From: Over 50 Interpreters Explain the Gospel of
Mark Return to
Home
By
Roland H. Worth, Jr. © 2013
All reproduction of
text in paper, electronic, or computer
form both permitted and encouraged so long as
authorial
and compiler credit is given and the text is
not altered.
CHAPTER 2:
2:1 Translations
Weymouth: After some days He entered Capernaum again, and it soon
became known that He was at home;
WEB: When he
entered again into
Young’s: And again he entered into Capernaum, after some days, and it
was heard that he is in the house,
Conte (RC): And after
some days, he again entered into
2:1 And again He entered. In
the gospels, the
events are not always in a strict chronological sequence. In this case, the writer stresses that it is,
but that unrecorded events had occurred in between for he speaks of how “days”
had passed. [rw]
into
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" (1:45);
for the present statement is that "He entered into Capernaum after some
days;" and even then He enters in privately, as appears from the
remark, "it was noised abroad that
He was in the house." [38]
after some days. Neither here nor in Luke is there any help in
measuring the length of the time spent in the circuit through
and it was noised [heard, NKJV]. This suggests a private entrance into the
city, and then a general report that He was there. [11]
that He was in
the house. This was
probably the house of Peter and Andrew again (as at
The houses of the poorer
people in
2:2 Translations
WEB: Immediately
many were gathered together, so that there was no more room, not even around
the door; and he spoke the word to them.
Young’s: and
immediately many were gathered together, so that there was no more room, not
even at the door, and he was speaking to them the
word.
Conte (RC): And it was
heard that he was in the house. And so many gathered that there was no room
left, not even at the door. And he spoke the word to them.
2:2 And
straightway [immediately, NKJV] many were
gathered together. As Jesus had been for some time
absent from Capernaum, it is probable that some of the inhabitants began to
conclude that He would not return: and
those who were sick, or had sick friends and relations, might fear that they
had finally missed the opportunity of obtaining cures, so that the rumour of His return excited great attention, and such
numbers assembled to hear His discourses, or witness His miracles, that the
house and the court or space before the door, could not contain the whole
company. [52]
insomuch that
there was no room to receive them. The idiom today would be that
“every square inch was filled up.” [rw]
no, not so much as about [near, NKJV] the door. Whether
this was at the door opening from the street to the court[yard],
or that from the court to the room occupied, can only be matter of conjecture. [45]
and He preached the word unto them. The
qualifying phrase commonly added, "of God,"
is here implied. Christ's gospel being
God's great revelation to man, is emphatically the
word. [45]
He insisted that the listening be done before the healing. The message
had the priority, not the cures. [rw]
2:3 Translations
WEB: Four
people came, carrying a paralytic to him.
Young’s: And they come unto him, bringing a paralytic, borne by four,
Conte (RC): And they
came to him, bringing a paralytic, who was being carried by four men.
2:3 And they come unto Him. Since
the crowd was blocking them (
bringing one
sick of the palsy [paralytic, NKJV]. Depending on how much of his
body was paralyzed, his days might literally be numbered. Even if he “only” couldn’t walk, he faced a
miserable existence. [rw]
Which
was borne of four [carried by four men, NKJV]. He was therefore full grown, though not
old. Each held a corner of the litter. [24]
Mark alone mentions the
number of men. [11]
2:4 Translations
WEB: When they
could not come near to him for the crowd, they removed the roof where he was.
When they had broken it up, they let down the mat that the paralytic was lying
on.
Young’s: and not
being able to come near to him because of the multitude, they uncovered the roof
where he was, and, having broken it up, they let down the couch
on which the paralytic was lying,
Conte (RC): And when
they were not able to present him to him because of the crowd, they uncovered
the roof where he was. And opening it, they lowered down the stretcher on which
the paralytic was lying.
2:4 And when they could not
come nigh unto [near, NKJV] Him for the press [because of the crowd, NKJV]. A flight of stairs led from the ground
to the roof of the house, and they bore the sick man up over the head of Jesus. [23]
they uncovered the roof where he was: and when they had broken it up. Took a part of the roof away. [23]
Many
expositors explain the act of
"uncovering the roof"
as the removing of an awning from over the court, or a part of the
battlement, so as to let the man down in the court; but the word here
employed, "broken up" (R.V.), is literally, "digging
out;" and Luke says more
specifically that they let him down "through the tilling." [45]
they let down
the bed wherein the sick of the palsy lay. Surely an unnerving experience
for the paralyzed man! Yet since there
appeared no way to reach the Healer except this way, it is no wonder there is no hint of protest. The actions of the four helpers demonstrated
their faith in Jesus and the acquiescence of the immobile man demonstrated his
own as well. [rw]
In depth:
Where was Jesus standing teaching and in what sense did the sick man's
helpers dig through the roof [23]? In the lack of any description of the house,
we cannot picture the act to ourselves as clearly as we would. Some think that Jesus was in the "upper
room" of the house, and some think that He was on the ground-floor; while
some thing He may have been in the open yard, just beside the wall, and that
what was removed was the railing around the roof.
But Thompson's theory of
the matter is very simple, and seems to be sufficient The Land and the Book,
2. 6-8). He
thinks that the house was one of those that are abundantly illustrated by the
ruins in that region, as well as by existing houses--a low, one-story house
with a flat roof; not a large house built around a court, but a square house
with the entrance through a recess or entry under the roof and open to the
yard. Whether Jesus stood, as Thompson
thinks probable, in this entry between the yard and the interior of the house, or in some room within, the process would be the
same.
