Mark 2

Mr 2:1 A few days later, when Jesus again entered Capernaum, the people heard that he had come home.

SECTION  INTRODUCTION, 2:1-3:6

This section relates five Galilean incidents which provoked controversy between Jesus and the Jewish traditionalists. It is balanced by another five later on (11:27-37) centred on Jerusalem. In this passage, the radical difference between Jesus and the Jewish leaders and teachers becomes apparent. But note that the contrast is made in a practical manner: by his acts of forgiveness and invitation.

Two preliminary points:-

1. Jesus actually said and did the things we read about in the Gospels. This is apparent in this section, (a) from the setting in Capernaum, which was the home of Peter, who is understood to have been Mark’s principal informant; (b) from the presence of many eyewitness details, including the historic present tense.

2. Jesus has a habit of upsetting people. Jesus message was so radical, that conflict was unavoidable. The claims he made for himself, the people he associated with, the criticisms he levelled against the religious establishment, all made him unpopular with those who had a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. The idea that if only the church got her act together society would embrace her is illusory. If the church got her act together she might find herself much more persecuted than she it at present (English).

JESUS HAS THE POWER TO HEAL AND FORGIVE, 2:1-12

He entered Capernaum – the home of Peter, 1:21,29.

The people heard that he had come home – Jesus probably stayed with Peter while in Capernaum, making his headquarters there for his work in Galilee. So here is another eyewitness link with Peter. The account itself gives the kind of detail (e.g. v2) that only one present could have given.

It was heard – People spread the word, “He is here, he is indoors.”

Mr 2:2 So many gathered that there was no room left, not even outside the door, and he preached the word to them.

Many gathered together – Not surprising, in view of the amazement aroused by Jesus words and deeds, 1:21-34,38-45. Those who gathered came out of (a) real and enthusiastic interest; (b) mere curiosity to find out what Jesus would say and do; (c) suspicion, envy and hostility. We learn from this that people gather round Jesus for many different reasons. Not all these reasons are noble or sincere. These days, we are happy for people just to show an interest in Christ; we are content if somehow we can get them into church. But this is to no avail if a work of the heart is not in progress.

No longer any room… – The doorway was blocked, explaining the desperate measures adopted by the friends carrying the paralysed man.

Notice the graphic detail, such as only an eyewitness could have given.

The enthusiasm shown is the same as that which was accorded Jesus earlier, 1:32-33.

He preached the word to them – The message of salvation, cf 1:14-14,22,38; 4:14-33. We ought not to lose the connection between the preaching of the word and the accompanying miraculous signs, cf 16:20. Moreover, the assumption that he was preaching the gospel of repentance and faith (1:15) helps us understand why he first focussed on forgiveness when the paralysed man was lowered down.

Mr 2:3 Some men came, bringing to him a paralytic, carried by four of them.

Then they came to him – Even the tense is ‘a vivid dramatic historical present’ (A.T. Robertson), preserved in Lu 5:18, but not in Mt 9:2 (imperfect).

A paralytic – we cannot be sure about the medical features of this condition, except that the man could not walk. The determination of the four men suggests either (or both) (a) the severity of his plight; (b) their confidence in Jesus’ power to heal.

Carried by four men – More eyewitness detail, not found in the other accounts.

Mr 2:4 Since they could not get him to Jesus because of the crowd, they made an opening in the roof above Jesus and, after digging through it, lowered the mat the paralyzed man was lying on.

They made an opening in the roof – Lit. ‘they unroofed the roof’. The house would have had a flat roof with access from an external staircase. The roof would have been of clay, supported by branches spread across wooden beams.

Mr 2:5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.”

Their faith – That of the paralysed man and his friends. This faith was evidenced by their determination in bringing the man to Jesus: they obviously believed that Jesus had the ability to heal him. Here is an example of ‘taking the kingdom of heaven by force,’ Mt 11:12.

