Mark 2

Mark 2:1-12

**5. FORGIVENESS AND HEALING2:1-12

TEXT 2:1-12**

And when he entered again into Capernaum after some days, it was noised that he was in the house. And many were gathered together, so that there was no longer room for them, no, not even about the door: and he spake the word unto him. And they come, bringing unto him a man sick of the palsy, borne of four. And when they could not come nigh unto him for the crowd, they uncovered the roof where he was: and when they had broken it up, they let down the bed whereon the sick of the palsy lay. And Jesus seeing their faith saith unto the sick of the palsy, Son thy sins are forgiven. But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts, Why doth this man thus speak? he blasphemeth: who can forgive sins but one, even God? And straightway Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, saith unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts? Whether is easier, to say to the sick of the palsy, thy sins are forgiven; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk? But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins (he saith to the sick of the palsy), I say unto thee, Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thy house. And he arose, and straightway took up the bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS 2:1-12

What had occurred between the healing of the leper and entering back into Capernaum?

In which house in Capernaum was Jesus staying?

Why so much interest in the words of Jesus?

Was Jesus preaching to the people or merely conversing with them?

Why bring the palsied man to Jesuswhy not just tell Jesus about him and let His power operate over the distance?

Wasn-’t it wrong to destroy property to see Jesus? Why didn-’t Jesus rebuke them?

Was there some connection between the sickness of the palsied man and sin in his past life? What?

Just what was involved in speaking blasphemy?

Why didn-’t Jesus heal the sickness first and then forgive sins?

This was the first step of our Lord toward Calvaryshow how this was true.

COMMENT

TIMEMay-June, A. D. 28. The paralytic was cured some days after the healing of the leper on Jesus-’ return from his first tour of Galilee. The calling of Matthew was not very long after. But Matthew’s feast was probably several weeks later, in the autumn, A.D. 28, following Mark 5:21. See Andrew’s Life of Christ, pp. 277-283.

PLACEThe paralytic was cured at Capernaum. Matthew’s place for the receipt of custom was at Capernaum, probably, upon the Damascus road near its entrance into the city. The road from Damascus to the cities along the coast passed by Jacob’s Bridge over the Jordan, and thence along the shore of the lakeAndrews. The feast of Matthew was also at Capernaum.

PARALLEL ACCOUNTSThe healing of the paralytic (Matthew 9:2-8; Luke 5:17-26).

LESSON OUTLINE1. Coming to Christ in Faith. 2. The Accusation of the Scribes. 3. The Power of the Son of Man.

LESSON ANALYSIS

I.

COMING TO CHRIST IN FAITH. Mark 2:1-4.

The Lord Preaching in Capernaum. Mark 2:2; Luke 5:17.

The Palsied Man Brought. Mark 2:3; Matthew 9:2; Luke 5:18.

Faith Overcomes Difficulties. Mark 2:4; Luke 5:19.

II.

THE ACCUSATION OF THE SCRIBES. Mark 2:5-9.

Sins Forgiven. Mark 2:5; Matthew 9:2; Luke 5:20.

The Charge of Blasphemy. Mark 2:7; Matthew 9:3; Luke 5:21.

The Lord’s Reply. Mark 2:8-9; Matthew 9:4-5; Luke 5:22-23.

III.

THE POWER OF THE SON OF MAN. Mark 2:10-28.

Power to Forgive Sins Asserted. Mark 2:10; Matthew 9:6; Luke 5:24.

The Power to Forgive Sins Demonstrated. Mark 2:11-12; Matthew 9:6; Luke 5:25.

INTRODUCTION

The return to Capernaum and the healing of the paralytic followed, after a short period, the history of which is not recorded, the healing of the leper. The incident narrated in this text occurred at the close of our Lord’s first missionary circuit of Galilee. His labors were now devoted to this northern district of Palestine, where prejudices and bigotry were not so intense as in Judea. He was now at the most popular period of his earthly ministry. He had shown his divine power by many miracles, healing the nobleman’s son at Capernaum, bringing myriads of fish to the disciples-’ net on the Sea of Tiberias, and restoring the demoniac in the synagogue. Though rejected at Nazareth, he was received with honor at Capernaum, His teachings, whether on the hill top, or beside the lake, or in the house of worship, were heard by wondering throngs, and his steps throughout Galilee were attended by multitudes, drawn by the fame of his miracles and the fascination of his words. The Pharisees and leaders, though suspicious, were not yet openly his enemies, and the unthinking masses followed him with blind expectation of a new Judean kingdom which was to transform the Romans at once from masters to slaves, and bend the world in homage. Just at this hour occurred two significant miracles: the one silently asserting Jesus as superior to all ceremonial regulations, the other calmly claiming for him the divine prerogative of forgiving sin.

EXPLANATORY NOTES

I. COMING TO CHRIST IN FAITHMar 2:1. Again he entered Capernaum. Matthew says, he entered his own city, the city he made his home, in which some have supposed that his mother now dwelt. It was after days, some time having been occupied in his teaching and healing tour of Galilee. The excitement that followed his displays of divine power, and especially the healing of the leper, had rendered seclusion necessary until it should subside and he had remained without in desert places for a time. He evidently entered Capernaum quietly, but the tidings soon spread that he was in the house, probably either the home occupied by his mother and brethren, or the home of Peter, where we recently found him. His own house, as far as he had one, was now in Capernaum (Matthew 4:13).