The roofs of such houses
vary in construction, but can all be broken up without difficulty. Thompson describes a roof of the heavier kind,
containing a layer of stiff mortar; and he says the only difficulty in opening
such a roof would be the inconvenience arising from a shower of dust. But he speaks of other roofs, made of boards
or stone slabs, which might be still more easily taken up. Perhaps Luke's phrase--"through the
tiling;" literally, "through the tiles"--may be a reminiscence
of the actual construction of the roof, and may remove the difficulty by
suggesting that nothing but necessary but to lift the tiles with which the
building was covered.
2:5 Translations
WEB: Jesus,
seeing their faith, said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven
you."
Young’s: and Jesus
having seen their faith, saith
to the paralytic, 'Child, thy sins have been forgiven thee.'
Conte (RC): Then, when
Jesus had seen their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are
forgiven you."
2:5 When Jesus saw their
faith. That is, the faith of the bearers. [11]
Or: Theirs as well as his. Theirs in pushing through
such difficulties,--his in consenting.
[25]
If the sick man too had not had faith, he
would not have let himself be brought at all and would certainly not have
consented to reach Christ's presence by so strange and, to him, dangerous a
way--being painfully hoisted up some narrow stair, and then perilously let
down, at the risk of cords snapping or hands letting go or bed giving way. [50]
He said unto the sick of the palsy. Jesus could not prove that He could forgive
sin; by the nature of this “disease” its removal can’t be documented. However, He could claim the power and
by fully healing the man He promised forgiveness to make His claim
credible. In other words He used His visible
power to heal, to establish faith in His “invisible” power to forgive. [rw]
Son, thy sins be forgiven thee. This
somewhat unexpected saying presupposes in the mind of the sick man and his
friends the common popular belief in the close connection between sickness and
sin; cf. John 5:11, 9:2. [6]
Or: Probably Jesus saw that the man himself was
more burdened with his sin than with his sickness, and more anxious to be at
peace with God than to be cured of the [physical affliction]. For it does not seem to have been Jesus'
habit to bestow a spiritual blessing on one who had no desire for it or faith
to receive it. See, for example, Luke
17:11-19. [35]
This one saying proves
that Jesus possessed divine powers and divine prerogatives or else it proves
that He was a charlatan to whose claims the world ought never to have paid any
attention. This is one of the cases in
which the choice lies between admitting the presence and action of divine attributes
and making His words blasphemy toward God and insult to man. [23]
2:6 Translations
WEB: But there
were some of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts,
Young’s: And there were certain of the scribes there sitting, and
reasoning in their hearts,
Conte (RC): But some of
the scribes were sitting in that place and thinking in their hearts:
2:6 But there were certain of
the scribes. Their
tempers would not be improved by the tearing up of the roof, nor sweetened by
seeing the "popularity" of this doubtful young Teacher, who showed
that He had the secret which they had not, of winning men's hearts. Nobody came crowding to them nor hung on
their lips. Professional jealousy has often
a great deal to do in helping zeal for "truth" to snuff out heresy. [50]
sitting there. From Luke's
account and from the term "sitting," we infer that they came early;
it is probable that they were in the upper room where our Lord was, nearer to Him
and in the most conspicuous position. [11]
and reasoning
in their hearts. These
men may have come up to
The complaint does not
seem to have been addressed to Jesus, yet it appears not to have been entirely
unspoken. It was passed around among
themselves, in their own circles, perhaps in whispers, and was certainly
expressed in their dark faces. [23]
If they had been sure of
their ground, they should have boldly charged Him with blasphemy; but perhaps
they were half suspicious that He could show good cause for His speech. Perhaps they were afraid to oppose the tide
of enthusiasm for Him. [50]
2:7 Translations
WEB: "Why
does this man speak blasphemies like that? Who can forgive sins but God
alone?"
Young’s: 'Why doth
this one thus speak evil words? who is able to forgive
sins except one -- God?'
Conte (RC): "Why is
this man speaking in this way? He is blaspheming. Who can forgive sins, but God
alone?"
2:7 Why doth this man thus speak
blasphemies? He was doing more than any man had any
authority to do as a man. The
astonishment of the scribes, who regarded His words as blasphemous, was
justified if Jesus claimed to be nothing more than man. [4]
Who can forgive sins but God only? Their
principle is impregnable. Forgiveness is
a divine prerogative, to be shared by none, to be grasped by none, without in
the act diminishing God's glory. But
whether He "blasphemeth" or not depends on
what the scribes do not stay to ask:
namely, whether He has the right so to claim; and if He has it,
it is they, not He, who are the blasphemers.
We need not wonder that they recoiled from the right conclusion, which
is--the divinity of Jesus. But we have
to thank them for clearly discerning and bluntly stating what was involved in
our Lord's claims and for thus bringing up the sharp issue: blasphemer or “God manifest in the flesh!” [50]
2:8 Translations
Weymouth: At once perceiving by His spirit that they were reasoning
within themselves, Jesus asked them, "Why do you thus argue in your minds?
WEB: Immediately
Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves,
said to them, "Why do you reason these things in your hearts?
Young’s: And immediately Jesus, having known in his spirit that they
thus reason in themselves, said to them, 'Why these things reason ye in your
hearts?
Conte (RC): At once,
Jesus, realizing in his spirit that they were thinking this within themselves,
said to them: "Why are you thinking these things in your hearts?
2:8 And immediately.
Mark would have us see something supernatural in the swiftness of
Christ's knowledge of the muttered criticisms.
