Mark 2

CHAPTER II

All the pericopes from 2:1 to 3:6 emphasize the Jewish opposition to Jesus. This feature has led some commentators to make 2:1–3:6 a subdivision of Mark’s Gospel. But Mark himself furnishes us a better clue to the division he intended to make. He closes the first subdivision in a rather unmistakable way by a summary view of Jesus’ activity, 1:35–39; he does the same in 3:7–12 in closing the second subdivision; the appointment of the Twelve as apostles, 3:13, etc., undoubtedly begins the third subdivision. We deem it best to follow these marks which are introduced with such plainness by the evangelist himself. The hostility of the Jews that runs through most of the pericopes in the second subdivision lends its own characterization to these paragraphs while Mark still abides by his great theme to exhibit Jesus as the Son of God by means of his mighty words and works.

Mark 2:1

1 And having gone again to Capernaum after some days, it was heard that he was at home. And many were gathered together so that there was no longer room, not even toward the door. And he was telling them the Word.

We infer from Matt. 9:1 that Jesus came to Capernaum by boat from Gadaritis where he had healed two demoniacs (Matt. 8:28) and was then asked by the inhabitants to leave. He left promptly. Mark says that he came “to Capernaum,” Matthew writes “into his own city.” On the chronology compare the remarks on 4:35. Jesus had transferred his family from Nazareth to Capernaum early in his ministry, John 2:12.

Διʼ ἡμερῶν indicates an interval of days, i. e., days between, so that we may translate “after some days.” Since εἰσελθών precedes the main verb, ἠκούσθη, it ought to be personal: “he having come into … was heard,” but the following ὅτι makes this doubtful (B.-D. 405, 2) although R. 1120 does not think so. The best solution is perhaps to make the main verb impersonal with the ὅτι clause as its subject and to construe the participle ad sensum, referring to the clause “that he is at home,” i.e., he on coming to Capernaum, etc. The Greek retains the original verb in indirect discourse: “he is at home,” whereas we change to a past form after a past tense: “he was at home.”

In εἰςοἶκον the preposition is static and identical in force with ἐν (R. 559) as so often in the Koine. This reverses all the older forced explanations which put motion into εἰς. Prepositions never express motion. Εἰςοἶκον, without the article, means “at home.” Jesus was in his own house in Capernaum, where his mother and other relatives dwelt, and not in Peter’s house as some suppose. How long Jesus remained undisturbed in his home is not indicated; it could not have been longer than a short time. He was certainly not inactive during even this brief time; his disciples were at hand, and he had much instruction to give them.

Mark 2:2

2 But when his presence became noised about, many congregated in his home. The place was soon packed with people so that there was no longer any room, “not even toward the door,” τὰπρὸςθύραν, τά with the phrase being construed as the subject of χωρεῖν. Mark is so specific about the door’s being blocked because this fact made it impossible to bring in the paralytic. Inside the house Jesus was engaged in telling them the Word, ἐλάλει, durative imperfect. We hear of no sufferers to be healed as was the case in 1:32–34; the people were captivated by the preaching of Jesus. Ὁλόγος is used in an eminent sense, to designate the gospel which Jesus had come to proclaim. This was his chief work, and he delighted to do it. In Luke 5:17 the statement about the power of the Lord being with Jesus to do healing refers, not to other healings wrought at this time, but to the healing of the paralytic which is now to be narrated.

Mark 2:3

3 And they come, bringing to him a paralytic borne by four. And being unable to get near to him on account of the crowd, they uncovered the roof where he was; and having dug it up, they lowered the pallet on which the paralytic was lying.

The subject is left indefinite; we learn only that the men who carried the paralytic were four in number. Paralysis and palsy should, of course, not be confused. One side of this man’s body had been rendered useless; hence he could not walk or use his arm and probably had great difficulty in talking. Four willing friends undertake to bring him to Jesus.

Mark 2:4

4 But the way was completely blocked by the crowd. In the open the crowd could have made a passageway to Jesus, but those packed in the house and the doorway could not make room. What now? Wait until after the crowd is gone? Not these men. Luke says that they dragged the sick man to the δῶμα or housetop.

The Oriental houses were built of stone with a flat roof on which the so-called upper room was situated, a stairway often led up from the outside. If this house had no outside stairway, one near it had; and since the houses adjoined, it was easy to pass from one roof to the next. So the paralytic was carried to a place on the roof which was directly above the spot where Jesus was in the room below. Here they “unroofed the roof,” ἀπεστήγασαντὴνστέγην (a paronomasia); Luke mentions the tiles, and Mark the digging or breaking up of the roof, which refers to the removal of the tiles and their support.

The view that the roof was reached by means of a ladder is unwarranted since no sick man on a pallet could be hoisted up on a ladder. The idea that the roof had an opening that was covered with a lid, and that only this lid was taken up, is shut out by Luke’s mention of the tiles that were removed. These could easily be lifted and afterward put into place again. The real difficulty lies in the removal of the support of the tiles. All we have to express this is the participle ἐξορύξαντες.

Objection is voiced to what is here described as being altogether impossible, a mere piece of imagination on the part of the evangelists. But Mark has received the account from Peter who was present when the thing was done. Some object on account of the danger to those in the room below, but no one was hurt, nothing was dropped. The entire proceeding is so unique in every way that invention of the facts or embellishment of lesser facts are most certainly excluded. So the man was lowered on his κράββατον (more common than κλίνη, Matthew and Luke, or κλινίδιον, Luke) right down in the middle of the room in front of Jesus (Luke).

Mark 2:5

5 And Jesus, having seen their faith, says to the paralytic, Child, dismissed are thy sins!

The faith that Jesus saw manifested itself plainly enough. It was more than the ordinary faith which sought help of Jesus; it was a faith that was strong, persistent, inventive enough to discover the most unusual way of placing the sick man before Jesus.

Why “their faith” should exclude faith on the part of the paralytic, as some assert, is hard to see. Surely, his friends did not bring him against his will, and, surely, he must have consented to be lowered through the roof. It is true, Jesus healed some who had no faith at the moment and waited for faith to follow the healing. But it is strange to find that commentators deny this man faith and yet let Jesus remit his sins. Where in all the Scriptures is remission ever obtained without faith? Moreover, some commentators voice the claim that faith must precede healing.

But they contradict themselves in this instance: this man is healed without first having faith. Instead of ruling out the faith of the paralytic we must really place his faith ahead of that of his friends. They may have had faith only in the power of Jesus to heal miraculously because they had seen him do this. But this paralytic felt that he suffered from a greater ailment than paralysis and thus came to Jesus with the burden of his sins.

Not a word is uttered by the paralytic or by his friends. More eloquent than words is the prostrate form lowered through the ceiling to the feet of Jesus and interrupting his teaching in the packed house. As a true καρδιογνώστης Jesus sees all that is involved in this sufferer’s case and also all that it will mean for the present assembly and for all future time. First the soul, then the body. With the greatest tenderness Jesus absolves this sufferer’s soul. Men saw only the bodily affliction, Jesus saw the guilt and the repentance in the man’s heart.