Mark 2:2. Many were gathered together, Luke (Luke 5:17) says, there were present Pharisees and doctors of the law from Galilee, Judea and Jerusalem. They had evidently gathered by a concerted arrangement to examine into the claims of a teacher who was creating so profound a sensation, and were moved by hostile purposes. This is the first time the antagonism of these classes shows itself. Hence, as he taught the throng that crowded the house, they sat by as spectators, censors, and spies, to pick up something on which to ground a reproach or accusation. How many are there in the midst of our assemblies where the gospel is preached that do not sit under the word, but sit by! It is to them as a tale that is told them, not as a message that is sent them; they are willing that we should preach before them, not that we should preach to them. And he preached the word to them. The simple language of Mark outlines the picture so that we can almost see the eager throngs filling the house, crowding around the door on the outside until there was no more entrance, stretching their heads over each other in order to see and hear, and the Lord, without any formality, declaring the word of the kingdom. Preached. It is not the same Greek word that is found in Mark 1:39. That means to announce as a herald; thus simply to speak, as rendered in the Revision. The Savior was in a private house, and sat talking to the people. Such is the import of the term. It is almost always rendered speak in the Common Version, sometimes talk (or say or utter); never preach, except here and in four or five places in the Acts of the Apostles, and in all of these it would be better to render it *speak.

Mark 2:3. They come. bringing one sick of the palsy.* Four persons bear the invalid, who was perfectly helpless, to the house while Christ was engaged in teaching. Albert Barnes, in his notes (Matthew 4:24), classifies the infirmities which, in the New Testament, are included under the general name of palsy: (1) The paralytic shock affecting the whole body; (2) a stroke affecting only one side, or a part of the body; (3) paraplegy, affecting all the system below the neck; (4) catalepsy, caused by a contraction of the muscles in the whole or a part of the body (5) the cramps, a fearful and common malady. The disease, in its worst forms, was incurable. Borne of four. Borne on his pallet or bed, with one person at each corner.

Mark 2:4. Could not come nigh unto him for the press. The crowd. Here, then, we have a reason, as one has observed, why it was expedient that our Lord should depart, and that the Comforter should come. The throng of multitudes crowding after the bodily presence of Christ was a hindrance to the gospel; while many could not get at him by reason of the press, and even some, for a season, might go empty away. His body was necessarily limited by space, but the spirit of the Lord is in all places. Uncovered the roof. Unable to enter the house, they climbed to its roof, either by an outside staircase, a ladder, or from the roof of an adjoining house. The following from Thompson will make the account easily understood: The houses of Capernaum, as is evident from the ruins, were like those of modern villages in this same region, very low, with flat roofs reached by a stairway from the yard or court. The roof is only a few feet high, and by stooping down and holding the corner of the couch, merely a thickly-padded quilt, as at present in this region, they could let down the sick man without any apparatus of ropes or cords to assist them. I have often seen it done, and done it myself, to houses in Lebanon, but there is always more dust than is agreeable. The materials now employed for roofs are beams about three feet apart, across which short sticks are arranged close together and covered with thickly-matted thorn-bush, called bellan. Over this is spread a coat of stiff mortar, and then comes the marl, or earth, which makes the roof. Now, it is easy to remove any part of this without injuring the rest. No objection, therefore, would be made on this account by the owners of the house. They had merely to scrape back the earth from a portion of the roof over the lewan, take up the thorns and short sticks, and let down the couch between the beams at the very feet of Jesus. The end achieved, they could easily restore the roof as it was before. The bed. This was a small, low couch or bed of the commonest description, such as was used by poor people, having a mere network of cords stretched over the frame to support the mattress. Sometimes merely a sheepskin, used for the service of the sick, or as a camp-bed.

II. THE ACCUSATION OF THE SCRIBESMar 2:5. When Jesus saw their faith. Their faith was shown by their action. A living faith is always a power that moves. It is not a strong conviction of any doctrine about Christ, but a strong trust in Christ. These men had no theories about Jesus, but had confidence in him as the great Healer and sought to come to him Matthew Henry quaintly says: When the centurion and the woman of Canaan were in no care at all to bring the patients they interceded for into Christ’s presence, but believed that he could cure them at a distance, he commended their faith. But though in these there seemed to be a different notion of the thing, and an apprehension that it was requisite the patient should be brought into his presence, yet he did not censure and condemn their weakness, did not ask them, -Why do you give this disturbance to the assembly? Are you indeed under such a degree of infidelity as to think I could not have cured him though he had had been out of doors?-’ But he made the best of it; and even in this he saw their faith. It is a comfort to us that we serve a Master that is willing to make the best of us. The palsied man had faith as well as his bearers, for they would not bring him against his will. Thy sins be forgiven thee. Matthew says, Be of good cheer, etc. The Jews held that

all disease was a punishment for sin (John 9:2), and in a deeper sense, all evil of every kind is the fruit of sin. Nor is it unlikely that in this case the paralysis was really the punishment of his special sins (probably of sensuality). Accordingly, he first of all promises forgiveness, as being the moral condition necessary to the healing of the body; and then, having by forgiveness removed the hindrance, he proceeds to impart that healing itself by an exercise of his supernatural power.