He perceived it "straightway” and “in His spirit,” which is
tantamount to saying by divine discernment and not by the medium of sense, as
we do. [50]
when Jesus perceived in His spirit that they so reasoned
within themselves. He knew their thoughts not by
communication from another, as the prophets of old had things made known to
them by revelation, but by His own Spirit prevailing and penetrating all
things. From this the Christian Fathers,
against the Arians, infer the divinity of Christ, that
He inspected the heart which it is the prerogative of God alone to do. St. Chrysostom
says, “Behold the evidenced of the divinity of Christ. Observe that He knows the very secrets of
your heart.” [39]
He said unto them. The
absence from the Lord's answer of any explanation that He was only declaring
the divine forgiveness and not Himself exercising a divine prerogative
shuts us up to the conclusion that He desired to be understood as exercising
it. [50]
Why reason ye these things in your
hearts? We ought not
to find fault with the use of human reason in matters of Divine
revelation, but rather with the abuse of it. [24]
2:9 Translations
WEB: Which is
easier, to tell the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven;' or to say, 'Arise, and
take up your bed, and walk?'
Young’s: which is
easier, to say to the paralytic, The sins have been
forgiven to thee? or to say, Rise, and take up thy
couch, and walk?
Conte (RC): Which is
easier, to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven you,' or to say, 'Rise
up, take up your stretcher, and walk?'
2:9 Whether is it easier
to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise,
and take up thy bed, and walk?
To the scribes who question whether Jesus really has authority to
forgive sins, of which there can, of course, be no visible test, Jesus replies
that He will show His power in a thing which they can test, since they
can see whether the paralytic walks or not.
He implies that if He thus proves His words good in the one case, it is
reasonable for them to believe they are good in the other case. It is thus that we constantly reason about
people. Finding them good and true where
we can test them, we believe them so where we have no opportunity to apply a
test. [35]
To say, “Thy sins
be forgiven” and to say, “Take up they bed,” are equally easy. To effect
either is equally beyond man's power; but the one can be verified and the other
cannot and, no doubt, some of the scribes were maliciously saying: "It is all very well to pretend to do
what cannot be tested.
Let Him come
out into daylight and do a miracle which we can see." He is quite willing to accept the challenge
to test His power in the invisible realm of conscience by His power in
the visible region. [50]
WEB: But that
you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive
sins"--he said to the paralytic--
Young’s: 'And, that
ye may know that the Son of Man hath authority on the earth to forgive sins --
(he saith to the paralytic) --
Conte (RC): But so that
you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins,"
he said to the paralytic:
that the Son of
The title is never
applied by the writers of the Gospels themselves to the Eternal Son of
God. There are only three exceptions to
this rule [of it being used only by Jesus]:
(1) where the title is used by Stephen (Acts
This is the first use of
that title in Mark. It implies His
Messianic office and points back to Daniel's great prophecy; but it also
asserts His true manhood and His unique relation to humanity, as being Himself its sum and perfection. [50]
hath power on
earth. He laid aside
somewhat His divine glory when He came to earth, but He did not relinquish His
divine power. That He had on earth that
prerogative which properly belonged to Heaven, He would establish by
incontestable evidence. [45]
to forgive
sins. In a manner beyond the most
devout priest in the temple. They
go offer the required sacrifices for forgiveness, but not even the High Priest
could lay them aside and pronounce, on His own authority, “I forgive your
sins.” [rw]
He saith to the sick of the palsy. With
a profound “theological argument” going on around Him, it would have been easy
for the paralyzed man to feel like he had no business being in the middle of
this discussion. But the truth was that
he was what the discussion was all about: his healing had not been overlooked or
forgotten; his welfare would be assured.
So the words are directed at the one who needed to hear them to be
relieved of his affliction and not at those who would only sneer. [rw]
WEB: "I
tell you, arise, take up your mat, and go to your house."
Young’s: I say to thee,
Rise, and take up thy couch, and go away to thy house;'
Conte (RC): "I say
to you: Rise up, take up your stretcher, and go into your house."
arise and take up thy bed. This
would make the proof of the completeness of the cure that more manifest. [45]
bed. A simple pallet, scarcely more than a heavy
blanket or thin mattress, easily carried by one person. [35]
and go thy way into thine
house. Like others who were cured, he also
was forbidden to loiter, and commanded to return promptly to duty. [45]
The last thing he needed to do was to stay around and be sucked into
controversies with religious authority figures who would regard him as an
embarrassing nuisance and not as the proof they claimed they sought. [rw]
Weymouth: The man rose,
and immediately under the eyes of all took up his mat and went out, so that
they were all filled with astonishment, gave the glory to God, and said,
"We never saw anything like this."
WEB: The man
rose, and immediately under the eyes of all took up his mat and went out, so
that they were all filled with astonishment, gave the glory to God, and said,
"We never saw anything like this."
Young’s: He arose,
and immediately took up the mat, and went out in front of them all; so that
they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, "We never saw anything like
this!"
