MARK 2 COMMENTARYEDITED BY GLENN PEASE

Jesus Forgives and Heals a Paralyzed Man

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

BARNES, "Into Capernaum - See the notes at Mat_4:13.

After some days - The number of days is not known. Jesus probably remained long enough in the desert to heal the sick who were brought to him, and to give instructions to the multitudes who attended his preaching. Capernaum was not “the city” mentioned in Mar_1:45, and it is probable that there was no difficulty in his remaining there and preaching.

And it was noised ... - He entered the city, doubtless, privately; but his being there was soon known, and so great had his popularity become that multitudes pressed to hear him.

CLARKE, "In the house - The house of Peter, with whom Christ lodged when at Capernaum. See the notes on Mat_4:13; Mat_8:13.

GILL, "And again he entered into Capernaum after some days,.... After he had been preaching in the synagogues throughout Galilee, and after he had spent some days in prayer, and private retirement in desert places: and it was noised that he was in, the house; a report was spread throughout the city that he was in the house of Simon and Andrew, where he was before, and where he used to be when in Capernaum.

HENRY, "Christ, having been for some time preaching about in the country, here returns to Capernaum his head-quarters, and makes his appearance there, in hopes that by this time the talk and crowd would be somewhat abated. Now observe,

I. The great resort there was to him. Though he was in the house, wither Peter's house, or some lodgings of his own which he had taken, yet people came to him as soon as it was noised that he was in town; they did not stay till he appeared in the synagogue, which they might be sure he would do on the sabbath day, but straightway many were gathered together to him. Where the king is, there is the court; where Shiloh is, there shall the gathering of the people be. In improving opportunities for our souls, we must take care not to lose time. One invited another (Come, let us go see Jesus), so that his house could not contain his visitants. There was no room to receive them, they were so numerous, no not so much as about the

1

door. A blessed sight, to see people thus flying like a cloud to Christ's house, though it was but a poor one, and as the doves to their windows!

JAMIESON, "Mar_2:1-12. Healing of a paralytic. ( = Mat_9:1-8; Luk_5:17-26).

This incident, as remarked on Mat_9:1, appears to follow next in order of time after the cure of the leper (Mar_1:40-45).

And again he entered into Capernaum — “His own city” (Mat_9:1).

and it was noised that he was in the house — no doubt of Simon Peter (Mar_1:29).

HAWKER, “The HOLY GHOST is pleased to record, in this Chapter, the cure which the LORD JESUS wrought on the Man sick of the Palsy; CHRIST’s call of Matthew; his sitting at meat with Publicans; and his divine Discourses at the Table. The Chapter closeth with an account of his passing through the Corn-field on the Sabbath-day.

AND again he entered into Capernaum after some days; and it was noised that he was in the house.

It is very blessed to behold the earnestness of the people in following JESUS. Luke saith, they pressed upon him to hear the word of GOD. Luk_5:1. Reader! are we as earnest to follow JESUS? Are the public offices, and the gates of great men crowded with persons, and shall not you and I delight to be found waiting at the pardon office of JESUS?

SBC, "Note here:—

I. The helplessness of some men. All helplessness traceable to sin.

II. The social usefulness of some other men. We can all carry sufferers to Christ, even when we cannot heal them ourselves. To point a sinner to Christ is a good work; to carry a little child to the Saviour is to execute a most blessed mission.

III. The possibilities of earnestness. These men uncovered the roof in their determination to approach the Healer.

IV. The vigilance of Jesus Christ over human action. He knew the meaning of the extraordinary movement that was taking place, and the reward which He gave to the earnest men was great.

V. The censorious spirits of technical observers.

Parker, City Temple, 1871, p. 45.

COFFMAN, "This chapter finds Jesus back again in Capernaum where he healed the man borne of four (Mark 2:1-12). Events related to the call of Matthew were And when they could not come nigh unto him for the press,.... To the room where Jesus was, nor into the house, nor even to the door, the crowd about it was so great,

they uncovered the roof where he was. The Arabic version reads it, "they went up to the roof"; and the Persic thus, "they carried him up upon the roof". The place where Christ was, seems to be an upper room; for in such an one the Jewish doctors used to meet, and discourse together about religious matters; see Act_1:13. Though some think this was a mean house in which Christ was, and had no upper room, but

2

the ground floor was open to the roof, through which the man, sick of the palsy, was let down on his bed to Christ; and the rather, because the people crowded about the door to get in, and there was no room to receive them, no not about it: but even from this circumstance it seems most reasonable, that there was an upper room in which Christ was, and at a window in which he might preach to the people, with much more convenience, than at, or about the door, where they were pressing: for, certain it is, that he did preach the word to them, Mar_2:2, and many instances may be given of the above mentioned doctors, whose usages, when indifferent, and not sinful, might be complied with by Christ, as these were, of their meeting and conversing together in upper rooms. Instead of many, take the few following (a):

"It happened to Rabban Gamaliel, and the elders, who were sitting בעלייה, "in an

upper room in Jericho", that they brought them dates, and they did eat, &c,''

Again (b),

"these are some of the traditions which they taught, בעליית, "in the upper chamber" of

Hananiah ben Hezekiah, ben Garon.''

So it is likewise said (c), that

"R. Tarphon, or Tryphon, and the elders, were sitting "in the chamber" of the house of Nithzah, in Lydda, and this question was asked before them, is doctrine greatest, or practice greatest?''

Once more (d),

"the elders of the house of Shammai, and the elders of the house of Hillell, went up,

,to the upper chamber" of Jochanan ben Bethira, and said, that the Tzitzith" ,לעליית

or fringes, had no measure, &c.''

Now, over this upper room, was a flat roof, with battlements about it; for so the Jews were obliged to build their houses, Deu_22:8, to which they had a way of going to and from, both within and without side their houses; See Gill on Mat_24:17. Hence

we so often read (e) of גגות דרך , "the way of the roofs", in distinction from פתחים דרך"the way of the doors"; by which they entered into their houses, and by which means, things might be carried from a court to a roof, and from a roof to a court; about which the doctors dispute, saying, that on a sabbath day (f),

"it is forbidden to ascend and descend from the roofs to the court, and from the court to the roofs; and the vessels, whose abode is in the court, it is lawful to move them in the court, and which are in the roofs, it is lawful to move them in the roofs.--Says Rabbi, when we were learning the law with R. Simeon at Tekoah, we brought up oil, and a confection of old wine, water, and balsam, from roof to roof, and from roof to court, and from court to court, and from the court to a close, and from one close to another, till we came to the fountains, in which they washed. Says R. Judah, it happened in a time of danger, and we brought the book of the law from court to roof, and from roof to court, and from court to a close, to read in it.''

Now, in these roofs, there was a door, which they call, גגות פתח , "the door of the roofs"

(g); now when they had brought up the sick man to the roof of the house, by a ladder

3

fastened on the outside, which was common (h); they took up this door, and let him down in his bed into the room where Jesus was: and because they wrenched the roof door open with violence, therefore it is said,

and when they had broken it up, they let down the bed wherein the sick of the palsy lay: opening the door, and perhaps taking up the frame of it, and removing some tiles about it, to make the way wider, they let down with ropes, the bed, and the man on it, together. The Persic version thus renders it, "and the paralytic man being put upon a bed, at the four corners of the bed so many ropes being fastened, they let him down through a window to Jesus, into the place where he was sitting"; which is rather a paraphrase, or exposition of the words, than a translation.

given (Mark 2:13-17); questions regarding fasting were answered (Mark 2:18-22); and the Pharisees accused Jesus' disciples of breaking the sabbath (Mark 2:23-28). All of this is a continuation of the Galilean ministry.

And when he entered again into Capernaum after some days, it was noised that he was in the house. (Mark 2:1)

After some days ... This means an indefinite period, one long enough to allow the frenzy which developed following the healed leper's sensational report to spend itself and be followed by a period of more normalcy.

In the house ... An alternative reading is "at home," indicating that this was the place in Capernaum where Jesus usually lived. It has been surmised that this was the home belonging to Peter and Andrew (Mark 1:29). Jesus did not own a house. When in Bethany he frequently spent time in the home of Lazarus and his two sisters.

BENSON, "Mark 2:1-2. And again — After having been in desert places for same time, he returned privately to Capernaum. It was noised that he was in the house — The rumour immediately spread, that he was come to the city, and was in Peter’s house. And straightway many were gathered together — His arrival was no sooner known than such a multitude was gathered together that the house could not contain them; nor even the court before the door. Hitherto the general impression on their hearts continued. Hitherto, even at Capernaum, most of those who heard, received the word with joy. And he preached the word unto them — He preached to as many as could hear him; and among the rest, as we learn, Luke 5:17, to many Pharisees and teachers of the law, who on the report of his miracles were come from all quarters to see his works, and judge of his pretensions.

BURKITT, "In the last verse of the foregoing chapter we find how industriously our blessed Saviour withdrew himself from the concourse and throng of people which flocked after him from every quarter; and to show how little he affected the applause and commendation of the multitude, he left the cities and was without in desert places. Hereby giving his ministers an instructive example to decline vain-glory, and to shun popular applause. But now the words before us show that our Saviour having entered (privately, as is probable) into the city of

4

Capernaum, it is presently, noised and reported that he was in the house, and a mighty concourse and throng of people are after him; insomuch that neither the house, nor hardly the streets, could contain them.

Thence learn, That such as least seek after honour and applause from men, are oft-times most famous and renowned. Our Saviour was so far from seeking the people's praise and commendation, that he came into Capernaum without observation, and betook himself to his dwelling-house there; but the more he sought to lie hid, the more he was taken notice of.

Honour flies from them that pursue it, and pursues those that fly from it. The way to be honoured, is to be humble. God seldom honours a proud man, by making him either eminently serviceable or successful.

Observe farther, The people being come together, our Saviour takes the opportunity to preach; And he preached the word unto them. Teaching his ministers by his example, to embrace all opportunities, in season and out of season, on the Lord's day and on the week day, to edify our people by our ministry, by our public exhortations, by our private instructions, prudent admonitions, and holy examples.

PETT, "Verse 1-2‘And when he entered again into Capernaum after some days the news went round about him that (literally ‘ he was heard 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 spoke the word to them.’

After a period of ministry around the towns of Galilee Jesus went back to Peter’s home for a rest. But the news was soon passed around that He had come and was in ‘the house’ which was their temporary headquarters in Galilee. The result was that the crowds gathered, and they pressed in on the house so that there was not even space around the door. The eyewitness remembers the scene clearly. It would seem that normally they would expect the crowds to leave a decent space by the door.

The door would be open, as it was daytime, and in view of what follows we can presume that Jesus was speaking to the crowds from within the house (compare how He later uses a boat in order to prevent being hemmed in by the crowds).

‘And he spoke the word to them.’ Mark (or his source) wants us to recognise that this was His purpose in coming, so that the people might hear ‘the word’ that He had brought to them from God. The sower sows the word.

The end result of all this was that when four men came bringing a paralysed man on a mattress they could not approach the door and get him to Jesus.

PETT, "The Son of Man Has the Power to Forgive Sins (2:1-12).

The idea of the authority of Jesus continues. Having been revealed as the

5

drencher in the Holy Spirit, God’s beloved and Spirit anointed Son, the proclaimer of the Kingly Rule of God, the authoritative teacher, the exorcist of evil spirits by a word of command, the healer of all diseases, and the cleanser of the skin diseased, possessing an authority that ignores uncleanness, He is now revealed as the One Who has authoritative power on earth to forgive sins. And in this incident we also have the first indication of the opposition that will finally result in His death. His authority is now coming in conflict with other who claim to speak with authority, although as we have been told, in their case it is a second hand authority (Mark 1:22).

Analysis of 2:1-12.

a And when He entered again into Capernaum after some days the news went round 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 spoke the word to them (Mark 2:1-2).b And they come, bringing to Him a man sick of paralysis, carried by four men. And when they could not come near to Him because of the crowd, they uncovered the roof where He was, and when they had broken it up they let down the mattress on which the paralysed man lay (Mark 2:3-4).c And Jesus, seeing their faith, says to the paralysed man, “Son, your sins are forgiven” (Mark 2:5).d But there were certain of the scribes sitting their and reasoning in their hearts. “Why does this man speak like this? He is blaspheming. Who can forgive sins but one, even God?” (Mark 2:6-7).e And immediately Jesus, perceiving in His spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, says to them, “Why do you reason these things in your hearts?” (Mark 2:8).d “Which is easier? To say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven’, or to say, ‘Arise take up your bed and walk’?” (Mark 2:9).c “But so that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins,” he says to the paralytic, “I say to you, arise. Take up your bed and go to your house” (Mark 2:10-11).b And he arose, and immediately took up the mattress and went out in front of them all (Mark 2:12 a)a With the result that they were all amazed and glorified God saying, “We have never seen anything like this” (Mark 2:12 b).Note that in ‘a’ the crowds gather to receive the word through both preaching and healing, and in the parallel they are all amazed at what they have witnessed of both. In ‘b’ the paralytic is brought to Jesus on his mattress, and in the parallel he arises, takes up the same mattress and walks out. In ‘c’ Jesus declares that the man’s sins are forgiven, and in the parallel He specifically evidences the fact by calling on the man to rise and walk. In ‘d’ the scribes question His right to forgive sins and in the parallel Jesus questions them concerning whether it is easier to declare forgiveness or to speak the word which heals. Centrally in ‘e’ Jesus questions the genuineness of the thinking of the Scribes (teachers of the Law).

CONSTABLE, "These two verses are an introduction to what follows. Mark

6

frequently used summaries such as this one (cf. Mark 1:14-15; Mark 1:39; Mark 2:13; Mark 3:7-12; Mark 3:23; Mark 4:1; Mark 4:33-34; Mark 8:21-26; Mark 8:31; Mark 9:31; Mark 10:1; Mark 12:1). They are a characteristic of his literary style. "Several days afterward" translates a Jewish phrase that means "after a considerable interval." [Note: Ibid., 1:501.]

When Jesus returned to Capernaum after one of His preaching tours, it did not take news of His arrival long to circulate. Soon locals were mobbing Him. Jesus could not find a restful retreat even at home in Capernaum. He graciously used the opportunity to preach to them. Mark's account stresses Jesus' popularity.

Verses 1-6D. Jesus' initial conflict with the religious leaders 2:1-3:6Mark next recorded five instances in which Israel's leaders opposed Jesus, evidently not in chronological order. These occurred during the Galilean ministry of Jesus. Mark appears to have grouped them so his readers would see that opposition from leaders, particularly religious leaders, was something Jesus had to contend with and overcome. His readers were probably facing similar opposition, and this section should encourage and help all Christians experiencing conflict because they are trying to fulfill God's mission for them.

Popularity with the masses led to problems with the magistrates. Opposition to Jesus intensifies throughout this section.

"The five conflicts between Jesus and the authorities in Galilee show a concentric [chiastic] relationship of A, B, C, B1, and A1....". . . this central episode [Jesus' teaching about fasting, Mark 2:18-22] focuses on Jesus' response rather than on conflicts or actions, and Jesus' response illuminates all five of the episodes that make up the concentric pattern." [Note: Rhoads and Michie, p. 52. See pp. 52-53 for their full description of this narrative structure.]"Mark's story is one of conflict, and conflict is the force that propels the story forward. The major conflict is between Jesus and Israel, made up of the religious authorities and the Jewish crowd. Since the crowd does not turn against Jesus until his arrest, his antagonists are the authorities...."The groups comprising the religious authorities are the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Herodians, the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders." [Note: Kingsbury, p. 63.]

NISBET, "CHRIST IN US‘It was noised that He was in the house.’Mark 2:1We are all houses, whether we will or no. The only question is, Who shall inhabit us? It is a blessed thought that Christ died not only to redeem us, but to dwell in us. I want to point out some marks, suggested by the narrative in this chapter, by which we may know whether Christ is dwelling in us or not.

I. If Christ is in the house, other people will find it out.—We are told ‘it was noised that He was in the house.’ It got about. It was in the air, as we say. Our

7

Lord did not parade His presence. No one sounded a trumpet to herald His approach; it was not advertised; but for all that, His presence betrayed itself. Our influence with our fellow-men in public will always be in exact proportion to the depth of our hidden life with God in secret. It is not what we say, not what we do; it is what we are that tells, or rather what Christ is in us.

II. If Christ is in the house, He will make it attractive.—If our lives have no magnetic force; if we are not winning souls to Christ; if we are not attracting others to follow Christ by our life and our example; if we are conscious that, instead of attracting, we have often repelled others by the gloom and dullness of our Christian profession, it is an evidence that Christ is not in the house, or at least that He is not in full possession of the house.

III. When Christ is in the house, He will open to us the Scriptures.—We read at Mark 2:2 that ‘He preached the word unto them.’ When Christ is dwelling in our hearts, the Bible will be a new book. That is the testimony of hundreds who have received Christ as their sanctification. They tell you that the Bible is illuminated from cover to cover. If you want to understand a book, the best plan is to make the acquaintance of the author; he can interpret it as no one else can.

IV. If Christ is in the house, our diseases will be healed.—This man, sick of the palsy, was healed. There are a good many paralysed Christians—many weak and miserable in their own Christian experience. They have not power to ‘walk.’ Is there any remedy or deliverance from this life of ups and downs, of constant defeat, this spiritual lameness from which they are suffering? When Christ comes to dwell in you, you have a power never known before. You feel more the meaning of St. Paul when he said, ‘I can do all things through Christ that strengthened me.’

V. If Christ is in the house, some people are sure to object.—You find that the Pharisees did so here. Shall we lose a blessing because some people do not understand it? God forbid! Though some one will object, what does it matter, if God be glorified?

Rev. E. W. Moore.Illustration

‘“The holiness of the common Christian,” says William Law, “is not an occasional thing, that begins and ends, or is only for such a time, or place, or action, but is the holiness of that which is always alive and stirring in us, namely, of our thoughts, wills, desires, and affections. If, therefore, these are always alive in us, always driving or governing our lives; if we can have no holiness or goodness but as this life of thought, will, and affection works in us; if we are all called to this inward holiness and goodness, then a perpetual, always existing operation of the Spirit of God within us is absolutely necessary. For we cannot be inwardly led and governed by a spirit of goodness, but by being governed by the Spirit of God Himself. If our thoughts, wills, and affections need only be now and then holy and good, then, indeed, the moving and breathing Spirit of God need only now and then govern us. But if our thoughts and affections are to be always

8

holy and good, then the holy and good Spirit of God is to be always operating as a principle of life within us.”’

BARCLAY, "A FAITH THAT WOULD NOT BE DENIED (Mark 2:1-6)2:1-6 When, some time afterwards, Jesus had come back to Capernaum, the news went round that he was in a house. Such crowds collected that there was no longer any room left, not even round the door. So he was speaking the word to them. A party arrived bringing to him a paralysed man carried by four men. When they could not get near him because of the crowd they unroofed part of the roof of the house in which he was, and when they had dug out. part of the roof, they let down the stretcher on which the paralysed man was lying. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralysed man, "Child, your sins are forgiven."

After Jesus had completed his tour of the synagogues he returned to Capernaum. The news of his coming immediately spread abroad. Life in Palestine was very public. In the morning the door of the house was opened and anyone who wished might come out and in. The door was never shut unless a man deliberately wished for privacy; an open door meant an open invitation for all to come in. In the humbler houses, such as this must have been, there was no entrance hall; the door opened directly on to the street. So, in no time, a crowd had filled the house to capacity and jammed the pavement round the door; and they were all eagerly listening to what Jesus had to say.

Into this crowd came four men carrying on a stretcher a friend of theirs who was paralysed. They could not get through the crowd at all, but they were men of resource. The roof of a Palestinian house was flat. It was regularly used as a place of rest and of quiet, and so usually there was an outside stair which ascended to it. The construction of the roof lent itself to what this ingenious four proposed to do. The roof consisted of flat beams laid across from wall to wall, perhaps three feet apart. The space in between the beams was filled with brushwood packed tight with clay. The top was then marled over. Very largely the roof was of earth and often a flourishing crop of grass grew on the roof of a Palestinian house. It was the easiest thing in the world to dig out the rifling between two of the beams; it did not even damage the house very much, and it was easy to repair the breach again. So the four men dug out the filling between two of the beams and let their friend down direct at Jesus' feet. When Jesus saw this faith that laughed at barriers he must have smiled an understanding smile. He looked at the man, "Child," he said, "your sins are forgiven."

After Jesus had completed his tour of the synagogues he returned to Capernaum. The news of his coming immediately spread abroad. Life in Palestine was very public. In the morning the door of the house was opened and anyone who wished might come out and in. The door was never shut unless a man deliberately wished for privacy; an open door meant an open invitation for all to come in. In the humbler houses, such as this must have been, there was no entrance hall; the door opened directly on to the street. So, in no time, a crowd had filled the house to capacity and jammed the pavement round the door; and they were all eagerly listening to what Jesus had to say.

9

Into this crowd came four men carrying on a stretcher a friend of theirs who was paralysed. They could not get through the crowd at all, but they were men of resource. The roof of a Palestinian house was flat. It was regularly used as a place of rest and of quiet, and so usually there was an outside stair which ascended to it. The construction of the roof lent itself to what this ingenious four proposed to do. The roof consisted of flat beams laid across from wall to wall, perhaps three feet apart. The space in between the beams was filled with brushwood packed tight with clay. The top was then marled over. Very largely the roof was of earth and often a flourishing crop of grass grew on the roof of a Palestinian house. It was the easiest thing in the world to dig out the rifling between two of the beams; it did not even damage the house very much, and it was easy to repair the breach again. So the four men dug out the filling between two of the beams and let their friend down direct at Jesus' feet. When Jesus saw this faith that laughed at barriers he must have smiled an understanding smile. He looked at the man, "Child," he said, "your sins are forgiven."

It may seem an odd way to begin a cure. But in Palestine, in the time of Jesus, it was natural and inevitable. The Jews integrally connected sin and suffering. They argued that if a man was suffering he must have sinned. That is in fact the argument that Job's friends produced. "Who," demanded Eliphaz the Temanite, "that was innocent ever perished?" (Job 4:7.) The Rabbis had a saying, "There is no sick man healed of his sickness until all his sins have been forgiven him." To this day we get the same ideas among primitive peoples. Paul Tournier writes, "Do not missionaries report that disease is a defilement in the eyes of the savage? Even converts to Christianity do not dare to go to Communion when they are ill, because they consider themselves spurned by God." To the Jews a sick man was a man with whom God was angry. It is true that a great many illnesses are due to sin; it is still truer that time and time again they are due not to the sin of the ill man, but to the sin of others. We do not make the close connection that the Jews did, but any Jew would have agreed that forgiveness of sins was a prior condition of cure.

It may well be, however, that there is more than this in this story. The Jews made this connection between illness and sin, and it may well be that, in this case, the man's conscience agreed. And it may well be that that consciousness of sin had actually produced the paralysis. The power of mind, especially the sub-conscious mind, over the body is an amazing thing.

