, is to be read into the other accounts. The difficulty in this is to account for the choice of these two isolated cases for the introduction of these details. It is easy to account for them as peculiarities belonging to an exceptional period in the life of Jesus, but not at all easy to account for the choice of these, the very last of the miracles, to bring out material belonging to them all, but hitherto unrelated by Mk., and omitted altogether in the other evangelists. Moreover, it is very singular that this gradual cure occurs in the Gospel which emphasizes most the immediateness of the cures. Out of the eleven miracles of healing recorded in Mk., five speak directly of the immediateness of the cure, and of the rest three give circumstances implying the same. And yet, we are told that in this Gospel, the one account of gradual cure establishes the form to which the others must be conformed. As for the use of the spittle, that is treated as an actual means of cure, not as a symbol or sign. So Meyer. However, it is allowed that the curative power infused into this came from above. And this again is normal, telling us what really happened in the other cases. A means, which yet has no power in itself, only what is infused into it supernaturally. This is truly a tertium quid, and as long as it introduces into the miracles nothing of the nature of a secondary cause, it may be ranked among the curiosities of religious speculation.

JESUS GOES WITH HIS DISCIPLES INTO THE REGION OF CÆSAREA PHILIPPI. PETER’S CONFESSION OF JESUS AS THE MESSIAH

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.