Mark 2:6.* Certain of the scribes.* The doctors of the law that Luke says had come from Judea and Jerusalem. They had come to criticise and condemn, and hence had eyes and ears open to discover a fault. Not long before Jesus had startled the theologians at Jerusalem when he attended the passover, and hearing of his wonderful popularity in Galilee they had come to scent out heresy. Reasoning in their hearts. Matthew says, within themselves. They did not speak out, but Christ read their hearts.

Mark 2:7. Why doth this man thus speak? Another reading adopted by the revisers and the critical editors. Tischendorf, Hort and Westcott is even more forcible: Why doth this man speak thus? He blasphemeth. Speak blasphemies. Blasphemy, says George Mackenzie, in his Laws and Customs of Scotland in Matters Criminal (Tit. iii., 1), is called in law, divine lese majesty or treason; and it is committed either (1) by denying that of God which belongs to him as one of his attributes, or (2) by attributing to him that which is absurd and inconsistent with his divine nature, or, as it may be added (3), by assuming one’s self, or ascribing to others, what is an incommunicable property or prerogative of God. It is with a reference to this third form of the offense that the word is used in the passage before us. Who can forgive sins but God only? Christ had not yet said that he forgave sins; only that his sins were forgiven. Nor could he claim to forgive sins, were he only a man, without blasphemy, and when he asserts the power to forgive sins he declares that he is the Son of God. Says Geikie: His claim of this divine power was the turning point in the life of Christ, for the accusation of blasphemy, muttered in the hearts of the rabbis present, was the beginning of a process that ended after a time on Calvary, and he knew it.

Mark 2:9. Whether is it easier to say.. Thy sins be forgiven thee. To say, Thy sins be forgiven thee, was easy, for no visible result could test the saying. To say, Take up thy bed and walk, was not apparently so easy, for failure would cover with confusion. He said the last, leaving the inferenceIf I can do the most difficult, then, of course, I can do the easier. Here we have the true character of a miracle; it is the outward manifestation of the power of God, in order that we may believe in the power of God in things that are invisible.F. W. Robertson. As much as the soul excels the body does the forgiveness of sin rise above the cure of bodily sickness, But Christ adapts his mode of speech to their capacities, who in their carnal minds felt more influence by outward signs than by the whole putting forth of his spiritual power as availing to eternal life.Calvin.

III. THE POWER OF THE SON OF MAN.Mark 2:10. That ye may know. By doing that which is capable of being put to proof, I will vindicate my right and power to do that which in its very nature is incapable of being proved, By these visible tides of God’s grace I will give you to know in what direction the great under-currents of his love are setting, and that both are obedient to my word. The Son of man cannot simply mean a man, or a mere man, for this would be untrue in fact, since the powers in question do not belong to men as such, nor could any reason be assigned for this circuitous expression of so simple an idea. The true sense is determined by Daniel 7:13, where the phrase is confessedly applied to the Messiah, as a partaker of our nature, a description which itself implies a higher nature, or, in other words, that he is called the Son of man because he is the Son of God. This official application of the term accounts for the remarkable and interesting fact that it is never used by any other person in the gospel, nor of Christ by any but himself. Hath power on earth to forgive sins, Authority is a better rendering than power, and it is so given by the American Revision Committee. He had authority from the Father who had sent him, and who had committed judgment to his hands on earth. Not merely authority while on the earth to forgive sins, nor authority to forgive sins committed on the earth, but authority to exercise the function of forgiveness of sins upon the earth; that is, that ye may know that this is the Messiah’s earthly mission. Bengel finely remarks: This saying savors of heavenly origin. The Son of man, as God manifest in man’s flesh, has on man’s earth that power which in its fountain and essence belongs to God in heaven.Alford. Sins are against God, and therefore only God can forgive them; for in the nature of things only he can forgive against whom the offense has been committed.

Mark 2:11. Arise, take up thy bed. A light mattress. Other men brought him on the bed; he can now carry himself away, bed and all. Christ’s argument here affords a fair test of all priestly claims to absolve from sin. If the priest has power to remit the eternal punishment of sin, he should be able, certainly, to remit the physical and temporal punishment of sin. This Christ did; this the priest does not, and cannot do. Any popish priest can say, Thy sins be forgiven thee, and the credulous may believe that a miracle of pardon is performed; but it is not quite so easy to perform the bodily miracle.

Mark 2:12. Insomuch that they were all amazed. Amazed at the high claims of Jesus and at the demonstration that his claims were well founded. The scribes had whispered in their hearts the charge of blasphemy, but the people saw a manifestation of divine power and glorified God, because, as Luke says, God had given such power to men. They looked upon Jesus, not as Divine, but as the commissioned agent of the Divine will.

