Mark Chapter Two
Discussions with Scribes and Pharisees, 2 and 3
About Power to Forgive Sins. 2:1-12.
(Matt. 9:1-8; Luke 5:17-26.)
1, 2. into Capernaum.—There is no inconsistency between this statement and the one just previously made, that after the healing of the leper he "could no more openly enter into the city" (Mark 1:45); for the present statement is that "he entered into Capernaum after some days;" and even now he enters in privately, as appears from the remark, "it was noised abroad that he was in the house." When it was thus noised abroad, "straightway many were gathered together, insomuch that there was no room to receive them, no, not so much as about the door;" and this confirms the previous statement.
3-5. When Jesus saw their faith.—Their faith was very clearly seen in their actions. The man could not walk, but he had four friends whose faith in the power and willingness of Jesus to heal him was so great, that they bore him on his bedding to the house. Unable to get into the house, on account of the eager pressure of the crowd, but determined not to be baffled, they contrived by some means, most likely by an outside flight of stairs, to get upon the roof with their burden. It was no easy task for them to make the ascent, carrying a man who was perfectly helpless. They found, or perhaps they knew before, that the roof was one which could be broken open easily (it was a tile roof, Luke 5:19), and now, notwithstanding the expense they would incur, and the probable displeasure of the owner of the house, they tear open the roof and let the man down as low as they can reach, above the heads of the people within. It is difficult to see how they could have shown their faith more plainly. The reason why sinners do not now show their faith in him as plainly, when they have it, is because they have not so great a desire to be healed. Men who would risk every thing for the cure of bodily disease, often bear very patiently the maladies of the soul.
5-12.—On the argument of Jesus from this case, and the general design of the miracle, see notes, Matt. 9:1-8.
About Eating with Publicans and Sinners, 13-17.
(Matt. 9:9-13; Luke 5:27-32)
13. by the seaside.—The sloping shore of the lake of Galilee was a favorite resort of Jesus when surrounded by a multitude. By taking his position at the water's edge, or on some fishing boat tied up at the shore, he could prevent the crowd from surrounding him, and as they stood or sat on the slope he could easily make his voice reach them all.
14. Levi the son of Alpheus.—Levi is the Hebrew name of Matthew, the latter being a Greek surname, adopted probably when he became a tax collector. (Comp. Matt. 9:9.) Whether his father Alpheus is the same Alpheus who was the father of James the younger (3:18), is quite uncertain. The name is too common to furnish safe ground for a conclusion, and we have no other evidence on the question.
15-18.—For remarks on the remainder of this paragraph, see the notes on Matt. 9:9-13, where the argument of Jesus is more fully reported.
About Fasting, 18-22.
(Matt. 9:14-17; Luke 5:33-39)
18. used to fast.—Literally, were fasting. They were at that time keeping a fast. Such is the force of the Greek verb, ἦσαν νηστεύοντες. Alford objects to this rendering, which was first insisted on by the German Commentator, Meyer, but the passages which he cites in support of his objection do not sustain it, and he admits that this may be the meaning. Mark certainly uses this combination of the verb and participle to express what was at the time being done, and not what was customary, in Mark 10:32 and Mark 14:4, as the reader of the Greek can see for himself. It was the circumstance that the Pharisees and the disciples of John were observing a fast at the very time that Jesus and his disciples were feasting in the house of Levi, which gave rise to the question, or which at least gave especial emphasis to it. Fasting was regarded as a mark of peculiar sanctity (Luke 18:12), and therefore it seemed unaccountable to the Jews that Jesus, with his lofty pretensions, should be feasting at a time when other holy men were fasting.
It is worthy of note that Matthew represents this question about fasting as having been raised by the disciples of John (Matt. 9:14); Luke puts it into the mouths of the scribes and Pharisees (Luke 5:30, 33); while Mark says that the Pharisees and the disciples of John united in putting the question.
Thus it appears from the statement of Mark that Matthew and Luke, though apparently in conflict, are both correct. The disciples of John did put the question, as represented by Matthew, and the scribes and Pharisees did so, as represented by Luke. Each tells the truth, but each tells only a part of what was true, and we get at the whole truth by putting both of their statements together as one. This circumstance furnishes a key to the reconciliation of the different writers in many other places where there is an appearance of discrepancy, and we have used it freely. We should always, in such cases, suppose both statements to be true, and regard each as a part of the whole truth.
19-22.—For remarks on the answer of Jesus, see the notes on Matthew 9:15-17. By comparing the answer as given by the two writers, the reader will again discover an identity of thought indicating a common choice of materials, and at the same time a variety of expression indicating perfect independence in composition.
About Plucking Grain on the Sabbath, 23-28.
(Matt. 12:1-8; Luke 6:1-5)
26. of Abiathar.—The reader will observe that the critics correct the reading of the common version here, giving us "in the high-priesthood of Abiathar," instead of "in the days of Abiathar."
This is doubtless the correct rendering, but it involves an apparent conflict between this passage and the account in 1 Sam. 21:1-6, where Ahimelech is said to have been the high priest at the time referred to. Abiathar is there represented as a son of Ahimelech, who took refuge with David after his father and the other priests had been slain by Doeg (1 Sam. 22:18-20), and who was high priest throughout the reign of David. This confusion of the two names is not confined to the New Testament, for in 2 Sam. 8:17, and 1 Chron. 18:16, the names are reversed, and Ahimelech is called the son of Abiathar. It is evident that some mistakes of transcribers in this matter have crept into the text of the Old Testament, and it is probable that in a similar way Abiathar has been substituted for Ahimelech in the text of Mark. For other opinions on the subject, see the note on this verse in Lange.
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 latter 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 men 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.
For comments on other parts of this paragraph, see the notes on Matt. 12:1-8.