Conte (RC): And
immediately he got up, and lifting up his stretcher, he went away in the sight
of them all, so that they all wondered. And they honored God, by saying,
"We have never seen anything like this."
he arose, took
up the bed, and went forth before them all. He not only had the paralysis
removed, he had the strength to carry his bed—a not inconsiderable evidence
itself: how many prolonged bedridden
could do so? [rw]
insomuch that (so that, NKJV) they were all amazed and glorified
God. Apparently it was as at Acts 4:14, where the
presence of the living proof silenced the cavils. Later in our Lord's ministry, when the
opposition was more developed, that would not have kept them back; and even
now, undoubtedly, there was smouldering indignation,
at least in many of those who were spiritually prepared to see no good in Him. [23]
saying, we
never saw it on this fashion [anything like this, NKJV]. They
may have seen some odd and unexpected things in their day, but this was
unprecedented, unlike anything they had ever observed. [rw]
Weymouth: Again He went
out to the shore of the Lake, and the whole multitude kept coming to Him, and
He taught them.
WEB: He went
out again by the seaside. All the multitude came to
him, and he taught them.
Young’s: And he went forth again by the sea, and all the multitude
was coming unto him, and he was teaching them,
Conte (RC): And he
departed again to the sea. And the entire crowd came to him, and he taught
them.
by the sea side. The sea
of Galilee. [19]
In
front of the town or near it. [23]
For
the greater convenience of the hearers.
The house had become too crowded.
[25]
and all the
multitude resorted unto him. The entire crowd who had
gathered at the home for the healing.
Jesus had done the impossible; who better could they learn from? [rw]
and he taught
them. How were they to learn right unless they were
instructed? The miracles weren’t ends in
themselves, but to prepare their hearts to be receptive for teaching moments
like this. [rw]
Weymouth: And as He passed by, He saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at the Toll Office, and said to him,
"Follow me." So he rose and followed Him.
WEB: As he
passed by, he saw Levi, the son of Alphaeus, sitting
at the tax office, and he said to him, "Follow me." And he arose and
followed him.
Young’s: and
passing by, he saw Levi of
Conte (RC): And as he
was passing by, he saw Levi of Alphaeus, sitting at
the customs office. And he said to him, "Follow me." And rising up,
he followed him.
Levi
the son of Alphaeus. Levi
is the Hebrew name of Matthew, the latter being a Greek surname, adopted
probably when he became a tax collector. (Compare Matthew 9:9). Whether his father
sitting at the receipt of custom [tax office, NKJV]. At one of the entrances to
Or: Probably a sort of petty custom-house for the
collection of taxes on goods shipped across the
and said unto him, Follow Me. It is not affirmed, or even necessarily
implied, that this was his first knowledge of the Saviour. The analogy of the calls before described
(Mark
And he arose and followed Him. We
should remember that this tax-gatherer was probably no stranger to Jesus. Like all the inhabitants of Capernaum he had
heard the Master preach, had witness His miracles, and had listened to the
promises of a coming Kingdom and of the blessedness of His followers. Now came the definite invitation; the
response was immediate and open. [14]
Weymouth: When He was
sitting at table in Levi's house, a large number of tax-gatherers and notorious
sinners were at table with Jesus and His disciples; for there were many such
who habitually followed Him.
WEB: It
happened, that he was reclining at the table in his house, and many tax
collectors and sinners sat down with Jesus and his disciples, for there were
many, and they followed him.
Young’s: And it came to pass, in his reclining (at meat) in his
house, that many tax-gatherers and sinners were reclining (at meat) with Jesus
and his disciples, for there were many, and they followed him.
Conte (RC): And it
happened that, as he sat at table in his house, many tax collectors and sinners
sat at table together with Jesus and his disciples. For those who followed him
were many.
"Sat at meat"
is phraseology accommodated to our usage, the literal meaning being
“reclined." The custom of reclining
at meals upon beds or couches had been introduced among the Greeks and Romans
from the east and had been adopted by the Jews.
The men, for the custom did not extend to the women and children, leaned
upon the left arm, leaving the right free to use at the table, which was placed
in from of them. [45]
many. It
is only asserted that the publicans and sinners jointly were numerous,
yet the natural impression is that each class was numerous. If it be thought improbable that there were
many tax collectors in any one town, these considerations will relieve the
difficulty: Tiberias,
the capital of the tetrachy, was nearby, there were a
number of important towns within a short compass about this sea, and the region
of Galilee around was then fertile and prosperous. Matthew may have summoned many of his former
associates from a distance; but this very probable supposition is not necessary
to account for the presence of many publicans in one place; for we are here
informed that they followed Jesus (verse 15).
They had been attracted to the ministry of one who treated them so
differently from the sanctimonious religious leaders of the day. [45]
publicans [tax collectors, NKJV]. The publicans or tax gatherers under the
Roman government were of two classes: (1) Persons who farmed
the Roman taxes, and in later times were usually Roman knights and men of
wealth and position. (2) Subordinate collectors, each of whom was
required to pay a certain sum to his superior, with the privilege of raising as much more as he could for his own profit. These inferior collectors were natives of the
province where the taxes were collected, and were properly called portitores or exactores. So notorious were they for rapacity and
dishonesty that Suetionius (Vit.
Vesp.
I) tells us how several cities erected statues to Sabinus,
"the honest publican;" and Theocritus, in
answer to the question, which were the worst kind of wild beasts, said,
"On the mountains, bears and lions; in cities, publicans and
pettifoggers." [8]
The Roman government, as the Athenian had done
before, farmed the revenues of its provinces; that is, the revenue of each
province was sold at
This system of farming
the revenue presented strong temptations to make illegal exactions, to which
the tax-collectors were too ready to yield.
John the Baptist warned the publicans that same to hear him against this
besetting sin (Luke
A tax of one per cent,
on all property and also on all goods sold, which was the rate at this time during
the reign of Tiberius, a capitation tax, an import and an export duty usually
of five per cent, tithes from the lands claimed by the government, rents for
the public pastures, and many special taxes, made the burden on the people
heavy enough without the false or exorbitant entries (Luke 19:8) of these
revenue harpies.