According to Matthew, Jesus prefaced the absolution with the word θάρσει, “cheer up,” which encouraged the sufferer, took away the gloom, and put high and happy expectation in its stead. The address τέκνον, “child,” is far more tender and gentle than υἱός, “son.” The latter has a legal connotation, the former a connotation of most tender love like a mother’s warm embrace. Jesus actually enters into this man’s heart and condition with the master touch of his love.

Now the mighty word of release: “dismissed are thy sins!” The readings vary between the passive present ἀφίενται (or ἀφίονται) and the Doric yet common passive perfect ἀφέωνται (R. 315), the latter with a strong present implication: “have been and so now are dismissed.” This matter is one for the text critics to settle. In Luke the perfect has almost universal attestation, in Matthew, Zahn prefers the present, in Mark the evidence is undecided. Both forms mean that the sins are dismissed the instant that Jesus speaks this word.

This is the great ἄφεσις, “dismissal” or “remission,” of which the Scriptures speak so constantly. In the entire Bible no sweeter word meets the sinner’s eye. The sins are sent away from the sinner so completely that they shall never be found again, to the depth of the sea (Micah 7:10), are blotted out so as to be removed from the record (Isa. 43:25); are removed from the sinner as far as the east is from the west (Ps. 103). This is what we usually call “forgiveness,” and stronger descriptions of it cannot be found. Only God is able to send our sins away in this manner. The claim that the agent back of this verb is God to the exclusion of Jesus is so manifestly wrong that one wonders how it can be advanced.

The entire narrative rests on the fact that Jesus forgives the paralytic’s sins. The healing that follows furnishes the clearest evidence for the deity of Jesus: as God he forgives sins and proves it by the miracle.

The conclusion is hasty that this man’s ailment was the direct result of his sinful life. Paralysis is so common in those who live the most careful lives that even from this angle the conclusion is unwarranted. In John 5:14 we have a notable case; in John 9:3 one that is entirely different. As regards the paralytic we can assume only that his paralysis brought all his ordinary sinfulness to mind just as every sickness and misfortune tell us that we are indeed nothing but sinners. To assume more in this case calls for a plain intimation in the text. The Christian rule of charity holds good also in exegesis, namely that we should not make any man worse than the facts demand.

Mark 2:6

6 Now there were some of the scribes sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, Why does this fellow speak thus? He is blaspheming! Who is able to dismiss sins except one, God?

Matthew reports only the charge of blasphemy. He and Mark mention only some of the scribes as sitting there among the other listeners. Luke tells us that these were Pharisees and men learned in the law, and that they had come from every village in Galilee and in Judea and from Jerusalem. Even in the capital note had been taken of the activity of Jesus in Galilee, and spies had been sent out to watch what Jesus was doing and to report at headquarters. Mark introduces these enemies of Jesus at this point. How this enmity arose and spread he omits from his record; John has enlightened us on that point. We here see the hostility fully developed and in action against Jesus. These scribes remain silent, but they reason in their hearts, they have their own perverted thoughts about Jesus.

Mark 2:7

7 Mark records these thoughts. First the hostile question: “Why does this fellow speak thus?” with οὗτος being highly derogatory. Then the direct accusation: “He is blaspheming!” They thought that they had a clear case against him. Finally the irrefutable proof for their indictment: “Who is able to dismiss sins except one, God?” The self-evident answer is true beyond question. This they had learned well from their Old Testament. Their blind mistake was that they considered Jesus a mere man in spite of all the evidence they had received to the contrary. To be sure, for a mere man to pretend to remit sins would be one of the worst forms of blasphemy.

Mark 2:8

8 And immediately Jesus, having realized in his spirit that they were thus reasoning within themselves, says to them, Why are you reasoning these things in your hearts? Which is the easier? To say to the paralytic, Dismissed are thy sins? or to say, Arise, and take up thy pallet and be walking? But in order that you may see that the Son of man has authority on the earth to dismiss sins, (he says to the paralytic), To thee I say, arise, take up thy pallet, and leave for thy house! And he arose, and, immediately having taken up his pallet, he went out before them all; so that they were all amazed and went on glorifying God, saying, Never did we see the like!

Mark says that Jesus “realized in his spirit” what the hostile Jews thought in their hearts; Matthew says that Jesus “saw” their thoughts, and each explains the other. He did not merely read them in the expression of their faces but perceived in his own spirit what went on in their secret minds. In other words, Jesus used his omniscience in this case; see John 2:24, 25. As his office and work required Jesus used his divine attributes; but not beyond that. Thus with stunning directness Jesus confronts these Jews with their own thoughts. He thus gave them evidence that he was not a mere man who was arrogating divine prerogatives to himself in a blasphemous manner.

Mark uses “these things” to indicate their reasonings, but Matthew writes “wicked things,” which characterizes their moral character. “These things” were the blind product of their hatred and the desire to destroy Jesus in any way that might prove feasible. We must look well to our inner motives, for these are the vicious factors and not merely what they produce.

Mark 2:9

9 Jesus sets the right thoughts over against their vicious ones. This is what they should ask themselves: “Which is the easier? To say to the paralytic (εἰπεῖν, aorist, for a single effective statement), Dismissed are thy sins! or to say (again the same aorist), Arise, and take up thy pallet, and be walking?” No mere ineffective saying is meant, the aorists shut this out. Both words evidently require the identical power of God. No other answer is possible. As God alone can remit sins, so he alone can restore a paralytic on the instant.

Note the effective aorists ἔγειραι and ἆρον to denote the momentary acts of rising up and picking up the couch and the durative present περιπάτει to indicate the continuous act of walking away. In this way these Pharisees and scribes should reason in their hearts; then they would find the right answer to the question concerning the real nature of Jesus.

Mark 2:10

10 Jesus waits for no reply, for the correct reply is one that is quite self-evident. He continues in the same breath: “But in order that you may see,” etc.; he heals the paralytic before their very eyes. The ἵνα clause is construed ad sensum with what Jesus says to the paralytic. The parenthesis: “he says to the paralytic,” is inserted to show that Jesus turns from these Jews to the sick man. Because all three evangelists have this parenthesis R. 1203 thinks that they must have drawn this entire narrative from a common document. But why base this deduction only on the parenthesis and not also on the other verbal agreements between the evangelists in this narrative?

That, however, leaves unexplained the great verbal differences in the three narratives. The story of the paralytic is reproduced by the three writers in independent ways from the oral account of it that was handed down by the original witnesses. As far as the parenthesis is concerned, it is almost necessary that it be retained so as to introduce the words addressed to the paralytic.