The psychologists quote a case of a girl who played the piano in a cinema in the days of the silent films. Normally she was quite well, but immediately the lights went out and cigarette smoke filled the auditorium she began to be paralysed. She fought against it for long, but at last the paralysis became permanent and something had to be done. Examination revealed no physical cause whatever. Under hypnosis it was discovered that when she was very young, only a few weeks old, she had been lying in one of those elaborate old-fashioned cots with an arch of lace over it. Her mother had bent over her smoking a cigarette. The draperies had caught fire. It was immediately extinguished and no physical hurt was done to her but her sub-conscious mind was remembering this terror. The

10

dark plus the smell of the cigarette smoke in the cinema acted on the unconscious mind and paralysed her body--and she did not know why.

The man in this story may well have been paralysed because consciously or unconsciously his conscience agreed that he was a sinner, and the thought of being a sinner brought the illness which he believed was the inevitable consequence of sin. The first thing that Jesus said to him was, "Child, God is not angry with you. It's all right." It was like speaking to a frightened child in the dark. The burden of the terror of God and estrangement from God rolled from his heart, and that very fact made the cure all but complete.

It is a lovely story because the first thing that Jesus does for everyone of us is to say, "Child, God is not angry with you. Come home, and don't be afraid."

HOLE, "Verses 1-28THIS CHAPTER OPENS with another work of power that took place in a private house, when after some time He was again in Capernaum. This time faith of a very robust type comes into view, and that, remarkably enough, on the part of friends and not on the part of the sufferer. The Lord was again preaching the Word. That was His main service; the healing work was incidental.

The four friends had faith of the sort that laughs at impossibilities, and says, “It shall be done,” and Jesus saw it. He dealt instantly with the spiritual side of things, granting forgiveness of sins to the paralysed man.

This was but blasphemy to the reasoning scribes who were present. They were right enough in their thought that no one but God can forgive sins, but they were wholly wrong in not discerning that God was present amongst them and speaking in the Son of Man. The Son of Man was on earth, and on earth He has authority to forgive sins.

The forgiveness of sins however is not something which is visible to the eyes of men; it must be accepted by faith in the Word of God. The instantaneous healing of a bad case of bodily infirmity is visible to the eyes of men, and the Lord proceeded to perform this miracle. They could no more release the man from the grip of his disease than they could forgive his sins. Jesus could do both with equal ease. He did both, appealing to the miracle in the body as proof of the miracle as to the soul. Thus He puts things in their right order. The spiritual miracle was primary, the bodily was only secondary.

Here again the miracle was instantaneous and complete. The man who had been utterly helpless suddenly arose, picked up his bed and walked forth before them all in a fashion that elicited glory to God from all lips. The Lord commanded and the man had but to obey, for the enabling went with the command.

This incident which emphasises the spiritual object of our Lord’s service is followed by the call of Levi, afterwards known to us as Matthew the publican. The call of this man to follow the Master exemplifies the mighty attraction of His word. It was one thing to call lowly fishermen from their nets and toil: it was

11

another to call a man of means from the congenial task of scooping in the cash. But He did it with two words. “Follow Me,” fell upon Levi’s ears with such power that he “arose and followed Him.” God grant that we may feel the power of those two words in our hearts!

What a wonderful glimpse we have been granted of the Servant of the Lord, His promptitude, His authority, His power, His dependence, His devotedness, His compassion, His refusal of the popular and superficial in favour of the spiritual and the abiding; and lastly, His mighty attractiveness.

Having risen up to follow the Lord, Levi soon declared his discipleship in a practical fashion. He entertained his new-found Master in his house together with a large number of publicans and sinners, displaying thus something of the Master’s spirit. He exchanged his “sitting at the receipt of custom,” for the dispensing of bounty, so that others might sit at his board. He began to fulfil the word, “He hath dispersed, he hath given to the poor,” (Psalms 112:9), and that evidently without having been told to do so. He began showing hospitality to his own set in order that they too might meet the One who had won his heart.

In this he is an excellent pattern for ourselves. He began to expend himself for others. He did the thing which most readily came to his hand. He gathered to meet the Lord those who were needy, and who knew it, rather than those who were religiously self-satisfied. He had discovered that Jesus was a Giver, who was seeking for such as should be receivers.

All this was observed by the self-satisfied Scribes and Pharisees, who voiced their objection in the form of a question to His disciples. Why did He consort with such low-down and degraded folk? The disciples had no need to answer, for He took up the challenge Himself. His answer was complete and satisfying and has become almost a proverbial saying. The sick need the doctor, and sinners need the Saviour. Not the righteous but the sinners He came to call.

The Scribes and Pharisees may have been well versed in the law but they had no understanding of grace. Now He was the Servant of the grace of God, and Levi had caught a glimpse of this. Have we? Far more than Levi we ought to have done so, inasmuch as we live in the moment when the day of grace has reached its noontide. Yet it is possible for us to feel a bit hurt with God because He is so good to folk that we would like to denounce, as Jonah did in the case of the Ninevites, and as the Pharisees did with the sinners. The great Servant of the grace of God is at the disposal of all that need Him.

The next incident—verses Mark 2:18-22—discloses the objectors again at work. Then they complained of the Master to the disciples: now it is of the disciples to the Master. They evidently lacked courage to come face to face. This oblique method of fault-finding is very common: let us forsake it. In neither case did the disciples have to answer. When the Pharisees maintained the exclusiveness of law, He met them by asserting the expansiveness of grace, and He silenced them. Now they wish to put upon the disciples the bondage of law, and He most effectively asserts the liberty of grace.

12

The parable or figure that He used plainly inferred that He Himself was the Bridegroom—the central Person of importance. His presence governed everything, and ensured a wonderful fulness of supply. Presently He would be absent and then fasting would be appropriate enough. Let us take note of this, for we live in the day when fasting is a fitting thing. The Bridegroom has long been absent, and we are waiting for Him. At the moment when the Lord spoke the disciples were in the position of a godly remnant in Israel receiving the Messiah when He came. After Pentecost they were baptised into one body, and were built into the foundations of that city which is called “the Bride, the Lamb’s wife” (Revelation 21:9). Then they had the place of the Bride rather than that of the children of the bridechamber; and that position is ours today. This only makes it yet more clear that not feasting but fasting is fitting for us. Fasting is abstaining from lawful things in order to be more wholly for God, and not merely abstinence from food for a certain fume.

The Pharisees were all for maintaining the law intact. The danger for the disciples, as after events proved, was not so much that as attempting a mixture of Judaism with the grace which the Lord Jesus brought. The law system was like a worn-out garment, or an old wine skin. He was bringing in that which was like a strong piece of new cloth, or new wine with its powers of expansion. In the Acts we can see how the old outward forms of the law gave way before the expansive power of the Gospel.

Indeed we see it in the very next incident with which chapter 2 closes. Again the Pharisees come, complaining of the disciples to the Master. The offence now was that they did not exactly fit their activities into the “old bottle” of certain regulations concerning the sabbath. The Pharisees pushed their sabbath-keeping so far that they condemned even rubbing ears of corn in the hand, as though it were working a mill. They contended for a very rigid interpretation of the law in these minor matters. They were the people who kept the law with meticulous care, whilst they considered the disciples to be slack.

The Lord met their complaint and defended His disciples by reminding them of two things. First, they should have known the Scriptures, which recorded the way in which David had once fed himself and his followers in an emergency. That which ordinarily was not lawful was permitted in a day when things were out of course in Israel because of the rejection of the rightful king. 1 Samuel 21:1-15 tells us about it. Once again things were out of course and the rightful King about to be refused. In both cases needs connected with the Lord’s Anointed must be held to override details connected with the ceremonial demands of the law.

Second, the sabbath was instituted for man’s benefit, and not the reverse. Hence man takes precedence of the sabbath; and the Son of man, who holds dominion over all men, according to Psalms 8:1-9, must be Lord of the sabbath, and hence competent to dispose of it according to His will. Who were the Pharisees to challenge His right to do this?—even though He had come amongst men in the form of a Servant.

13

The Lord of the sabbath was amongst men and He was being refused. Under these circumstances the solicitude of these sticklers for the ceremonial law was out of place. Their “bottles” were worn out, and unable to contain the expansive grace and authority of the Lord. The sabbath “bottle” breaks before their very eyes.

MACLAREN 1-12, "CHRIST'S AUTHORITY TO FORGIVE

Mark alone gives Capernaum as the scene of this miracle. The excitement which had induced our Lord to leave that place had been allowed ‘some days’ to quiet down, ‘after’ which He ventures to return, but does not seem to have sought publicity, but to have remained in ‘the house’-probably Peter’s. There would be at least one woman’s heart there, which would love to lavish grateful service on Him. But ‘He could not be hid,’ and, however little genuine or deep the eagerness might be, He will not refuse to meet it. Mark paints vividly the crowd flocking to the humble home, overflowing its modest capacity, blocking the doorway, and clustering round it outside as far as they could hear Christ’s voice. ‘He was speaking the word to them,’ proclaiming His mission, as He had done in their synagogue, when He was interrupted by the events which follow, no doubt to the gratification of some of His hearers, who wanted something more exciting than ‘teaching.’

I. We note the eager group of interrupters.

Mark gives one of the minute touches which betray an eye-witness and a close observer when he tells us that the palsied man was carried by four friends-no doubt one at each corner of the bed, which would be some light framework, or even a mere quilt or mattress. The incident is told from the point of view of one sitting beside Jesus; they ‘come to Him,’ but ‘cannot come near.’ The accurate specification of the process of removing the roof, which Matthew omits altogether, and Luke tells much more vaguely, seems also to point to an eye-witness as the source of the narrative, who would, of course, be Peter, who well remembered all the steps of the unceremonious treatment of his property. His house was, probably, one of no great pretensions or size, but like hundreds of poor men’s houses in Palestine still-a one-storied building with a low, flat roof, mostly earthen, and easily reached from the ground by an outside stair. It would be somewhat difficult to get a sick man and his bed up there, however low, and somewhat free-and-easy dealing with another man’s house to burrow through the roof a hole wide enough for the purpose; but there is no impossibility, and the difficulty is part of the lesson of the incident, and is recognised expressly in the narrative by Christ’s notice of their ‘faith.’ We can fancy the blank looks of the four bearers, and the disappointment on the sick man’s thin face and weary eyes, as they got to the edge of the crowd, and saw that there was no hope of forcing a passage. Had they been less certain of a cure, and less eager, they would have shouldered their burden and carried him home again. They could well have pleaded sufficient reason for giving up the attempt. But ‘we cannot’ is the coward’s word. ‘We must’ is the earnest man’s. If we have any real consciousness of our need to get to Christ, and any real wish to do so, it is not a crowd round the door that will keep us back. Difficulties test, and therefore increase, faith. They develop a sanctified ingenuity in getting over them, and bring a rich harvest of satisfaction when at last conquered. These four eager faces looked down through the broken roof, when they had succeeded in dropping the bed right at Christ’s feet, with a far keener pleasure than if they had just carried him in by the door. No doubt their act was inconvenient; for, however light the roofing, some rubbish must have come down on the heads of some of the notabilities below. And, no doubt, it was interfering with property as well

14

as with propriety. But here was a sick man, and there was his Healer; and it was their business to get the two together somehow. It was worth risking a good deal to accomplish. The rabbis sitting there might frown at rude intrusiveness; Peter might object to the damage to his roof; some of the listeners might dislike the interruption to His teaching; but Jesus read the action of the bearers and the consent of the motionless figure on the couch as the indication of ‘their faith,’ and His love and power responded to its call.

II. Note the unexpected gift with which Christ answers this faith.

Neither the bearers nor the paralytic speak a word throughout the whole incident. Their act and his condition spoke loudly enough. Obviously, all five must have had, at all events, so much ‘faith’ as went to the conviction that He could and would heal; and this faith is the occasion of Christ’s gift. The bearers had it, as is shown by their work. It was a visible faith, manifest by conduct. He can see the hidden heart; but here He looks upon conduct, and thence infers disposition. Faith, if worth anything, comes to the surface in act. Was it the faith of the bearers, or of the sick man, which Christ rewarded? Both. As Abraham’s intercession delivered Lot, as Paul in the shipwreck was the occasion of safety to all the crew, so one man’s faith may bring blessings on another. But 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. His faith, apparently, was deeper than theirs; for Christ’s answer, though it went far beyond his or their expectations, must have been moulded to meet his deepest sense of need. His heart speaks in the tender greeting ‘son,’ or, as the margin has it, ‘child’-possibly pointing to the man’s youth, but more probably an appellation revealing the mingled love and dignity of Jesus, and taking this man into the arms of His sympathy. The palsy may have been the consequence of ‘fast’ living; but, whether it were so or no, Christ saw that, in the dreary hours of solitary inaction to which it had condemned the sufferer, remorse had been busy gnawing at his heart, and that pain had done its best work by leading to penitence. Therefore He spoke to the conscience before He touched the bodily ailment, and met the sufferer’s deepest and most deeply felt disease first. He goes to the bottom of the malady with His cure. These great words are not only closely adapted to the one case before Him, but contain a general truth, worthy to be pondered by all philanthropists. It is of little use to cure symptoms unless you cure diseases. The tap-root of all misery is sin; and, until it is grubbed up, hacking at the branches is sad waste of time. Cure sin, and you make the heart a temple and the world a paradise. We Christians should hail all efforts of every sort for making men nobler, happier, better physically, morally, intellectually; but let us not forget that there is but one effectual cure for the world’s misery, and that it is wrought by Him who has borne the world’s sins.

III. Note the snarl of the scribes.

‘Certain of the scribes,’ says Mark-not being much impressed by their dignity, which, as Luke tells us, was considerable. He says that they were ‘Pharisees and doctors of the law . . . out of every village of Galilee and Judaea and Jerusalem itself, who had come on a formal errand of investigation. 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 sniff out heresy. The whispered cavillings are graphically represented. The scribes would not speak out, like men, and call on Jesus to defend His words. If they had been sure of their

15

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. So they content themselves with comparing notes among themselves, and wait for Him to entangle Himself a little more in their nets. They affect to despise Him, ‘This man’ is spoken in contempt. If He were so poor a creature, why were they there, all the way from Jerusalem, some of them? They overdo their part. The short, snarling sentences of their muttered objections, as given in the Revised Version, may be taken as shared among three speakers, each bringing his quota of bitterness. One says, ‘Why doth He thus speak?’ Another curtly answers, ‘He blasphemeth’; while a third formally states the great truth on which they rest their indictment. 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 it is not enough to have one premise of your syllogism right. Only God forgives sins; and if this man says that He does, He, no doubt, claims to be, in some sense, God. But whether He ‘blasphemeth’ or no depends on what the scribes do not stay to ask; namely, whether He has the right so to claim: and, if He has, 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. Their fault was not their jealousy for the divine honour, but their inattention to Christ’s evidence in support of His claims, which inattention had its roots in their moral condition, their self-sufficiency and absorption in trivialities of externalism. 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.’

IV. Note our Lord’s answer to the cavils.

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. His spirit was a mirror, in which looking He saw externals. In the most literal and deepest sense, He does ‘not judge after the sight of His eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of His ears.’

The absence from our 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. Unless His pardon is something quite different from the ministerial announcement of forgiveness, which His servants are empowered to make to penitents, He wilfully led the cavillers into error. His answer starts with a counter-question- another ‘why?’ to meet their’ why?’ It then puts into words what they were thinking; namely, that it was easy to assume a power the reality of which could not be tested. To say, ‘Thy sins be forgiven,’ and to say, ‘Take up thy 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. The remarkable construction of the long sentence in Mar_2:10-11, which is almost verbally identical in the three Gospels, parenthesis and all, sets before us the suddenness of the turn from the scribes to the patient with dramatic force. Mark that our Lord claims ‘authority’ to forgive, the same word which had been twice in the people’s mouths in reference to His teaching and to His sway over demons. It implies not only power, but rightful power, and that authority which He wields as ‘Son of Man’ and ‘on earth.’ This is the first use of that title in Mark. It is Christ’s own designation of Himself, never found on other lips

16

except the dying Stephen’s. 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-not a, but the Son of Man. Now the wonder which He would confirm by His miracle is that such a manhood, walking on earth, has lodged in it the divine prerogative. He who is the Son of Man must be something more than man, even the Son of God. His power to forgive is both derived and inherent, but, in either aspect, is entirely different from the human office of announcing God’s forgiveness.

For once, Christ seems to work a miracle in response to unbelief, rather than to faith. But the real occasion of it was not the cavils of the scribes, but the faith and need of the man and His friends; while the silencing of unbelief, and the enlightenment of honest doubt, were but collateral benefits.

V. Note the cure and its effect.

This is another of the miracles in which no vehicle of the healing power is employed. The word is enough; but here the word is spoken, not as if to the disease, but to the sufferer; and in His obedience he receives strength to obey. Tell a palsied man to rise and walk when his disease is that he cannot! But if he believes that Christ has power to heal, he will try to do as he is bid; and, as he tries, the paralysis steals out of the long-unused limbs. Jesus makes us able to do what He bids us do. The condition of healing is faith, and the test of faith is obedience. We do not get strength till we put ourselves into the attitude of obedience. The cure was immediate; and the cured man, who was ‘borne of four’ into the healing presence, walked away, with his bed under his arm, ‘before them all.’ They were ready enough to make way for him then. And what said the wise doctors to it all? We do not hear that any of them were convinced. And what said the people? They were ‘amazed,’ and they ‘glorified God,’ and recognised that they had seen something quite new. That was all. Their glorifying God cannot have been very deep-seated, or they would have better learned the lesson of the miracle. Amazement was but a poor result. No emotion is more transient or less fruitful than gaping astonishment; and that, with a little varnish of acknowledgment of God’s power, which led to nothing, was all the fruit of Christ’s mighty work. Let us hope that the healed man carried his unseen blessing in a faithful and grateful heart, and consecrated his restored strength to the Lord who healed him!

BIBLICAL ILLUSTRATOR, "And again He entered into Capernaum.

The general ministry of Christ

Christ’s apparent delays are only the maturings of time-the ripenings of opportunity. He will come, not when impatient men think best, but when His wisdom determines: neither too soon nor too late.

I. Where Christ is desired Christ comes. He visits with equal readiness every willing heart. In penitent and submissive natures He finds His favourite haunts.

II. Christ’s presence in the house cannot be concealed. Holy influences emanate from Him, freely as light from the sun.

III. Christ binds together all classes.

IV. Human limits are too narrow for Christ’s kingdom. God’s plans are expansive; let us beware of trying to contract them. We must enlarge our ideas, until they are commensurate with God’s truth; we must enlarge our sympathies until they embrace every human need.

17

V. Christ improves every occasion. Whatever is needed, He is ready to supply. Each individual in that crowd had some special want, but not one was making special application. But Christ could not be idle. His business was to minister. If they did not want a word of healing, they all wanted a word of instruction. (D. Davies, M. A.)

It was noised that He was in the house

I. Houses where Christ will dwell.

1. The human heart.

2. The Christian family.

3. A spiritual Church.

II. The chief glory of a Christian Church-not the building, nor the form of service, nor the social position of its members, nor the eloquence of the preacher, nor its past history-but the Christ who dwells within it.

III. The self-manifesting nature of true religion. If Christ be within the heart, the family, or the Church-the fact will be known abroad. Though the rose is not seen its fragrance is perceived. Its glitter betrays the presence of gold. Clouds cannot conceal the sun, for the daylight declares its ascendency.

IV. The chief drawing power of Christianity. If we would draw the multitude we must do it, not so much by eccentricities-advertisements, as by obtaining the presence of Jesus Christ. He will draw all men unto Him. Christ within will attract the multitude without. (L. Palmer.)

The king and his Court

Where the king is there is his Court. (Anon.)

A happy town

Happy town in such an inhabitant, and in this respect lifted up to heaven. Indeed, in this, heaven came down to Capernaum. (Trapp.)

Shiloh

Where Shiloh is there shall the gathering of the people be. (M. Henry.)

Christ in the house

I. When Christ may be said to be in the house.

1. When the Bible is there.

2. When a good man enters it and carries with him the savour of Christ.

3. When He dwells in the heart of anyone in the family-parent, child, servant, etc.

4. Into whatever house a Christian family enters, Christ enters with it, etc.

18

II. Some of the advantages of having Christ in the house.

1. If it be noised that Christ is in the house, good men will be drawn to it and bad men will keep away.

2. There will be a witness for God there.

3. There is a direct communication between it and the house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.

4. That house is under the peculiar protection of Divine Providence.

5. The sympathies of good men are drawn towards it. Conclusion: We should seek Christ on our own account; and we should seek Him on account of others. (G. Rogers.)

Jesus in the house: piety at home

How many are longing for grand spheres in which to serve God. They admire heroic men and women who have been bold for the truth, and wish they had some daring opportunity in which to exhibit Christian heroism and endurance. St. Paul says to such persons (1Ti_5:4), “I will tell you of a place where you can show forth all that is beautiful and glorious in the Christian character, and that place is the domestic circle; ““Let them first learn to show piety at home.” Indeed, if a man does not serve God on a small scale, he never will serve Him on a large one. (J. N. Natron.)

How Christ enters the house

Christ Jesus gains admission to the house in various ways. Sometimes it is through the sweet influence of a little child, who has heard of Him in the Sunday school. Sometimes Jesus finds His way into the house through the agency of a good book or a tract. Sometimes He leaves the fragrance of His example behind Him, after the visit of a friend. Jesus may only be present in the house in the person of the humblest servant, and yet the influence of that servant will be felt. (J. N. Natron.)

Family worship

Bishop Coxe, in the preface to his “Covenant Prayer,” gives this interesting narrative. “A few years ago I visited an old feudal castle in England. One of its towers dates from King John’s time; its outer walls bear marks of siege and damage from the guns of Cromwell. The young owner, lately married, was beginning his housekeeping aright, and when I came down into the old hall to breakfast, his servants were all assembled for prayers with the family. Though I was asked to officiate, I reminded my kind host that every man is a priest in his own household, and I begged him to officiate as he was used to do. So he read prayers and Holy Scripture, with due solemnity, and we all kneeled down. Happening to lift my eyes, I observed over his head, upon a massive oaken beam that spanned the hall, an inscription in old English:

“‘That house shall be preserved, and never shall decay,

Where the Almighty God is worshipped, day by day. A.D. 1558.’”

(J. N. Natron.)

19

Piety in the house proved by virtue in the children

If I am told in general terms of a mother, that she has gone to the studio of a photographic artist to obtain a portrait of herself, and if the question afterwards arise, did she sit alone, or did she group the children round her feet, and hold the infant on her knee? I do not know, for I was not there; but show me the glass which the artist has just taken out from a vessel of liquid in a dark room, and is holding up to the light. What figures are those that are gradually forming upon its surface? In that glass rises the outline of that maternal form; and the forms of the children come gradually in, variously grouped around her. Ah! I know now that this mother sat not alone when the sun in the heavens painted her picture in that glass. The character and condition of children, through all their after life, tell plainly who were closest to her heart, and whose names were oftenest on her lips, when the mother held communion with Jesus in the house. (Arnot.)