IV. POWER TO FORGIVE SINS.This whole incident illustrates: (1) The difference between the spiritual authority of Christ and that of his apostles, none of whom assumed to forgive sins. See Acts 8:22-24. (2) It affords a test for all claims of priests or bishops to pardon sin, or to officially pronounce the absolution of sin. If they possessed the power to absolve from sin they should be able, like Christ, to relieve from the temporal consequences of sin. Romish priests claim a prerogative that was never claimed by Peter or the other apostles, which belongs to the Lord alone, and which it is not only presumption but blasphemy for any man or set of men to claim who cannot manifest divine credentials to confirm their claims.

FACT QUESTIONS 2:1-12

When did the healing of the paralytic occur?

What was the incident immediately before this? The one soon after?

Where was this incident in relation to His first circuit of Galilee?

Mention two miracles which promoted the popularity of Jesus. Where had He been rejected?

What evidence do we have that the mother of Jesus and His brothers lived in Capernaum?

Who came to the house from Judea and Jerusalem? Cf. Luke 5:17. Why were they there?

Mark 1:39; Mark 2:2 both speak of the preaching of Jesus but they use two different wordswhat are they?

Name three infirmities classified under the general heading of palsy.

Explain the reason why the crowd suggested the need for the comforter.

Discuss the procedure used in uncovering the roof. Was this necessarily destructive?

How did Jesus see their faith?

Show how Jesus made the best out of the failure of the four.

In what way were the words of Jesus concerning the forgiveness of sins appropriate to the belief of the Jews? Cf. John 9:2.

Did Jesus intend to teach His deity by His actions and words with the palsied man? Why didn-’t the scribes believe Him?

Why use the word easier in reference to the forgiveness of sins?

Explain the true character of a miracle?

Read Daniel 7:13 and show its application in this connection.

In the nature of things only he can forgive against whom the offense has been committed.how had the palsied man sinned against Jesus?

What proof have we of the failure of present day priests to forgive sins?

Who was amazed? Who were incensed? Why?

This incident shows the difference between the spiritual authority of Christ and that of his apostlesin what manner?

SIDELIGHTS

MORAL PARALYSISIn one of our city hospitals a young woman of beautiful face and form had lain motionless for many months. Except for the brightness of her face, and the action of the hands, her body was apparently dead. Yet she spoke with great confidence of her restoration to health at some future time, and was enthusiastic in planning good works then to be executed. A physician remarked that it was the saddest case he had ever witnessed. It was a paralysis, not of the flesh, but of the mind: it was a moral paralysis. The will itself had lost its power of action. She could plan for the future, but not will anything at the present moment. After a few months the inactivity bred fatal disorder and she passed away. This is a picture of the moral paralysis of many. They mean to be Christians at some time; they do not determine to do it now.Anon.

LESSONS

1. Sin is like paralysisa weakness and torpor of the conscience, and the will to do good.

2. It is our privilege to bring those to Christ who cannot or will not come of themselves.

3. Difficulties are in the way of the sinner’s cure, to prove and strengthen faith. Faith will find or make a way to come to Christ.

4. Christ forgives and saves only on condition of faith; for the faith that loves and chooses God is the beginning of heavenly life in the soul. It is useless to forgive those who immediately plunge into sin again.

5. The first need of the soul is forgiveness; then follows the healing of the soul from its sinful nature.

6. Christ knows our inmost thoughts and motivesa terror to the bad, but a comfort to the good.

7. THE LESSON.This may be regarded as an enacted parable of sin and redemption. The paralytic typifies the sinner by his original helplessness (Isaiah 40:30; John 6:44; John 15:5), faith, by his earnestness to come to Christ in spite of obstacle (Psalms 25:15; Psalms 86:2; Psalms 86:7), a common Christian experience, by the delay he suffers between his repentance and faith, and his cure (James 5:7-8) and the power of divine grace, in the ability to obey Christ’s command, received in the very attempt to comply with it (Philippians 4:13).Abbott.

POINTS FOR TEACHERS

1. Consider Christ’s return, from whence, and to what place and how received. 2. Note the evidences of strong faith in the palsied man and his bearers. 3. Bring opt the circumstances; Christ teaching in a house, crowds around, no way to reach him, the palsied man, helpless, brought on a couch by four men, no other way and they open the flat roof and let the sick man down to Christ. 4. Observe the language of Christ, the complaint of the scribes, and the answer of Christ. 5. Consider who forgives sins, blasphemy for a man to make such a claim, why Christ had power. 6. Point out how he demonstrated his power, as no pope or priest ever does. 7. Observe that we have in this lesson an ENACTED PARABLE OF SIN AND REDEMPTION, together with Christ’s example in dealing with sinners. (1) The paralytica type of sinners (Mark 2:1-3). (2) He is brought to Christ (Mark 2:3-4), as we must bring sinners by our labors and our prayers. (3) He comes in faith and finds forgiveness (Mark 2:5). (4) Forgiveness is proved and followed by healing (Mark 2:6-12), as renewed lives follow and prove the forgiveness of our sins. (5) Then sinners, even of the worst class, are called to be the disciples of Christ.

Mark 2:13-17

**6. THE CALL OF MATTHEW AND HIS FEAST 2:13-17

TEXT 2:13-17**

And he went forth again by the seaside; and all the multitude resorted unto him, and he taught them. And as he passed by, he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at the place of toll, and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose and followed him. And it came to pass, that he was sitting at meat in his house, and many publicans and sinners sat down with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him. And the scribes of the Pharisees, when they saw that he was eating with the sinners and publicans, said unto his disciples, He eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners. And when Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of a physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS 2:13-17

Why did Jesus do most of His teaching outside?