Jesus has done the one act, forgiven the paralytic’s sins. The effect of this act is invisible—no one saw the sins piled up on the man’s soul, and no man saw that mass of sin vanish into nothingness from his soul. Jesus now follows with the second act, he heals the paralytic. The effect is instantly visible to all—they see the man rise, take up his pallet, and walk away, not only free of paralysis but restored to perfect health and strength, all this in an instant. The act which the eyes are able to see verifies the other act which no eyes can see. As the one is wrought by the ἐξουσία, “the authority,” “the right and might” of him who is God, so is the other. For both are done by Jesus, not in and by the name of another, but in his own person, by the divine ἐξουσία that resides in himself. “In order that you may see” in an actual ocular demonstration is thus fulfilled to the very letter.

We have for the first time in Mark’s Gospel the title which Jesus gave himself: “the Son of man.” Though monographs have been written on it, and every commentator has sought to explain it, no unanimity has been reached as to its meaning and as to its derivation. It is used only by Jesus himself save in John 12:34 and in Acts 7:56 which reflects Matt. 26:64. So much is beyond question: the title was coined by Jesus himself, was unknown before that time, was not used in the church until quite late, and is even now used only in a limited way. Jesus always used it as a subject or as an object, always in the third person, never as a predicate. He is fully conscious that he is the Son of man, yet he never says: “I am the Son of man.” The title always reads ὁυἱὸςτοῦἀνθρώπου with the two Greek articles and is quite distinct from “a son of man,” i.e., a human being. There is a mystery in the title which is still felt as we read the record of its use by Jesus in the Gospels, which is clearly evident also in the questions asked by Jesus in Matt. 16:13, etc.

“Of man,” never the plural “of men,” is generic; not descended from some man but having the nature of men, a son of mankind. That the human nature of Christ is thus expressed is beyond question. But “the Son of man” lifts this one man out from among all men as being one who bears this human nature in a way in which no other man bears it, who, while he is indeed true man, is more than man, is also ὁυἱὸςτοῦΘεοῦτοῦζῶντος, “the Son of the living God.” This, too, is very clear from the mighty acts attributed to “the Son of man,” acts that are infinitely greater than any that are possible to men. Hence “the Son of man” is not merely “the ideal man,” homo κατʼ ἐξοχήν, the flower of our race toward whom all creation tended, but “the Word made flesh,” the Son ἄσαρκος, who joined our human nature to his divine nature, the Son of God who assumed our human flesh and blood. In the use which Jesus makes of this title two lines of thought converge; the one is lowliness, suffering, etc.; the other, greatness, power, exaltation beyond men. We see at once how eminently the title fits Jesus during his earthly sojourn (first used in an address to Nathanael, John 1:51). To give it an exclusively eschatological sense because it is used also in connection with the consummation is to generalize from a fraction of the facts instead of from all of them.

Whence does Jesus derive this title? The answer is: from Dan. 7:13, 14 (which read). Efforts are made by von Hofmann, C.-K., Zahn, etc., to reduce “one like the Son of Man” in Daniel to a symbolical figure (like the “beasts” in the previous verses) which pictures Israel. But the words of Daniel will not permit such an interpretation. The Hebrew ki, ὡς, “like,” is said to mean that this image only resembled a man but was not a man, which overlooks Rev. 1:13; 14:14, where this “like” is retained when the Daniel passage is used, and where the reference is to Christ. Again in Matt. 24:30 and 26:64 the Son of man comes in the clouds—exactly as in Daniel’s description.

God alone uses the clouds as his vehicle, hence “one like the Son of man” is divine. Yet when Daniel sees him “like the Son of man,” this, without saying in so many words that “he is man,” clearly intimates that the grand person described is also a man. See the thorough exegesis of Keil in Biblischer Commentar ueber den Propheten Daniel, 197, etc., 228, etc.

Unconvincing is the explanation that Jesus drew the title from the general reference of the Old Testament to the bene ’adam or the ben ’adam, Aramaic bar enasch, “children of men,” “child of man,” and that only in this general sense are Dan. 7:13 and Ps. 8:5 a source of information. It is not clear how from such terms, which denote only men as men, a title could be derived which denotes the one unique man who is the very Son of God. Some scientific efforts go back to Iran and to Persian sources, where they find the eschatological view that the first man, deified, will return at the end and bring the divine kingdom. But a pagan legend could not place “the Son of man” upon the lips of Jesus.

Dan. 7:13, 14 pictures the Messiah. Yet the Jews had drawn no title for the Messiah from this passage. Jesus himself did this. Hence, when he kept using this title, it seemed strange, and he was asked: “Who is this Son of man?” John 12:34. Hence also no political ideas could attach themselves to this title. That was the trouble with the title “Messiah” which Jesus avoided for this very reason and used only in John 4:26. The universality stands out in Daniel’s description: he who is like the Son of man rules all people, nations, etc., in an everlasting kingdom and judges all the world. By this new title Jesus denationalized his Messiahship and his Kingship and lifted these above all narrow Jewish conceptions—he was the Redeemer of all men.

In Daniel the term is eschatological; Jesus uses it in the same way in Matt. 24:30 and 26:64, and this is done also in the Revelation passages. But this Judge at the great consummation cannot be the judge only then, his work must reach back through the entire process of redemption, the consummation of which is the final judgment. Jesus very properly expands the title and uses it with reference to his person in the days of his humiliation.

What Aramaic expression Jesus used for “the Son of man” no man is able to determine, and the search in Jewish literature is hopeless. The references in the book of Enoch, even if the sections concerned are genuine, are barren. The surmise that, since Jesus also spoke Greek, as for instance to Pilate, he may have himself employed the Greek ὁυἱὸςτοῦἀνθρώπου, may be correct although the Gospels, Revelation, and Acts are sufficient as far as we are concerned.

The title “the Son of man” is especially in place in the present connection over against the Pharisees and scribes who refused to see anything but a mere man in Jesus. Authority to remit sins “on the earth,” during the era of grace, is exactly what comports with “the Son of man.” To bring to us and to make our own this remission Jesus had come on his great mission as “the Son of man.”

Mark 2:11

11 Turning to the paralytic, Jesus says: “To thee I say, arise,” etc. The emphasis is on σοί over against the Pharisees and scribes whom Jesus had just addressed. Λέγω is merely “I say” without ἐγώ or emphasis on the pronoun. The first two imperatives, ἔγειραι and ἆρον, are aorists to indicate the momentary actions of rising and of taking up the couch, but the third, ὕπαγε, is present to present the longer action of leaving for the man’s house. This is a case where Jesus did not touch the sick man but uttered only the word as the expression of his almighty will. As was the case in all the miracles, so in this one the proceeding is astounding and overwhelming. Three short, sharp commands, and a terrible disease like paralysis is literally blown away, and the man’s body made sound and whole.

Mark 2:12

12 The three commands are matched by the three instantaneous effects. The paralytic arises and, having lifted up his pallet, goes out before them all. Three aorists record the actions. The first is passive but is used intransitively: “he arose.” The second is a participle to indicate that this action is of a secondary nature. The third is an aorist because it intends to state only the man’s departure from the house, the act which the hostile Jews saw, and not his walking away to his home. Four men had to carry and bring him to Jesus while he was lying on his pallet; he walks away himself and even carries the pallet. Mark adds significantly “before them all,” Luke “before them.” Jesus told them they should see, and they saw indeed.