“Son, your sins are forgiven you.” This could be understood as ‘God forgives you’ (a prophetic statement similar to Nathan’s in 2Sa 12:13). The passive expression was characeristically Jewish way of making a pronouncement while avoiding saying the divine name. It would have been understood as, ‘God forgives you.’ The tense signifies, ‘God forgives you at this moment.’ (Lane) However, the statement could also be understood as ‘I forgive you’, which is clearly an assumption of the divine prerogative. The scribes obviously chose to understand it in this sense, since they were already looking for reasons to condemn Jesus.

Jesus’ response seems unexpected and incongruous. However, the OT frequently links healing with forgiveness, so that healing is often an outward sign that forgiveness has taken place, 2Ch 7:14 Ps 103:3 147:3 Isa 19:22 38:17 57:18-19. Indeed the terms ‘forgiveness’ and ‘healing’ are sometimes used interchangeably, Ps 41:4 Jer 3:22 Ho 14:4. ‘Jesus’ healing miracles are sacraments of forgiveness’ (Cranfield).

The forgiveness of sins takes priority over the healing of the body. Such forgiveness is a deeper need on our part, and a surer sign on Christ’s part, than the healing of the body. Indeed, we must always feel uneasy about supposed miracles which are not rooted in this deeper moral soil. They are, are John is apt to tell us, ’signs’ pointing to the person of Christ and his spiritual mission, and not merely ends in themselves.

The Jews tended to make a very direct connection between sin and affliction: the greater the affliction, the more serious the sin must have been which caused it, Job 4:7 22:5-10 Lu 13:4. Jesus himself combatted this error on a number of occasions, Joh 9:1-2. Still that there is a general connection between sin and suffering is not to be doubted: if there had been no sin, there would have been no disease. Jesus’ reaction here may well have been with a view to bringing to the surface this relationship, asserting that the forgiveness of sins has priority over physical healing, and perhaps addressing a particular need in this man.

William Lane comments: ‘Healing is a gracious movement of God into the sphere of withering and decay which are the tokens of death at work in a man’s life. It was not God’s intention that man should live with the pressure of death upon him. Sickness, disease and death are the consequence of the sinful condition of all men. Consequently every healing is a driving back of death and an invasion of the province of sin. That it why it is appropriate for Jesus to proclaim the remission of sins. It is unnecessary to think of a corresponding sin for each instance of sickness; there is no suggestion in the narrative that the paralytic’s physical suffering was related to a specific sin or was due to hysteria induced by guilt. Jesus’ pronouncement of pardon is the recognision that man can genuinely whole only when the breach occasioned by sin has been healed through God’s forgiveness of sins.’

Note that Jesus does not merely proclaim forgiveness, as Nathan had done to David, 2Sa 12:13; he actually provides it.

Mr 2:6 Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves,

Teachers of the law – A closed order of legal specialists who had been set apart by the laying on of hands. Jesus came into conflict with them because of his refusal to observe the oral law, which they regarded as binding.

This marks the beginning of human opposition to Christ in this Gospel. The opposition grows in intensity: it begins with the Teachers of the Law thinking to themselves; next they complain to the disciples, 2:16; and then to Jesus himself about the disciples, 2:24; but before long they are accusing him of being in league with the devil, 3:22. But all of the these are but the festering of the murderous hatred which was there at the beginning.

Jesus brings an unavoidable conflict with him. This conflict is between love of God and love of self, between divine law and human tradition, between freedom and bondage, between outward act and inner attitude, is inevitable. When we call a truce in such a battle it is a sure sign that we in danger of sacrificing the whole Christian enterprise.

Mr 2:7 “Why does this fellow talk like that? He’s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?”

“Blasphemies” – In Jewish teaching, not even the Messiah could forgive sins. Jesus’ claim to do so was tantamount to a claim to deity – hence their accusation of blasphemy. The punishment for blasphemy was death by stoning, but the evidence had to be incontrovertible. The suspicion of blasphemy became the basis for the condemnation of Jesus before the Sanhedrin, 14:61-64.

