TRV
Augustine of Hippo
Nicene & Post-Nicene · AD 325–500 · 7,530 passages across 62 books
Commentary
Mark 1:24
· 3 passages
Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God.
Call to mind with me the time when Peter was praised and called blessed. Was it because he merely said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God”? No, he who pronounced him blessed regarded not merely the sound of his words, but the affections of his heart. Compare that with the words of the demons who said almost the same thing: “We know who you are, the Son of God,” just as Peter had confessed him as “Son of God.” So what is the difference? Peter spoke in love, but the demons in fear.… So tell us how faith is to be defined, if even the devils can believe and tremble? Only the faith that works by love is faith.
Unclean spirits knew that Jesus Christ would come. They had heard it from the angels, they had heard it from the prophets, so they were expecting him to come. For if not, why did they cry out, “What have we to do with you? Have you come to destroy us before the time? We know who you are, the holy one of God.” .
Faith is mighty, but without love it profits nothing. The devils confessed Christ, but lacking charity it availed nothing. They said, “What have we to do with you?” They confessed a sort of faith, but without love. Hence they were devils. Do not boast of that faith that puts you on the same level with the devils.
Mark 1:39
And he preached in their synagogues throughout all Galilee, and cast out devils.
(de Cons. Evan. ii. 19) But by this preaching, which, he says, He continued in all Galilee, is also meant the sermon of the Lord delivered on the mount, which Matthew mentions, and Mark has entirely passed over, without giving any thing like it, save that he has repeated some sentences not in continuous order, but in scattered places, spoken by the Lord at other times.
Mark 1:40
· 2 passages
And there came a leper to him, beseeching him, and kneeling down to him, and saying unto him, If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
It is not in one’s own power, however admirable and trustworthy may be the knowledge one has of the facts, to determine the order in which he will recall them to memory. For the way in which one thing comes into one’s mind before or after another proceeds not as we will, but simply as it occurs to us. It is reasonable enough to suppose that each of the Evangelists believed it to have been his duty to relate what he had to relate in that order in which it had pleased God to suggest it to his recollection.
(de Con. Evan. ii. 19) Mark puts together circumstances, from which one may infer that he is the same as that one whom Matthew (Matt. 8:2) relates to have been cleansed, when the Lord came down from the mount, after the sermon.
Mark 2:1
And again he entered into Capernaum after some days; and it was noised that he was in the house.
(de Con. Evan. ii. 25) But Matthew writes this miracle as if it were done in the city of the Lord, whilst Mark places it in Capernaum, which would be more difficult of solution, if Matthew had also named Nazareth. But seeing that Galilee itself might be called the city of the Lord, who can doubt but that the Lord did these things in His own city, since He did them in Capernaum, a city of Galilee; particularly as Capernaum was of such importance in Galilee as to be called its metropolis? Or else, Matthew passed by the things which were done after He came into His own city, until He came to Capernaum, and so adds on the story of the paralytic healed, subjoining, And, behold, they presented to him a man sick of the palsy, after he had said that He came into His own city.
Mark 2:11
I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house.
You have been a paralytic inwardly. You did not take charge of your bed. Your bed took charge of you.
Mark 2:17
· 2 passages
When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
By those who are well he means those being made righteous. Sinners are compared to those who are ill. Let the sick man, then, not presume on his own strength, because “he shall not be saved by his great strength.” The strength of self-deceivers is not that strength that well people enjoy, but like those in delirium. They are like those out of their minds, who imagine themselves in such good health that they do not consult a physician, and even fall upon him with blows as if he were an intruder! In the same way, these delirious people, with their mad pride, fall upon Christ with blows, so to speak, because they have felt no need of his kindly help to those who seek to be just according to the prescriptions of the law. Let them, then, put away this madness. Let them understand, as far as they are able, that they have free will, and that they are called not to despise the Lord’s help with a proud heart, but to call upon him with a contrite heart. The free will then will be free in proportion as it is sound, and sound in proportion as it is submissive to divine mercy and grace.
Pray for us that we may be saved by that salvation of which it is said: “They that are in health need not a physician, but they that are ill; for I am not come to call the just but sinners.” Pray, then, for us that we may be made upright. This is indeed something which one cannot do unless he knows and wishes it; and he will become so as constantly as he wishes it fully—but it will not be through his own effort that he is able, unless he is healed and helped by the grace of the Spirit.
Mark 2:18-19
And the disciples of John and of the Pharisees used to fast: and they come and say unto him, Why do the disciples of John and of the Pharisees fast, but thy disciples fast not?