What effect this miracle had on the Pharisees and the learned scribes none of the evangelists records. This silence is significant. They had come to spy upon Jesus, to find something fatal against him, and at first they thought that they had caught him in nothing less than blasphemy. Jesus gave them something to see and to hear, something on which they could base no charge against him, something that should have turned their hearts from hatred to faith in Jesus and to praise of God. But their obduracy continued in spite of all that Jesus did to break it. It even grew intenser because they had been frustrated in their evil intention.

With ὥστε Mark indicates the effect produced on the common people. He writes that “all” were amazed and glorified God, but by πάντας he refers only to the people as we see from Matthew who writes “the multitudes.” Mark notes only the amazement, to which Matthew and Luke add the fear. This does not mean that some were amazed while others feared. Both amazement and fear are attributed to the same people. The fear was the reaction in their hearts because of the consciousness of their own sinfulness. This consciousness of sin was produced not only by the act of Jesus in forgiving the paralytic’s sins but even more by the realization that Jesus appeared as God in thus remitting sins.

They felt the divine presence in him. The miracle of healing, by which the remission was sealed as being actual, only deepened this feeling. They had something of the experience Peter had in Luke 5:8.

The amazement came as something sudden and is thus recorded by the aorist ἐξίσθασθαι. But when the people thought of the double benefactions received by the paralytic “they went on glorifying God,” and since this was continuous, we have the present infinitive δοξάζειν. Luke adds that the healed man also glorified God. All three synoptists report that the people praised God, and all three report different expressions. Matthew writes that they glorified God who gave such authority to men, namely through Jesus, they also borrowed ἐξουσία from the lips of Jesus; Luke quotes: “We saw strange things today!” and Mark somewhat to the same effect: “Never at any time did we see the like,” οὕτως, literally: “did we see thus.” These are three of the expressions used by different persons in the multitude; other words of praise were very likely also uttered. This is a plain indication that the writers did not follow some document, for they would then have reported the expressions of praise in similar form or at least with similar meaning. But they differ, which can mean only one thing, namely that the oral repetition of this miracle had transmitted these various expressions of praise, and that each sacred writer selected the one expression he preferred for his record.

Mark wants us to know that the people declared that they had never seen the like. These things went absolutely beyond their experience. Note that they say εἴδομεν which recalls εἰδῆτε in v. 10. Through the miracle they had seen the power that forgives sins. They acknowledge that this was the work of God by glorifying God with their statements. We may easily imagine how these songs of praise, which acknowledged God in Jesus, must have affected the Pharisees and the scribes. The common people saw the truth to which their prominent leaders were blind. It has often been thus, and not merely in religious matters. It is an encouragement for ordinary people to follow their own honest impressions and not to yield to the perverse conclusions of false leadership.

Mark 2:13

13 And he went out again along the sea, and all the multitude kept coming to him, and he was engaged in teaching them.

Chronologically this account follows the healing of the paralytic quite closely. Jesus went out from his own home and proceeded some distance away from Capernaum along the seashore. “Again” refers back to 1:16. Jesus must have halted at some convenient place on the shore, for large numbers of people kept coming to him, and he engaged in teaching them. The two imperfect tenses ἤρχετο and ἐδίδασκεν describe what went on for some time. We see Jesus busy with his main work, that of teaching. Since this precedes the record of the call of Matthew and the account of the feast with many publicans, it is quite likely that not a few of these publicans were among the crowd that listened to Jesus’ preaching.

Mark 2:14

14 And in passing by he saw Levi, the son of Alphaeus, sitting at his tax office, and he says to him, Be following me! And having risen up, he followed him.

In this way Matthew became first a disciple and then an apostle. The teaching on the seashore was ended, and when he was returning to the city Jesus passed by Matthew’s τελώνιον, “tax office” or “publican’s office.” His Aramaic name was Levi, and after a common fashion he is identified by the addition of his father’s name: “the son of Alphæus,” who is not, however, the Alphæus, the father of James the less. When Matthew himself tells the story (9:9) he introduces himself as “a man called Matthew.” When he came to use this name by which we know him best, we cannot say. That Jesus changed his name from Levi to Matthew is a supposition that is without evidence. That “Matthew” was an added name we see from the way in which he introduces it in his own Gospel.

We cannot agree that Mark and Luke veil Levi’s profession by omitting to state that he was a publican whereas he does that very thing in his own Gospel. Both Mark and Luke present him as sitting ἐπὶτὸτελώνιον, which certainly makes Matthew a publican. Nor do any of the holy writers veil or hide what they once were. The less they were to begin with, the greater is the glory of Jesus for what he made of them in the end. A hundred and fifty years later Celsus reviled the Christians because their Master made “infamous men, publicans and sailors most wicked,” his pupils. Levi’s office must have been located at the entrance to Capernaum, along the great caravan route that came in from Damascus and the east.

The Roman taxes were bought up by the publicani, men of wealth and credit, in later times Roman knights, who paid a fixed sum into the state treasury (in publicum). This shows the derivation of the name “publican.” Under the publicani there were “chiefs of publicans” like Zacchæus who were in charge of an entire taxing district, and under these again common collectors of the taxes. Matthew was very likely one of the latter, but he collected the duty on goods that moved into and through Capernaum. He was a custom’s officer, and to hold that position he had to know Greek and to be well educated. All publicans were hated and despised by the Jews, both because they were serving the Roman oppressors and thus lacked all patriotism and because of their exactions, for they usually demanded all they could get in order to enrich themselves. Naturally, as a rule, only men of lower types took positions of this kind.

Jesus saw Levi sitting in his office and, turning to him, said only these words: “Be following me!” He rose at once, left his office, and followed Jesus. The present imperative bids Levi to follow constantly. The following aorist indicates that this is what he did. He left his office and business to the others who worked there and adopted an entirely new profession.

We all feel that a good deal lies back of the three brief accounts of Levi’s calling. He must have had decisive personal contact with Jesus prior to his call, but nothing is said about it anywhere. The call to attach himself permanently to Jesus involved no small financial loss, yet it made good that loss with infinite spiritual gain. Levi was perhaps the last of the Twelve to be called. The fact that one of them should be selected from the despised class of the publicans is highly significant.

Mark 2:15

15 And it came to pass that he was reclining at table in his house, and many publicans and sinners were reclining with Jesus and his disciples, for there were many, and they kept following him.

The introductory formula καὶἐγένετο is Hebraistic and comes into the New Testament through the LXX. Mark uses it only twice. It ushers in an important occurrence. On the grammar compare R. 1042, etc. It is here construed with the accusative and the infinitive. The dispute about the antecedents of αὐτόν and αὐτοῦ has produced the strange idea that Jesus made a feast in his own house for all these guests—which would, of course, contradict Luke. The latter states positively that Levi made a great feast for Jesus in his house. That is our commentary on the two pronouns used in Mark.