Isn-’t it rather strange to read of a tax collector working by the Sea of Galilee? Explain.

Was this the first meeting of Jesus with Matthew? How account for the immediate response?

Why did Jesus go to eat at the home of Matthew? Be specific.

Are we to conclude that the publicans and sinners were at the feast only because they followed Jesus?; or did they come by invitation?

What was wrong with eating and drinking with publicans and sinners?

Why ask the discipleswhy not ask Jesus?

In the answer of Jesus was He being ironical in His reference to the well and the sick?

COMMENT 2:13-17

TIMEEarly Summer A.D. 28. PLACENear the northern shore of Galileeon the road from Damascus as it entered Capernaum.

PARALLEL ACCOUNTSMat 9:9;Luke 5:27-28.

OUTLINE1. Teaching the multitude by the seaside, Mark 2:13. 2. Matthew called from his work to follow Jesus, Mark 2:14. 3. The feast in the home of Levi, Mark 2:15. 4. The criticism of eating with sinners; the answer of Jesus, Mark 2:16-17.

ANALYSIS

I.

TEACHING THE MULTITUDE BY THE SEASIDE, Mark 2:13.

The place where He had taught before.

A great crowd present because of previous miracles.

II.

MATTHEW CALLED FROM HIS WORK TO FOLLOW JESUS. Mark 2:14-17

The place of toll was noticed by our Lord.

Immediate response.

EXPLANATORY NOTES

I.

TEACHING THE MULTITUDES BY THE SEASIDE, Mark 2:13.

Mark 2:13. By the seaside. Our Lord often is found in the open air preaching to the multitudesespecially was this true beside the Sea of Galilee. There were many villages from which came the many people to hear Him.

II.

MATTHEW CALLED FROM HIS WORK TO FOLLOW JESUS. Mark 2:14-17

Mark 2:14. He saw LeviThere were many who fished in the lakeThere were many more who came in and out of the cityfrom all of these would Levi collect taxes. Jesus had already healed one leperhe is about to heal anothera social leper of the society of His day, Here was a Jew hired to collect taxes of his own people for the despised Romans. If such tax collectors were paid a common wage for their work it would have been scorned as an occupationbut when all knew they assessed beyond the amount prescribed and kept the overcharge for themselves it became a position of utter contempt. By Mark alone is he called the son of Alphaeus. There is no reason to suppose that this was any other Alphaeus than the one referred to in all the lists of the apostles where we have James, the son of Alphaeus. In three of the lists he stands next to Matthew and Thomas. Matthew and James are thus presumably brothers; and if, as is almost certain, Thomas was the twin brother of Matthew, Alphaeus was the father of three of the twelve. If the word brother is rightly supplied before of James in Luke 6:16 (Judas the brother of James), he may have been the father of four.

We have no record of a previous acquaintance of Jesus on the part of Levi. We can assume the following: (1) He could have heard the preaching of Mar 2:13. (2) One of his brothers could have introduced Jesus to him. (3) He could have been among the other publicans who were baptized by John (Luke 3:12-13; Luke 7:29). (4) Peter said the apostles were followers of Jesus from the baptismor baptizing of John (Acts 1:21-22).

We must conclude that when the words of Jesus Follow Me fell on his heart it was one prepared to receive them. Here was a hungry soul in the most unlikely of circumstancesbut then our Lord found several of thesewe think immediately of the woman at the well (John 4:7-38).

Mark 2:15. Jesus (he) sat at meat in his houseLuke tells us the feast was prepared by Matthew for Jesus (Luke 5:29). We are not to conclude this event happened immediately after the calling of Levino time element is indicated. We ought to mark the difference in the readings of the King James Version and the American Standard. The name Jesus is supplied by the translatorsit is much more natural to refer this to Leviwho here in his own house is reclining at the table in the presence of Jesus and many others. Evidently Matthew wanted all publicans to hear and see what he had heard and seen. The publicans were at the feast by invitation as were undoubtedly the disciples of Jesus.

Mark 2:16. The scribes and Phariseesa better translation would read the scribes of the Pharisees. This is the first mention of the Pharisees in Mark’s Gospel. They were a sect of separatists. The group began in the Maccabean period, in the second century before Christ. The Pharisees were trying to withstand the rising tide of Hellenism in Palestine. They stood strongly for close adherence to the law, including strict observance of all the ceremonial requirements. But like all such groups, the sect became more and more legalistic in its emphasis. (Earle) These scribes stood outside the house to ask this question of the disciples.

Mark 2:17. They that are whole (strong). This was used ironically by Jesus to describe the Pharisees-’ attitude about himselfsince he felt self sufficienthe need not concern himself over the work of the great physician.

They that are sicksurely even at the risk of contagion the physician must minister to the sick, If the Pharisees felt these publicans and sinners so much in need they could not object if someone attempted to help them.

not to call the righteous but sinners. Jesus plainly states His purposeHis work, His concern would be among sinnersHis callHis healing would be for themif this offended the Pharisees so be it!