(de Con. Evan. ii. 27) But it may be thought that He added Pharisees, because they joined with the disciples of John in saying this to the Lord, whilst Matthew relates that the disciples of John alone said it: but the words which follow rather show that those who said it spoke not of themselves, but of others. For it goes on, And they come and say unto him, Why do the disciples, &c. For these words show, that the guests who were there came to Jesus, and had said this same thing to the disciples, so that in the words which he uses, they came, he speaks not of those same persons, of whom he had said, And the disciples of John and the Pharisees were fasting. But as they were fasting, those persons who remembered it, come to him. Matthew then says this, And there came to him the disciples of John, saying, because the Apostles also were there, and all eagerly, as each could, objected these things. (ubi sup.) Mark here calls them children of the nuptials, whom Matthew calls children of the bridegroom; for we understand the children of the nuptials to be not only those of the bridegroom, b…
(de Con. Evan. ii. 27) But it may be thought that He added Pharisees, because they joined with the disciples of John in saying this to the Lord, whilst Matthew relates that the disciples of John alone said it: but the words which follow rather show that those who said it spoke not of themselves, but of others. For it goes on, And they come and say unto him, Why do the disciples, &c. For these words show, that the guests who were there came to Jesus, and had said this same thing to the disciples, so that in the words which he uses, they came, he speaks not of those same persons, of whom he had said, And the disciples of John and the Pharisees were fasting. But as they were fasting, those persons who remembered it, come to him. Matthew then says this, And there came to him the disciples of John, saying, because the Apostles also were there, and all eagerly, as each could, objected these things.
(ubi sup.) Mark here calls them children of the nuptials, whom Matthew calls children of the bridegroom; for we understand the children of the nuptials to be not only those of the bridegroom, but also of the bride.
(ubi sup.) Mark here calls them children of the nuptials, whom Matthew calls children of the bridegroom; for we understand the children of the nuptials to be not only those of the bridegroom, but also of the bride.
Mark 2:23-24
And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn.
(de Op. Monach. 23) For it was a precept in Israel, delivered by a written law, that no one should detain a thief found in his fields, unless he tried to take something away with him. For the man, who had touched nothing else but what he had eaten, they were commanded to allow to go away free and unpunished. Wherefore the Jews accused our Lord's disciples, who were plucking the ears of corn, of breaking the sabbath, rather than of theft.
Mark 2:25
And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?
It is foolish to believe the Evangelist’s account that he ate and not to believe that he was really hungry. Yet it does not follow that everyone who eats is hungry. For we read that even an angel ate, but we do not read that he was hungry. Nor does it follow that everyone who is hungry eats. He may either restrain himself due to some obligation or lack food or the means to eat.… Now, just as the fact that Jesus ate food is unintelligible without a body, so the fact that he felt hunger is impossible without a soul.
Mark 3:4
And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace.
(de Con. Evan. ii. 35) But some one may wonder how Matthew could have said, that they themselves asked the Lord, if it was lawful to heal on the sabbath-day; when Mark rather relates that they were asked by our Lord, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath-day, or to do evil? Therefore we must understand that they first asked the Lord, if it was lawful to heal on the sabbath-day, then that understanding their thoughts, and that they were seeking an opportunity to accuse Him, He placed in the middle him whom He was about to cure, and put those questions, which Mark and Luke relate. We must then suppose, that when they were silent, He propounded the parable of the sheep, and concluded, that it was lawful to do good on the sabbath-day. It goes on: But they were silent.
Mark 3:5
· 2 passages
And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other.
If angry emotions which spring from a love of what is good and from holy charity are to be labeled vices, then all I can say is that some vices should be called virtues. When such affections as anger are directed to their proper objects, they are following good reasoning, and no one should dare to describe them as maladies or vicious passions. This explains why the Lord himself, who humbled himself to the form of a servant, was guilty of no sin whatever as he displayed these emotions openly when appropriate. Surely the One who assumed a true human body and soul would not counterfeit his human affections. Certainly, the Gospel does not falsely attribute emotions to Christ when it speaks of him being saddened and angered by the lawyers because of their blindness of heart.
Feelings cannot exist in anything but a living soul. These events show that just as Jesus had a human body he had a human soul. We read about the diversity of his feelings in the reports of the same Evangelists [who attested his divinity]: Jesus was astonished, was angered, was grieved, was elated, and similar emotive responses without number. Likewise it is clear that he experienced the ordinary fully human experience of interconnectedness between his body and his soul. He was hungry; he slept; he was tired from his journey.
Mark 3:10
For he had healed many; insomuch that they pressed upon him for to touch him, as many as had plagues.
It is by faith that we touch Jesus. And far better to touch him by faith than to touch or handle him with the hands only and not by faith. It was no great thing to merely touch him manually. Even his oppressors doubtless touched him when they apprehended him, bound him, and crucified him, but by their ill-motivated touch they lost precisely what they were laying hold of. O worldwide church! It is by touching him faithfully that your “faith has made you whole.”
Mark 3:11
· 2 passages
And unclean spirits, when they saw him, fell down before him, and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God.
Both the devils and the faithful confessed Christ. “Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God,” said Peter. “We know who thou art. Thou art the Son of God,” said the devils. I hear a similar confession, but I do not find a similar charity. In one there is love, in another fear. He is lovely to those who are sons. He is terrible to those who are not sons.
The “faith that works by love,” is not the same faith that demons have. “For the devils also believe and tremble,” but do they love? If they had not believed, they would not have said: “You are the holy one of God” or “You are the Son of God.” But if they had loved, they would not have said: “What have we to do with you?”
Mark 3:16
And Simon he surnamed Peter;
(de Con. Evan. ii. 17) But let no one suppose that Simon now received his name and was called Peter, for thus he would make Mark contrary to John, who relates that it had been long before said unto him, Thou shalt be called Cephas. (John 1:42) But Mark gives this account by way of recapitulation; for as he wished to give the names of the twelve Apostles, and was obliged to call him Peter, his object was to intimate briefly, that he was not called this originally, but that the Lord gave him that name.