Without further ado we are taken into the midst of the feast. We are told that Levi is reclining at table in his own house, and this means that he is the host and has prepared this great feast for all these guests. The Jews followed the Oriental custom of reclining at meals. Broad couches were provided, each large enough to accommodate several persons; each person lay on his left side, resting on his elbow, taking the food with his right hand.

There is now stated what is so important: “and many publicans and sinners were reclining with Jesus and his disciples.” This is what made the feast so notable. Σύν in the verb points to the intimate association of all these disreputable men with no less a person than Jesus himself, including also his disciples. If Mark had referred αὐτόν and αὐτοῦ to Jesus he could not have placed the name “Jesus” toward the end of the sentence. Levi had invited this strange company to dine at his house. He must have had some measure of wealth to provide this feast and a house with a room ample enough to afford a dining-hall for so many. The fact that the publicans were also ἁμαρτωλοί in the popular estimation, i. e., disreputable persons, does not need to be stated. These “sinners” are other men (no women would be present) of this general type who were classed as being outside of the pale of Judaism (John 9:24, etc.), who were, indeed, living lives contrary to the divine law.

But we dare not draw the conclusion from what we see in Levi’s house that Christians in general and Christian pastors in particular are warranted in associating freely with men of the type here indicated. These publicans and sinners knew why they had been invited to this feast, namely that Jesus might free them from their sins and induce them to lead different lives. It was he who had complete control of the situation and kept control by doing his necessary and blessed work upon them. This was no mere social gathering with Jesus trying to win the favor of these men by associating with them. This is something quite the opposite of our being drawn into questionable company in which we may stoop to the low level of those present and allow them to use us for their purpose.

Levi’s dinner is sometimes called “a farewell feast to his associates,” but without good reason. Levi’s intention is rather the opposite. He does not want to bid farewell to these publicans and sinners but wants them to join him in the new life to which Jesus had brought him. The double clause with γάρ is appended to explain how so many publicans and sinners came to be present at Levi’s feast. For one thing, Capernaum had many of these two classes of people, and they were the ones who especially kept following Jesus (ἠκολούθουν, imperfect, to express customary action), being always found among his auditors when he appeared in Capernaum. Compare Matt. 21:32.

A textual question needs attention. Tischendorf places a period after πολλοί and then starts a new sentence: “And there were following him also the scribes and Pharisees, and (καί inserted here) when they saw,” etc. The trouble with this reading is that the verb ἠκολούθουν (some have the aorist) is always used with reference to faithful following (compare for instance v. 14), not hostile to spy upon Jesus. In addition, the γάρ clause would be rather meaningless if it stated only that there were many publicans and sinners present, for the fact that they were numerous has already been stated. The presence of so many at Levi’s feast is due to the fact that so many kept following Jesus and were thus glad to be invited to dine with him.

Mark 2:16

16 And the scribes of the Pharisees, when they saw that he was eating in company with sinners and publicans, went on to say to his disciples, In company with publicans and sinners he eats!

Pharisaic scribes are meant; they are the same as those mentioned in v. 6. But the reading may also be: “the scribes and the Pharisees.” The decision as to which is the proper reading belongs to the text critics. We need not ask how these men saw what took place. They were out to spy upon Jesus, having come to Capernaum from far and near for that very purpose. Some were from Judea and Jerusalem, Luke 5:17. So they saw the company gathering at Levi’s house. They themselves, of course, did not enter the place, for that would have contaminated them. They waited outside until the guests came out and then assailed the disciples, for despite all their hostility to Jesus they never show any real courage in facing him on the issues they feel constrained to raise.

Matthew and Luke record an accusing question: “Why does your teacher eat in company with publicans and sinners?” The grammarians debate about the ὅτι before μετά and have it introduce a question, see R. 730 and B.-D. 300. It seems best to make this the ὅτι recitativum which is like our quotation marks and calls for no translation into English. These scribes thus raise an accusation; the tone of their voice and the expression of their faces imply that what they charge is a dreadful thing: “In company with publicans and sinners he eats” (some texts add “and drinks”)! The sense is: “Can you imagine anything worse?” The Pharisees shunned such people as outcasts and demanded that Jesus do the same. When he acted quite otherwise, they held this against him, Luke 15:1, 2. How could the disciples follow a διδάσκαλος whose practice was so outrageous?

Mark 2:17

17 And when Jesus heard it he says to them, No need have the healthy of a physician, but they that are ill. I did not come to call righteous men but sinners.

Perhaps Jesus saw the scribes questioning his disciples and thus heard about their objection to his conduct. Whether the disciples attempted a reply or not we do not know. Jesus himself promptly answers these men. His reply is axiomatic and as such unanswerable. In form it is an argumentum ad hominem, answering them on the basis of their own premises. They imagined that they were οἱἰσχύοντες, “those that are strong,” sound, healthy; and they certainly looked upon the publicans and sinners as being οἱκακῶςἔχοντες, “those that are ill,” the verb ἔχω with an adverb is always used in the sense of “to be.”

On this their own finding the course of Jesus is fully justified. A physician is for the sick, not for the healthy. It would be ridiculous and wrong for a doctor to remain away from his patients. His very business is to deal with the sick in order to cure them though without contaminating himself. Jesus does not associate with men of questionable lives in the ordinary way as “birds of a feather flock together.” It is his great mission to seek and to save the lost. He is the divine ἰατρός or physician: “I am the Lord that healeth thee,” Exod. 15:26.

We know his power and his remedies. These scribes, however, refuse his healing ministrations and delude themselves that all is well with them. And in their heartlessness they would let those whom they themselves call sick perish. Their guilt is double, their own disease twofold.

Mark and Luke omit the admonition: “But go and learn what this means, Mercy I want and not sacrifice.” But all three evangelists have recorded: “I did not come to call righteous men but sinners.” For the figurative language about the sick and the physician Jesus now substitutes the literal. He thus continues the argumentum ad hominem. He takes these scribes at their own estimate that they are indeed “righteous men”—then they, of course, do not need him. His business is only with “sinners,” the unrighteous, to give them the true righteousness. But the very way in which the argument is put shatters the supposition that these Pharisaic scribes are really δίκαιοι, able to stand before God’s judgment bar. In Luke 16:15 Jesus tells the Pharisees: “Ye are they which justify yourselves before men.”

Δίκαιοι, as always, is forensic. Those who are truly righteous have God’s verdict in their favor; they are acquitted and pronounced just. In this sense these scribes are not righteous but only in the sense that they usurped the judge’s throne and pronounced themselves just as criminals ever love to declare themselves quite innocent. Jesus makes them feel that their claim to righteousness shuts their own mouths when they complain about the help Jesus is offering to unrighteous sinners whom they only despised. It is thus that the hollowness of their own claim becomes apparent. Could they really be righteous, i.e., before God’s judgment bar, when they had no mercy for sinners and railed at the merciful physician who labored among those who, according to these Pharisees themselves, so sorely needed his help? We thus see how the reply of Jesus to these scribes was a masterful effort to reach their hearts, for they were even worse sinners than those whom they despised.