Christly influence in the home

Travelling on the Lake Lugano, one morning, we heard the swell of the song of the nightingale, and the oars were stilled on the blue lake as we listened to the silver sounds. We could not see a single bird, nor do I know that we wished to see-we were so content with the sweetness of the music: even so it is with our Lord; we may enter a house where He is loved, and we may hear nothing concerning Christ, and yet we may perceive clearly enough that He is there, a holy influence streaming through their actions pervades the household; so that if Jesus be unseen, it is clear that He is not unknown. Go anywhere where Jesus is, and though you do not actually hear His name, yet the sweet influence which flows from His love will be plainly enough discernible. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

Christ in the house

I. That Christ in the house is an attraction-“Many were gathered together.”

II. That Christ in the house is an instruction-“He preached the word unto them.”

III. That Christ in the house is a benediction.

1. A benediction of healing.

2. A benediction of pardon.

1. That Christ is willing to dwell in the homes of men.

2. That when Christ dwells in the home it is visible to the world that He does so.

3. That the home life should be a perpetual but silent sermon. (J. S. Exell, M. A.)

2 They gathered in such large numbers that there was no room left, not even outside the

20

door, and he preached the word to them.

BARNES, "So much as about the door - In the “court” or “yard” before the door. They could not get near enough to hear him.

Preached the word unto them - The word of God; the revelation or doctrine which he came to deliver, called “the Word,” and “the Word of God,” because it was spoken or revealed by God. Compare Act_6:2-7.

CLARKE, "So much as about the door - Meaning the yard or court before the house.

Preached The Word - Τον λογον. The doctrine of the kingdom of God; for so ��

λογος is repeatedly used.

GILL, "And straightway many were gathered together,.... From all parts of the city,

insomuch that there was no room to receive them; in the house: by which it should seem to be a large one, though not large enough to hold such a numerous company as were got together:

no, not so much as about the door; or the places before the door, the porch, the court, or courtyard. The crowd was so great, that neither the house, nor the out places before, could hold them, nor could they come even near the door;

and he preached the word unto them. The Ethiopic version renders it, "he spake his own word to them that came to him"; he preached the Gospel, the word of grace and truth, of life and salvation, to as many as could come near him, and were within the hearing of him. To me it seems, that our Lord went up into an upper room, and out of the window preached to the people, that were, in great numbers, without doors; and the following narrative seems to confirm this conjecture.

HENRY, "II. The good entertainment Christ gave them, the best his house would afford, and better than any other could; he preached the word unto them, Mar_2:2. Many of them perhaps came only for cures, and many perhaps only for curiosity, to get a sight of him; but when he had them together he preached to them. Though the synagogue-door was open to him at proper times, he thought it not at all amiss to preach in a house, on a week day; though some might reckon it both an improper place and an improper time. Blessed are ye that sow beside all waters, Isa_32:20.

JAMIESON, "And straightway many were gathered together, insomuch that there was no room to receive them, no, not so much as about the door — This is one of Mark’s graphic touches. No doubt in this case, as the scene occurred at his informant’s own door, these details are the vivid recollections of that honored disciple.

and he preached the word unto them — that is, indoors; but in the hearing,

21

doubtless, of the multitude that pressed around. Had He gone forth, as He naturally would, the paralytic’s faith would have had no such opportunity to display itself. Luke (Luk_5:17) furnishes an additional and very important incident in the scene - as follows: “And it came to pass on a certain day, as He was teaching, that there were Pharisees and doctors of the law sitting by, which were come out of every town,” or village, “of Galilee, and Judea, and Jerusalem.” This was the highest testimony yet borne to our Lord’s growing influence, and the necessity increasingly felt by the ecclesiastics throughout the country of coming to some definite judgment regarding Him. “And the power of the Lord was [present] to heal them” - or, “was [efficacious] to heal them,” that is, the sick that were brought before Him. So that the miracle that is now to be described was among the most glorious and worthy to be recorded of many then performed; and what made it so was doubtless the faith which was manifested in connection with it, and the proclamation of the forgiveness of the patient’s sins that immediately preceded it.

COFFMAN, "The evidence of eye-witness reporting surfaces in this, as at many other places in this gospel. If Mark, as thought by many, was writing the things he had frequently heard the apostle Peter teach, or if, as a young man, he had been present and actually had seen some of the things related it would explain the brilliant eye-witness references in this gospel.

And he spake the word unto them ... The priority of importance which must be assigned to the "word" of the gospel is evident here as it was in Mark 1:38. Wonderful as were the miracles of Jesus, it was the life-giving word of God, and the delivery of it to mankind, which constituted the real purpose of his ministry.

HAWKER 2-12, "(2) And straightway many were gathered together, insomuch that there was no room to receive them, no not so much as about the door: and he preached the word unto them. (3) And they come unto him, bringing one sick of the palsy, which was borne of four. (4) And when they could not come nigh unto him for the press, they uncovered the roof where he was: and when they had broken it up, they let down the bed wherein the sick of the palsy lay. (5) When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee. (6) But there were certain, of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts. (7) Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only? (8) And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts? (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? (10) 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,) (11) I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house. (12) And immediately he arose, 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.

I stay not to remark, what might otherwise be very profitably attended to in the several circumstances of this man’s case, the disease of his body; but I have so much to say in relation to the state of his soul, and the souls of GOD’s people, who are all so highly concerned in what is here said, that I fear I shall trespass, and exceed the limits I ought to observe, before that I have said all I wish to say on a subject so abundantly interesting. But otherwise, here would be ample opportunity to enlarge upon such a subject, as a misery of nature, in the painful crippled state of a poor

22

Paralytic, and the mercy of JESUS in healing him. But it is the palsy of the soul, which this of the body became a lively emblem of, that demands our special notice; and may the LORD render our contemplation of it profitable to our hearts. Think, Reader! what a crippled, benumbed, and helpless state our whole nature is reduced to by the fall! And behold, as in the instance of this man, he had no power of himself to come to CHRIST; so neither have we. See, in proof, Joh_6:44. But what a beautiful lesson is read to us in the friends of this poor creature, in the earnestness with which they brought him to CHRIST. No throng, no obstructions, will they allow to stop them. Even the housetop shall be opened, but CHRIST shall have him brought before him. Oh! that the LORD’s people, who know, in their own cases, the blessedness of JESUS’s grace, would feel somewhat of the same earnestness for the salvation of others. Methinks I would bring to ordinances, and also in private approaches, to the mercy seat, the whole of my carnal, graceless relations; and do as they did by this man, lay them down before the presence of JESUS. More than this I am not able to do; but thus far I am encouraged to do. And that compassionate LORD, who hath healed my crippled soul, can cure theirs.

And I pray the Reader to observe, how infinitely JESUS’s love out run their desires of favour. They brought the poor man to be healed only in his body, whereas JESUS extended his mercy also to the cure of the soul. And do not overlook the gracious manner in which the lord of mercy did it. Son (said JESUS) thy sins are forgiven thee. Did not Jesus mean, by the tender appellation, that he was, indeed, one of those children which the FATHER gave him in the everlasting covenant? One of those concerning whom JESUS hath already said, he will, at the last day, when presenting his Church to himself and Father, say; behold I and the children whom thou hast given me. Isa_8:18; Heb_2:13. Reader! do not forget, in this view to remark, that a Son of JESUS may be, and frequently will be, deeply afflicted, in body, while blessed in soul. Sickness, and the thousand other ailments of life, are not tokens of being out of the covenant, but rather of being in it. Whom the LORD loveth, it is said, he chasteneth, and scourgeth every Son whom he receiveth. Heb_12:6-8. And what I particularly beg the Reader to remark is, the unconsciousness of this relationship, in the poor man, until JESUS told him of it. So that though one of CHRIST’s own, a son by adoption, and given to CHRIST, in an everlasting covenant, yet he himself knew, it not, but was crippled with disease, and borne down with affliction. Let the sons and daughters of the LORD GOD Almighty, who, by regeneration, know themselves to be such, by adoption and grace, think of this, as they review this man’s history. If ye endure affliction, saith the HOLY GHOST, GOD dealeth with you as with Sons. The reasoning of the Scribes and Pharisees, though resulting from malice to CHRIST, was founded in what is right, concerning the thing itself. None but GOD can forgive sins. But here JESUS manifested that he was truly GOD, as well as man, by exercising this divine prerogative. And in confirmation that he was GOD who possessed this sovereign power, he instantly wrought a miracle, in nature, to cure the body, as he had wrought a miracle of grace in pardoning the soul. Look at this, ye people of GOD, and rejoice. Your JESUS is GOD; One with the FATHER over all, GOD blessed forever, Amen. Look at this, ye that deny the GODHEAD of my LORD, and be ashamed. Oh! that the LORD may carry conviction to the unbeliever, in such a striking testimony of CHRIST’s eternal power and GODHEAD, and cause the knee of the heart to bend before JESUS, crying out with the Prophet. Who is a GOD like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity, transgression, and sin! Mic_7:18. For other observations on this miracle, See Mat_9:2-8.

23

3 Some men came, bringing to him a paralyzed man, carried by four of them.

CLARKE, "One sick of the palsy - A paralytic person. See on Mat_9:2 (note), etc.

Borne of four - Four men, one at each corner of the sofa or couch on which he lay: this sick man appears to have been too feeble to come himself, and too weak to be carried in any other way.

GILL, "And they came unto him,.... A considerable body of people, townsmen, friends, and relations of the person after mentioned:

bringing one sick of the palsy, which was borne of four; carried by four men upon their shoulders, as if he was a dead carcass; so weak and enfeebled was he by his disease, that he could not walk, or be otherwise brought; or rather upon a bed, which four men, at the four comers of it, carried in their hands; and so the Ethiopic version renders it, "four men carried him on a bed"; and certain it is, by what follows, that he was brought upon a bed. This man's case appears to be a very bad one, and what seems to be incurable by the art of medicine: it was not a slight touch of the palsy, but a general one, which had deprived him of motion and sensation. The palsy is a disease, whereby the body, or some of its parts, lose their motion, and sometimes their sensation or feeling: the causes of it are an impeded influx of the nervous spirits into the villi, or the muscles, or of the arterious blood into their vessels; which may happen from some fault either in the brain, the nerves, muscles, or their vessels. The palsy is said to be "perfect", or complete, when there is a privation of motion and sensation at the same time; "imperfect", when one of the two is destroyed, the other remaining. The palsy again is either "universal, lateral", or "partial". The "universal" palsy, called also "paraplegia", or "paraplexia", is a general immobility of all the muscles that receive nerves from the cerebrum, or cerebellum, except those of the head--its cause is usually supposed to reside in the ventricles of the brain, or in the root of the spinal marrow.--The "lateral" palsy, called also "hemiplegia", is the same disease with the "paraplegia", only that it affects but one side of the body. Its cause is the same, only restrained to one side of the brain, or spinal marrow. The "partial" palsy is where some particular part, or member, alone is affected; as, for instance, where the motion of the arm, or leg, is destroyed (z). Now this man's disease seems to be the perfect and general palsy, which affects the whole body, or the "paraplegia", which reaches every part but the head; whereby all sense, as well as motion, are destroyed, and sometimes only one of them: but in this case it seems as if both of them were lost: that he was motionless, is clear from his being carried by four persons; and it looks as if he had lost his feeling, since he is not said to be grievously tormented, as the centurion's servant is said to be, Mat_8:6, whose disease seems to have been of the partial or imperfect kind; or however, though it deprived him of motion, yet not of sensation; his might be a kind of scorbutic palsy. This man is an emblem of a sinner in a state of nature, who is insensible of his condition, of the exceeding sinfulness of sin, of his danger and misery to which he is exposed, of his lost and undone state, of the necessity of the new birth, and of the need of salvation

24

by Jesus Christ; and who, as he is destitute of spiritual life, can have no spiritual motion to come to Christ for life and salvation, or any spiritual strength and activity to move in, or perform any thing that is spiritually good: and as the friends of this man took him, and brought him to Christ, and laid him down before him, hoping he might receive a cure from him, though from what appears, it was unasked by him, as he did; so it becomes the friends and relations of unregenerate persons, who have received the grace of God themselves, and are in a sound and safe estate, to be concerned for them; to bring them under the means of grace, where they may be brought to a sense of their sins, and to a comfortable view of the free and full forgiveness of them, as this man: and this should be done, even though there may be difficulties in the accomplishment of it, as there were in this case, as is manifest from what follows.

HENRY, "III. The presenting of a poor cripple to him, to be helped by him. The patient was one sick of the palsy, it should seem not as that, Mat_8:6, grievously tormented, but perfectly disabled, so that he was borne of four, was carried upon a bed, as if he had been upon a bier, by four persons. It was his misery, that he needed to be so carried, and bespeaks the calamitous state of human life; it was their charity, who did so carry him, and bespeaks the compassion that it is justly expected should be in the children of men toward their fellow-creatures in distress, because we know not how soon the distress may be our own. These kind relations or neighbours thought, if they could but carry this poor man once to Christ, they should not need to carry him any more; and therefore made hard shift to get him to him; and when they could not otherwise get to him, they uncovered the roof where he was, Mar_2:4. I see no necessity to conclude that Christ was preaching in an upper room, though in such the Jews that had stately houses, had their oratories; for then to what purpose should the crowd stand before the door, as wisdom's clients used to do? Pro_8:34. But I rather conjecture that the house he was in, was so little and mean (agreeable to his present state), that it had no upper room, but the ground-floor was open to the roof: and these petitioners for the poor paralytic, resolving not to be disappointed, when they could not get through the crowd at the door, got their friend by some means or other to the roof of the house, took off some of the tiles, and so let him down upon his bed with cords into the house where Christ was preaching. This bespoke both their faith and their fervency in this address to Christ. Hereby it appeared that they were in earnest, and would not go away, nor let Christ go without a blessing. Gen_

JAMIESON, "And they come unto him — that is, towards the house where He was.

bringing one sick of the palsy — “lying on a bed” (Mat_9:2).

which was borne of four — a graphic particular of Mark only.

SPURGEON, "Mark 2:1-2. And again he entered into Capernaum, after some days; and it was noised that he was in the house. And straightway many were gathered together, inasmuch that there was no room to receive them, no, not so much as about the door: and he preached the word unto them.

He could not be hid; the healed leper had made his name so famous that men crowded to see him, and he took advantage of their curiosity, and “preached the word unto them.”

Mark 2:3-5. And they came unto him, bringing one sick of the palsy, which was borne

25

of four. And when they could not come nigh unto him for the press, they uncovered the roof where he was: and when they had broken it up, they let down the bed wherein the sick of the palsy lay. When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.

Those who brought this man to Jesus believed that he could and would heal him, and Christ delighted to honour their faith, and perhaps also the faith of the man himself.

COFFMAN, "THE HEALING OF THE MAN WHO WAS CARRIED BY FOUR MEN

Although Jesus had entered the city quietly, person-to-person communication quickly resulted in the appearance of a throng of people, overflowing the house and blocking the entrance to the residence.

Palsy ... Just what the exact nature of the man's disease may have been is not known; but the most unusual conduct of his four friends who took him, bed and all, to Jesus is an eloquent argument that his state was desperate. Seeing the vast crowd around the house and recognizing at a glance the impossibility of any normal entry into the place, most seekers wound have turned back, but not these four with their friend.

BURKITT, "Here we have the relation of our Saviour's miraculous healing of one sick of the palsy at Capernaum.

Where observe, 1. The diseased and distressed person; one sick of the palsy, which disease being a resolution and weakness of the nerves, enfeebles the joints, and confines the person to his bed or couch. As a demonstration of Christ's divine power, he was pleased to single out the palsy and leprosy, incurable diseases, to work a cure upon such as were afflicted with them.

Now this person was so great a cripple by reason of the palsy, that he was borne of four. He could not go, nor was capable of being led, but was carried by four in his bed or couch.

Observe, 2. As the grievousness of the disease, so the greatness of their faith. The man and his friends had a firm persuasion that Christ was clothed with a divine power, and able to help him, and they hoped in his goodness that he was also willing to help him. Accordingly, the roof of the Jewish houses being flat, they uncovered some part of it, and let the bed down with the sick man in it into the room where Christ was.

Observe, 3. No sooner did they exercise their faith in believing, but Christ exerts his divine power in healing. And see the marvellous efficacy of faith; it obtained not only what was desired, but more than was expected. They desired only the healing of the body, but Christ heals body and soul too. Son, be of good cheer, thy sins are forgiven thee.

26

Thereby our Saviour shows them, that sin is the original cause of all bodily diseases; and consequently, that in sickness, the best way to find ease and deliverance from pain, is first to seek for pardon. The sense of pardon in some degree will take away the sense of pain.

Observe, 4. The exception which the scribes took against our Saviour for pronouncing that this man's sins were forgiven him. They accuse him of the sin of blasphemy: urging, that it is God's peculiar prerogative to pardon sin. Their doctrine was true, but their application false. Nothing more true, than that it is the greatest degree of blasphemy for any mere man to arrogate to himself the incommunicable prerogative of God, which consists, in an absolute and authoritative power to forgive sin. But then their denying this power to Christ of forgiving sin, which he had as God from all eternity, and as Mediator, God and man in one person, when here upon earth; this was blasphemy in them; the challenging of it, none in him.

Observe, 5. Our Saviour gives these scribes a twofold demonstration of his Godhead,

(1.) By letting them understand that he knew their thoughts: Jesus perceiving in his spirit that they reasoned within themselves. To search the hearts, and to know the thoughts and reasonings of men, but the prerogative of God only.

(2.) By assuming to himself a power to forgive sin; for our Saviour here, by assuming to himself a power to forgive sins in his own name, and by his own authority, doth give the world an undeniable proof and convincing evidence of his Godhead. For who can forgive sins but God only?

Observe, 6. The effect of this miracle upon the minds of the people; they marvelled and were amazed, but did not believe. They admire our Saviour for an extraordinary man, but did not believe him to be God.

Learn thence, That the sight of Christ's miracles is not sufficient to work faith in the soul, without the concurring operation of the Holy Spirit. The one may make us marvel, the other must make us believe.

NISBET, "VICARIOUS FAITH‘And they come unto Him, bringing one sick of the palsy, which was borne of four.’Mark 2:3Just as every human disease was a symbol of the moral condition of the soul, so every miracle Jesus wrought on the body was a token of what He would do for the soul.

I. The faith of the bearers.—It was impossible for the four men who bore the paralytic to come nigh to Jesus, Who was standing in the inner court of the house, which was covered with an awning, or else under the interior gallery surrounding this court, the roof of which was a thin tiling. No matter which; the bearers were resolved that their stricken friend should, somehow or other, face

27

Jesus; so, having ascended the staircase or ladder outside, they uncovered the roof, whether awning or tiling, and let down the little couch whereon the sick man lay. Jesus was struck with their practical sympathy; for had they not brought him he had been a paralytic to the day of his death; but it was their faith in the Lord’s power and willingness to restore the sick man to health and strength that most impressed Him; nay, it was this which secured all they desired.

II. The condition of the man.—That he had palsy of an extreme kind is evident from the fact of his lying on a bed and being borne by others. It was a case of complete paralysis of motion. Throughout the whole narrative our Lord connects sin with suffering. If sin were destroyed the professions of surgery and medicine would be unnecessary; ‘the body would,’ as Bishop Wordsworth observes, ‘enjoy angelic health and beauty.’ Christ, by His omniscience, saw the agony of the man’s soul as certainly as He saw the faith of the men who brought him for healing. He saw, too, how he was hoping and clinging to Him.

III. The mercy of the Saviour.—‘He said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.’ Certain bystanders said within themselves, ‘Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies?’ They knew that God only could forgive sins; but they did not know that ‘this man’ was very God. He saw their accusation, and said to them, ‘Why reason ye these things in your hearts? 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? 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, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house.’ The man, who before could not use hand or foot, arose—implying partial use of the lower muscles of the body; then he took up his bed, whatever it was, pallet or blanket—implying the vigorous use of the higher muscles; and, lastly, he departed to his house—implying the continuous use of all his muscular powers. His recovery of soul and body was complete. What a contrast is he now to what he was before! Well in body; happy in soul. Oh, the blessedness of such a salvation!—these are known only by the forgiven (Psalms 32:1; Psalms 103:1-5).

Illustration

‘The sick man was “borne of four,” and could not have reached Jesus without this help. Palsy is not so painful as cancer, nor so loathsome as leprosy, nor so fatal as cholera; but it is a disease which renders the patient eminently helpless. There are persons affected with spiritual palsy who never fall into glaring sins, and yet remain inert and without the power of religious decision. It is vain to expect such people to “turn to Christ.” It is the mission of the Church to bring to Christ those who are too helpless in spiritual indifference to seek Him of their own accord.’

BENSON, "Mark 2:3-4. And they come, bringing one sick of the palsy — See on Matthew 9:2, &c. Which was borne of four — One at each corner of the sofa or couch. And when they could not come nigh unto him for the press — The great crowd of people collected together, and feared a delay might lose so precious an

28

opportunity, they uncovered the roof — Of the apartment where he was — Which was a room that had no chamber over it, the houses in the East being low, having generally a ground floor only, or one upper story. This house also, like other houses in that country, had doubtless a flat roof with a battlement round it, (Deuteronomy 22:8,) and a kind of trap-door, by which persons within could come out upon it to walk and take the air, or perform their devotions. (See 2 Kings 23:12; Acts 10:9.) This door, when shut, lying even with the roof, made a part of it, and was probably well fastened to secure the house against thieves. The bearers therefore of the paralytic, prevented from bringing him in at the door by the crowd, bear him up by some other stair to the roof of this room, and finding this trap-door fastened below, were obliged to break it open before they could get entrance; and probably also, in order to let down the sick man and his couch, to make the opening wider, which they might do, either by removing the frame of the trap-door, or some of the tiles adjoining to it, with the laths supporting them; all which Mark fitly expresses by the words: απεστε γαδαν την στεγην οπου ην, και, εξορυξαντες χαλωσι τον κραββατον, they took up the covering, and having broken, or pulled up, namely, as much of the frame or adjoining tiles as was necessary, they let down the couch, which they held by the corners, or by ropes fastened to the corners of it, and so placed him before Jesus while he was preaching to the people who were within, and to as many of those who stood without in the court as could hear.

Some think a more satisfactory interpretation of this passage may be given by referring to Dr. Shaw’s account of the houses in the East. “They are built,” he says, “round a paved court, into which the entrance from the street is through a gateway, or passage-room, furnished with benches, and sufficiently large to be used in receiving visits, or transacting business. The stairs, which lead to the roof, are never placed on the outside of the house in the street, but usually in the gateway or passage-room to the court, and sometimes at the entrance within the court. This court is called in Arabic, the middle of the house, and answers to the midst, in Luke. It is customary to fix cords from the parapet-walls (Deuteronomy 22:8) of the flat roofs across this court, and upon them to expand a veil or covering, as a shelter from the heat. In this area, probably, our Saviour taught. The paralytic was brought upon the roof by making a way through the crowd to the stairs in the gateway, or by the terraces of the adjoining houses. They rolled back the veil, and let the sick man down over the parapet-wall of the roof into the area or court of the house before Jesus.” This interpretation, however, seems hardly consistent with the original expressions used by Mark and Luke: particularly the latter, who says, Luke 5:19, δια των κεραμων καθηκαν αυτον συν τω κλινιδιω, They let him down through the tiling with his couch.

PETT, "‘And they come, bringing to him a man sick of paralysis, carried by four men. And when they could not come near to him because of the crowd, they uncovered the roof where he was, and when they had broken it up they let down the mattress on which the paralysed man lay.’

When the four men saw that they could not approach Jesus they were not to be defeated, for they were confident that Jesus could and would help them. So when they saw that the great crowd prevented any approach to the house they went up

29

the stone steps on the outside of the back wall of the house which would lead up to the roof, taking the man with them. (Further reminiscence of the eyewitness). It probably took some manoeuvring for they would not want to spill the man out of the mattress, but seemingly they achieved it successfully. Then they broke open the roof of the house and lowered the man down.