How easy it is to see supposed faults in others, and to be blind to one’s own follies! ‘The combination of rigidity in teaching, narrowness of expectation about the Messiah, prejudice about the unpromising pedigree of Jesus (see 2:7 this fellow) and, sadly, maybe more than a little jealousy at his success, causes serious, religious men to be on the side of evil not good, Satan not God. It is a chilling experience to test our attitudes and actions by such criteria.’ (English)

“Who can forgive sins but God alone?” – Of course, they were right. Ex 34:6-7 Ps 103:12 Isa 1:18 43:25 44:22 55:6-7 Jer 31:34 Mic 7:19.

Mr 2:8 Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this was what they were thinking in their hearts, and he said to them, “Why are you thinking these things?”

When Jesus perceived in his spirit – Jesus knows the inner secrets of the heart. He reads people’s thoughts like a book.

Mr 2:9 Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up, take your mat and walk’?

“Which is easier…?” The point is that both are impossible for man, but easy for God. The scribes could do neither, but Jesus could do both. And both signify the presence of God’s kingdom, Isa 53:5-6 Jer 31:34 Eze 36:25-27 Mic 7:18 Zec 13:1.

Mr 2:10 But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins…” He said to the paralytic,

“But that you may know…” – Presumably spoken to the teachers of the law, although some (e.g. Cranfield and Lane) think that this is a Markan commentary (see next note). This would seem to define the main purpose of the miracle in this instance. One purpose of Jesus’ miracles was to attest to his deity. One reason he healed men’s bodies was that they might know that he also has power to heal their spirits.

“The Son of Man” – A favourite self-designation of Jesus, occurring some fourteen times in this Gospel. However, in most instances it ‘provides the key to Jesus’ self-disclosure to his disciples’ – it seems unlikely that he would have used it himself before his critics. It may be a Marcan explanatory statement (others of which are found in 2:15; 2:28; 7:3-4,19 13:14) (Lane). The phrase itself is probably derived from Da 7:13. It portrays Christ especially in his perfect and representative humanity. Yet even in his humanness he has “power on earth to forgive sins.” No angel, no minister, no earthly priest has the power to forgive sins. But Jesus has, and it is to him we must apply for forgiveness. The best of men are but signposts and witnesses to this divine forgiveness.

Mark 2:11  “I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.”

Mr 2:12 he got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all. This amazed everyone and they praised God, saying, “We have never seen anything like this!”

This amazed everyone and they praised God – This did not, of course, include the Teachers of the Law, who allowed themselves to become more and more resentful. No doubt there were some upon whom a lasting impression was made. Still others were simply caught up in the excitement. Yet in the end, the people of Capernaum as a whole rejected Christ.

This passage as a whole (vv1-12) shows us that there is an intimate relationship between sin and disease. Both are destructive of human life, and Christians are called to oppose all that threatens our common humanity by their mission evangelism, environmental concern, racial harmony, sexual equality, and so on.

Mr 2:13 Once again Jesus went out beside the lake. A large crowd came to him, and he began to teach them.

JESUS IS ONLY INTERESTED IN BAD PEOPLE, 2:13-17

Jesus has demonstated his authority in the matter of forgiveness of sin; now he shows his willingness to welcome the worst of sinners.

The sea – of Galilee.

Mr 2:14 As he walked along, he saw Levi son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax collector’s booth. “Follow me,” Jesus told him, and Levi got up and followed him.

Levi – This was his given name; his ‘Christian name’ was Matthew, Mt 9:9 10:3.

The tax office – Levi was a collector of taxes under Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee. His booth was probably on the major route which linked Syria and Egypt and which passed through Capernaum. Taxes were collected on merchandise that passed on this route.

“Follow me” – And Levi did so, leaving everything, including his lucrative business, Lu 5:28.