FACT QUESTIONS 2:13-17

Who would hear Jesus by the Sea of Galilee i.e. besides a few fishermen?

Why did Levi have his place of toll by the Seaside? Why was he hated?

Who were the brothers of Matthew?

What are the possibilities of previous contact of Matthew with Jesus?

Why was Levi so ready to follow?

Who prepared the feastin whose house?

Why did the Pharisees criticize Him?

How did Jesus attempt to show the Pharisees their sin?

Did Jesus infer there were some men who could not be helped?

Mark 2:18-22

**7. DISPUTE ABOUT FASTING 2:18-22.

TEXT: 2:18-22**

And John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting: and they come and say unto him, Why do John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but thy disciples fast not? And Jesus said unto them, Can the sons of the bride-chamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them? as long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then will they fast in that day. No man seweth a piece of undressed cloth on an old garment: else that which should fill it up taketh from it, the new from the old and a worse rent is made. And no man putteth new wine into old wine-skins: else the wine will burst the skins, and the wine perisheth, and the skins: but they put new wine into fresh wineskins.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS 2:18-22

Was there something wrong about the fasting of John’s disciples or of the fasting of the Pharisees? Why did they fast?

Was Jesus saying that He and His disciples were as happy as a bridal party? If not what did He say in Mark 2:19?

Are we living in the day when the bridegroom has been taken away? If so are we to fast? If so why do we fail to do it? Cf. Acts 13:1-2.

What is represented by the undressed cloth in the figure of speech Jesus used? What was the old garment?

What worse rent would be made? What was the point of the parable?

Was the point the same in the figure of new and old wine skins?

COMMENT

TIME(Same as the call of LeviEarly Summer A.D. 28.) PLACEMany feel this conversation took place around the table in Matthew’s house.

PARALLEL ACCOUNTSMat 9:14-17; Luke 5:33-39.

OUTLINE1. The question of John’s disciples, Mark 2:18. 2. The answer of the bridegroom, Mark 2:19-20. 3. The answer of the garment, Mark 2:21. 4. The answer of the wine skins, Mark 2:22.

ANALYSIS

I.

THE QUESTION OF JOHN’S DISCIPLES. Mark 2:18.

Asked during a fast by John’s disciples and the Pharisees.

Why do John’s disciples fast and the disciples of Christ fail to fast?

II.

THE ANSWER OF THE BRIDEGROOM, Mark 2:19-20.

The joy of the bridal party prevents fasting.

When the bridegroom is gone there will be fasting.

III.

THE ANSWER OF THE GARMENT, Mark 2:21

New cloth cannot patch old clothes.

The results prevent such action.

IV.

THE ANSWER OF THE WINE SKINS, Mark 2:22.

New wine cannot go in old skins.

Results prevent such action.

EXPLANATORY NOTES

I.

THE QUESTION OF JOHN’S DISCIPLES, Mark 2:18.

Mark 2:18. John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting. Perhaps they chose the very time of the feast for a fast. This would indeed produce a contrast and conflict. We believe John’s disciples were sincere in their questions and offered no criticism. We could not say the same of the disciples of the Pharisees. The law of God prescribed only one fastthe great Day of atonement(Leviticus 23:27). During the captivity of the Jewish nation fasting was practiced by many. Fasting undoubtedly was associated with the repentance John preached.

II.

THE ANSWER OF THE BRIDEGROOM, Mark 2:19-20.

Mark 2:19.* Sons of the bride-chamber.* What a beautiful way to describe the attitude of our Lord for His work! Jesus was as happy as a bridegroomHis disciples shared His joy. How could they be sad or fast when they had just made the greatest discovery in time and eternity? It was time to rejoice, they had found the Messiah!

Mark 2:20.* Then they will fast in that day.* We now live in that day. We look for the coming of the bridegroom for His bridethere are many occasions when we need to fast. The church in Antioch fasted (Cf. Acts 13:1-2).This is not a legal requirement but it can be a wonderful spiritual exercise. There are mental, emotional, physical and spiritual benefits for the sons of the bride-chamber who will commit themselves to a period of prayer and fasting. The immediate reference here is probably to His crucifixion and the sorrow felt at that time. It can have a more far-reaching application as we have indicated.

III.

THE ANSWER OF THE GARMENT, Mark 2:21

Mark 2:21.. . a piece of undressed cloth or an old garment. This is an answer to question about fasting. Jesus is saying His mission is entirely new. It will not be added to that of the law as reflected so poorly through the Pharisees, nor even a part of the work of Johnwhich was only a preparation for the new kingdom. The Messiah was not sent to patch up the old but to offer an entirely new garment. The garment of praise for the worn-out garment of law.

IV.

THE ANSWER OF THE WINE SKINS, Mark 2:22

Mark 2:22. New wine in old wine-skinsThis is a Hebrewistic manner of presenting parablestwo with the same point for emphasis. The point in the use of the -parables-’ is that the using of the ill-chosen patch and the unsuitable bottles defeats the purpose of him who resorts to it, and the purpose is defeated because of an unwise uniting of the new with the old. The new is the living, expanding, divinely-vigorous kingdom of Christ; the old is that which pertains to the Jewish dispensation, which was decaying and ready to vanish away (Hebrews 8:13) (W. N. Clarke)

FACT QUESTIONS 2:18-22

At what time and place did this question of fasting occur?