This would be a typical small town house. It would probably be a one storey house and would have stone steps round the back which gave access to the roof, which would be flat. This flat roof would have a balustrade round it as required by the Law (Deuteronomy 22:8). It was a place where those who lived in the house could go for comparative quiet and privacy. The roof would be made of beams and rafters set slightly apart, and covered with either mud or tiles. In the case of a mud roof it would be covered with matting, brushwood, branches and twigs, followed by a final covering of mud which would then be trodden hard. The result was a waterproof roof, but not one able to thwart the attempts of four determined men to break it open, and as long as the beams were not harmed it would be easy and cheap to repair again. On the other hand Luke mentions ‘tiles’ so that if this is taken literally this particular house would have a tiled roof, a type certainly known by New Testament times. In that case breaking through the roof would simply involve the removal of the tiles.

‘Mattress.’ The word used by Mark indicates a poor man’s bedding.

CONSTABLE, ""In order to understand the action these verses describe, it is necessary to visualize the layout of a typical Palestinian peasant's house. It was usually a small, one-room structure with a flat roof. Access to the roof was by means of an outside stairway. The roof itself was usually made of wooden beams with thatch and compacted earth in order to shed the rain. Sometimes tiles were laid between the beams and the thatch and earth placed over them." [Note: Wessel, p. 632.]Another possibility is that this was the roof of a porch that was attached to the house. [Note: Edersheim, 1:504.] Mark's unusually detailed account pictures four men almost frantic to get their paralyzed friend to Jesus so Jesus would heal him. They must have been unconcerned about the damage they were doing to the house and the shower of dirt they sent raining down on everyone below.

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

30

BARNES, "And they come unto him — that is, towards the house where He was.

bringing one sick of the palsy — “lying on a bed” (Mat_9:2).

which was borne of four — a graphic particular of Mark only.

CLARKE, "They uncovered the roof - The houses in the east are generally made flat-roofed, that the inhabitants may have the benefit of taking the air on them; they are also furnished with battlements round about, Deu_22:8; Jdg_16:27; and 2Sa_11:2, to prevent persons from falling off; and have a trap door by which they descend into the house. This door, it appears, was too narrow to let down the sick man and his couch; so they uncovered the roof, removed a part of the tiles; and having broken it up, taken away the laths or timber, to which the tiles had been attached, they then had room to let down the afflicted man. See Luk_5:19, and on Mat_10:27 (note); Mat_24:17 (note).

GILL, "And when they could not come nigh unto him for the press,.... To the room where Jesus was, nor into the house, nor even to the door, the crowd about it was so great,

they uncovered the roof where he was. The Arabic version reads it, "they went up to the roof"; and the Persic thus, "they carried him up upon the roof". The place where Christ was, seems to be an upper room; for in such an one the Jewish doctors used to meet, and discourse together about religious matters; see Act_1:13. Though some think this was a mean house in which Christ was, and had no upper room, but the ground floor was open to the roof, through which the man, sick of the palsy, was let down on his bed to Christ; and the rather, because the people crowded about the door to get in, and there was no room to receive them, no not about it: but even from this circumstance it seems most reasonable, that there was an upper room in which Christ was, and at a window in which he might preach to the people, with much more convenience, than at, or about the door, where they were pressing: for, certain it is, that he did preach the word to them, Mar_2:2, and many instances may be given of the above mentioned doctors, whose usages, when indifferent, and not sinful, might be complied with by Christ, as these were, of their meeting and conversing together in upper rooms. Instead of many, take the few following (a):

"It happened to Rabban Gamaliel, and the elders, who were sitting בעלייה, "in an

upper room in Jericho", that they brought them dates, and they did eat, &c,''

Again (b),

"these are some of the traditions which they taught, בעליית, "in the upper chamber" of

Hananiah ben Hezekiah, ben Garon.''

So it is likewise said (c), that

"R. Tarphon, or Tryphon, and the elders, were sitting "in the chamber" of the house of Nithzah, in Lydda, and this question was asked before them, is doctrine greatest,

31

or practice greatest?''

Once more (d),

"the elders of the house of Shammai, and the elders of the house of Hillell, went up,

,to the upper chamber" of Jochanan ben Bethira, and said, that the Tzitzith" ,לעליית

or fringes, had no measure, &c.''

Now, over this upper room, was a flat roof, with battlements about it; for so the Jews were obliged to build their houses, Deu_22:8, to which they had a way of going to and from, both within and without side their houses; See Gill on Mat_24:17. Hence

we so often read (e) of גגות דרך , "the way of the roofs", in distinction from פתחים דרך"the way of the doors"; by which they entered into their houses, and by which means, things might be carried from a court to a roof, and from a roof to a court; about which the doctors dispute, saying, that on a sabbath day (f),

"it is forbidden to ascend and descend from the roofs to the court, and from the court to the roofs; and the vessels, whose abode is in the court, it is lawful to move them in the court, and which are in the roofs, it is lawful to move them in the roofs.--Says Rabbi, when we were learning the law with R. Simeon at Tekoah, we brought up oil, and a confection of old wine, water, and balsam, from roof to roof, and from roof to court, and from court to court, and from the court to a close, and from one close to another, till we came to the fountains, in which they washed. Says R. Judah, it happened in a time of danger, and we brought the book of the law from court to roof, and from roof to court, and from court to a close, to read in it.''

Now, in these roofs, there was a door, which they call, גגות פתח , "the door of the roofs"

(g); now when they had brought up the sick man to the roof of the house, by a ladder fastened on the outside, which was common (h); they took up this door, and let him down in his bed into the room where Jesus was: and because they wrenched the roof door open with violence, therefore it is said,

and when they had broken it up, they let down the bed wherein the sick of the palsy lay: opening the door, and perhaps taking up the frame of it, and removing some tiles about it, to make the way wider, they let down with ropes, the bed, and the man on it, together. The Persic version thus renders it, "and the paralytic man being put upon a bed, at the four corners of the bed so many ropes being fastened, they let him down through a window to Jesus, into the place where he was sitting"; which is rather a paraphrase, or exposition of the words, than a translation.

HENRY, "These kind relations or neighbours thought, if they could but carry this poor man once to Christ, they should not need to carry him any more; and therefore made hard shift to get him to him; and when they could not otherwise get to him, they uncovered the roof where he was, Mar_2:4. I see no necessity to conclude that Christ was preaching in an upper room, though in such the Jews that had stately houses, had their oratories; for then to what purpose should the crowd stand before the door, as wisdom's clients used to do? Pro_8:34. But I rather conjecture that the house he was in, was so little and mean (agreeable to his present state), that it had no upper room, but the ground-floor was open to the roof: and these petitioners for the poor paralytic, resolving not to be disappointed, when they could not get through the

32

crowd at the door, got their friend by some means or other to the roof of the house, took off some of the tiles, and so let him down upon his bed with cords into the house where Christ was preaching. This bespoke both their faith and their fervency in this address to Christ. Hereby it appeared that they were in earnest, and would not go away, nor let Christ go without a blessing. Gen_32:26.

JAMIESON, "And when they could not come nigh unto him for the press — or, as in Luke (Luk_5:19), “when they could not find by what way they might bring him in because of the multitude,” they “went upon the housetop” - the flat or terrace-roof, universal in Eastern houses.

they uncovered the roof where he was: and when they had broken it up, they let down the bed — or portable couch

wherein the sick of the palsy lay — Luke (Luk_5:19) says, they “let him down through the tilling with his couch into the midst before Jesus.” Their whole object was to bring the patient into the presence of Jesus; and this not being possible in the ordinary way, because of the multitude that surrounded Him, they took the very unusual method here described of accomplishing their object, and succeeded. Several explanations have been given of the way in which this was done; but unless we knew the precise plan of the house, and the part of it from which Jesus taught - which may have been a quadrangle or open court, within the buildings of which Peter’s house was one, or a gallery covered by a veranda - it is impossible to determine precisely how the thing was done. One thing, however, is clear, that we have both the accounts from an eye-witness.

COFFMAN, "Could not come nigh unto him for the crowd ... is another example of the kind of statement frequently found in the New Testament, in which extensive meaning and application beyond the context are evident. How many are there in every place who cannot come near the Lord because of the crowd? When one truly decides to seek and follow the Lord, he may very well rest assured that a vast crowd of his fellow mortals will be positioned squarely across the avenue of approach.

Uncovered the roof ... broken it up ... Insatiable curiosity will never cease raising questions about this. How much damage to the roof? Whose house was it? How did the owner react to this substantial injury to his dwelling? Just what was "broken up" anyway? All such trifling inconsequentials are not even mentioned by the holy authors who stick to essential facts in their narratives. The great truth, the world-shattering fact, was that the Son of God was present in that house and that he wrought the most remarkable cure of the sufferer.

The bed whereon the sick ... lay ... Actually, this is another of the inconsequentials; but it may be safely surmised that it was a portable type of bed which would have made it easier for the four to have carried the occupant to Jesus through the roof!

LIGHTFOOT, "[They uncovered the roof, &c.] Here I recollect that phrase the way of the roof: "When Rabh Houna was dead, his bier could not be carried out through the door," the door being too strait; "therefore they thought good to draw it out and let it down through the roof, or through the way of the roof. But

33

Rabh Chasda said to them, 'Behold, we have learned from him that it redounds to the honour of a wise man to be carried out by the door.'"

"It is written, 'And they shall eat within thy gates' (Deut 26:12); that is, when the entrance into the house is by the gate, to except the way through the roof." "Does he enter into the house, using the way through the gate, or using the way through the roof?" The place treats of a house, in the lower part of which the owner dwells; but the upper part, is let out to another. It is asked, what way he must enter who dwells in an upper room, whether by the door and the lower parts, where the owner dwells; or whether he must climb up to the roof by the way to the roof: that is, as the Gloss hath it, "That he ascend without the house by a ladder set against it for entrance into the upper room, and so go into the upper room."

By ladders set up, or perhaps fastened there before, they first draw up the paralytic upon the roof, Luke 5:19. Then seeing there was a door in every roof through which they went up from the lower parts of the house into the roof, and this being too narrow to let down the bed and the sick man in it, they widen that space by pulling off the tiles that lay about it.

Well, having made a hole through the roof, the paralytic is let down into the upper chamber. There Christ sits, and the Pharisees and the doctors of the law with him, and not in the lower parts of the house. For it was customary for them, when they discoursed of the law or religion, to go up into the upper chamber.

"These are the traditions which they taught in the upper chamber of Hananiah, Ben Hezekiah, Ben Garon." "The elders went up into an upper chamber in Jericho. They went up also into an upper chamber in Jabneh." "Rabh Jochanan and his disciples went up to an upper chamber, and read and expounded." Compare Mark 14:15; Acts 1:13, 20:8.

COKE, "Mark 2:4. And when they could not come nigh, &c.— The better to understand the particulars in this verse, it will be proper to consider the manner of building in the East, which we find largely described in Dr. Shaw's excellent Travels, where he has given us a full explanation of the passage before us. "The general method of building," says he, "seems to be continued from the earliest ages down to this time, without the least alteration or improvement. Large doors, spacious chambers, marble pavements, cloistered courts, with fountains sometimes playing in the midst, are conveniences well adapted to the circumstances of these hotter climates. The jealousy of these people is less apt to be alarmed, whilst, if we except a small latticed window or balcony, which sometimes looks into the streets, all the other windows open into their respective courts or quadrangles. It is during the celebration only of some zeenah (as theycall a public festival) that these latticed windows or balconies are left open. For this being a time of great liberty, revelling, and extravagance, each family is ambitious of adorning both the inside and outside of their houses with their richest furniture; while crowds of spectators, dressed out in their best apparel, and laying aside all modesty and restraint, go in and out where they please.—The account we have 2 Kings 9:30 of Jezebel's painting her face and tiring her

34

head, and looking out at a window, upon Jehu's public entrance into Jezreel, gives us a lively idea of an Eastern lady at one of these zeenahs or festivals."

"The streets of these cities, the better to shade them from the sun, are usually narrow, with sometimes a range of shops on each side. If from these we enter into one of the principal houses, we shall first pass through a porch or gateway, with benches on each side; few persons, not even the nearest relations, having further admission, except upon extraordinary occasions. Hence we are received into the court or quadrangle, which, lying open to the weather, is, according to the ability of the owner, paved with marble, or such materials as will carry off the water into the common sewers. When much people are to be admitted, as upon the celebration of a marriage, the circumcising of a child, or occasions of the like nature, the company is rarely or never received into one of the chambers. The court is the usual place of their reception, which is strewed accordingly with mats and carpets for their more commodious entertainment: and as this is called el woost, or the middle of the house, (literally answering to the το μεσον of St. Luke 5:19.) it is probable that the place where our Saviour and the apostles were frequently accustomed to give their instructions, might have been in the likesituation, or in the area or quadrangle of one of these houses. In the summer season, and upon all occasions when a large company is to be received, this court is commonly sheltered from the inclemency of the weather by a velum, umbrella, or veil; which being expanded upon ropes from one side of the parapet wall to the other, may be folded or unfolded at pleasure. The Psalmist seems to allude either to the tents of the Bedoweens, or to some covering of this kind, in that beautiful expression of spreading out the heavens, like a veil or curtain

"The court is for the most part surrounded by a cloister, over which,when the house has one or more stories, (and they sometimes have two or three) there is a gallery erected, of the same dimensions with the cloister; having a ballustrade, or else a piece of carved or latticed work going round about it, to prevent people from falling into the court. From the cloisters and galleries we are conducted into large spacious chambers, one of them frequently serving a whole family; whence it is, that the cities of these countries, which are generally much inferior in bigness to those of Europe, yet are so exceeding populous, that great numbers of the inhabitants are swept away by the plague, or any other contagious distemper. These chambers in houses of better fashion, from the middle of the wall downwards, are covered and adorned with velvet, or damask hangings, of white, blue, red, green, or other colours, (Esther 1:6.) suspended upon hooks, or taken down at pleasure; but the upper part is embellished with more permanent ornaments, being adorned with the most ingenious wreathings and devices in stucco or fret-work. The ceiling is generally of wainscot, either very artfully painted, or else thrown into a variety of pannels, with glided mouldings and scrolls of their Koran intermixed. The prophet (Jeremiah 22:14.) exclaims against the Eastern houses that were ceiled with cedar, and painted with vermilion. The floors are laid with painted tiles or plaister of terrace; but as these people make little or no use of chairs, (either sitting cross-legged, or lying at length) they always cover or spread them over with carpets, which, for the most part, are of the richest materials. Along the sides of the wall or floor, a range of narrow beds or mattrasses is often placed upon these carpets; and for

35

their further ease and convenience, several velvet or damask bolsters are placed upon these carpets or mattrasses, indulgences that seem to be alluded to by the stretching themselves upon couches, and by sewing of pillows to arm-holes, as we have expressed, Amos 6:4. Ezekiel 13:18; Ezekiel 13:20."

"At one end of each chamber there is a little gallery, raised three, four, or five feet above the floor, with a ballustrade in the front of it, with a few steps likewise leading up to it. Here they place their beds; a situation frequently alluded to in the Holy Scriptures; which may likewise illustrate the circumstance of Hezekiah's turning his face, when he prayed, towards the wall, (that is to say, from his attendants) 2 Kings 20:2 that the fervency of his devotion might be the less taken notice of and observed. The like is related of Ahab, 1 Kings 21:4 though probably not upon a religious account, but in order to conceal from his attendants the anguish he was in for his late disappointment. The stairs are sometimes placed in the porch, sometimes at the entrance into the court; but never upon the outside of the house. The top of the house, which is always flat, is covered with a stony plaister of terrace; whence, in foreign languages, it has attained the name of terrace. This is usually surrounded by two walls, the outermost whereof is partly built over the street, and partly makes the partition with the contiguous houses; being frequently so low, that one may easily climb over it. The other, which I shall call the parapet wall, hangs immediately over the court, being always breast high, and answers to the מעקה, or lorica, Deuteronomy 22:8 which we render the battlements. Instead of this parapet wall, some terraces are guarded, like the galleries, with ballustrades only, or latticed work; in which fashion probably, as the name seems to import, was the ׁשבכה, or net, or lattice, as we render it, that Ahaziah, (2 Kings 1:2 .) might be carelessly leaning over, when he fell from thence into the court. For upon these terraces, several offices of the family are performed; such as the drying of linen or flax, (Joshua 2:6.) and the preparing of figs and raisins; where likewise they enjoy the cool refreshing breezes of the evening, converse with one another, and offer up their devotions. In the feast of tabernacles, booths were erected upon them, Nehemiah 8:16. As these terraces are thus frequently used, and trampled upon, not to mention the solidity of the materials wherewith they are made, they will not easily permit any vegetable substances to take root or thrive upon them; which, perhaps, may illustrate the comparison, Isaiah 37:27 of the Assyrians, and Psalms 129:6 of the wicked, to the grass that grows upon the house-tops, which withereth before it is grown up."

"When any of these cities are built upon level ground, one may pass along the tops of the houses from one end to the other. Such in general is the method and contrivance of these houses. If then it may be presumed, that our Saviour was preaching in one of these houses, one may, by attending to the structure of it, give no small light to one circumstance of that history, which has given great offence to some unbelievers,supposingunsurmountabledifficultieswouldattendsuchan action. Which mistake they might perhaps fall into by not attending to the original, which will bear this construction; When they could not come at Jesus for the press, they got upon the roof of the house, and drew back the veil where he was; or, they laid open and uncovered that part of it, especially, which was spread

36

over the place, οπου ην, where he was sitting, and having removed and plucked away (according to St. Jerome) whatever might incommode them in their intended good office, or having tied (according to the Persian version) the four corners of the bed or bedstead with cords, where the sick of the palsy lay, they let it down before Jesus."

"For that there was not the least force or violence offered to the roof, and consequently that εξορυξαντες (breaking up) no less than απεστεγησαν, (they uncovered), will admit of some other interpretations than what have been given to them in our version, appears from the parallel place in St. Luke; where διατων κεραμων καθηκαν αυτον, per tegulas demiserunt ilium, (which we translate they let him through the tiling, as if that had actually been broken up already) should be rendered, they let him down over, along the side, or by the way of the roof. We have a passage in Aulus Gellius exactly of the same purport, where it is said, that 'if any person in chains should make his escape into the house of the Flamen Dialis, he should be forthwith loosed: and that his fetters should be drawn up through the impluvium, upon the roof, or terrace, and from thence be let down into the highway, or the street.'"

"When the use of these phrases and the fashion of these houses are rightly considered, there will be no reason to suppose that any breach was actually made in the tegula, or κεραμοι : since all that was to be done in the case of the paralytic was to carry him up to the top of the house, (either by forcing their way through the crowd up the staircase, or else by conveying him over some of the neighbouring terraces) and there, after they had drawn away the στεγη or veil, to let him down, along the side of the roof through the opening (or impluvium), into the midst (of the court) before Jesus." See Shaw's Trav. 4to, p. 207. Bishop Pearce's Vindication of the Miracles, part 4: p. 26 and the notes on Matthew 9:1; Matthew 9:38. Instead of for the press, we may read because of the throng.

Spurgeon's Morning and Evening

"And when they could not come nigh unto him for the press, they uncovered the roof where he was: and when they had broken it up, they let down the bed wherein the sick of the palsy lay." - Mark 2:4

Faith is full of inventions. The house was full, a crowd blocked up the door, but faith found a way of getting at the Lord and placing the palsied man before him. If we cannot get sinners where Jesus is by ordinary methods we must use extraordinary ones. It seems, according to Luke 5:19, that a tiling had to be removed, which would make dust and cause a measure of danger to those below, but where the case is very urgent we must not mind running some risks and shocking some proprieties. Jesus was there to heal, and therefore fall what might, faith ventured all so that her poor paralysed charge might have his sins forgiven. O that we had more daring faith among us! Cannot we, dear reader, seek it this morning for ourselves and for our fellow-workers, and will we not try to-day to perform some gallant act for the love of souls and the glory of the Lord.

37

The world is constantly inventing; genius serves all the purposes of human desire: cannot faith invent too, and reach by some new means the outcasts who lie perishing around us? It was the presence of Jesus which excited victorious courage in the four bearers of the palsied man: is not the Lord among us now? Have we seen his face for ourselves this morning? Have we felt his healing power in our own souls? If so, then through door, through window, or through roof, let us, breaking through all impediments, labour to bring poor souls to Jesus. All means are good and decorous when faith and love are truly set on winning souls. If hunger for bread can break through stone walls, surely hunger for souls is not to be hindered in its efforts. O Lord, make us quick to suggest methods of reaching thy poor sin-sick ones, and bold to carry them out at all hazards.

5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralyzed man, “Son, your sins are forgiven.”

BARNES, "And when they could not come nigh unto him for the press — or, as in Luke (Luk_5:19), “when they could not find by what way they might bring him in because of the multitude,” they “went upon the housetop” - the flat or terrace-roof, universal in Eastern houses.

they uncovered the roof where he was: and when they had broken it up, they let down the bed — or portable couch

wherein the sick of the palsy lay — Luke (Luk_5:19) says, they “let him down through the tilling with his couch into the midst before Jesus.” Their whole object was to bring the patient into the presence of Jesus; and this not being possible in the ordinary way, because of the multitude that surrounded Him, they took the very unusual method here described of accomplishing their object, and succeeded. Several explanations have been given of the way in which this was done; but unless we knew the precise plan of the house, and the part of it from which Jesus taught - which may have been a quadrangle or open court, within the buildings of which Peter’s house was one, or a gallery covered by a veranda - it is impossible to determine precisely how the thing was done. One thing, however, is clear, that we have both the accounts from an eye-witness.

GILL, "When Jesus saw their faith,.... The faith of the sick man, and his friends, who seemed confident, that could they get at Christ, a cure would be wrought: the faith of the one appears in suffering himself to be brought in such a manner, under so much weakness; and with so much trouble; and of the other in bringing him, and breaking through so many difficulties to get him to Christ.

He said unto the sick of the palsy, son, thy sins be forgiven thee; pointing and striking at the root of his disorder, his sins. Christ calls him son, though, in this

38

afflicted condition a person may be a child of God, and yet greatly afflicted by him; afflictions are not arguments against, but rather for sonship: "for what son is he whom the Father chasteneth not?" He scourgeth every son whom he receiveth, and by chastising them, dealeth with them as with sons; and such as are without chastisement are bastards, and not sons, Heb_12:6, yea he calls him a son, though a sinful creature, and who had not, as yet, until these words were spoken by Christ, any discovery and application of pardoning grace unto him: he was a son of God by divine predestination, being predestinated to the adoption of children: he was a son by virtue of the covenant of grace, he was interested in, as appears by his enjoying pardon of sin, a blessing of it; which runs thus, "I will be their Father, and they shall be my sons and daughters", 2Co_6:18. He was one of the children which were given to Christ as in such a relation: and for the sake of whom Christ was now a partaker of flesh and blood, and in a little time was to die for them, in order to gather them together, who were scattered abroad. The blessing Christ conferred on this poor man is of the greatest consequence and importance, forgiveness of sin: it is what springs from the grace and mercy of God; it is provided in a promise in the covenant of grace; Christ was sent to shed his blood to procure it, in a way consistent with the holiness and justice of God; and this being done, it is published in the Gospel, and is a most considerable article in it, and than which, nothing can be more desirable to a sensible sinner: and blessed are they that are partakers of it, their sins will never be imputed to them; they will never be remembered more; they are blotted out of God's book of debts; they are covered out of his sight, and are removed as far as the east is from the west, even all their sins, original and actual, secret or open, of omission, or commission; See Gill on Mat_9:2.