Mr 2:15 While Jesus was having dinner at Levi’s house, many tax collectors and “sinners” were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him.

He was dining – To eat with someone was a sign of friendship. The text does not make it clear whether it was Levi’s house or Jesus’ (on loan from Peter).

Sinners – Notorious sinners and also those who refused to observe the law of Moses as interpreted by the teachers of the law, Joh 7:49. The term was applied to tax collectors, adulterers, robbers, and the like. Jesus welcomes notorious sinners, without condoning their behaviour, v17. Such people are ‘the lost’ who must ‘be found’, Lu 15:1-4 19:10.

Mr 2:16 When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the “sinners” and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: “Why does he eat with tax collectors and ’sinners’?”

Tax collectors – Jewish tax collectors and their families were despised and treated as outcasts. They could not act as witnesses and were expelled from the synagogues.

Sinners – The term is used here for people dismissed by the Pharisees as inferior because they had no interest in the scribal tradition. Such people, for example, did not eat their food with ceremonial cleanness, and it was a disgrace for a Jesus to share in a meal with them. The rabbis had a rule which said, ‘The disciples of the learned shall not recline at table in the company of the people of the soil.’ Cf Joh 7:49.

These terms denote two well-known groups of people who were despised by the Pharisees.

Mr 2:17 On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

Accepting for the sake of the argument the Pharisaic distinction between the ‘righteous’ and the ’sinners’, Jesus expains why he is associating with the latter: “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick.” – Variations of this maxim can be found in both Jewish and non-Jewish sources. Its validity would not have been questioned by the Pharisees.

This is why Jesus is associating with such people: it is to meet their need. He befriends them, not to show approval for their life-styles and behaviour, but to bring healing and forgiveness. “I did not come to call the righteous” – that is, those who think they are righteous.

Christ’s invitation is not to the self-righteous, but to sinners. And these are not told to repent and then come, but to come, that they might repent. Here is the fundamental difference between the religion of Christ, and all others, including Rabbinism. These latter demand life, the former imparts it. Indeed, the very word ‘Pharisee’, meaning ’separated one’, implies the exclusion of sinners.

Do we have the same attitude as Jesus? Or are we too ready to dismiss people as ‘unsavable’ because of their reputation? Associating with the ungodly and the unlovely involves risks. That is why, no doubt, James enjoins involvement with such people but also to keep oneself unspotted from the world. {Jas 1:27} There is a danger of Christians developing their own subculture, and becoming increasingly isolated from the world. We need to keep in mind the example of Jesus: he was sustained by a life of communion with the Father, and fellowship with his disciples, from which base he could go into the most unlikely of places and win people to faith.

“To repentance” – This is absent in the original here, but present in Lu 5:32.

Mr 2:18 Now John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting. Some people came and asked Jesus, “How is it that John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees are fasting, but yours are not?”

WHEN JESUS IS AROUND, IT’S TIME FOR CELEBRATION, 2:18-22

Fasting – In Jewish law, the only mandatory fasting was on the Day of Atonement, Le 16:29,31 23:27-32 Nu 29:7. In the time of Christ, the Pharisees fasted twice a week (on Mondays and Thursdays), Lu 18:12. They would wear sackcloth, rub ashes on their faces, and sucked their cheeks in to look as gaunt and as miserable as possible – so as to show God (and people) how pious they were.

Mr 2:19 Jesus answered, “How can the guests of the bridegroom fast while he is with them? They cannot, so long as they have him with them.”

Bridegroom – Jesus identifies himself with the OT bridegroom, Ho 2:19-21, who is God in covenant relation with Israel. See also Isa 62:5 Mt 25:1-14 Re 21:2. Jewish weddings were particularly joyous occasions. Celebrations could last up to a week, and fasting was unthinkable, since fasting was associated with sorrow.

All three Synopists give the three parables (bridegroom, unshrunk cloth, new wineskins) explaining Jesus’ behaviour in feasting with Levi on a Jewish fast-day, Lu 5:36. We should not miss his emphasis on the spiritual rather than the ritualistic and ceremonial.