The publicans were
therefore usually of a low class, without self-respect and indifferent to the
religious sentiment of their nation.
The national contempt for them as a class showed itself in the
oft-repeated phrase, “publicans and sinners." Levi may have been superior to the men of his
class. He may have taken the position
from necessity and not through avarice, and may have been honest in his
official acts. Yea, he may, in a spirit
of self-sacrifice, have accepted the position to shield his fellow-citizens
from the exactions of some unscrupulous competitor. But if he had the low morals of the most of
his official associates, then grace did the more for him in elevating his
character and fitting him for the apostolic office and the work of writing the
first gospel. [45]
and sinners. "Sinners" no doubt means those who
were regarded with disfavour by the orthodox Pharisiac Jews because their lives were not in strict
accord with the Law, or because they practiced a trade which was looked upon
with suspicion. [6]
They probably consisted
of Gentiles, and such Jews besides the publicans as by their association with
Gentiles cut themselves off from social and religious connection with the
strict observers of the law, and because identified with their heathen
associates. The phrase, "a heathen
man and a publican" (Matthew
Or: These “sinners” were not Gentiles, as some
learned men interpret the word to mean, but Jews of disgraceful character. Our Lord's ministry was almost exclusively
among “the lost sheep of the house of
sat also
together with Jesus and his disciples. Whatever their personal
failures, they weren’t “segregated apart” as unworthy of acquaintance. They weren’t worthy of attention because
they were “publicans and sinners” but because they were individuals in need of
moral reform. [rw]
for their were many. The “many” is repeated a second
time, probably because the disciples regarded it with amazement that Jesus
might gain even the temporary interest of such individuals. Quite possibly the “publicans and sinners”
felt the same way, since this would clearly not have been their usual
social company and religious affairs far from their personal center of
interest. [rw]
and they
followed Him. From the positive standpoint, they refused to
be slaves to the faults of their past.
They couldn’t change what they had done; they could only change
what they did from then on. That
was quite enough to satisfy Jesus. The
great unknown is how many persisted in their spiritual interest. Jesus, however, was far more interested in
commitment than in numbers. However many
He retained, He would be thankful for having them. [rw]
WEB: The
scribes and the Pharisees, when they saw that he was eating with the sinners
and tax collectors, said to his disciples, "Why is it that he eats and
drinks with tax collectors and sinners?"
Young’s: And the scribes and the Pharisees, having seen him eating
with the tax-gatherers and sinners, said to his disciples, 'Why -- that with
the tax-gatherers and sinners he doth eat and drink?'
Conte (RC): And the
scribes and the Pharisees, seeing that he ate with tax collectors and sinners,
said to his disciples, "Why does your Teacher eat and drink with tax
collectors and sinners?"
they said. The
conference must have been after the feast, not within Levi's house, and may
have been on another day. [45]
unto His
disciples. The rabbis
tried to use this event as a means of stirring up dissension among Jesus'
followers. [13]
How is it that He eateth and drinketh with publicans
and sinners? In their view, to eat and drink with
publicans and sinners was a violation of their most sacred traditions: How could Jesus break these divine
restrictions, they reasons, and yet lay claim to be one sent by God? [45]
WEB: When
Jesus heard it, he said to them, "Those who are healthy have no need for a
physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but
sinners to repentance."
Young’s: And Jesus, having heard, saith to
them, 'They who are strong have no need of a physician, but they who are ill; I
came not to call righteous men, but sinners to reformation.'
Conte (RC): Jesus,
having heard this, said to them: "The healthy have no need of a doctor,
but those who have maladies do. For I came not to call the
just, but sinners."
they that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that
are sick. Jesus' answer is, in
substance, As surely as a good physician will seek to bring his skill to
those who need it most, so surely must the man who seeks the moral health of
men invest his life where the need is greatest.
[28]
As
the physician is not infected by the disease of the patient but rather
overcomes it and drives it from him, so it is no disgrace but rather an honour to he physician to associate himself with the sick
and so much the more, the greater he sickness.
[39]
I came not to call
the righteous. The religionists of that day recognized
God's love for righteousness (as many men do) far enough to feel that God must
love the righteous; but they did not recognize His love for righteousness as a
love that would seek to produce righteousness where it is not. [23]
but sinners.
Instead of being despised, they must be
treated like men and accepted as companions.
He who would save them must not shrink from them, and must make them
know what love He had for them; hence Jesus set at naught all ceremonial
objections to associating with men defiled, and all social objections to being
found in company with the despised. [23]
He went not as a
companion to share in their mere conviviality, but as an instructor, a
physician; and if we go with the same motive and with the same design, we are
warranted in doing so. [24]
to repentance.
Association with degraded and
vicious characters is sincere duty, according to the purpose of it. To go down in the filth in order to wallow
there is vile; to go down in order to lift others up is Christ's mission and
Christ-like. [50]
WEB: John's
disciples and the Pharisees were fasting, and they came and asked him,
"Why do John's disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but your
disciples don't fast?"
Young’s: And the disciples of John and those of the Pharisees were
fasting, and they come and say to him, 'Wherefore do the disciples of John and
those of the Pharisees fast, and thy disciples do not fast?'
Conte (RC): And the
disciples of John, and the Pharisees, were fasting. And they arrived and said
to him, "Why do the disciples of John and of the Pharisees fast, but your
disciples do not fast?"