In the Gospels the verb καλεῖν has the sense of “to invite,” namely with the power of grace which kindles faith and attaches to Jesus. Thus used, many are called but few chosen. In the epistles καλεῖν and the cognate terms have a narrower sense: “to invite effectively” so that acceptance is included. In the word of Jesus the aorist καλέσαι is the proper form: Jesus makes his invitation to these sinners complete in every way and leaves nothing undone on his part.

Mark 2:18

18 And the disciples of John and the Pharisees were engaged in fasting; and they come and say to him, Why are the disciples of John and the disciples of the Pharisees fasting, but thy disciples do not fast?

Jesus and his disciples had just come from the feast in Levi’s house, and this seems to have been a day when the disciples of John thought that they had to fast, and the scribes likewise. The latter are called Pharisees (v. 16, “scribes of the Pharisees”) because they fasted according to the Pharisaic rule. They were fasting, and Jesus allowed his disciples to feast! The question is raised only regarding the disciples of Jesus, and nothing is said about Jesus himself. We again meet the reluctance to attack Jesus in person although the matter involves him also. From Matthew we learn that only the disciples of John came to Jesus with this question, but it seems that the Pharisees were also present.

The Baptist himself lay in prison (1:14). Such of his disciples as followed him were left to themselves. We see them in touch with Jesus, and two of them are again mentioned in Matt. 11:2.

With διατί they ask the reason for this difference; in other words, who is right in this matter of fasting? Their question is prompted not by hostility but by perplexity. They ask only for the reason for this great difference in regard to fasting. They include in their question the practice of the Pharisees. The only fasting demanded by the law was that prescribed for the Day of Atonement (Lev. 23:27, etc.). The Pharisees, of their own accord, fasted twice in the week in order to bolster up their pretense of holiness; Matt. 6:16; Luke 18:12. They are mentioned here only in a general way as being people who were given to regular fasting.

The Baptist’s stern call to repentance would naturally include fasting although none of the evangelists has preserved the exact teaching of the Baptist on this point. All that we can infer is that he had allowed his disciples to continue the practice of fasting. By not asking his disciples to fast, Jesus, of course, in no way contradicts the law. We see from Matt. 6:17 that he was by no means opposed to fasting as such when this was done for the proper purpose and in the proper way. Note that John’s disciples take their perplexity to Jesus himself in a frank way and do not go to the disciples with their accusations as the Pharisees did. They ask for enlightenment; the Pharisees want to discredit Jesus.

Mark 2:19

19 And Jesus said to them, Certainly, the sons of the bridal hall, while the bridegroom is in their company, cannot fast? As long as they have the bridegroom in their own company they are not able to fast. But there shall come days when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then they shall fast in that day.

The interrogative particle μή assumes a negative answer as self-evident: “Would anybody think, etc.? Certainly not!” In a very simple and even kindly way Jesus describes the present condition of his disciples to the followers of John. They are like men at a wedding, yea, like “the sons of the bridal hall,” die Hochzeitsgesellen, the bridegroom’s friends who have charge of all the wedding arrangements, Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, 1, 354, etc., 663, etc. How could they possibly be in sorrow when the bridegroom is in their midst? We stop with the relation sketched and do not bring in the bride or other essentials of a wedding. Jesus is this bridegroom.

The entire imagery of a wedding, the groom surrounded by his chosen friends, is so happy and joyful that fasting is entirely out of the question. No one fasts at a wedding, to say nothing of the main participants.

Jesus does not regard fasting as a mechanical arrangement that is to be practiced merely on fixed days. As such it is valueless. To fast or not to fast is determined by the conditions in which we find ourselves. “As long as they have the bridegroom in their own company they cannot fast.” While ἐνᾧ, like ἕως, is to be taken in the sense of “while” (R. 978), the accusative ὅσονχρόνον, to express extent of time, draws the antecedent into the relative clause (R. 718, 733). The disciples of John thus have their answer as to why Jesus does not expect his disciples to fast as long as he is in pleasant association with them (μετά).

Mark 2:20

20 But he prophesies that all this, so enjoyable now, shall change. “There shall come days when the bridegroom shall be taken from them,” when he shall by his enemies be haled into his passion and his death. Then, indeed, “in that day they shall fast,” and no one will need to tell them to do so.

Mark 2:21

21 But more must be said. The question in regard to fasting is only a small part of a far greater subject. In order to understand fully why the disciples of Jesus are not fasting at present and also how they will come to fast in a way that is totally different from that of the Pharisees, Jesus explains that what he brings cannot, like a mere patch, be fastened to an outworn garment nor, like new wine, be confined in old, dried wineskins.

No one sews a patch of new goods on an old garment; otherwise the filling tears something away from it, the new from the old, and a worse rent is made.

Jesus is not like a foolish woman who tries to mend an old, worn-out robe with a patch (ἐπίβλημα) from a piece of goods (ῥάχος) that is fresh from the loom (ἄγναφος). The reason is that the piece used to fill in (τὸπλήρωμα), tears or carries away something from the old garment (αἴρειἀπʼ αὐτοῦ), the new from the old (τοῦπαλαιοῦ), the genitive of separation), and a worse rent is made. A little of the new is worse than useless to preserve the old. Discard the old entirely and accept not merely a bit of the new but all the new in its completeness. Not a new patch but a new robe.

Jesus is uttering a great principle, the one on which he acts and is training his disciples to act. John’s disciples were perplexed when they saw Jesus and his disciples acting on this principle, for they did not understand what the principle was, or how true and genuine it was. The old robe is the Judaism of that period, namely what the scribes and Pharisees had made of it with their doctrine and their practice, all the old formalism, outward observances, and false righteousness (Matt. 5:20). It was useless to try to patch this up with a bit of the teaching or the practice of Jesus. The new would only tear the old worse than ever. The doctrine of grace and faith and the life that springs from it cannot possibly be combined, even in small part, with Pharisaic Judaism, in either its ancient or its present modernistic form.

Discard the old robe of works, take in its place the new robe of Christ’s righteousness! On εἰδὲμή, “otherwise,” see R. 1025.

Mark 2:22

22 And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the wine will burst the wineskins, and the wine is lost and the wineskins.

This second illustration completes the thought. The old cannot be kept by adding a little of the new, still less by combining all of the new with it. In this respect the thought is parallel. Both illustrations speak of conserving: in the first, the old robe, in the second, the new wine. The old robe cannot be conserved by adding the new patch; the new wine cannot be conserved by pouring it into old wineskins. In this respect the illustrations are opposites. The second, however, ends in a climax—both the new wine and the old wineskins are lost.