HENRY, "IV. The kind word Christ said to this poor patient; He saw their faith;perhaps not so much his, for his distemper hindered him from the exercise of faith, but theirs that brought him. In curing the centurion's servant, Christ took notice of it as an instance of his faith, that he did not bring him to Christ, but believed he could cure him at a distance; here he commended their faith, because they did bring their friend through so much difficulty. Note, True faith and strong faith may work variously, conquering sometimes the objections of reason, sometimes those of sense; but, however manifested, it shall be accepted and approved by Jesus Christ. Christ said, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee. The compellation is very tender-Son; intimating a fatherly care of him and concern for him. Christ owns true believers as his sons: a son, and yet sick of the palsy. Herein God deals with you as with sons. The cordial is very rich; Thy sins are forgiven thee. Note, 1. Sin is the procuring cause of all our pains and sicknesses. The word of Christ was to take his thoughts off from the disease, which was the effect, and to lead them to the sin, the cause, that he might be more concerned about that, to get that pardoned. 2. God doth then graciously take away the sting and malignity of sickness, when he forgives sin; recovery from sickness is then a mercy indeed, when way is made for it by the pardon of sin. See Isa_38:17; Psa_103:3. The way to remove the effect, is, to take away the cause. Pardon of sin strikes at the root of all diseases, and either cures them, or alters their property.

JAMIESON, "When Jesus saw their faith — It is remarkable that all the three narratives call it “their faith” which Jesus saw. That the patient himself had faith, we know from the proclamation of his forgiveness, which Jesus made before all; and we should have been apt to conclude that his four friends bore him to Jesus merely out of benevolent compliance with the urgent entreaties of the poor sufferer. But here we learn, not only that his bearers had the same faith with himself, but that Jesus marked it as a faith which was not to be defeated - a faith victorious over all

39

difficulties. This was the faith for which He was ever on the watch, and which He never saw without marking, and, in those who needed anything from Him, richly rewarding.

he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son — “be of good cheer” (Mat_9:2).

thy sins be forgiven thee — By the word “be,” our translators perhaps meant “are,” as in Luke (Luk_5:20). For it is not a command to his sins to depart, but an authoritative proclamation of the man’s pardoned state as a believer. And yet, as the Pharisees understood our Lord to be dispensing pardon by this saying, and Jesus not only acknowledges that they were right, but founds His whole argument upon the correctness of it, we must regard the saying as a royal proclamation of the man’s forgiveness by Him to whom it belonged to dispense it; nor could such a style of address be justified on any lower supposition. (See on Luk_7:41, etc.).

COFFMAN, "Son, thy sins are forgiven ... This was not a part of the healing but an entirely different and far more wonderful blessing than the healing of the man's body. That forgiveness was here pronounced by Jesus Christ in the absence of the man's confessing any faith and without regard to his submission to any kind of ordinance of God was not a relaxation of the requirements binding upon all men today. Prior to the will of Jesus Christ being formalized and proclaimed to all the world, there were numerous instances, of which this is one, in which the Lord proclaimed forgiveness to men.

The declaration of Jesus had profound implications: (1) it was an assertion of his deity, the convictions of all ages sustaining the view that "only God" can forgive sins. (2) It was an indication that he had read the hearts of the five men before him, especially of the sufferer, and that he had determined the spiritual attitude of the man to have been fully consistent with the reward bestowed. (3) It proved that Jesus understood the man's greater need as forgiveness, and so that was given first.

CONSTABLE, "The pains they took proved their faith in Jesus' ability and willingness to heal. Jesus responded by dealing with their friend's need better than they had expected. Sin is the root of all sickness, not that there is always a close correspondence between sinfulness and sickness. Jesus authoritatively forgave the man's sins as only God could do and so dealt with the ultimate cause of sickness.

"We must admire several characteristics of these men, qualities that ought to mark us as 'fishers of men.' For one thing, they were deeply concerned about their friend and wanted to see him helped. They had the faith to believe that Jesus could and would meet his need. They did not simply 'pray about it,' but they put some feet to their prayers; and they did not permit the difficult circumstances to discourage them. They worked together and dared to do something different, and Jesus rewarded their efforts. How easy it would have been for them to say, 'Well, there is no sense trying to get to Jesus today! Maybe we can come back tomorrow.'" [Note: Wiersbe, 1:115.]

NISBET, "FORGIVENESS AND A NEW LIFE‘When Jesus saw their faith, He said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be

40

forgiven thee.’Mark 2:5The narrative from which the text is taken abounds in points of the deepest interest, but I am going to speak on only one subject, viz., forgiveness.

I. The forgiveness in this case was a present forgiveness.—The poor man went home that day with all the peace and happiness of a forgiven man. Whatever burden there had been on his conscience was gone. He rose from his bed that day as completely free as if he had never sinned. Now this was not an exceptional case. The Lord Jesus forgives at once and for ever. This forgiveness is given at the outset of your Christian career, so that you may go on your way all through with the blessed peace of a forgiven man. What a difference it must make in life if we are permitted to enjoy this sacred gift of the forgiveness of sin. We all have our cares and sorrows. But think of the misery of having to bear all that sorrow and care alone, in separation from God, and embittered by the consciousness of unforgiven sin, and contrast it with the joy of being able to draw near to a loving Father, and to pour out the whole before Him in the peaceful assurance that every barrier is broken down, because all sin is forgiven for ever.

II. This forgiveness is granted by the Lord Himself in direct intercourse with the sinner.—This narrative is a beautiful illustration of the Christian ministry. We want to be like those four men who carried that poor man to the Lord. If there be any poor paralysed, sin-stricken soul, we want to help that poor sinner into the presence of the Lord Jesus; and when he is there to trust him to the Lord, and leave him in His hand.

III.—Though this forgiveness was followed by a new life and power, it was granted when the poor man was in a condition of utter helplessness.—It was followed by a cure, and that cure was granted as an evidence or proof of its reality. But the forgiveness was granted before it was proved, and that when the sinner lay utterly prostrate and helpless at the feet of his Lord. What a blessed lesson for those who know the bitterness of sin! Does it not teach that when you are brought face to face with Christ Jesus, and when your eye just looks to Him, with nothing of any kind between your soul and Him, there is a pardon, a free pardon, a full pardon, a saving pardon, a soul-healing pardon, even before you discover in your own heart the slightest evidence of a cure?

Rev. Canon Edward Hoare.Illustrations

(1) ‘“I know your thoughts,” Christ seems to say; “you accuse Me of pretending to extraordinary powers without any evidence that My claims are well founded. The veriest impostor, you say, may do that. No man has a right to speak so, unless he is prepared to verify his words by signs following. Who can possibly say whether the absolution you pronounce is ratified in heaven or not? “And out of condescension to their secret murmurings, Jesus attests His power. He works a miracle which the eyes of all can see, in proof that He possesses that which they denied to Him, because it carried with it no evident confirmation.’

41

(2) ‘No notes on this sermon would be complete without reference to Martin Luther’s experience—how, alarmed by a thunderstorm, when a student, he was brought under deep conviction of sin, and he entered the monastery at Erfurt. To gain peace he undertook the most laborious and humbling employments, with wallet on his back, begging in the streets; he practised extreme rigour in the ascetic life; he found no peace, he became thin, and a deadly pallor and strange wildness came over him. No peace; he was discovered in a fainting state on the stone floor of his cell. It seemed to him a fearful thing to meet a holy God. All was darkness in his soul. At this crisis an aged monk, sitting at the side of his couch, repeated the words of the Creed, “I believe in the forgiveness of sins.” The words penetrated the soul of Luther. They were balm to him. At length he said aloud, “I believe in the forgiveness of sins.” “Ah! but,” returned the monk, “we are to believe not merely that there is forgiveness for David or for Peter; the command of God is that we believe there is forgiveness for our own sins!” Luther’s spirit revived; here was rest for his storm-tossed soul: “I believe in the forgiveness of sins—of my sins.” Peace, strength, health came back; he walked in the light and hope and joy of the living.’

PETT, "Verse 5‘And Jesus, seeing their faith, says to the paralysed man, “Son, your sins are forgiven”.’

Jesus was clearly moved by the faith and persistence of these five men (including the paralytic). He ‘saw their faith’. But then He did the unexpected, He said to the man, ‘Your sins are forgiven.’ This was in the perfect passive indicative and could mean ‘have been and therefore are forgiven.’. But some see it as an aoristic perfect and as thus meaning ‘are this moment forgiven’. Both interpretations are possible. Either way forgiveness was being declared, and we know from many examples that when Jesus used the passive in this way He was intending God to be seen as the subject.

But why did He speak like this when the man had come for healing? It may puzzle us but no Jew of that time would have asked such a question. They would have agreed that his condition must connect with some sin, either his or his parents (compare John 9:2), and that forgiveness of that sin could well relate to any attempt to heal. Jesus, however, did not think like that. Clearly as He looked at the man, with his eager gaze fixed on Him, possibly clouded by the fear that he was not worthy, He knew something specific about this man which led Him to say it.

It is quite possible that the paralysis had actually resulted from some deep sin. Cases are known where people have become paralysed as a result of some traumatic event in their lives. That cannot be ruled out. But it is more likely that Jesus knew of his private struggle with sin and knew that he had prayed, ‘God be merciful to me a sinner’, and yet was still in doubt. But whatever the situation Jesus’ words suggest that He knew that the greatest need of this man was an assurance of forgiveness. His very words seem to suggest that He knew that this man had repented and that God had forgiven him. So He gives him that assurance.

42

‘Son.’ The word is strictly ‘child’. This may well mean he was a very young man which adds more poignancy to the situation.

BENSON, "Mark 2:5-12. When Jesus saw their faith — The faith of the bearers of the paralytic, as well as of the paralytic himself, manifested by their making these extraordinary efforts to bring him to Jesus, he had compassion on the afflicted person, and, previously to his cure, declared publicly that his sins were forgiven. But there were certain of the scribes, &c. — See whence the first offence cometh! — As yet not one of the plain, unlettered people, were offended. They all rejoiced in the light, till these men of learning came, to put darkness for light, and light for darkness. We to all such blind guides! Good had it been for these if they had never been born. O God, let me never offend one of thy simple ones! Sooner let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth! These scribes, hearing what Christ said, were exceedingly provoked. And though they did not openly find fault, they said in their own minds, or, perhaps, whispered to one another, Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? — “The word גכבףצחליב, blasphemy, in profane writings, signifies slander, calumny, or any kind of opprobrious language. But in Scripture it denotes opprobrious speeches against God’s being, attributes, or operations, such as when we ascribe to God the infirmities of men, or to men the perfections and operations of God; it signifies also irreverent speeches, addressed immediately to God, such as when we curse God, as Job’s wife desired him to do.” — Macknight. The meaning of the word here is, Why doth this fellow arrogantly assume to himself what belongs to God? a sense which it has 16:65, and in other passages. These Pharisees and teachers of the law, being ignorant of our Lord’s divinity, thought he was guilty of blasphemy in pretending to forgive the man his sins, because it was an assuming of what God had declared to be his incommunicable prerogative, Isaiah 43:25. Whereupon Jesus, knowing all that passed, immediately reasoned with them on the subject of their thoughts, by which he gave them to understand that it was impossible for any thought to come into their minds without his knowledge, and consequently proved himself to be endued with the omniscient Spirit of God. He next demonstrated, by what he said to them, that the power he claimed did really belong to him, demanding, Whether is it easier to say — Namely, with authority, so as to effect what is said; Thy sins be forgiven thee, or to say, (to command, as the word וינויםoften signifies,) Arise and walk — That is, whether is easier, to forgive sins, or to remove that which is inflicted as their punishment? The Pharisees could not but be sensible that these things were one and the same, and therefore they ought to have acknowledged that the power which did the one could really do the other also. If it be objected to this, that the prophets of old wrought miraculous cures of diseases, but never claimed the power of forgiving sins, neither could claim it; the answer is, that the cases are widely different; none of the prophets ever pretended to work miracles by his own power, as Jesus did. The Pharisees making no answer, Jesus, without troubling himself any further, (except to tell them, that what he was about to do would demonstrate his power on earth to forgive sins,) turned to the paralytic, and bade him rise up and carry away his bed. And the words were no sooner pronounced, than the cure was accomplished: the man was made active and strong in an instant. He arose, took up his bed with surprising vigour, and went off, astonished in himself, and

43

raising astonishment in all who beheld him. The Pharisees indeed, it seems, were only confounded; but the rest of the people were not only struck with amazement, but affected with a high degree of reverence for God, and admiration of his power and goodness, glorifying him, and saying, We never saw it on this fashion!

SPURGEON, "Mark 2:5. When Jesus saw their faith,

For he has a very quick eye to faith: and though we do not read that they had said anything, and, therefore, they had not expressed their faith, yet this bold and venturous action in breaking up the roof and letting all the dust fall about the Saviour’s head, not fearing that they should provoke him, but trusting in his gentleness and patience, showed their confidence that they had only to get the man where Christ could see him, and good would come of it. “When he saw their faith.”Mark 2:5-6. He said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee. But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts.

They had come with a bad motive. They wanted to find fault, and they took their seats that they might hear everything very carefully, take notes of it, and put it down, and make as much mischief of it as ever they could.They had all their ears open. They did not know, however, that he could read their hearts, or they might not have been so forward in coming into his presence. They were “sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts.”

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

GILL, "But there were certain of the Scribes sitting there,.... In the upper room where Jesus was, to watch and observe what he said:, and did:

and reasoning in their hearts; upon the above words of Christ, in the following manner.

HENRY 6-11, "V. The cavil of the scribes at that which Christ said, and a demonstration of the unreasonableness of their cavil. They were expositors of the law, and their doctrine was true - that it is blasphemy for any creature to undertake the pardon of sin, and that it is God's prerogative, Isa_43:25. But, as is usual with such teachers, their application was false, and was the effect of their ignorance and enmity to Christ. It is true, None can forgive sins but God only; but it is false that therefore Christ cannot, who had abundantly proved himself to have a divine power.

44

But Christ perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves; this proves him to be God, and therefore confirmed what was to be proved, that he had authority to forgive sins; for he searched the heart, and knew what was in man,Rev_2:23. God's royalties are inseparable, and he that could know thoughts, could forgive sins. This magnifies the grace of Christ, in pardoning sin, that he knew men's thoughts, and therefore knows more than any other can know, both of the sinfulness of their sins and the particulars of them, and yet is ready to pardon. Now he proves his power to forgive sin, by demonstrating his power to cure the man sick of the palsy, Mar_2:9-11. He would not have pretended to do the one, if he could not have done the other; that ye may know that the Son of man, the Messiah, has power on earth to forgive sin, that I have that power, Thou that art sick of the palsy, arise, take up thy bed. Now, 1. This was a suitable argument in itself. He could not have cured the disease, which was the effect, if he could not have taken away the sin, which was the cause. And besides, his curing diseases was a figure of his pardoning sin, for sin is the disease of the soul; when it is pardoned, it is healed. He that could by a word accomplish the sign, could doubtless perform the thing signified, 2. It was suited to them. These carnal scribes would be more affected with such a suitable effect of a pardon as the cure of the disease, and be sooner convinced by it, than by any other more spiritual consequences; therefore it was proper enough to appeal, whether it is easier to say, Thy sins are forgiven thee, or to say, Arise, and walk? The removing of the punishment as such, was the remitting of the sin; he that could go so far in the cure, no doubt could perfect it. See Isa_33:24.

JAMIESON, "But there were certain of the scribes — “and the Pharisees” (Luk_5:21)

sitting there — those Jewish ecclesiastics who, as Luke told us (Luk_5:17), “were come out of every village of Galilee, and Judea, and Jerusalem,” to make their observations upon this wonderful Person, in anything but a teachable spirit, though as yet their venomous and murderous feeling had not showed itself.

and reasoning in their hearts.

COFFMAN, "Jesus read not only the hearts of the appellants for his mercy, but the hearts of the scribes and Pharisees as well.

He blasphemeth ... The scribes were correct in believing that any ordinary man, thus speaking, would be guilty of blasphemy; but they were totally in error in their judgment of Jesus Christ as an ordinary man.

Who can forgive sins but one, even God? ... They were also correct in their belief that men cannot forgive sins, the same being a prerogative of the Almighty God only. In this category, the convictions of the Pharisees were superior to ideas of many in all ages who have thought that certain men indeed have such power, a notion fully refuted by the events about to be unfolded in Mark's narrative.

PETT, "Verse 6-7‘But there were certain of the scribes sitting their and reasoning in their hearts. “Why does this man speak like this? He is blaspheming. Who can forgive sins but one, even God?”.’

In the crowd gathered around the house were some Scribes (teachers and

45

interpreters of the Law). As important people they appear to have been given a place at the front, for they heard what Jesus said to the man. These were the local Scribes, doctors and teachers of the Law (see Luke 5:17), rather than those who later came down from Jerusalem. Being local they were almost certainly Pharisees. (Some Scribes in Jerusalem were Sadducees). They were looked to by the people to interpret the Law and did so on the basis of oral tradition passed down among them, much of which was the result of scribal decisions in the past. There would appear to have been three types of such oral tradition: (a) some oral laws which were claimed as having come from Moses as given by the great lawgiver in addition to the written laws; (b) decisions of various judges which became precedents in judicial matters; and (c) interpretations of great teachers (rabbis) which came to be prized with the same reverence accorded to the Old Testament Scriptures. In order to become Scribes they had to become learned in these oral traditions. They were called ‘the tradition of the Elders’. They looked on themselves, and were generally looked on by the people, as the guardians of the Law. They had almost certainly come to sound out this new teacher so as to make a judgment on Him.

‘Reasoning in their hearts.’ They were weighing up His words and coming to their ‘considered’ judgment on them. They had not come to learn but to act as critics. Thus when they heard His words to the paralysed man their ears pricked up, and they probably whispered quietly among themselves. ‘How dare He speak like this?’ In their eyes it was pure blasphemy. For surely only God could forgive sins. Had they listened more reasonably they might have recognised that He had not quite said what they were insinuating. Like Nathan of old He had only assured the man of God’s forgiveness (2 Samuel 12:13). But they were not thinking sympathetically.

‘He is blaspheming.’ That is, He is taking over God’s prerogative and therefore acting against God. Indeed almost making Himself out to be the equal of God. Their words remind us how easy it is to be so set in our thoughts that we can only think in one way. They had not come there in order to think fairly about what Jesus was saying, or what He was doing. They had come to measure it by their yardstick. And in that light there could be only one conclusion. (And by that yardstick even a Messiah coming in terms of their own expectations would have been a blasphemer. The theory of a Messiah was fine, but the actuality was not, and never would be, acceptable to them unless He handed over all religious aspects to them. A free thinking Messiah would not have been allowable).

‘Who can forgive sins but One. Even God?’ They were, of course, correct. From the point of view of being forgiven in the sight of God (which was what Jesus had meant) it was only God Who could do it. But Jesus had actually spoken ambiguously. They could have seen it as meaning simply, ‘God has forgiven you’ as a word of comfort and assurance, but they saw it as meaning ‘I have bestowed on you God’s forgiveness’. In their view that went along with His outrageous religious attitude. It was, however, open to men either to see Him as a declarer of forgiveness (as with Nathan in 2 Samuel 12:13) or as One Who shared the prerogative of God. The Scribes, in fact, actually came to the right conclusion but because of their prejudice were not willing to yield to the truth.

46

CONSTABLE, "Jesus' claim to possess divine authority upset the teachers of the law who were present. The fact that they were sitting in that crowded house shows the respect the Jews gave them. No Old Testament prophet ever claimed personal authority to forgive sins, though Nathan had announced God's forgiveness to David (2 Samuel 12:13). The Jews believed even the Messiah could not forgive sins because the Old Testament never attributed that power to Him. Only God could do that (cf. Exodus 34:6-9; Psalms 103:3; Psalms 130:4; Isaiah 43:25; Isaiah 44:22; Isaiah 48:11; Daniel 9:9; Micah 7:18). [Note: Cf. Edwards, p. 222.] Consequently they regarded Jesus' claim as blasphemous. Later they condemned Jesus to death for what they considered blasphemy (Mark 14:61-64).

"So from the very beginning of the story Jesus walks a tightrope-under constant threat-and must evade incriminating charges until the right time. His narrow escape from such a serious charge early in the story contributes significantly to the tension and suspense in this conflict." [Note: Rhoads and Michie, p. 87.]

SPURGEON 6-9, "Mark 2:6-9. But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts, Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only? And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts? 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?

It was just as easy to say either the one or the other.Mark 2:10-12. 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, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house. And immediately he arose, 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.

This exposition consisted of readings from Mark 1:28-45; Mark 2:1-12,

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

CLARKE, "Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? - See this explained Mat_9:3 (note), etc.

47

GILL, "Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies?.... They took Christ to be a mere man, and reasoned with themselves, that he must be a blasphemer, in assuming that to himself, which was peculiar to God: they seem astonished at his words, and wonder at his arrogance, and to be filled with indignation and resentment at him; saying,

who can forgive sins but God only? this was a generally received maxim with them, and a very just one. The Chaldee paraphrase of Job_14:4, runs thus;

"who can give a pure man out of a man that is defiled with sins, but God, who alone is

he, ליה ישבוק די , "that can pardon him?"''

They even deny that Metatron, so they call the angel in Exo_23:20, of whom they say, that his name is as the name of his master, has a power of forgiving sins; for which reason the Israelites rejected him as a messenger (i). They were right in saying, that none but God could forgive sin, against whom it is committed; but wrong in charging Christ with blasphemy on this account; because he is truly God, as well as man, as his omniscience and omnipotence hereafter manifested, did abundantly show. That no mere creature can forgive sin, is certain: good men may, and ought to forgive one another, and even their very enemies; but then they can only forgive sin as an injury done to themselves, not as committed against God. The ministers of the Gospel may be said to remit sins ministerially, or declaratively, by preaching the doctrine of pardon, declaring, that such as believe in Christ shall receive the remission of sins; but for any man to assume such a power to himself, as to grant pardons and indulgences, to absolve from sins, is anti-christian, as the pope of Rome does; in which he takes that to himself, which is peculiar to God; so that he, as God, sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God, 2Th_2:4. Nor can any man procure the forgiveness of his sins by any thing he has, or can do; not by his riches, which will not profit in a day of wrath, they being not a sufficient ransom price for a man's self, or any of his brethren and friends; nor by his repentance, for though this, and remission of sins, go together in grace and experience, yet repentance is not the cause of remission of sins, but rather the effect of remission applied; nor by his faith, for faith does not procure, but receives this blessing: and much less by good works, for then the forgiveness of sins would not be according to the riches of grace; and a man would be saved by his works, since a principal part of salvation lies in the pardon of sin; and besides the blood of Christ would be shed in vain. That God only can forgive sin, is evident, because it is against him, and him only, that men sin: sin is a transgression of his law, a contrariety to his nature, and a contradiction of his will, an affront to his justice and holiness, a contempt of him, who is the lawgiver, that is able to save and to destroy; it is of the nature of a debt, which he only can loose from. Moreover, if there were any besides himself that could forgive sin, he would have one equal with him, and like unto him; whereas, "who is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity?" Mic_7:18. This is a prerogative peculiar to him, which he challenges to himself: "I even I am he that blotteth out thy transgressions", Isa_43:25, but then this is common to all the three divine persons in the Godhead, Father, Son, and Spirit. The Father, he has prepared this grace in his own heart; for the moving cause of it, is his sovereign grace and mercy; he has promised and secured it in the covenant of his grace; he set forth, and sent forth his Son to obtain it, by the shedding of his blood, that so his justice might he satisfied; and it is for Christ's sake he forgives all trespasses. The Son of God is concerned in it: as man, his blood was, shed for it; and that being the blood, not of a mere man, but of him that is God, as well as man, it was effectual to that purpose; it is in his name that it is

48

preached, and he is exalted as a Saviour to give it; and as the advocate of his people he calls for it, and requires it; and as he is truly and properly God, he has equal power to bestow it, and apply it as his Father. The holy Spirit, as he makes men sensible of their need of it, he shows it to them, and their interest in it; he sprinkles the blood of Christ upon their consciences, and declares them pardoned through it; he bears witness of the truth of it to them, and seals it up unto them; so that it is wholly of God.