Such an unworthy
zeal is too often seen in good men who prefer their own leaders to all others. [39]
used to fast [were fasting, NKJV]. We
have no reason to believe, and it is highly improbable, indeed, that John
himself established fasts, which would seem to be at variance with his
intermediate position as the last prophet of the old dispensation and the
herald of the new. [3]
and say unto Him.
This time Jesus Himself is addressed and it is
the disciples with whom fault is found.
To speak of His supposed faults to them and of theirs to Him was cunning
and cowardly. [50]
Or:
They suggest that if Christ went among sinners to do them good,
as He has pleaded, yet the disciples went to indulge their appetites,
for they never knew what it was to fast or to deny themselves. Note [that] ill-will always suspects the
worst. [54]
Why do the disciples
of John. i.e., it isn’t just one group that does
it. Among the “most religious” it is
widespread. [rw]
and of the Pharisees. Probably those men who did not belong as members to the society of
the Pharisees, but who believed in their religious ideas. [35]
fast. The only stated fast prescribed in the Mosaic
law is that of the great day of atonement, in which
were summed up all the expiatory ceremonies of the year (Leviticus
Twice a week they
fasted. On Thursday because, according
to tradition, Moses reascended Mount Sinai on that
day after the people's trespass of the golden calf; and on Monday because on
that day he returned with the tables of the Law (Exodus 34:4, 29). [2]
but thy disciples fast not. Just
because something is a common religious custom does not necessarily mean that
God ever demanded it or expected it. Nor
does its popularity mean that it is binding on us as well. [rw]
WEB: Jesus
said to them, "Can the groomsmen fast while the bridegroom is with them?
As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they can't fast.
Young’s: And Jesus
said to them, 'Are the sons of the bride-chamber able, while the bridegroom is
with them, to fast? so long time as they have the
bridegroom with them they are not able to fast;
Conte (RC): And Jesus
said to them: "How can the sons of the wedding fast while the groom is
still with them? During whatever time they have the groom with them, they are
not able to fast.
Can the children of
the bridechamber [bridegroom, NKJV] fast while the
bridegroom is with them? See John 3:29, where the Baptist called Jesus
the bridegroom and spoke of himself as the "friend of the
bridegroom," whose office it was to arrange the marriage-feast and bring
the bridegroom and the bride together. [23]
As long as they have
the bridegroom with them. A wedding is a time of joy; fasting
expresses sorrow. The two things are
incongruous. Having the joy of His
presence, they could not rightly profess to be sad. [35]
they cannot fast. The
principle which underlies the answer is a very important one. It is this:
that all outward forms of religion, appointed by man, ought only to be
observed when they correspond to the feeling and disposition of the
worshipper. That principle cuts all
religious formalism by the very roots.
Our Lord did not object to fasting; He did object to the formal use of
it or of any outward form. [50]
WEB: But the
days will come when the bridegroom will be taken away from them, and then will
they fast in that day.
Young’s: but days
shall come when the bridegroom may be taken from them, and then they shall fast
-- in those days.
Conte (RC): But the days
will arrive when the groom will be taken away from them, and then they shall
fast, in those days.
when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them. This
is the first occasion on which our Lord alludes to His removal from then. [39]
and then shall they fast in those days. Observe that in this
answer fasting is regarded altogether as an expression of sorrow and not at all
in its religious connection as a means of grace or as representative of a type
of worship. [23]
WEB: No one
sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, or
else the patch shrinks and the new tears away from the old, and a worse hole is
made.
Young’s: 'And no
one a patch of undressed cloth doth sew on an old garment, and if not -- the
new filling it up doth take from the old and the rent doth become worse;
Conte (RC): No one sews
a patch of new cloth onto an old garment. Otherwise, the new addition pulls
away from the old, and the tear becomes worse.
else
the new piece that filled it up taketh [pulls, NKJV]
away from the old, and the tear is made worse.
When the patch of cloth shrinks it becomes too small to cover the rent
or tear in the garment and, drawing itself away from the old cloth to which it
was sewed, makes a new and larger hole than before. [35]
In
depth: Interpreting the central point of
the argument:
1. As contrasting the Mosaical
law with that of Christ
[5]. The old garment and
old wineskins are symbolic of Judaism with its laws and ceremonies. The new piece and the new wine stand for the
Gospel. Law and Grace must not be
mixed. If the Gospel of Grace, the new
wine, is put into the old wineskins, Judaism with its laws, the wineskins go to
pieces and the new wine is spilled.
2. As contrasting the law of Christ with
traditions added to the Judaism authorized by Moses [3]. The primary
[purpose of verses 21-22] was to teach that they must not expect in the
Messiah's kingdom a mere patching up of what had had its day and done its
office, by empirical repairs and emendations of a later date, but an entire
renovation. As the usages immediately in
question were of human not divine institution, whatever there may be in this
similitude of sarcasm or contempt, belongs not even to the temporary forms of
the Mosaic dispensation, but to its traditional [glosses by later generations].
WEB: No one
puts new wine into old wineskins, or else the new wine will burst the skins,
and the wine pours out, and the skins will be destroyed; but they put new wine
into fresh wineskins."
Young’s: and no one
doth put new wine into old skins, and if not -- the new wine doth burst the
skins, and the wine is poured out, and the skins will be destroyed; but new
wine into new skins is to be put.'