The presence of Jesus brings wonderful joy.

Mr 2:20 But the time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them, and on that day they will fast.

When Jesus, the bridegroom, is taken from them by death, then will be an appropriate time for fasting.

Mark 2:21  “No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment. If he does, the new piece will pull away from the old, making the tear worse.

Mr 2:22 “And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the wineskins will be ruined. No, he pours new wine into new wineskins.”

New wine must be put into new wineskins – Wineskins were made from goat skins. When new wine was put in them, gas was produced, which caused the skin to stretch. If new wine was put in a skin which was already stretched, the skin would burst. The religious leaders of the day had become like old skins: they could not accept the new life which Jesus offered.

Mr 2:23 one Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain.

JESUS TURNS RELIGION ON ITS HEAD

His disciples began to pluck the heads of grain – The action itself was unobjectionable, being covered by De 23:25.

Mr 2:24 The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?”

“Why do they do what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” – The disciple’s action was interpreted as harvesting, which according to Jewish tradition (in the Mishnah) was forbidden on the Sabbath. See Ex 34:21. God’s law at this point was obviously intended to prevent farmers from becoming too greedy, ignoring the Sabbath, and overworking their labourers. Tradition had added 39 specific prohibitions to this general command, the third of which had to do with reaping. But the Pharisees missed the point, choosing to focus on the words, rather than the intent, of the rule.

It is so easy to become so caught up in rules and regulations that we miss the real point in being followers of Christ.

Mr 2:25 he answered, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need?”

“Have you never read…?” – in 1Sa 21:1-6. This demonstrates the value to us of a thorough knowledge of Scripture. David, whose life was regarded as upright except in the matter of Uriah, 1Ki 15:5, had shown that some requirements of God’s law might be relaxed in cases of necessity. The sword of the Spirit proved on this occasion to be an irresistible weapon, and Jesus’ opponents were silenced. We should have the same confidence in and knowledge of Scripture that our Lord did, so that, like him, we can answer all questions of faith and conduct with a ‘Thus says the Lord.’

Mark 2:26  In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.”

Mr 2:27 Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.”

The introductory phrase (lit. “And he was saying to them”) suggests that what follows is a fragment of teaching not necessarily directly related to what immediately precedes (cf 2:27; 4:2, 11, 21, 24, 26; 6:10; 7:9; 8:21; 9:1). This saying is found only in Mark.

“The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.” The rabbis, with all their petty regulation, seemed to think that the man was made for the Sabbath. But no – the Sabbath was made for the good of man, for his physical, mental, and spiritual welfare. As A.T. Robertson remarks, there are other institutions (e.g. the church itself) where the same order must be observed: they were made for man, and not man for them.

Man was created first, then came the sabbath, Ge 1:26-2:3. It was instituted for man’s blessing: that he might be healthy, happy and holy.

The rabbis, by means of minute and often absurd restrictions, changed the sabbath into a cruel tyrant, and man into that tyrant’s slave.

Matthew Henry says, ‘the sabbath is a sacred and divine institution; but we must receive it as a privilege and a benefit, not as a task and a drudgery. First, God never designed it to be an imposition upon us, and therefore we must not make it so to ourselves…Secondly, God did design it to be an advantage to us, and so we must make and improve it…He had some regard to our bodies inthe institution, that they might rest…He had much more regard for our souls. The sabbath was made a day of rest, only in order to its being a day of holy work, a day of communion with God, a day of praise and thanksgiving; and the rest from worldly business is therefore necessary, that we may closely apply ourselves to this work, and spend the whole time in it, in public and private…See here what a good master we serve, all whose institutions are for our own benefit…’

Mr 2:28 “So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”

“The Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath.” – he is not the slave of the Sabbath, but its master, and that not to abolish it, but to interpret it, give it its rightful place, and give it a new name.