JAMIESON, "Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only? — In this second question they expressed a great truth. (See Isa_43:25; Mic_7:18; Exo_34:6, Exo_34:7, etc.). Nor was their first question altogether unnatural, though in our Lord’s sole case it was unfounded. That a man, to all appearances like one of themselves, should claim authority and power to forgive sins, they could not, on the first blush of it, but regard as in the last degree startling; nor were they entitled even to weigh such a claim, as worthy of a hearing, save on supposition of resistless evidence afforded by Him in support of the claim. Accordingly, our Lord deals with them as men entitled to such evidence, and supplies it; at the same time chiding them for rashness, in drawing harsh conclusions regarding Himself.

BARCLAY, "THE UNANSWERABLE ARGUMENT (Mark 2:7-12)2:7-12 Some of the experts in the law were sitting there, and they were debating within themselves, "How can this fellow speak like this? He is insulting God. Who can forgive sins except one person--God?" Jesus immediately knew in his spirit that this debate was going on in their minds, so he said to them, "Why do you debate thus in your minds? Which is easier--to say to the paralysed man, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up, and lift your bed, and walk around'? Just to let you see that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"--he said to the paralysed man--"I say to you, 'Get up! Lift your bed! And go away home!'" And he raised himself, and immediately he lifted his bed, and went out in front of them all. The result was that they were all astonished, and they kept on praising God. "Never," they kept repeating, "have we seen anything like this."

Jesus, as we have seen, had already attracted the crowds. Because of that he had attracted the notice of the official leaders of the Jews. The Sanhedrin was their supreme court. One of its great functions was. to be the guardian of orthodoxy. For instance, it was the Sanhedrin's duty to deal with any man who was a false prophet. It seems that it had sent out a kind of scouting party to check up on Jesus; and they were there in Capernaum. No doubt they had annexed an honourable place in the front of the crowd and were sitting there critically watching everything that was going on.

When they heard Jesus say to the man that his sins were forgiven it came as a shattering shock. It was an essential of the Jewish faith that only God could forgive sins. For any man to claim to do so was to insult God; that was blasphemy and the penalty for blasphemy was death by stoning (Leviticus 24:16). At the moment they were not ready to launch their attack in public, but it

49

was not difficult for Jesus to see how their minds were working. So he determined to fling down a challenge and to meet them on their own ground.

It was their own firm belief that sin and sickness were indissolubly linked together. A sick man was a man who had sinned. So Jesus asked them: "Whether it is easier to say to this man, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up and walk'?" Any charlatan could say, "Your sins are forgiven." There was no possibility of ever demonstrating whether his words were effective or not; such a statement was completely uncheckable. But to say, "Get up and walk" was to say something whose effectiveness would either be proved or disproved there and then. So Jesus said in effect: "You say that I have no right to forgive sins? You hold as a matter of belief that if this man is ill he is a sinner and he cannot be cured till he is forgiven? Very well, then, watch this!" So Jesus spoke the word and the man was cured.

The experts in the law were hoist with their own petard. On their own stated beliefs the man could not be cured, unless he was forgiven. He was cured, therefore he was forgiven. Therefore, Jesus' claim to forgive sin must be true. Jesus must have left a completely baffled set of legal experts; and, worse, he must have left them in a baffled rage. Here was something that must be dealt with; if this went on, all orthodox religion would be shattered and destroyed. In this incident Jesus signed his own death warrant--and he knew it.

For all that it is an extremely difficult incident. What does it mean that Jesus can forgive sin? There are three possible ways of looking at this.

(i) We could take it that Jesus was conveying God's forgiveness to the man. After David had sinned and Nathan had rebuked him into terror and David had humbly confessed his sin, Nathan said: "The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die." (2 Samuel 12:1-13.) Nathan was not forgiving David's sin, but he was conveying God's forgiveness to David and assuring him of it. So we could say that what Jesus was doing was that he was assuring the man of God's forgiveness, conveying to him something which God had already given him. That is certainly true, but it does not read as if it was the whole truth.

(ii) We could take it that Jesus was acting as God's representative. John says: "The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son." (John 5:22.) If judgment is committed to Jesus, then so must forgiveness be. Let us take a human analogy. Analogies are always imperfect but we can think only in human terms. A man may give another man a power of attorney; that means to say that he has given that man the absolute disposal of his goods and property. He agrees that the other man should act for him, and that his actions should be regarded precisely as his own. We could take it that that is what God did with Jesus, that he delegated to him his powers and privileges, and that the word Jesus spoke was none other than the word of God.

(iii) We could take it in still another way. The whole essence of Jesus' life is that in him we see clearly displayed the attitude of God to men. Now that attitude was the very reverse of what men had thought God's attitude to be. It was not an

50

attitude of stem, severe, austere justice, not an attitude of continual demand. It was an attitude of perfect love, of a heart yearning with love and eager to forgive. Again let us use a human analogy. Lewis Hind in one of his essays tells us of the day that he discovered his father. He had always respected and admired his father; but he had always been more than a little afraid of him. He was in church with his father one Sunday. It was a hot drowsy day. He grew sleepier and sleepier. He could not keep his eyes open as the waves of sleep engulfed him. His head nodded. He saw his father's arm go up; and he was sure that his father was going to shake or strike him. Then he saw his father smile gently and put his arm round his shoulder. He cuddled the lad to himself so that he might rest the more comfortably and held him close with the clasp of love. That day Lewis Hind discovered that his father was not as he had thought him to be and that his father loved him. That is what Jesus did for men and for God. He literally brought men God's forgiveness upon earth. Without him they would never have even remotely known about it. "I tell you," he said to the man, "and I tell you here and now, upon earth, you are a forgiven man." Jesus showed men perfectly the attitude of God to men. He could say, "I forgive," because in him God was saying, "I forgive."

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

GILL, "And immediately, when Jesus perceived in his Spirit,.... "His own Spirit", as the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic versions read; not his human soul, nor the holy Spirit of God, though both may be said to be his Spirit; but his divine nature, in and by which he knew all things, even the most sacred thoughts of men's hearts: and as soon as ever the above thoughts were conceived in the minds of the Scribes and Pharisees, they were perceived by him, and told to them,

that they so reasoned within themselves; he said unto them, why reason ye these things in your hearts? thereby reproving them, not for reasoning and concluding in their own minds, that none but God can forgive sins; but for imputing blasphemy to him, for pronouncing this man's sins pardoned; he being God, as well as man, of which his knowing the thoughts and reasonings of their minds might have been a convincing proof.

HENRY, "And immediately, when Jesus perceived in his Spirit,.... "His

51

own Spirit", as the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic versions read; not his human soul, nor the holy Spirit of God, though both may be said to be his Spirit; but his divine nature, in and by which he knew all things, even the most sacred thoughts of men's hearts: and as soon as ever the above thoughts were conceived in the minds of the Scribes and Pharisees, they were perceived by him, and told to them,

that they so reasoned within themselves; he said unto them, why reason ye these things in your hearts? thereby reproving them, not for reasoning and concluding in their own minds, that none but God can forgive sins; but for imputing blasphemy to him, for pronouncing this man's sins pardoned; he being God, as well as man, of which his knowing the thoughts and reasonings of their minds might have been a convincing proof.

JAMIESON, "Why reason ye these things in your hearts — or, as in Matthew, (Mat_9:4) “Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts?”

SBC. "The text shows—

I. An important aspect of human power. Secrecy; having two lives. These considerations make us mysteries to one another.

II. A startling instance of Divine insight.

III. A splendid manifestation of Christ’s fearlessness.

IV. A solemn example of the confusion which will fall upon all Christ’s objectors.

Parker, City Temple, vol. i., p. 303.

COFFMAN, "Perceiving in his spirit ... The omniscience of Jesus was indicated by his power of reading men's thoughts. Throughout the New Testament, there are many examples of Christ's supernatural knowledge of all that was in human hearts.

Why reason ... in your hearts ... This passage gives an important witness of what is meant, actually, by "the heart" as used in the word of God, appearing here as the seat of reason and intelligence, and therefore making it mandatory to understand it as that which men now call "the mind" or "the brain."

SIMEON, "THE PARALYTIC HEALED

Mark 2:8-12. And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts? 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? 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, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house. And immediately he arose, 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.

WE cannot wonder that such multitudes attended the ministry of our Lord, or

52

that his occasional retirements from labour were so often interrupted. But it is indeed astonishing that so many should continue hostile to so benevolent a person; and that he should persist in doing good, when his words and actions were so constantly perverted, and made grounds of accusation against him. Having retired to a house in Capernaum, he was soon encompassed with a crowd: amongst them were many Scribes and Pharisees who came only to cavil [Note: Luke 5:17.]. Our Lord, however, neither intimidated nor incensed, proceeded in his work; and took occasion even from their cavils to display more eminently his power and glory. Being accused of blasphemy, he confirmed his word by his works, and multiplied his mercies to some as the means of convincing others.

The particular circumstances referred to in the text lead us to consider,

I. The authority he exercised—

Whatever miracles our Lord performed, he wrought them by his own power. A man was brought to him to be healed of the palsy—

[So afflicted was the man, that he was deprived of all use of his limbs. His friends, who bore him on a bed, or couch, could not get access to Jesus [Note: ver. 3, 4.]. They would not however relax their endeavours to obtain a cure. They went by another way to the top of the house, and broke open the lattice, and then let the man down into the midst of the room where Jesus was [Note: Their houses were scarcely ever above one or two stories high. Their roofs were flat, and guarded on every side with a battlement or balustrade, Deuteronomy 22:8; thither the inhabitants used to retire for exercise, 2 Samuel 11:2; for conversation, Matthew 10:27; for meditation and prayer, Acts 10:9. There were two ways of access to the top; one from the inside, by a lattice or trap-door, 2 Kings 1:2. the other by steps on the outside, Mark 13:15. Having easily ascended to the top, they forced open ( ἐמבםפוע מןס, ver. 4.) the lattice which was fastened within, and let down the man through the tiling (Luke 5:19.) with which the roof was paved on all sides of the lattice. Some explain the matter somewhat differently. See Doddridge, sect. 45. note (e.)]. Nor did Jesus take offence at his intrusion, as though he were an unwelcome guest. He, on the contrary, beheld their solicitude with approbation, and richly recompensed “their faith,” which had urged them to such benevolent exertions. We read not indeed of any particular request made by the man or his friends; but the very sight of such misery was sufficient to call forth our Lord’s compassion.]

Jesus healed not his disorder, but authoritatively forgave his sin—

[All that the man thought of was, a restoration to bodily health; but the divine Physician in an instant healed his soul. The disorder had probably been sent by God as a punishment for sin; and Jesus removed his sin as incomparably the greater evil. Yea, he spoke to the man in the most affectionate and condescending terms, and gave him a comfortable assurance that his iniquities were forgiven. How must the helpless dying man rejoice in such tidings! Surely, after this, he would scarcely wish to have his life prolonged; at least, he would desire it only

53

that he might glorify his Lord and Saviour.]

But this exercise of divine authority excited the indignation of the Pharisees—

[It is possible that they might manifest in their countenances the reasonings of their hearts: but Jesus needed not any external proof of their thoughts. He “knew in his spirit” every thing that passed within their minds. They inwardly condemned him as guilty of “blasphemy.” Nor was their reasoning defective, if the application of it had been just. Certainly none but God has any authority to forgive sin; and any mere creature that should assume it, would be a blasphemer. But their objection, in this instance, was altogether unfounded.]

Jesus, having claimed the power of forgiving sin, immediately stated,

II. His vindication of it—

Our Lord was ever willing to satisfy those who desired information; and, by multiplied proofs, to leave determined infidels without excuse:

He now stated a criterion whereby they might judge of the validity of his claim—

[When Jehovah’s deity was questioned, his servant Elijah proposed a mean of determining the controversy between him and Baal [Note: 1 Kings 18:21-24.]. Thus our Lord condescended to submit his pretensions to a trial. He appealed to all whether the healing of the paralytic would not be an evidence of divine power? and whether he, who by his own authority could restore man to health, were not equally able to forgive his sin? This was as just a criterion as could possibly be proposed. If Jesus were not God, he could never by his own power heal the man. Nor, if he were a blasphemer, would God work such a stupendous miracle to confirm his blasphemies. Thus his claims to divine authority were brought to the test; and every person present was made a competent judge of their truth or falsehood.]

According to that criterion, he immediately vindicated his divine authority—

[He commanded the man to arise, and take up his couch, and go home. Instantly he, who before could not help himself, was restored to health; and, in the presence of all, went forth with his couch upon his shoulders. Thus were the enemies of Jesus effectually put to silence; yet none understood the full extent of the conclusion to be drawn from the miracle. They still viewed Christ only as a “man” acting by a delegated authority [Note: Matthew 9:8.]; whereas they should have acknowledged him to have been truly God. They all however “glorified God” for the marvellous displays of his power; and confessed that they had never before seen such stupendous works.]

Learn from hence,

1. The power and grace of Christ—

54

[When Jesus sojourned on earth as a poor man, he had power to forgive sin, and often exercised that power unsolicited, uncontrolled. He even subjected himself to the charge of blasphemy rather than he would conceal his right. Has he then less power or compassion now that he is enthroned in glory? or, now that he is exalted on purpose to exercise that power [Note: Acts 5:31.], will he neglect to exert it? Will he who bestowed mercy unasked, cast out our petitions? Let us then present ourselves before him with all our miseries and wants. Let us try, by all possible means, to get access to him. Let us break through every obstacle that would defeat our endeavours; and let us approach him with an assurance of his power and willingness to save. Sooner shall heaven and earth fail, than he reject one such a believing suppliant [Note: Matthew 21:22.].]

2. The benefit of affliction—

[If the paralytic had never been disordered, he had never been brought to Jesus. Had he never come to Jesus, his sins had never been forgiven. Would he not then rejoice, yea, does he not rejoice even to this very hour, that God ever sent him that affliction? Would he not number that amongst his richest mercies? Thus many of us would never have thought of Jesus if we had not known trouble; but through temporal afflictions we were brought to the enjoyment of spiritual blessings. Let those then, who have experienced this, give thanks to God [Note: Psalms 119:71; Psalms 119:75.]; and let those, that are now in trouble, seek chiefly the remission of their sins [Note: Psalms 25:16-18.].]

3. The efficacy of intercession—

[Many of us, alas! have friends whose souls are dead in trespasses and sins: their faculties are altogether destitute of spiritual motion or sensation; hut we may bring them by faith into the presence of the compassionate Jesus. He will be pleased, rather than offended, with our officious intrusion; nor shall our labours of love be without many good effects. Little do we think how many thousands have been converted in answer to the entreaties of God’s praying people; and who can tell but that God may fulfil to us that promise [Note: James 5:15.]—? Who can tell but that, as an answer to “our faith,” we may see our friends healed of their sins, and triumphing in their blessed Saviour? We are sure, at least, that our “prayers shall return into our own bosom.” Let us then improve our knowledge of the Redeemer’s grace, and exert ourselves, that all around us may participate his saving benefits.]

PETT, "Verse 8-9‘And immediately Jesus, perceiving in His spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, says to them, “Why do you reason these things in your hearts? Which is easier? To say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven’, or to say, ‘Arise take up your bed and walk’?’

Jesus gathered what they were thinking and whispering (for Jesus’ ability to discern thoughts compare Mark 12:15; John 2:24). What a contrast there was between the thoughts of the paralysed man and these scribes. Jesus had known what the paralysed man had been thinking, his faith, and his uncertainty about

55

his worthiness. Now He knew what these men were thinking, their lack of faith, and their total confidence in their own worthiness. And so He challenged them. They had been following Him around, they had seen some of His miracles. Well, which was easiest, to declare a man’s sins forgiven or to heal him and make him walk? Let them think about that. Why was it that they had not seen the truth about Him by what He was doing?

They were caught in the net of their own teaching. They believed that illness and disease was the consequence of sin. So for someone to be healed meant that their sin had been dealt with. The healing demonstrated forgiveness. Thus the fact that He healed should have suggested to them that He had the power to determine whether God had forgiven a man.

Besides, did they not recognise that this was to be the proof positive that the Kingship of God had come? Isaiah 53:5-6 made clear that One was coming on Whom all their iniquities would be laid, because He bore them on their behalf. Did that not mean that He would bring forgiveness? Indeed forgiveness was the basis of the salvation that Isaiah saw God as bringing (Isaiah 43:25; Isaiah 44:22; Isaiah 54:8). Jeremiah 31:34 made clear that when the Kingship of God came men’s sins would be freely forgiven. And Micah declared that in those days God would turn and have compassion on them, pardoning sin and passing by transgression, delighting in mercy (Mark 7:18-19). For then would be opened to the house of David a fountain for sin and uncleanness (Zechariah 13:1).

So if the Kingly Rule of God was drawing near they should have recognised from the Scriptures that the One Who brought it would also bring forgiveness. And as well as forgiveness He would bring healing. The eyes of the blind would be opened, the ears of the deaf unstopped and the lame would leap like a hart (Isaiah 29:18; Isaiah 35:4-6; Isaiah 61:1-2). Thus when the Coming One came forgiveness and healing would go together. They had already seen the latter constantly in His ministry. Did they not see then that that meant that the Kingly Rule of God with its consequences of forgiveness had come? That the acceptable year of the Lord was now here. Yet the fact was that they would not concede the point because they were not willing to face the consequences. They did not want the hearers in the crowd to think that it meant that this man Jesus had been justified in declaring the man’s sins forgiven. So they sat there silent, but unforgiving.

9 Which is easier: to say to this paralyzed man, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up, take your mat and walk’?

56

GILL, "Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy,.... This question was put to them by Christ, in order to prove his deity, and clear himself from the charge of blasphemy; for he that could cure the sick of the palsy, by a word speaking, had power to forgive him his sins: and therefore proposes it to them, which was easiest to say,

thy sins be forgiven thee, or to say arise, and take up thy bed, and walk? Both of them were easy to say, but not with power and effect: they were both instances of divine power, and proofs of deity; and only he that could do the one, could do the other, and the one was as easy to be performed, by a divine person, as the other: and though it may be hard to say which is the greatest instance of power, or the strongest proof of deity, to pardon a sinner, or to cure a paralytic by a word speaking; perhaps forgiveness of sin may be the greatest evidence of divine power and goodness; however, it is certain, it is a greater blessing to be pardoned, than to be cured of a palsy; yet curing of a palsy, in the manner in which Christ did it, was a more sensible proof of his deity to the Scribes and Pharisees, than pronouncing a man's sins forgiven; because this was visible, and could not be denied; whereas the other, though pronounced, they might question whether it had its effect: but by the one, which they would see done before their eyes, there would be left no room for them to doubt of the reality of the other; See Gill on Mat_9:5.

HENRY, "Now he proves his power to forgive sin, by demonstrating his power to cure the man sick of the palsy, Mar_2:9-11. He would not have pretended to do the one, if he could not have done the other; that ye may know that the Son of man, the Messiah, has power on earth to forgive sin, that I have that power, Thou that artsick of the palsy, arise, take up thy bed. Now, 1. This was a suitable argument in itself. He could not have cured the disease, which was the effect, if he could not have taken away the sin, which was the cause. And besides, his curing diseases was a figure of his pardoning sin, for sin is the disease of the soul; when it is pardoned, it is healed. He that could by a word accomplish the sign, could doubtless perform the thing signified, 2. It was suited to them. These carnal scribes would be more affected with such a suitable effect of a pardon as the cure of the disease, and be sooner convinced by it, than by any other more spiritual consequences; therefore it was proper enough to appeal, whether it is easier to say, Thy sins are forgiven thee, or to say, Arise, and walk? The removing of the punishment as such, was the remitting of the sin; he that could go so far in the cure, no doubt could perfect it. See Isa_33:24.

JAMIESON, "Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee — or “are forgiven thee”;

or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed and walk? — “Is it easier to command away disease than to bid away sin? If, then, I do the one which you can see, know thus that I have done the other, which you cannot see.”

COFFMAN, "It was doubtless with a view to this very action that Jesus forgave the man's sins a little earlier. The presence of the scribes was probably due to their having been sent from Jerusalem to monitor Christ's teaching and report back any violations of their religious rules. It should be remembered that at least

57

a year previously Christ had healed a man on the sabbath; and, following lengthy discussions of it, the Pharisees had already made plans to murder him (John 5:18).

Significantly, Christ in this verse equated the power to forgive sins with the power to perform a miracle; and from the day Jesus said this, it has been true that the man who cannot do both can do neither. The Lord went even further, as the next verse relates/

CONSTABLE, "Jesus chose to do what they considered harder to show that He could also do what they considered easier.

"He did the miracle which they could see that they might know that he had done the other one that they could not see." [Note: A. M. Hunter, The Gospel According to Saint Mark, p. 38.]This is Mark's first use of the title "Son of Man." He used it 14 times (cf. Mark 2:28; Mark 8:31; Mark 8:38; Mark 9:9; Mark 9:12; Mark 9:31; Mark 10:33; Mark 10:45; Mark 13:26; Mark 14:21 [twice], 41, 62). Scholars have debated the meaning of this title, but the best evidence points to Jesus meaning that He was the divine Messiah, the representative man (cf. Daniel 7:13-14). [Note: See Vincent Taylor, The Gospel According to St. Mark, pp. 197-98, who also presented four other views.]

"Jesus apparently chose this title for Himself because its use would not immediately associate Him in the thinking of the people with the undesirable connotations which had developed around the common term Messiah. Thus, His use of the term half concealed and half revealed His self-identification as the personal Messiah. While the term was recognized to have Messianic connections, the title Son of man would not force the people to make a premature decision concerning His identity in terms of their usual Messianic expectations. It would enable him to connect His Messianic self-presentation with views more in harmony with His own Person and teaching." [Note: Hiebert, p. 67.]Jesus used the title "Son of Man" when He spoke of His sufferings and death (Mark 8:31; Mark 9:9-13; Mark 9:31; Mark 10:33; Mark 10:45; Mark 14:21; Mark 14:41). He also used it when speaking of His future return in glory (Mark 8:38; Mark 13:26; Mark 13:32; Mark 14:62). Thus He used this title to blend the concepts of the Suffering Servant and the Messiah in His readers' minds. It also connected Him with mankind as the Son of Man. Still, He was the man with "authority on earth to forgive sins," the Judge.