Conte (RC): And no one
puts new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise, the wine will burst the wineskins,
and the wine will pour out, and the wineskins will be lost. Instead, new wine
must be put into new wineskins."
putteth new wine into old bottles [wineskins, NKJV]. If
these words were spoken at Matthew's feast, the leather bottles (wineskins) may
possibly have been in sight. [23]
else the new wine doth burst
the bottles. Bottles
were made of the skins of goats. When the
[skins] were old, the skins, having lost the power to stretch, were not strong
enough to stand the pressure caused by the fermenting of new wine. [35]
and the wine
is spilled, and the bottles will be marred [ruined, NKJV]. There is a twofold loss--both that of the
bottles and that of the wine. [39]
But new wine must be put into new bottles. It
is a practical necessity. Your effort to
force the new spirituality I am preaching into the straightjacket of your
tradition would destroy it. [rw]
WEB: It
happened that he was going on the Sabbath day through the grain fields, and his
disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of grain.
Young’s: And it
came to pass -- he is going along on the sabbaths
through the corn-fields -- and his disciples began to make a way, plucking the
ears,
Conte (RC): And again,
while the Lord was walking through the ripe grain on the Sabbath, his
disciples, as they advanced, began to separate the ears of grains.
that He went
through the corn fields [grainfields, NKJV].
Grain being essential to survival, these would have been abundant in
agriculturally viable locations. [rw]
on the sabbath day. Called by Luke (6:1) the second-first, supposed by some to mean the
second Sabbath after the beginning of the Passover. [32]
and His
disciples began, as they went. There is no indication that He Himself was
engaged in plucking the grain. He was
called upon to answer for His disciples, just as they (verse 16) had been
called to answer for Him. [23]
to pluck. They were hungry. The laws of Moses allowed any traveler to
satisfy his hunger in passing the fields of others, provided he did not carry
any part away (Deuteronomy
Whether we adopt the
view that the disciples were clearing a path through standing corn, or the
simpler one, that they gathered the ears of corn on the edge of a made path as
they went, the point of the Pharisees' objection was that they broke the
Sabbath by plucking, which was a kind of reaping. [50]
the ears of
corn [heads of grain, NKJV].
It was not maize or our Indian corn, which was then unknown, but
wheat. Matthew says that they were
"an hungered" (Matthew 12:1). The act described marks the season of the
year. The wheat was ripe, for they would
not have rubbed barley in their hands (Luke 6:1). We may conclude, therefore, the time was a
week or two after the Passover, when the first ripe sheaf was offered as the
first fruits of the harvest. [8]
Weymouth: So the
Pharisees said to Him, "Look! why are they doing
what on the Sabbath is unlawful?"
WEB: The
Pharisees said to him, "Behold, why do they do that which is not lawful on
the Sabbath day?"
Young’s: and the
Pharisees said to him, 'Lo, why do they on the sabbaths that which is not lawful?'
Conte (RC): But the
Pharisees said to him, "Behold, why are they doing what is not lawful on
the Sabbaths?"
There is no indication that He, Himself,
was engaged in plucking the grain. He
was called upon to answer for His disciples as they (verse 16) had been called
to answer for Him. [23]
Behold, why do they on the Sabbath
day. Any other day they would have had no
objection with what was being done—or so they say. On the other hand, with the hostility that
they felt, would they not at least be looking for something critical to say
about the action no matter what the day?
[rw]
that which is not lawful? The bulwark of Judaism was the
observance of the law. The
law--the book of the Law--said a good deal about it, but the doctors of the Law
said a good deal more. With that curious
facility that minds have for dwelling on the ceremonial rather than on the
ethical side of religion, the custodians of the Law had insisted upon defining
more and more stringently the obligations of the Sabbath day. [7]
The supposed
unlawfulness was not the plucking of the ears of corn with the hand, which was
expressly permitted by the Law (Deut.
It was a violation of
what law? Not that of the Fourth
Commandment, which simply forbade "labour,"
but that of the doctors' expositions of the commandment, which expended
miraculous ingenuity and hair-splitting on deciding what was labour and what was not.
[50]
WEB: He said
to them, "Did you never read what David did, when he had need, and was
hungry--he, and those who were with him?
Young’s: And he
said to them, 'Did ye never read what David did, when he had need and was
hungry, he and those with him?
Conte (RC): And he said
to them: "Have you never read what David did, when he had need and was
hungry, both he and those who were with him?
have ye never
read. Note the tinge of irony in that, “Did ye never read?" In all your minute study of the letter of the
Scripture, did you never take heed to that page? Out of the very heart of the law which the
Pharisees appealed to, in order to spin restricting prohibitions, Jesus drew an
example of freedom which ran on all-fours with His disciples' case. The Pharisees had poured over the Old
Testament all their lives, but it would have been long before they had found
such a doctrine as this in it. [50]
what David did. This is drawn from the Old Testament history
and presupposes their acquaintance with it and their habit of reading it. It also presupposes their acknowledgment of
David as an eminent servant of God, whose official acts, unless divinely
disapproved, afford examples to those placed in
similar situations. The narrative
referred to is still extant in 1 Samuel 21:1-6, which is thus proved to be a
part of the canon recognized by Christ. [3]
when he had
need and was an hungered. The
argument is one of analogy. The
disciples had broken a Sabbath rule.
Yes, but they were impelled by hunger.
Just so David had broken a religious regulation when he was impelled by
hunger. If David was justified, so were
the disciples. [6]
he, and they that were with him.