What was the probable motive behind the question?

Why call the disciples of Jesus sons of the bride-chamber?

In what day did Jesus promise that His followers would fast?

What is represented by the piece of undressed cloth? What is the garment?

What is represented by the new wine?

SIDELIGHTS

Mark 2:13-22.Levi’s feast: the moral questions it occasioned. 1. Mark 2:13-17. Eating with publicans and sinners. In calling Matthew (Levi) from the receipt of custom, our Saviour made him relinquish all his old pursuits and companions, and conferred upon him an unexpected honour. The feast given by him was, therefore, partly a farewell, partly a celebration. In overstepping the boundary line of Jewish religious and social etiquette, the Lord performed an act of great significance, which was sure to call forth remark.

I. Superficial knowledge, when linked with malice, will put the worst construction upon the best actions. Conventional morality was invoked to condemn Christ in mingling with the publicans. No trouble was taken to ascertain the true character of the feast. By their criticism the Pharisees exposed their own hollowness and unspirituality. They condemned themselves in seeking to condemn Christ. For such judgments men are responsible. The greatest care and most spiritual view should be taken ere judgment is passed upon the actions of others, especially when their character is known to be good.

II. It is the motive which is the true key to the nature of actions. 1. This applies absolutely in the case of actions in themselves indifferent, or only conventionally forbidden; but in all actions it is an indispensable canon of ultimate judgment. Even where the external nature of an action is unmistakable, the utmost care should be taken in forming an opinion. Absolute and unqualified judgment is for God alone. 2. When challenged for our conduct it is well to explain the principle upon which we act. Christ at once makes known his motives, and with no anger. Yet in so doing he judged his accusers. They pretended to be whole, and so could not object to him doing good to those who required his aid. Why were they dissatisfied, if not from secret disquietude with their own condition and attitude? Irony proceeding from deepest spiritual discernment!

III. The holiest sought out and companied with sinners that He might make them holy. It is only by sympathy, and by appeals to their highest nature, that sinful men can be won to God.(Muir)

LESSONS

Jesus was first, last, and always a teacher. No occasion went by unimproved for teaching.

If we do not speak to all we meet about Christ how shall we discover the hungry hearts like Levi?

Could we have dinners for sinners and introduce Jesus to them at the meal? It has been done with good success.

We should not be surprised at criticismmuch of it unfoundedthis is part of the price of progress.

How glad we should be to take the particular prescription the Great physician gives for us.

We should be as happy in our labors for Christ as a bride and groom on their honeymoon.

*POINTS FOR TEACHERS

The Calling of Matthew*

(A wonderful lesson for every teacher)

We know three things about him:

(1)

He was a Hebrew.

a.

Justifiable pride.

b.

Understandable narrowness.

(2)

He was a publican.

a.

A consciousness of an authority under which he served.

b.

Responsible for accuracy in keeping of records.

(3)

A profoundly religious man.

a.

His remarkable familiarity with the Scriptures of the Hebrew people. No less than 99references in his gospel.

b.

He applied his knowledge.

How our Lord dealt with this man:

Found him in the midst of work.

a.

All the brooding of his mind lay behind the outward activity of the tax collector.

b.

Perhaps he knew very much about Jesus since his place of work was at Capernaum.

c.

The decisive momentthe command of Jesus.

Jesus asked for submission.

He promised fellowship.

He called Matthew into an enterprise.

The results are self-evident in the gospel he wrote. (G. Campbell Morgan)

Mark 2:23-28

8. THE SABBATH DISPUTE 2:233:6

a. Eating on the Sabbath. 2:23-28

TEXT 2:23-28

And it came to pass, that he was going on the Sabbath day through the cornfields; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn. And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful? And he said unto them, Did ye never read what David did, when he had need and was an hungered, he and they that were with him? How he entered into the house of God when Abiathar was high priest, and did eat the shew-bread, which it is not lawful to eat save for the priests, and gave also to them that were with him? And he said unto them. The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: so that the Son of man is lord even of the sabbath.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS 2:23-28

To where were Jesus and His disciples going as they went through the grain fields?

Why were his disciples plucking the ears of grain? Wasn-’t this stealing?

Of what did the Pharisees accuse the disciples?

How could Jesus use the example of David when David lied to the priest in getting the shewbread?

In what sense was the sabbath made for man?

Is Jesus saying the Sabbath law was subject to man not man to the Sabbath law? Explain.

In what sense is the Son of man Lord of the Sabbath?

Wouldn-’t this arouse anger in the hearts of the Pharisees and therefore be wrong?

COMMENT 2:23-28

TIMEEarly summer of A.D. 28. PLACEIn a grain field near Capernaum.

PARALLEL ACCOUNTSMat 12:1-8; Luke 6:1-5.

OUTLINE1. Walking on the sabbath, Mark 2:23. 2. The criticism of the Pharisees, Mark 2:24. 3. Jesus-’ answer, Mark 2:25-26. 4. The application, Mark 2:27-28.

ANALYSIS 2:23-28

I.