Mark 2:10 reads awkwardly. It begins with Jesus apparently addressing the scribes. Without finishing His sentence He turned to the paralytic and spoke to Him (Mark 2:11). Some commentators have concluded that Jesus did not utter the first part of Mark 2:10, but Mark inserted it in the narrative as a statement to his readers. [Note: C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel According to Saint Mark, p. 100; Wessel, p. 633; Grassmick, pp. 112-13.] Those who hold this view usually point out that Mark did not record Jesus' revealing Himself as the Son of Man to unbelievers before the Resurrection. [Note: E.g., Lane, pp. 96-98; and G. H. Boobyer, "Mark II, 10a and the Interpretation of the Healing of the Paralytic,"

58

Harvard Theological Review 47 (1954):115.] Advocates take Mark 2:28 as another statement by Mark to his readers.

"The purpose of Mark's commentary is to make the community of believers aware that they have experienced the messianic forgiveness of the Son of Man." [Note: Lane, p. 98.]However, this type of editorial insertion is unusual in the Synoptics. Perhaps Jesus addressed the scribes and then let His comment to the paralytic be the conclusion of His word to them. [Note: Taylor, p. 197; Hiebert, p. 67.]

Jesus gave the paralytic a threefold command. "Rise" tested his faith. "Take up your pallet" required him to assume responsibility for himself that others had previously shouldered. "Go home" gave him direction that he needed.

"The pronouncement in Mark 2:10 means that the One who has authority to forgive sins in heaven is present in the Son of Man to forgive sins 'on earth.'" [Note: Edwards, p. 223.]

10 But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the man,

GILL, "But that ye may know that the son of man,.... Meaning himself, who was really man, and the true Messiah, in which sense this phrase had been used in the writings of the Old Testament; see Psa_80:17, and though by reason of his outward form; and mean appearance, he might be thought by them to be but a mere man, and had no right, nor authority, to say what he had; in order to convince them; he affirms, that he

hath power on earth to forgive sins. As there is an emphasis lies on the phrase, "the son of man", suggesting, that his being so was no contradiction to his deity, nor any hindrance to the exertion of his power; so there is another on those words, "upon earth"; intimating, that though he was upon earth, in a very low estate, in a state of humiliation, yet he had the same power to forgive sin as in heaven; his humbling himself in human nature did not strip him of his perfections, power, and prerogative as God: and if he had power on earth to forgive sin, there can be no room to doubt of it now he is in heaven; since as mediator, he is "exalted to be a prince, and a Saviour, to give repentance to Israel, and remission of sins", Act_5:31, And that it might appear he had such a power on earth,

he saith to the sick of the palsy; turning to, and addressing him in the following

59

words, with great majesty, authority, and power; See Gill on Mat_9:6.

JAMIESON, "But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins — that forgiving power dwells in the Person of this Man, and is exercised by Him while on this earth and going out and in with you.

(he saith to the sick of the palsy),

COFFMAN, "Christ here acknowledged the partial truth mixed in with the reasonings of his opponents, that being the fact that only God has authority to forgive sins.

But that ye may know ... Christ would perform a wonder that only God could perform, and then they would know that he had power to forgive sins. The deduction is justified that if one cannot perform such a miracle, then it is likewise true that he cannot forgive sins. True, one may SAY, "I absolve you"; but, since the power claimed in such an assertion is beyond the scope of human judgment to determine its truth or falsity, Christ here acknowledged the validity of the kind of test he proposed and to which he submitted.

Arise, take up thy bed, etc. ... By such a command, Christ challenged the scribes in this manner: Very well, you question whether I can forgive sins or not. Therefore, I command this palsied person to take up his bed and go home; if the power of God enables him to do it at my commandment, you will know that I and the Father are one; and that my power to command such a miracle proves also my power to forgive sins.

PETT, "Verse 10-11“But so that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins,” he says to the paralytic, “I say to you, arise. Take up your bed and go to your house.” ’

This is a central verse of the passage for it contains the essential message that this account is all about. The sudden switch in subject in the middle of the verse should be noted. It has caused some to see the original account as having been interfered with in one way or the other. But it is difficult to see how Mark could have got over his point so personally and yet so succintly, without using this method. It is in fact dramatic. Jesus makes His solemn declaration to the Scribes and then instantly speaks to the man, all in one breath, closely connecting the two. The repetition of ‘He says to the paralytic,’ is not a simple repetition but Mark’s deliberate contrast of what He says in Mark 2:5 with what He says in Mark 2:10. The repetition draws attention to the contrast. The point is brought home. The purity of the Greek takes second place.

His new claim is startling. Now He has moved from ambiguity to clarity. ‘So that you may know that the Son of Man has authoritative power on earth to forgive sins.’ He is claiming that He has the special authority to forgive sins! ‘Forgive’ is

60

in the present infinitive, ‘to go on forgiving sins’ as a personal activity. And we notice that the words are spoken directly to the Rabbis. It is they whose thoughts He is challenging.

We cannot hide from the fact here that Jesus has deliberately ‘provoked’ this incident. In it we come to a high point in His claim to authority. He has revealed His authority in the calling if His disciples. He has revealed His authority in His teaching. He has revealed His authority in casting out evil spirits. And He has even more underlined His authority it touching a man who was unclean, and healing him instead of being made unclean Himself. But now He is lifting His claim to authority to a higher plain, to the plain of divine forgiveness

But we note first the title under which He claims the right to forgive sins. He does so as ‘the Son of Man’. Some have tried to make this mean simply ‘man’ on the basis of the Aramaic, but Mark was an Aramaic speaker and yet he translated it as ‘the Son of Man’, treating it as a title and making an unambiguous connection with the ideas that lie behind that term. It is significant that in the Gospels the term is only ever used on the lips of Jesus (Mark 8:31; Luke 24:7; and John 12:34 are not really exceptions for they are referring to what Jesus actually said), and in the New Testament only ever referred to Jesus. Thus there are no good grounds for denying these words to Jesus (some have tried to suggest that they are Mark’s explanation to his readers, as though ‘you’ was addressed to the readers, but this is not the style of the Gospels).

He had begun to develop the term ‘Son of Man’ from the moment of His baptism. His first use of it was to Nathaniel at his call following Jesus’ baptism, where He spoke of angels ascending and descending on the Son of Man (John 1:51). He then used it to Nicodemus with clear heavenly connections, ‘No man has ascended into Heaven but He Who descended out of Heaven, even the Son of Man’ (John 3:13). Thus according to John the Son of Man is closely connected with Heaven and has His source in Heaven right from the beginning.

We may well ask, Why does Jesus portray Himself as the ‘Son of Man’?

The title Christ (Messiah) had become connected with the idea of a revolutionary leader who would rally the people against the Romans, but this was not how Jesus wanted people to see Him. That was why, once His disciples had recognised Him for what He was, as ‘the Christ’, He re-educated them into recognising what being ‘the Christ’ involved in terms of ‘the Son of Man’ (Mark 8:29-31). Once He had been crucified His Messiahship could be openly declared (Acts 2:36), but before that it was better veiled. Thus once the term ‘Christ’ could be used openly after the resurrection, the term ‘Son of Man’ fell into disuse following its final use (and its only use apart from on the lips of Jesus) by Stephen in Acts 7:56 of ‘the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God’, where it again signified a triumphant figure in glory. Apart, that is, from in the Book of Revelation, where it is used of the glorious heavenly figure that John meets on ‘the Lord’s Day’ (Mark 1:10-20), and of the fearsome figure who initiates the judgment in Revelation 14:14-16. It is thus not used in any of the New Testament letters.

61

The phraseSon of Mancould hold a variety of meanings:

'b7 In the Old Testament it regularly parallels ‘man’ as a synonym (e.g. Psalms 8:4). Thus by it Jesus was holding Himself out as being true man.· It is used by God to Ezekiel stressing that he, Ezekiel, is but a man, indicating his humble place when faced with God.'b7 It is used in Daniel 7:13 of Israel and its King in contrast to the nation Beasts and their kings, and of one who comes as a representative of Israel before God’s throne to receive universal power.'b7 It is used, in apocalyptic literature, of Enoch in a heavenly ministry, spoken to as “you, son of man”.'b7 Rabbinic literature also later identified the son of man in Daniel 7:13 with the Messiah.The phrase, therefore, stressed both humiliation and glory, and was not open to being politically manipulated, while at the same time bringing out Jesus’ role as the representative of mankind. It was precisely because as Man He was the mediator between God and men (1 Timothy 2:5) that He could pronounce the forgiveness of sins.

The passage in Daniel deserves special mention in this regard. There Israel as God’s people are compared with the nations round about who are described as ‘beasts’ and as behaving in beastly fashion. Israel alone (seen in its ideal form as obedient to God) is truly human ‘like a son of man’, for when true to God His people behave like moral human beings. Because of this the people of God (and by inference their ruler) are subjected to suffering under the beasts (see especially Daniel 7:25) until the end of the age. Then comes ‘one like to a son of man’ with the clouds of Heaven to the throne of God, to receive power and glory and universal rule (Mark 7:13). He is the representative of ‘the people of the saints of the Most High’ (Mark 7:27). While the son of man is certainly true Israel, the very vivid portrayal in Daniel requires that they approach God in the form of a representative, their king, in the same way as the beasts represented the nations and their kings.

So we may sum up by saying that the phrase ‘Son of Man’ in Daniel represents One who suffers in weakness at the hands of brutish man, followed by a triumphant entry into the presence of God to receive power and glory. Jesus Who saw Himself as the Servant of Yahweh of Isaiah used the title as summing up Israel in Himself as the Suffering Servant.

The Special Use of Son of Man in Mark

The Synoptic Gospels in general reveal Jesus as using the title in all kinds of situations. In them (apart from in Mark) there is the connection to the Son of Man as signifying primarily a true human, which is as common in them as its use of the heavenly Son of Man, but that is not so in Mark. Mark deliberately selects sayings of Jesus which bring out what to him is the essence of Jesus’ claim to be the ‘Son of Man’ and connect with his own aim to present the Son of God.

'b7 ‘TheSon of Manhas authorityon earthto forgive sins’ (Mark 2:10) (i.e. on

62

earth as well as in Heaven).· ‘TheSon of Manis Lord of the Sabbath’ (Mark 2:28). He has authority to pronounce on God’s ordinances.'b7 ‘It isnecessaryfor theSon of Manto suffer - and rise again’ (Mark 8:31; Mark 9:12; Mark 9:31 : Mark 10:33; Mark 14:21) - because the son of man in Daniel suffers and then rises to the throne of God, and because only so can He give His life as a ransom for many. Notice the constant repetition of these ideas throughout. This is His destiny and is now His constant theme and the disciplesmustbe made to understand the two sides that there are to it.'b7 TheSon of Manwill give His life a ransom for many (Mark 10:45).· TheSon of Manwill take His seat at the right hand of God and will come on the clouds of heaven, in the glory of the Father, with the holy angels (Mark 8:38; Mark 14:62). (This directly links Jesus with Daniel 7:13).So to those who would see it Jesus, by this title, was declaring Himself to be here with heavenly authority, for the purpose of suffering and rising again, so that He may ransom men for Himself, with the purpose of then receiving power and authority, and finally coming in the glory of the Father.

Here in Mark 2:10 Jesus represents Himself as the Son of Man Who has authority on earth to forgive sins. This was clearly a claim to special authority and power and by implication connected Him equally with Heaven (the emphasis on ‘on earth’ indicates a contrast with Heaven), and with earth, the latter as the place to which He had come and where He now exercised His heavenly authority. It made clear that as a result of His coming forgiveness was now here to be received through Him while on earth. Yet its usage in the third person left the Rabbis and the disciples to consider who exactly He was speaking about.

‘Power (authority) on earth to forgive sins.’ This is clear and unambiguous. It is a claim that this ‘Son of Man’ can act directly in the forgiveness of sins while on earth. And as the Rabbis had so clearly indicated, this demonstrated His divine nature, which is what Mark wants to bring out. To others He would give the authority to declare sins forgiven (‘he whose sins you shall forgive, shall have been forgiven’ - John 20:23), but He alone could actually and personally, as the Judge and Redeemer in union with His Father, forgive sins.

‘So that you may know --.’ His act of healing will demonstrate that what He has said is not blasphemy. If He were a blasphemer God would not hear Him, especially in the context of His blasphemy. Thus if the man really is healed it can only demonstrate that God is pleased with what He has said, and that He is therefore His ‘beloved Son in Whom He is well pleased’ (Mark 1:11), and does have this power that He has claimed.

‘He says to the paralytic, “I say to you, arise. Take up your mattress and go to your house.” ’ Jesus then turned to the paralytic and bid him stand up, pick up his mattress and go home. And to the amazement of all he did so.

TODAY IN THE WORD, "The Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins. - Mark 2:10TODAY IN THE WORD

63

Ann Judson, the pioneer missionary who left behind a comfortable life in America to go to Burma with her husband Adoniram (see the February 4 study), once wrote to her sister, ""A little sacrifice for the cause of Christ is not worth naming, and I feel it a privilege, of which I am entirely undeserving, to have had it in my power to sacrifice my all for Him who hesitated not to lay down His life for sinners.""

Any sacrifice we can make has to seem small compared to what Jesus Christ has done for us. No sinner who has come to Him in repentance and faith has ever been turned away. Jesus' compassion was always extended to those who sought forgiveness.

The story of the sinful woman and the self-righteous Pharisee is a perfect example of Jesus' infinite compassion for lost people. There are several amazing things about this incident.

The first is that this woman, despite her soiled reputation, felt safe in approaching Jesus to demonstrate repentance and sorrow for her sin. She was taking a huge risk of rejection and humiliation, should Jesus refuse to have anything to do with her, or hold her up to ridicule. It's obvious she would have received nothing but scorn from Simon, Jesus' host.

It's also amazing to see Jesus' complete composure as this woman wept on His feet, kissed them, and poured perfume on them. There isn't another man on earth who could have dealt with this potentially embarrassing and awkward situation the way Jesus did.

Simon the Pharisee's lack of passion for lost souls was mirrored in his treatment of Jesus. Simon's failure to provide the customary courtesies for his guest betrayed a low sense of value for Jesus and His mission of seeking and saving the lost. And it revealed Simon's pride of heart that made him feel superior to a ""sinner.""

What a moment it must have been when Jesus forgave this woman her many sins! It left the other dinner guests in amazement. The woman left free of her sin, declared righteous in God's sight--the act of God's grace that Paul would later call justification by faith.TODAY ALONG THE WAYHave you ever glanced at someone, perhaps on the street--and then stopped to really look at that person?

When you do that, you begin to see things you didn't notice at first glance. That's what we need to do with people on the spiritual level. Simon only saw a sinner; Jesus saw a sinner who was eager for salvation. Seeing people through Jesus' eyes can make all the difference. Ask God to help you do that with the people around you. But be careful: seeing people the way Jesus sees them will intensify your passion for souls!

SPURGEON, "Mark 2:10-12. But that ye may know that the Son of man hath

64

power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy, ) I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house. And immediately he arose, 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.

Admire and imitate the faith and the obedience of this paralytic, He did better than some, for there have been some who, out of very gratitude, have disobeyed Christ. I mean, when he said to one that he should not tell what Christ had done. He did tell it, but this man, though no doubt his gratitude would have prompted him to stay and throw himself at his benefactor’s feet, or to stop at least and sing a hymn of thankfulness to God, yet he knows that to obey is the best form of gratitude, and as Christ had told him, “Go thy way into thy house,” he did just that. The best thing to do for Christ is to do what Christ bids you. There are many glittering forms of gratitude, but all is not gold that glitters. The most golden gratitude is that which scrupulously renders obedience to every command of Jesus Christ. Take this to heart, and do ye so.

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

GILL, "I say unto thee, arise, and take up thy bed,.... He bid him, in an authoritative way to arise from his bed, in which he was brought, and on which he lay before him, and take it up upon his shoulders, directly, and in the face of all the people, carry it away:

and go thy way into thine house; to show himself whole to his family and friends, and go about his business; See Gill on Mat_9:6,

JAMIESON, "I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house — This taking up the portable couch, and walking home with it, was designed to prove the completeness of the cure.

12 He got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all. This amazed everyone and they praised God, saying, “We have never seen

65

anything like this!”

CLARKE, "He - took up the bed - The words of Prosper, on this place, are worthy of notice: -

“What is sin but a deplorable fall, a grovelling on the earth, a repose in the creature, often followed by a universal palsy of the soul; namely, an utter inability to help itself, to break off its evil habits, to walk in the ways of God, to rise or to take one good step towards him? Grace can repair all in a moment: because it is nothing but the almighty will of God, who commands and does whatever he commands.”

GILL, "And immediately he arose,.... Power going along with the words of Christ, he found himself perfectly well; and at once sprung up from off his bed,

and took up his bed, upon his shoulders, with all the ease imaginable:

and went forth before them all: the Scribes and Pharisees, and the whole multitude of the people, who were eyewitnesses of this wonderful cure: or "against them all"; for being strong and robust, he made his way through the crowd, with his bed on his back;

insomuch that they were all amazed; at the power of Christ, and the strength of the man:

and glorified God, saying, we never saw it on this fashion; or any thing like this in our days. They easily perceived it was a preternatural action, and what could never be done by any mere man; they therefore attribute it to God, and give him the glory of it; they celebrated the perfections of God, particularly his power, and his goodness, which were very visible in this instance; they praised him and his works, and gave thanks to him for this wonderful cure, which was wrought; and that he had given such power to Christ, who they looked upon to be but a man; though they might have concluded from hence that he was God, to perform such mighty works: and these that glorified God, and expressed their thankfulness for this instance of his kindness to men, were not the Scribes and Pharisees, who had charged Christ with blasphemy; for the miracles of Christ rarely, if ever, had such an effect upon them, as to acknowledge that they were from God, and that Christ performed them by a divine power, but rather by a diabolical influence. We never read of their praising God, and glorifying him for any thing that was done by Christ; but generally went away, after a miracle, hardened, and full of spite and malice, going and consulting together how to take away his life. But these were the "multitude", as Matthew says, who attended on the ministry of Christ, and followed him from place to place, and had a high opinion of him, as a great and good man; though they did not believe in him as the Messiah, and did not know him to be the Son of God; See Gill on Mat_9:8,

HENRY, "The cure of the sick man, and the impression it made upon the people, Mar_2:12. He not only arise out of his bed, perfectly well, but, to show that he had

66

perfect strength restored to him, he took up his bed, because it lay in the way, and went forth before them all; and they were all amazed, as well they might, and glorified God, as indeed they ought; saying, “We never saw it on this fashion; never were such wonders as these done before in our time.” Note, Christ's works were without precedent. When we see what he does in healing souls, we must own that we never saw the like.

JAMIESON, "And immediately he arose, took up the bed — “Sweet saying!” says Bengel: “The bed had borne the man: now the man bore the bed.”

and went forth before them all — proclaiming by that act to the multitude, whose wondering eyes would follow him as he pressed through them, that He who could work such a glorious miracle of healing, must indeed “have power on earth to forgive sins.”

We never saw it on this fashion — “never saw it thus,” or, as we say, “never saw the like.” In Luke (Luk_5:26) it is, “We have seen strange [unexpected] things to-day” - referring both to the miracles wrought and the forgiveness of sins pronounced by Human Lips. In Matthew (Mat_9:8) it is, “They marveled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men.” At forgiving power they wondered not, but that a man, to all appearance like one of themselves, should possess it!

CONSTABLE, "The man responded to all three commands immediately and obediently.

Jesus' healing was complete and instantaneous. Everyone in the house witnessed the miracle including the religious leaders. They were amazed (Gr. existasthai, lit. "out of their minds," cf. Mark 3:21; Mark 5:42; Mark 6:51). They had witnessed something that neither they nor anyone else had ever seen. No one had ever given evidence of forgiving the sins of someone else. This was a strong testimony to Jesus' deity. However from the reaction of the observers most of them apparently marveled at the physical miracle but did not worship Jesus as God.

COFFMAN, "The miracle was wrought upon the Saviour's word of command. Typical of all Jesus' miracles, this one, like all the others, was complete, immediate, accomplished by a word, without incantations or agonizings, and without any long prayers, waving of hands, jerking of the head, or any thunderous blast from the pipe organ. It was totally and dramatically accomplished with utmost ease, in the presence of enemies, without prior staging, and with no props at all. Hail, blessed Jesus!

In view of all the circumstances, this miracle was wrought under test conditions, proving dramatically the power and godhead of Jesus.

We never saw it on this fashion ... Such expressions used by Mark to record the audience reaction to Jesus' words and deeds are characteristic of the whole gospel.

67

PETT, ‘And he arose, and immediately took up the mattress and went out in front of them all, with the result that they were all amazed and glorified God saying, “We have never seen anything like this”.’

This was Jesus’ vindication. The man was immediately healed in front of everyone and demonstrated it by picking up his mattress and going out in full sight of all who were there. To the unprejudiced mind this could only prove that Jesus was clearly a true ‘man of God’. And that was how the crowds saw it, for they were amazed and gave glory to God. The words of Jesus had passed most of them by but the miracle was something to talk about, and to give praise about. They were notjustspectacle seekers. And they had seen something beyond anything they had previously witnessed. But the Rabbis undoubtedly went out feeling very grim and unhappy. They should have been glorifying God (they could accuse others of not doing so - John 9:24) but they were too taken up with their theological aversion to what Jesus had said to do so. They just would not see the truth.

Jesus Calls Levi and Eats With Sinners

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

BARNES, "By the sea-side - That is, by the Sea of Tiberias, on the shore of which Capernaum was situated. See the notes at Mat_4:13.

GILL, "And he went forth again by the sea side,.... The sea of Galilee, where he had met with, and called Peter and Andrew, James and John; and not far from which were the solitary place, and the desert places, where he was before he entered into Capernaum:

and all the multitude resorted unto him; who had been with him at Peter's house, and about the door, and those who could not get near him:

and he taught them; the word of God, the Gospel, and the doctrines of it.

HENRY, "I. Christ preaching by the sea-side (Mar_2:13), whither he went for room,because he found, upon second trial, no house or street large enough to contain his auditory; but upon the strand there might come as many as would. It should seem by

68

this, that our Lord Jesus had a strong voice, and could and did speak loud; for wisdom crieth without in the places of concourse. Wherever he goes, though it be to the sea-side, multitudes resort to him. Wherever the doctrine of Christ is faithfully preached, though it be driven into corners or into deserts, we must follow it.