This seems opposed to what we read in 1 Samuel 21, where David is
stated to have been alone. But the facts
appear that David, fleeing from Saul, went alone to Abimelech
the high priest and sought and obtained five loaves of the "shewbread," which he carried away with him to his
companions in flight and shared with them; for he says (1 Samuel 21:2), “I have appointed my servants to such and
such a place.” [39]
WEB: How he
entered into the house of God when Abiathar was high
priest, and ate the show bread, which is not lawful to eat except for the
priests, and gave also to those who were with him?"
Young’s: how he
went into the house of God, (at 'Abiathar the chief
priest,') and the loaves of the presentation did eat, which it is not lawful to
eat, except to the priests, and he gave also to those who were with him?'
Conte (RC): How he went
into the house of God, under the high priest Abiathar,
and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful to eat, except for
the priests, and how he gave it to those who were with him?"
in the days of
Abiathar the high priest. He
permitted this to occur without intervening to stop it. To criticize what David did would be, automatically,
criticism of the high priest for his role.
[rw]
and did eat. 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). [23]
David probably came on
the day the old loaves were taken away, i.e., on the Sabbath; which makes the
case very appropriate. David did what
was actually forbidden, yet hunger was a sufficient justification; much
more might the constructive transgression of the disciples be justified by
their hunger. Principle: Works of necessity have always been
permitted on the Sabbath. [11]
the shewbread. The
law of the shew-bread is given at Leviticus 24:5-9. [23]
which it is not lawful to eat. For David was not a priest. [35]
but for the priests. This
was one of the special rights for them and them alone. [rw]
and gave also
to them which were with him? Hence it was unquestionably David’s
responsibility for what his followers did.
Since the popular opinion was—rightly—that the Messiah would be the
descendant of David and that he was the prototype of the Messiah as pious
warrior and follower of God, the option of criticizing David was virtually
ruled out. If he had been out of line—at
least significantly—how could God possibly have had the high opinion of him
that the Pharisees had? [rw]
In depth: The morality of David's conduct in doing that
which was "not lawful" [1]. David and his followers, when at extremity,
had eaten the shewbread which it was not lawful for
them to eat. It is a striking assertion.
We should probably have sought a softer phrase.
We should have said that in other circumstances it would have been
unlawful, that only necessity made it lawful; we should have refused to look
straight in the face the naked ugly fact that David broke the law.
But Jesus was not afraid
of any fact. He saw and declared that
the priests in the
Or: If human need justifies one in disregarding a
technical requirement like that about the shewbread,
it will also justify neglect of the technical law against labor on the
Sabbath. Jesus does
not say that the same principle would apply as against a purely moral
requirement, such as the law of honor to parents, truthfulness, honesty, etc. [35]
In depth: Why is the "wrong" high priest
mentioned in Mark's account [23]? 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 Abimelech, his
father (1 Samuel 21:1-6). 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
prominence interpretation [42]. The probable reason why Mark says it was in
the days of Abiathar is that Abiathar
was better known than Abimelech.
The son of the high priest was
regarded as his successor and was often associated with him in the duties of
his office. It was not improper,
therefore, to designate him as high priest--even during the life of his
father--especially as that was the name by which he was afterwards known.
Abithar,
moreover, in the calamitous times when David came to the throne, left the
interest of Saul and fled to David, bringing with him the ephod, one of the
peculiar garments of the high priest.
For a long time, during David's reign, he was the high priest and it
became natural, therefore, to associate his name with that of David; to
speak of David as king and Abithar the high priest of
his time. [This is similar to Americans
referring to how] General Washington was present at the defeat of
Braddock and saved his army, though the title of "general" did not
belong to him till many years afterwards.
Dual name approach [11]: Probably both father and son had the two
names, Abimelech and Abiathar. In 2 Samuel 8:17 and 1 Chronicles 24:6,
"Abimelech the son of Abiathar"
is spoken of where the same father and son are undoubtedly referred to, since
the time was during the reign of David, after the father had been killed by Doeg (1 Samuel 22).
In 1 Samuel 14:3 the father is called Ahiah
("the son of Ahitub"); in 1Chronicles
WEB: He said
to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
Young’s: And he
said to them, 'The sabbath for man was made, not man
for the sabbath,
Conte (RC): And he said
to them: "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.
The Sabbath was made for man. It was designed to promote man's good--his
temporal good by the rest it affords and his spiritual good through its sacred
worship. Its design must, therefore be
kept in view in applying the law that forbids labor on that day. They must not put restrictions upon men in
its observance which are adverse to its spirit and defeat its purpose. [45]
This is so obvious a
proposition that one wonders why it should have been necessary for such a
teacher as Jesus to give utterance to it.
Yet it is not difficult upon a moment's reflection to see that the
Sabbath was not being used for the benefit of man. [4]
The Sabbath is not an
end in itself, but only a means to a higher end—which higher end is the moral
good of men as a race. [15]
and not man
for the Sabbath. The
Sabbath was not made first, and man created in order to fit it, but man was
made first, and the Sabbath was instituted in order to fit man. [24]
[It was] appointed by
God for man's good, not laid upon him as a burden to which man's good is to be
sacrificed. [35]
WEB: Therefore
the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath."
Young’s: so that
the son of man is lord also of the sabbath.'
Conte (RC): And so, the
Son of man is Lord, even of the Sabbath."
the Son of
is Lord also of the Sabbath. Could any mere man have proclaimed his
lordship over the Sabbath day? A man
cannot be Lord of the Sabbath without being Lord of something beyond. [36]
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 cannot 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 to 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. [38]