WALKING ON THE SABBATH Mark 2:23

Through the grain-fields with His disciples.

As they went the disciples plucked the grain and ate it.

II.

THE CRITICISM OF THE PHARISEES. Mark 2:24.

Careful to watch for mistakes.

objected to harvesting grain on the sabbath.

III.

JESUS-’ ANSWER. Mark 2:25-26.

They were unaware of the record and meaning of the scripture.

David’s exception would surely allow for theirs.

IV.

THE APPLICATION. Mark 2:27-28.

The true purpose of the sabbath.

The claim to Divine prerogative.

EXPLANATORY NOTES

I.

WALKING ON THE SABBATH. Mark 2:23.

Mark 2:23.. on the sabbath. his disciples began to pluck the ears. Matthew mentions the hunger of the disciples as the cause for plucking the grain. Both Jesus and His disciples had been so pressed with work that they had not time for eating. Deuteronomy 23:25 makes provision for the poor and permits eating a few ears from the neighbor’s field. We do not know if this was a wheat field or a barley field.

II.

THE CRITICISM OF THE PHARISEES. Mark 2:24.

Mark 2:24.. why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful? The Pharisees were accusing the disciples of working on the sabbathactually of harvesting on the Sabbath. The law was Exodus 20:10. The infraction of the law was a matter of legalistic interpretation.

III.

JESUS-’ ANSWER, Mark 2:25-26.

Mark 2:25-26. The reply, as given by all three evangelists, cites a violation on the ground of necessity, and one in which the necessity, as now, is that of hunger. The sanctity is not that of the Sabbath alone, but also that of the shew-bread in the tabernacle. The reference is to 1 Samuel 21:1-6: In the days of Abiathar, the high priest; the mention of the name is peculiar to Mark, and is not without difficulty. The high priest who is mentioned in the original narrative is not Abiathar, but Ahimelech, his father. Abiathar succeeded his father in office not long after, and was high priest during David’s reign; so that his name is constantly associated with that of David in the history. Various attempts have been made to reconcile the difference, some supposing that Abiathar was already assistant to his father at the time of David’s visit and was present when he came, although this can be nothing but conjecture; others, that our Lord or Mark was content with mentioning the name of the chief high priest of David’s time, and the one that was chiefly associated with David’s name, which is the same as to say that absolute accuracy was not aimed at; others, that the name of Abiathar stands in the text of Mark as the result of a copyist’s error. The law of the shewbread is given at Leviticus 24:5-9. Our Lord’s argument is again, as so often, an argumentum ad homineman appeal to the Pharisees on their own ground. The visit of David to the tabernacle was on the Sabbath, for the previous week’s shew-bread was just being changed for the fresh, and this was done on the Sabbath (1 Samuel 21:6 with Leviticus 24:8). So David violated the sanctity of the Sabbath (if the Pharisees were right), and at the same time the law that gave the sacred bread to the priests alone. Here was a double violation on the ground of necessity, and the Scriptures nowhere condemned it; nor would the Pharisees really condemn it. David was no Sabbath-breaker, as they all knew; neither were his disciples Sabbath-breakers for gathering and eating the ears of grain. In Matthew a second illustration is addedof the priests laboring in the temple on the Sabbath without sin; also a second citation of the Scripture quoted in Mark 2:13I will have mercy, and not sacrificeas appropriate to this case also. The principle throughout is that higher requirements subordinate lower; the application of the principle, that necessity and mercy are of higher rank than any ceremonial or formal duties. The requirement of mercy was a rebuke to the spirit of the fault finders, who were very tender of the Sabbath, but cared nothing for the supplying of the needs of their fellow-men. The principle of Paul, Love worketh no ill to his neighbor, therefore love is the fulfilling of the law (Romans 13:10), was to them utterly unknown.

IV.

THE APPLICATION. Mark 2:27-28

Mark 2:27-28. *sabbath was made for man.*These verses contain an argument not reported by either Matthew or Luke. That the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath, implies that when the welfare of man conflicts with the observance of the Sabbath, the letter must give way. But of this, man himself is not to judge, because he can not judge with impartiality his own interests. No one is competent to judge in the case who does not know all that pertains to the welfare of man, and this is known only by the Lord. For this reason Jesus adds, Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath; that is, as the Son of man came to provide for man’s welfare, and as the Sabbath law might need modification or even abrogation for the highest good of man, therefore lordship over the Sabbath was given to the Son of man. The passage teaches, then, not that man might violate the law of the Sabbath when their welfare seemed to them to demand it, but that Jesus could set it aside, as he afterward did, when his own judgment of man’s welfare required him to do so. He made it clear on this occasion that said law was not to be so construed as to prevent men from providing necessary food on the Sabbath-day. (J. W. McGarvey)

FACT QUESTIONS 2:23-28

Why did the disciples eat the grain?

Why go through the field? Why not use the road?

Was it wrong to eat the grain? What law provides for this?

What law did the Pharisees imagine the disciples had violated?

Please explain the difficulty in referring to Abiathar as the high-priestwhat explanation seems best?

What principle was involved in the action of David which was also a part of the action of the disciples?

In what sense was the sabbath made for man? When?

Explain the point in saying the Son of Man is Lord of the sabbath.