A wineskin was a goatskin that was removed without slitting it; the openings at the feet and the tail were closed, leaving the neck as well as the mouth. In Palestine and in Damascus we saw these skins still being used by water-carriers. When it is fresh the skin stretches considerably, but when it is old it becomes stiff and bursts under pressure. People, therefore, never put new wine, which still ferments and causes pressure, into old and dried-out skins. The result would be disastrous, for the skins would burst, and both skins and wine would be lost.

Εἰδὲμή is really a protasis that has shrunk to a mere formula: νεός is “new” as not having existed before (wine) while καινός is “new” over against “old” or παλαιός. Jesus is not a foolish person who tries to combine the old Pharisaic ways with the glorious new doctrine of grace and faith and by this folly ruins both with a result that is even worse than if he had combined the old ways with a scrap of the new doctrine. Nor does Jesus want others to attempt this folly. Cast aside all the old Pharisaism with all its ways; take only the new ways of life that fit the new doctrine.

These illustrations have often been misapplied. Because Christ’s teaching is now old, modernistic thinkers have compared it to old, dried-out wineskins and have stated that it is no longer to be combined with the new religious views they advocate. So they call for new moral codes and standards, new “categories of thought,” new conceptions of sin and righteousness, new visions of God, etc. But they are mistaken in two directions: their new ideas are ancient and the teaching of Christ is still as new, true, and glorious as it was in the days when he walked on earth. The ancient Pharisaism has changed only its name and its trimmings; the verities which Jesus taught are still verities and will be nothing less till the end of time. Away with the former; let us keep only the latter even as Jesus still tells us to do!

Mark 2:23

23 Matthew writes that, while Jesus was still speaking these things in front of his (Matthew’s) house, Jairus came to him regarding his daughter. Mark thus once more breaks the τάξις or order of events as was stated by the evangelist John according to the report of his pupil Papias. The plucking of the ears of grain occurred some time after the commissioning of the Twelve as apostles.

And it came to pass that on the Sabbath he was going through the grain. And his disciples began to make their way plucking the ears.

On καὶἐγενετο see v. 15; it is construed with the accusative and the infinitive only here and in Luke’s writings. This expression marks the following account as being important. Judging from the ripeness of the grain, the time must have been April, near the Passover season, a year before Jesus’ death. Mark does not mention the hunger of the disciples as Matthew does, for instance where he is less circumstantial than his predecessor, which should be noted. The hunger explains the action of the disciples in plucking ears and eating the grain. The narrative itself, however, turns on the accusation of the Pharisees and the answer which Jesus gave. This suffices for Mark. “Sabbath” may be expressed by either the plural or the singular; both forms occur in Matt. 12:1, 2. Ἤρξαντο does not mean that the Pharisees objected at once when the disciples “began” to pluck grain but merely helps to paint the scene by telling us how, when the disciples reached the path through the grain, they started to pluck grain.

The classics distinguish between ὁδὸνποιεῖν and ὁδὸνποιεῖσθαι, “to make a way” through something and “to proceed on a way,” to travel. But this distinction is lost in the Koine. Hence it is fruitless to urge that the heavy grain leaned across the path, and that the disciples “made a way” through it by plucking off the ears. Did Jesus not walk in front, and did he tread down the grain? Does plucking a few ears make a path? Matthew and Mark are also said to disagree; the one makes eating the purpose of plucking the ears, the other the opening of a way through the grain. Yet all that follows in Mark deals with the eating exactly as it does in Matthew. Deut. 23:25 permitted plucking a few ears in a neighbor’s field.

Mark 2:24

24 And the Pharisees were saying to him, See, why are they doing on the Sabbath what is not lawful?

Luke adds that the Pharisees assailed also the disciples, both they and Jesus were blamed. Some of the Pharisees were again at hand to spy upon Jesus, and they once more thought that they had a strong case against him. The exclamation “see” indicates how horrified these Pharisees acted whereas they were only too happy to have found a clear case against Jesus. Matthew reports that the Pharisees made the direct charge of unlawfulness. That was undoubtedly the force of what they said. Mark and Luke have questions with “why.” And this was most likely the form of the charge. “Why are they doing on the Sabbath what is not lawful?” means: “Why dost thou allow this unlawfulness?” It is not that the disciples were, perhaps, thoughtless and thus excusable; it is that Jesus is to blame for the conduct of these disciples. The Pharisees cared little for the disciples, they were after Jesus.

“It is not lawful,” οὐκἔξεστι, charges a breach of the law, namely of Exod. 20:10 as illustrated by Exod. 16:22 but as this was interpreted by the Patres Traditionum: He who reaps the very least on the Sabbath is chargeable; and to pluck ears is a species of reaping. And whoever breaks off anything from its stalk is chargeable under the specification of reaping. The works which make a man chargeable with stoning and with a sacrifice if he sins ignorantly are either generic or derivative. Thirty-nine kinds of the generic are enumerated: to plow, to sow, to reap, to bind sheaves, to thresh, to winnow, to grind, to pound to powder, etc., to shear sheep, to dye wool, etc.; and the derivatives are of the same class and likeness: furrowing == plowing, cutting up vegetables == grinding, plucking ears == reaping. The issue was thus not regarding the eating of the grain, which is the reason Mark omits it while Matthew is more explanatory in this case by mentioning both the hunger and the eating.

Jesus assumes full responsibility for what his disciples are doing, but he himself plucked no ears. In the other charges about the Sabbath it was always the same: Jesus did nothing with his own hands on which the Jews could pounce. This gave Jesus the tactical advantage of defending others, not himself, and of compelling the Pharisees to raise the question about the real principle at issue: “Is it, or is it not, lawful?” instead of passionately assailing his person. The law itself was the issue, and the things that men did were only illustrations for or against it. This was wisdom and mastery.

Mark 2:25

25 And he went on to say to them, Did you never read what David did when he had need and was hungry, he himself and those with him? How he went into the house of God in the time of Abiathar the high priest and ate the showbread, which is not lawful to eat except for the priests, and gave to those that were with him?

A writer may use the aorist εἶπε or εἶπον, namely, when he is noting only the fact of speaking; but he may want to picture the act of speaking (Schilderung einer gehaltenen Rede), and he then uses ἔλεγε or, as in v. 24, ἔλεγον. Jesus lays his finger on the real trouble with these Pharisees: too much reading of rabbinical law and not enough of divine law. Again, they take only a fractional view of what the Scriptures say by stressing one or two passages only and fail to combine all the passages on a subject—a fault that is frequently found to this day. The Pharisees had, of course, read 1 Sam. 21 but had failed to note how this chapter interprets Exod. 20:10. We need not think that David’s need was so great that he and his companions were starving; they were very hungry, that is enough.