The New Testament Commentary: Vol. I - Matthew and Mark.
About Power to Forgive Sins. 2:1-12.
(Matt. 9:1-8; Luke 5:17-26.)
1, 2. into Capernaum.—There is no inconsistency between this statement and the one just previously made, that after the healing of the leper he "could no more openly enter into the city" (Mark 1:45); for the present statement is that "he entered into Capernaum after some days;" and even now he enters in privately, as appears from the remark, "it was noised abroad that he was in the house." When it was thus noised abroad, "straightway many were gathered together, insomuch that there was no room to receive them, no, not so much as about the door;" and this confirms the previous statement.
3-5. When Jesus saw their faith.—Their faith was very clearly seen in their actions. The man could not walk, but he had four friends whose faith in the power and willingness of Jesus to heal him was so great, that they bore him on his bedding to the house. Unable to get into the house, on account of the eager pressure of the crowd, but determined not to be baffled, they contrived by some means, most likely by an outside flight of stairs, to get upon the roof with their burden. It was no easy task for them to make the ascent, carrying a man who was perfectly helpless. They found, or perhaps they knew before, that the roof was one which could be broken open easily (it was a tile roof, Luke 5:19), and now, notwithstanding the expense they would incur, and the probable displeasure of the owner of the house, they tear open the roof and let the man down as low as they can reach, above the heads of the people within. It is difficult to see how they could have shown their faith more plainly. The reason why sinners do not now show their faith in him as plainly, when they have it, is because they have not so great a desire to be healed. Men who would risk every thing for the cure of bodily disease, often bear very patiently the maladies of the soul.
5-12.—On the argument of Jesus from this case, and the general design of the miracle, see notes, Matt. 9:1-8.
About Eating with Publicans and Sinners, 13-17.
(Matt. 9:9-13; Luke 5:27-32)
13. by the seaside.—The sloping shore of the lake of Galilee was a favorite resort of Jesus when surrounded by a multitude. By taking his position at the water's edge, or on some fishing boat tied up at the shore, he could prevent the crowd from surrounding him, and as they stood or sat on the slope he could easily make his voice reach them all.
14. Levi the son of Alpheus.—Levi is the Hebrew name of Matthew, the latter being a Greek surname, adopted probably when he became a tax collector. (Comp. Matt. 9:9.) Whether his father Alpheus is the same Alpheus who was the father of James the younger (3:18), is quite uncertain. The name is too common to furnish safe ground for a conclusion, and we have no other evidence on the question.
15-18.—For remarks on the remainder of this paragraph, see the notes on Matt. 9:9-13, where the argument of Jesus is more fully reported.
About Fasting, 18-22.
(Matt. 9:14-17; Luke 5:33-39)
18. used to fast.—Literally, were fasting. They were at that time keeping a fast. Such is the force of the Greek verb, ἦσαν νηστεύοντες. Alford objects to this rendering, which was first insisted on by the German Commentator, Meyer, but the passages which he cites in support of his objection do not sustain it, and he admits that this may be the meaning. Mark certainly uses this combination of the verb and participle to express what was at the time being done, and not what was customary, in Mark 10:32 and Mark 14:4, as the reader of the Greek can see for himself. It was the circumstance that the Pharisees and the disciples of John were observing a fast at the very time that Jesus and his disciples were feasting in the house of Levi, which gave rise to the question, or which at least gave especial emphasis to it. Fasting was regarded as a mark of peculiar sanctity (Luke 18:12), and therefore it seemed unaccountable to the Jews that Jesus, with his lofty pretensions, should be feasting at a time when other holy men were fasting.
It is worthy of note that Matthew represents this question about fasting as having been raised by the disciples of John (Matt. 9:14); Luke puts it into the mouths of the scribes and Pharisees (Luke 5:30, 33); while Mark says that the Pharisees and the disciples of John united in putting the question.
Thus it appears from the statement of Mark that Matthew and Luke, though apparently in conflict, are both correct. The disciples of John did put the question, as represented by Matthew, and the scribes and Pharisees did so, as represented by Luke. Each tells the truth, but each tells only a part of what was true, and we get at the whole truth by putting both of their statements together as one. This circumstance furnishes a key to the reconciliation of the different writers in many other places where there is an appearance of discrepancy, and we have used it freely. We should always, in such cases, suppose both statements to be true, and regard each as a part of the whole truth.
19-22.—For remarks on the answer of Jesus, see the notes on Matthew 9:15-17. By comparing the answer as given by the two writers, the reader will again discover an identity of thought indicating a common choice of materials, and at the same time a variety of expression indicating perfect independence in composition.
About Plucking Grain on the Sabbath, 23-28.
(Matt. 12:1-8; Luke 6:1-5)
26. of Abiathar.—The reader will observe that the critics correct the reading of the common version here, giving us "in the high-priesthood of Abiathar," instead of "in the days of Abiathar."
This is doubtless the correct rendering, but it involves an apparent conflict between this passage and the account in 1 Sam. 21:1-6, where Ahimelech is said to have been the high priest at the time referred to. Abiathar is there represented as a son of Ahimelech, who took refuge with David after his father and the other priests had been slain by Doeg (1 Sam. 22:18-20), and who was high priest throughout the reign of David. This confusion of the two names is not confined to the New Testament, for in 2 Sam. 8:17, and 1 Chron. 18:16, the names are reversed, and Ahimelech is called the son of Abiathar. It is evident that some mistakes of transcribers in this matter have crept into the text of the Old Testament, and it is probable that in a similar way Abiathar has been substituted for Ahimelech in the text of Mark. For other opinions on the subject, see the note on this verse in Lange.
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 latter 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 men 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.
For comments on other parts of this paragraph, see the notes on Matt. 12:1-8.
The New Testament Commentary: Vol. I - Matthew and Mark.