Mark 2:26

26 What did David do in his need? He went into “the House of God,” which, however, does not mean into the Holy Place or Sanctuary of the Tabernacle but into the courts, where he might freely go; compare Ps. 122. The ἄρτοιτῆςπροθέσεως, “the breads of the setting forth” or the showbread, were twelve loaves, each made of about 6¼ pounds of flour and set forth in two rows on a gold-covered table in the Holy Place every Sabbath Day; and when they were removed they were to be eaten only by the priests, Lev. 24:5–9. The bread that David received was not that which was at the time lying in the Holy Place but some that had been removed after having served its sacred purpose. The force of ἐπί when it is used with persons is quite often, as here, “in the days of Abiathar,” R. 603.

Mark writes Abiathar, and 1 Sam. 21 Ahimelech. Some conclude that Mark had a lapse of memory and made a mistake. These solutions, that the holy writers had faulty memories, are hasty; they relieve the commentator of making further investigation. We may not always be able to clear up the difficulty because of our ignorance, but one thing is certain, the writer himself made no mistake, the Scriptures are inerrant in every case. One solution is that the two names Ahimelech and Abiathar were borne by the father as well as by the son. This is established by 2 Sam. 8:17; 1 Chron. 18:16; 24:3, 6, 31, where Ahimelech is called the son of Abiathar whereas in 1 Sam. 21 and 22 Abiathar is called the son of Ahimelech.

This may seem strange, but the passages are very clear. Another solution is that the father and the son were both present when David came to Nob, and both gave the bread to David. Ahimelech, the father, soon died, and Abiathar, the son, became high priest and made a record of the facts, which are thus rightly said to have taken place in his day.

David ate this sacred bread and gave it to those with him, τοῖςοὗσι, the substantivized present participle: “to those being with him.” Jesus assumes that the Pharisees agree with him that David, whom they esteemed so highly, did right by receiving and eating this showbread. Yet the law reserved this sacred bread only for the priests. The Pharisees had used οὐκἔξεστι, and Jesus repeats this with reference to the bread: οὒςοὐκἔξεστιφαγεῖνκτλ. It was God’s own law that made it “unlawful” for any persons but priests to eat this bread; it was not merely a rabbinical dictum such as the Pharisees brought against Jesus to condemn the plucking of a few ears of grain.

Jesus overtops the charge of the Pharisees. He proves by David’s own example that even the divine ceremonial law was not intended to be absolute in its application. The rabbinical refinements are disregarded as being unworthy of notice. God cares more for the right spiritual condition of the heart than for the outward observance of his own ceremonial regulations. The argument is overwhelming. David’s hunger sets aside even a divine regulation—shall not the hunger of the disciples set aside mere rabbinical notions?

Mark 2:27

27 Matthew’s account is again more detailed than Mark’s and Luke’s. He reports the second argument of Jesus: the priests in the very Temple of God violate the ceremonial law of Sabbath rest by the hard work they do in butchering the sacrificial animals, and this work is prescribed even by God himself. But while Mark and Luke abbreviate, Mark reports a saying of Jesus on this occasion that neither Matthew nor Luke has preserved, that about the Sabbath being made for man and not the reverse. The claim that this saying was spoken in another connection lacks plausibility. Why should it not have been spoken here?

And he went on to say to them, The Sabbath came to be on account of man, and not man on account of the Sabbath, so that the Son of man is lord even of the Sabbath.

Both Mark and Luke write καὶἔλεγεναὐτοῖς in introducing the final highly important statement of Jesus. Both evangelists intend to note that what they now report is the conclusion of what Jesus told the Pharisees in defense of his disciples. Jesus concludes by announcing the fundamental principle on which all Sabbath observance turned. In examining the divine Sabbath regulations in the Scriptures, in studying all the pertinent Scripture illustrations, and finally in judging the empty rabbinical rules and traditions, the first truth to hold fast is that the Sabbath came to be διὰτὸνἄνθρωπον and not man διὰτὸνσάββατον. Jesus is not speaking of Sabbath observance prior to the giving of the law on Sinai, for the entire altercation deals with the regulations that were delivered through Moses.

The principle back of all that God ordered in his law regarding the Sabbath was that it might be a blessing for man. This day afforded man physical rest and, still more important, time to attend to his spiritual needs. But the Jews had inverted this. They treated man as if he had been created for the purpose of keeping the Sabbath laws. The Sabbath had to be kept, no matter how man fared, whereas God intended that man should be blessed—by the Sabbath, of course, but, if necessary, even at the expense of the Sabbath. Ἐγένετο means “came to be,” and the article with ἄνθρωπος is generic, der Mensch.

Mark 2:28

28 From this great principle, which exhibits the true relation of the Sabbath to man, the deduction follows (ὥστε) that “the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.” The entire ceremonial law, all the forms of Jewish worship, in particular also the Sabbath with its divine regulations, were given to Israel by God, not as Elohim, but as Yahweh, as part of the great plan of salvation to be wrought out by the Messiah. The Sabbath was part of the preparation to fit Israel for its coming Savior. Hence not as the essential Son but as the God-man was Jesus κύριος also of the Sabbath as well as of all other ceremonial laws.

The emphasis is on the predicate which is, therefore, also placed first. He who as “lord” thus stood at the top of all these laws and institutions was now here to fulfill all that they meant (Matt. 5:17). That is why he calls himself “the Son of man” (see v. 10), he who is man and yet more than man, the incarnate Son, the Messiah. He who with the Father as the Son of Yahweh himself had instituted the Sabbath with its religious observances for man’s benefit was now here to honor the Sabbath and to do this by fulfilling the divine Sabbath law. He would be the very last to let his disciples become guilty of any violation of the Sabbath.

The idea that “lord of the Sabbath” means so superior to the Sabbath that he can do what he pleases on the Sabbath, or let his disciples do what is contrary to the divine Sabbath law, is the very opposite of what Jesus means. Jesus was under the law, Gal. 4:4, which included the ceremonial law and thus “also” (καί) the Sabbath law. Throughout his life he faithfully observed all of this law. The Sabbath desecrations with which the Jews charged him were violations only of the man-made Pharasaical regulations which were contrary to the divine law. But in the Son of man and in his fulfillment of the law the whole ceremonial law would attain its divinely intended purpose and would thus eventually drop away as being no longer needed. This would come about through the death and the resurrection of the Son of man.

The new covenant without ceremonies would supersede the old with its ceremonies. Thus the Jewish Sabbath and all the sacrifices, plus even the Temple, would disappear.

It is, however, unwarranted to think that Jesus was already abrogating the Jewish Sabbath, Temple, etc. The Christian Sunday lay in the future. After Pentecost, led by the Spirit, the apostles and the church would in perfect Christian liberty choose a day for the divine public worship, but not as another law and Sabbath but only as a free expression of their desire to use the Word in public as the Lord bade them and unitedly and in proper order to worship the Lord. Col. 2:16, 17; Concordia Triglotta, 91, §§ 57–60. To call the Christian Sunday “the Sabbath” is to give it a wrong and a misleading name, to mix Judaism and Christianity, and to introduce a false and a dangerous legalism into the observance of Sunday.

B.-D. Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage besorgt von Albert Debrunner.

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

C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von D. Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.