HAWKER, "(13) And he went forth again by the sea side; and all the multitude resorted unto him, and he taught them. (14) (11 And as he passed by, he saw Levi the son of Alpheus sitting at the receipt of custom, and said unto him, Follow me. And he arose and followed him. (15) And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him. (16) And when the scribes and Pharisees saw him at with publicans and sinners, they said unto his disciples, How is it that he eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners? (17) When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

We had the relation of the call of Levi, or Matthew, in the preceding Gospel, See Mat_9:9. to which I refer for the observations also. I only again beg the Reader to remark, the wonderful properties of distinguishing grace. Say what men will concerning it, the truth itself stands where it always did, and always will. For, saith the HOLY GHOST, by his servant Paul, in the case of Jacob and Esau, the children being not yet born, and neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of GOD, according to election, might stand; not of works, but of him that calleth, it was said, the elder shall serve the younger; as it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. Rom_9:11-13; Mal_1:2-3. Hence Matthew, Mary Magdalene, the Thief on the cross, and multitudes have found CHRIST who sought him not; while Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for. Rom_11:7. What decided testimonies to the doctrine of distinguishing grace?

BURKITT, "Observe here, 1. The unwearied pains and diligence which our Saviour used in the execution of his ministerial office and calling; no sooner had he done preaching in Capernaum, and healing the sick of the palsy; but he goeth out thence to the sea-side to preach there.

O blessed Saviour! How perpetually wert thou employed in the labours of thy calling, in the service of thy Father, and for the good of mankind! Thou wentest about doing good, setting a pattern for all thy ministers to follow. How doth the example of thy laborious diligence at once instruct and shame us!

Observe, 2. The number of our Lord's disciples not being filled up, observe what a free and gracious, unexpected and undeserved, choice he makes. Levi, that is, Matthew, (for he hath both names,) a grinding publican, who gathered the taxes for the Romans, and was probably guilty, as others were, of the sins of covetousness, extortion, and oppression; yet he is called to follow Christ as a special disciple.

Learn thence, That such is the freeness of God's grace, that it calls and converts sinners unto Christ when they think not of him, nor seek unto him. Little did Levi now think of a Saviour, much less seek after him, yet he is at this time called by him.

69

Matthew, a publican, Zaccheus, an extortioner, Saul, a persecutor, all these are brought home to God, as instances and evidences of the mighty power of converting grace.

Observe, 3. Matthew's ready compliance with Christ's call; he arose, and followed him. When the inward call of the Holy Spirit accompanieth the outward call of the word, the soul readily complies, and presently yields obedience to the voice of Christ. Christ oft-times speaks by his word to our ears, and we hear not, we stir not; but when he speaks by his Spirit efficaciously to our hearts, Satan shall not hold us down, the world shall not keep us back, but we shall with Levi instantly arise and follow our Saviour.

Observe, 4. Levi, or Matthew, to show his thankfulness to Christ, makes him a great feast. Christ invited Matthew to a discipleship, Matthew invites Christ to a dinner. The servant invites his Master, a sinner invites his Saviour. We do not find, that when Christ was invited to any table, that he ever refused to go: if a publican, if a Pharisee invited him, he constantly went; not so much for the pleasure of eating, as for the opportunity of conversing and doing good. Christ feasts us when we feast him.

Learn hence, That new converts are full of affection towards Christ, and very expressive in their love unto him. Matthew, touched with a sense of Christ's rich love, makes him a royal feast.

Observe, 5. The cavil and exception which the scribes and Pharisees made at our Lord's free conversation. They censure him for conversing with sinners; he justifies himself, telling them, that he conversed with them as their physician, not as their companion. They that are whole need no physician, says Christ, but they that are sick.

As if our Lord had said, "With whom should a physician converse, but with his sick patients? Now I am come into the world to do the office of a kind physician unto men, surely then I am to take all opportunities of conversing with them, that I may help and heal them, for they that are sick need the physician: but as for you scribes and Pharisees, who are well and whole in your own opinion and conceit, I have no hopes of doing good upon you: for such as think themselves whole desire no physician's help."

From this assertion of our Saviour these truths are suggested to us,

1. That sin is the soul's malady, its spiritual disease and sickness.

2. That Christ is the Physician appointed by God for the cure and healing of this disease.

3. That there are multitudes of sinners spiritually sick, whole yet think themselves sound and whole.

4. That such, and only such, as find and feel themselves spiritually sick, are the

70

subjects capable of Christ's healing.

They that are whole need not the physician, but they that are sick. I came not to call the (opiniatively) righteous, but the (sensible) sinner to repentance.

BENSON, "Mark 2:13-17. And all the multitude resorted unto him — Namely, by the sea-side. And he taught them — As readily there as if he had been in a synagogue. And as he passed by he saw Levi, that is, Matthew, sitting, &c. — See on Matthew 9:9-13. Many publicans and sinners sat with Jesus — Some of them, doubtless, invited by Matthew, moved with compassion for his old companions in sin. But the next words, For they were many, and they followed him, seem to imply that the greater part, encouraged by his gracious words and the tenderness of his behaviour, and impatient to hear more, stayed for no invitation, but pressed in after him, and kept as close to him as they could. And the scribes and the Pharisees said — So now the wise men, being joined by the saints of the world, went a little further in raising prejudices against our Lord. In his answer he uses, as yet, no harshness, but only calm, dispassionate reasoning. I came not to call the righteous — Therefore if these were righteous, I should not call them. But now they are the very persons I came to save.

BARCLAY, "THE CALL OF THE MAN WHOM ALL MEN HATED (Mark 2:13-14)2:13,14 So Jesus went out again to the lakeside, and the whole crowd came to him, and he went on teaching them. As he walked along, he saw Levi, the son of Alphaeus, sitting in the office where he collected the customs duties. He said to him, "Follow me!" He rose and followed him.

Steadily and inexorably the synagogue door was shutting on Jesus. Between him and the guardians of Jewish orthodoxy war had been declared. Now he was teaching, not in the synagogue, but by the lakeside. The open air was to be his church, the blue sky his canopy, and a hillside or a fishing boat his pulpit. Here was the beginning of that dreadful situation when the Son of God was banned from the place which was regarded as the house of God.

He was walking by the lakeside and teaching. That was one of the commonest ways for a Rabbi to teach. As the Jewish Rabbis walked the roads from one place to another, or as they strolled in the open air, their disciples grouped themselves around and walked with them and listened as they talked. Jesus was doing what any Rabbi might have done.

Galilee was one of the great road centres of the ancient world. It has been said that, "Judaea is on the way to nowhere; Galilee is on the way to everywhere." Palestine was the land bridge between Europe and Africa; all land traffic must go through her. The great Road of the Sea led from Damascus, by way of Galilee, through Capernaum, down past Carmel, along the Plain of Sharon, through Gaza and on to Egypt. It was one of the great roads of the world. Another road led from Acre on the coast away across the Jordan out to Arabia and the frontiers of the empire, a road that was trodden by the regiments and the caravans.

71

Palestine at this time was divided up. Judaea was a Roman province under a Roman procurator; Galilee was ruled by Herod Antipas, a son of Herod the Great; to the east the territory which included Gaulonitis, Trachonitis and Batanaea was ruled by Philip, another of Herod's sons. On the way from Philip's territory to Herod's domains, Capernaum was the first town to which the traveller came. It was by its very nature a frontier town; because of that it was a customs' centre. In those days there were import and export taxes and Capernaum must have been the place where they were collected. That is where Matthew worked. True, he was not, like Zacchaeus, in the service of the Romans; he was working for Herod Antipas; but a hated tax-collector he was. (The King James Version calls the tax-collectors, publicans; that is because the Latin word was publicanus; the translation publican which is, of course, nowadays quite misleading, actually goes back to Wycliffe.)

This story tells us certain things both about Matthew and about Jesus.

(i) Matthew was a well-hated man. Tax-gatherers can never be a popular section of the community, but in the ancient world they were hated. People never knew just how much they had to pay; the tax-collectors extracted from them as much as they could possibly get and lined their own pockets with the surplus that remained after the demands of the law had been met. Even a Greek writer like Lucian ranks tax-gatherers with "adulterers, panderers, flatterers and sycophants." Jesus wanted the man no one else wanted. He offered his friendship to the man whom all others would have scorned to call friend.

(ii) Matthew must have been a man at that moment with an ache in his heart. He must have heard about Jesus; he must have listened often on the outskirts of the crowds to his message; and something must have stirred in his heart. Now he could not possibly have gone to the orthodox good people of his day; to them he was unclean and they would have refused to have anything to do with him.

Hugh Redwood tells of a woman in the dock district in London who came to a women's meeting. She had been living with a Chinese and had a half-caste baby whom she brought with her. She liked the meeting and came back and back again. Then the vicar came to her. "I must ask you," he said, "not to come again." The woman looked her question. "The other women," said the vicar, "say that they will stop coming if you continue to come." She looked at him with a poignant wistfulness. "Sir," she said, "I know I'm a sinner, but isn't there anywhere a sinner can go?" Fortunately the Salvation Army found that woman and she was reclaimed for Christ.

That is precisely what Matthew was up against until he found the one who came into the world to seek and to save that which was lost.

(iii) This story tens us something about Jesus. It was as he walked along the lakeside that he called Matthew. As a great scholar said, "Even as he was walking along he was looking for opportunities." Jesus was never off duty. If he could find one man for God as he walked he found him. What a harvest we could

72

gather in if we looked for men for Christ as we walked!

(iv) Of all the disciples Matthew gave up most. He literally left all to follow Jesus. Peter and Andrew, James and John could go back to the boats. There were always fish to catch and always the old trade to which to return; but Matthew burned his bridges completely. With one action, in one moment of time, by one swift decision he had put himself out of his job forever, for having left his tax-collector's job, he would never get it back. It takes a big man to make a big decision, and yet some time in every life there comes the moment to decide.

A certain famous man had the habit of going for long country walks on Dartmoor. When he came to a brook that was rather too wide to cross comfortably, the first thing he did was to throw his coat over to the other side. He made sure that there was to be no turning back. He took the decision to cross and made sure he was going to stick to it.

Matthew was the man who staked everything on Christ; and he was not wrong.

(v) From his decision Matthew got at least three things.

(a) He got clean hands. From now on he could look the world in the face. He might be very much poorer and life must be very much rougher, and the luxuries and the comforts were gone; but from now on his hands were clean and, because his hands were clean, his mind was at rest.

(b) He lost one job but he got afar bigger one. It has been said that Matthew left everything but one thing--he did not leave his pen. Scholars do not think that the first gospel, as it stands, is the work of Matthew; but they do think that it embodies one of the most important documents of all history, the first written account of the teaching of Jesus, and that that document was written by Matthew. With his orderly mind, his systematic way of working, his familiarity with the pen, Matthew was, the first man to give the world a book on the teaching of Jesus.

(c) The odd thing is that Matthew's reckless decision brought him the one thing he can least have been looking for--it brought him immortal and world-wide fame. All men know the name of Matthew as one for ever connected with the transmission of the story of Jesus. Had Matthew refused the call he would have had a local ill-fame as the follower of a disreputable trade which all men hated; because he answered the call he gained a world-wide fame as the man who gave to men the record of the words of Jesus. God never goes back on the man who stakes his all on him.

NISBET, "A WALK BY THE SEA‘And He went forth again by the sea side.’Mark 2:13The paralytic healed, our Lord left the house and, no longer surrounded by sceptical scribes, walked by the seaside. But the crowd would not leave Him. ‘All the multitude resorted unto Him, and He taught them.’ Think of this walk of

73

Christ’s by the seaside.

I. It was not a walk of absent reverie.—Some men when walking amidst the most beautiful scenes of nature are lost in a reverie, in which they are oblivious of all around. They are lost in the contemplations of their own soul. They are great thinkers. They are good men. But they are not awed and inspired by the glories of the material universe. To such men the world is subjective rather than objective; they live more in the realm of thought than in the region of action. But Christ, Who was a great thinker, and was engaged in a mission calculated to absorb His attention, was never so lost in thought upon self as to be unmoved by the grandeur of external things, or by the call of present duty. When walking by the sea He was not so enchained by reverie as to be unmindful of those who were seeking instruction from Him.

II. It was not a walk of sentimental admiration.—There are many who admire everything they see. They can give no reason for their admiration of any one object, but they indulge the enthusiastic impulse of the moment. Their travels are not turned to any practical account; they instruct no soul throughout their journey. Christ thoroughly enjoyed the glories of nature, admired them fully, estimated them rightly, yet He was never so drawn away by them as to forget or neglect the imperative mission of His life, or the great need of men.

III. It was a walk hallowed by sacred teaching.—So far from being lost in absent reverie or in sentimental admiration, our Lord, during this walk by the sea, taught the multitude that resorted to Him. He might justly have excused Himself from such an intrusion. It was a time of needed rest and recreation after continuous effort, but He never pleaded fatigue as an excuse for toil. Nor did He hesitate on ecclesiastical grounds. He taught the multitude by the seaside. The world was to Him a temple for worship, its every scene sacred to the interests of truth. Some ecclesiastical personages will only teach in the consecrated church; let us find our rebuke in the simple conduct of the Lord. Where there are souls to listen, there the truth should be preached in all sincerity.

Illustration

‘For some years in succession the Bishop of Manchester (Dr. Knox) has held Church services on the sands at Blackpool. “He succeeded,” he said, in describing the mission, “in reaching great crowds of people on Sundays and weekdays. Although at first it was treated as a novelty and excited great interest, the prevailing attitude towards the mission was one of reverent attention and quiet sympathy. All our meetings were earnest religious services, not religious entertainments.”’

PETT, "Verse 13‘And he went out again by the sea side, and the whole crowd were resorting to him and he was teaching them.’

Once again Mark draws our attention to Jesus’ popularity with the ordinary people. His growing outward success is one of his themes. And he does not fail to

74

draw our attention to the fact that Jesus preaching ministry went on, for this was why He was sent (Mark 1:38). The tenses indicate that the people were constantly coming, and that He was constantly teaching them. It was an ongoing process.

The introduction is general. There is no direct connection with the previous incident, nor the next. The verse is slipped in simply to emphasise what has been said above, that Jesus’ popularity with the common people is growing apace.

Verses 13-17The Divine Physician Has Come to Make Men Whole (2:13-17).

The second great statement of this chapter is about the Great Physician, and is introduced by the call of Levi (Matthew). But we are not, of course, just to concentrate on the statement alone for the context is important, and indeed leads up to the statement. The call of four local fishermen to be disciples must have caused some surprise, but the call of a hated tax-collector and outcast must have been seen as staggering. It would have raised shocked horror in many Jewish hearts. And yet it exemplified fully what Jesus had come to do and be.

Analysis of 2:13-17.

a And He went out again by the sea side, and the whole crowd were resorting to Him and He was teaching them (Mark 2:13).b And as He passed by He saw Levi, the son of Alphaeus, sitting at the place where tolls were collected, and He says to him, “Follow me.” And he arose and followed Him (Mark 2:14).c And it happened that He was sitting eating food in his house, and many tax collectors and sinners sat down with Jesus and His disciples (Mark 2:15 a).d For there were many and they followed Him (Mark 2:15 b).c And the Scribes of the Pharisees, when they saw that He was eating with the sinners and tax collectors, said to His disciples, “He eats and drinks with tax collectors and sinners” (Mark 2:16).b And when Jesus heard it, He says to them, “Those who are whole do not need a medical doctor, only those who are ill” (Mark 2:17 a).a “I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners”. (Mark 2:17 b).Note that in ‘a’ He was teaching the crowds, while in the parallel we have the essence of what He was teaching them. In ‘b’ we have the description of one whom He calls, and in the parallel how He sums him up. In ‘c’ we find Jesus eating food with tax collectors and sinners, and in the parallel the judgment of the Scribes on it. Centrally in ‘d’ we have the important fact that many tax collectors and ‘sinners’ followed Him.

MACLAREN, "THE PUBLICANS' FRIEND

By calling a publican, Jesus shocked ‘public opinion and outraged propriety, as the Pharisees and scribes understood it. But He touched the hearts of the outcasts. A gush of sympathy melts souls frozen hard by icy winds of scorn. Levi (otherwise Matthew) had probably had wistful longings after Jesus which he had not dared to

75

show, and therefore he eagerly and instantly responded to Christ’s call, leaving everything in his custom-house to look after itself. Mark emphasises the effect of this advance towards the disreputable classes by Jesus, in his repeated mention of the numbers of them who followed Him. The meal in Matthew’s house was probably not immediately after his call. The large gathering attracted the notice of Christ’s watchful opponents, who pounced upon His sitting at meat with such ‘shady’ people as betraying His low tastes and disregard of seemly conduct, and, with characteristic Eastern freedom, pushed in as uninvited spectators. They did not carry their objection to Himself, but covertly insinuated it into the disciples’ minds, perhaps in hope of sowing suspicions there. Their sarcasm evoked Christ’s own ‘programme’ of His mission, for which we have to thank them.

I. We have, first, Christ’s vindication of His consorting with the lowest.

He thinks of Himself as ‘a physician,’ just as He did in another connection in the synagogue of Nazareth. He is conscious of power to heal all soul-sickness, and therefore He goes where He is most needed. Where should a doctor be but where disease is rife? Is not his place in the hospital? Association with degraded and vicious characters is sin or 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.

But what does He mean by the distinction between sick and sound, righteous and sinners? Surely all need His healing, and there are not two classes of men. Have not all sinned? Yes, but Jesus speaks to the cavillers, for the moment, in their own dialect, saying, in effect, ‘I take you at your own valuation, and therein find My defence. You do not think that you need a physician, and you call yourselves ‘righteous and these outcasts ‘sinners.’ So you should not be surprised if I, being the healer, turn away to them, and prefer their company to yours.’ But there is more than taking them at their own estimate in the great words, for to conceit ourselves ‘whole’ bars us off from getting any good from Jesus. He cannot come to the self-righteous heart. We must feel our sickness before we can see Him in His true character, or be blessed by His presence with us. And the apparent distinction, which seems to limit His work, really vanishes in the fact that we all are sick and sinners, whatever we may think of ourselves, and that, therefore, the errand of the great Physician is to us all. The Pharisee who knows himself a sinner is as welcome as the outcast. The most outwardly respectable, clean-living, orthodoxly religious formalist needs Him as much, and may have Him as healingly, as the grossest criminal, foul with the stench of loathsome disease. That great saying has changed the attitude towards the degraded and unclean, and many a stream of pity and practical work for such has been drawn off from that Nile of yearning love, though all unconscious of its source.

II. We have Christ’s vindication of the disciples from ascetic critics.

The assailants in the second charge were reinforced by singular allies. Pharisees had nothing in common with John’s disciples, except some outward observances, but they could join forces against Jesus. Common hatred is a wonderful unifier. 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. His answer opens up many great truths, which we can barely mention.

First, note that He calls Himself the ‘bridegroom’-a designation which would surely touch some chords in John’s disciples, remembering how their Master had spoken of the ‘bridegroom’ and his ‘friend.’ The name tells us that Jesus claimed the psalms of the ‘bride-groom’ as prophecies of Himself, and claimed the Church that was to be as His bride. It speaks tenderly of His love and of our possible blessedness. Next, we note the sweet suggestion of the joyful life of the disciples in intercourse with Him.

76

We perhaps do not sufficiently regard their experience in that light, but surely they were happy, being ever with Him, though they knew not yet all the wonder and blessedness which His presence involved and brought. They were a glad company, and Christians ought now to be joyous, because the bridegroom is still with them, and the more really so by reason of His ascending up where He was before. We have seen Him again, as He promised, and our hearts should rejoice with a joy which no man can take from us.

Next, we note Christ’s clear prevision of His death, the violence of which is hinted at in the words, ‘Shall be taken away from them.’ Further, we note the great principle that outward forms must follow inward realities, and are genuine only when they are the expression of states of mind and feeling. That is a far-reaching truth, ever being forgotten in the tyranny which the externals of religion exercise. Let the free spirit have its own way, and cut its own channels. Laughter may be as devout as fasting. Joy is to be expressed in religion as well as grief. No outward form is worth anything unless the inner man vitalises it, and such a mere form is not simply valueless, but may quickly become hypocrisy and conscious make-believe.

III. Jesus adds two similes, which are condensed parables, to deal with a wider question rising out of the preceding principles.

The difference between His disciples’ religious demeanour and that of their critics is not merely that the former are not now in a mood for fasting, but that a new spirit is beginning to work in them, and therefore it will go hard with a good many old forms besides fasting.

The essential point in both the similes of the raw cloth stitched on to the old, and of the new wine poured into stiff old skins, is the necessary incongruity between old forms and new tendencies. Undressed cloth is sure to shrink when wetted, and, being stronger than the old, to draw its frayed edges away. So, if new truth, or new conceptions of old truth, or new enthusiasms, are patched on to old modes, they will look out of place, and will sooner or later rend the old cloth. But the second simile advances on the first, in that it points not only to harm done to the old by the unnatural marriage, but also to mischief to the new. Put fermenting wine into a hard, unyielding, old wine-skin, and there can be but one result,-the strong effervescence will burst the skin, which may not matter much, and the precious wine will run out and be lost, sucked up by the thirsty soil, which matters more. The attempt to confine the new within the limits of the old, or to express it by the old forms, destroys them and wastes it. The attempt was made to keep Christianity within the limits of Judaism; it failed, but not before much harm had been done to Christianity. Over and over again the effort has been made in the Church, and it has always ended disastrously,-and it always will. It will be a happy day for both the old and the new when we all learn to put new wine into new skins, and remember that ‘God giveth it a body as it hath pleased Him, and to every seed his own body.’

EBC 13-17, "THE CALL AND FEAST OF LEVI

"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

77

whole have no need of a physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners." Mar_2:13-17 (R.V.)

JESUS loved the open air. His custom when teaching was to point to the sower, the lily, and the bird. He is no pale recluse emerging from a library to instruct, in the dim religious light of cloisters, a world unknown except by books. Accordingly we find Him "again by the seaside." And however the scribes and Pharisees may have continued to murmur, the multitudes resorted to Him, confiding in the evidence of their experience, which never saw it on this fashion.

That argument was perfectly logical; it was an induction, yet it led them to a result curiously the reverse of theirs who reject miracles for being contrary to experience. "Yes," they said, "we appeal to experience, but the conclusion is that good deeds which it cannot parallel must come directly from the Giver of all good."

Such good deeds continue. The creed of Christ has reformed Europe, it is awakening Asia, it has transformed morality, and imposed new virtues on the conscience. It is the one religion for the masses, the lapsed, and indeed for the sick in body as truly as in soul; for while science discourses with enthusiasm upon progress by the rejection of the less fit, our faith cherishes these in hospitals, asylums, and retreats, and prospers by lavishing care upon the outcast and rejected of the world. Now this transcends experience: we never saw it on this fashion; it is supernatural. Or else let scientific atheism produce its reformed magdalens, and its homes for the hopelessly diseased and imbecile, and all "the weakest" who go, as she tenderly assures us, "to the wall."

Jesus now gave a signal proof of His independence of human judgment, His care for the despised and rejected. For such a one He completed the rupture between Himself and the rulers of the people.

Sitting at the receipt of toll, in the act of levying from his own nation the dues of the conqueror, Levi the publican received the call to become an Apostle and Evangelist. It was a resolute defiance of the pharisaic judgment. It was a memorable rebuke for those timid slaves of expediency who nurse their influence, refuse to give offense, fear to "mar their usefulness" by "compromising themselves," and so make their whole life one abject compromise, and let all emphatic usefulness go by.

Here is one upon whom the bigot scowls more darkly still than upon Jesus Himself, by whom the Roman yoke is pressed upon Hebrew necks, and apostate in men’s judgment from the national faith and hope. And such judgments sadly verify themselves; a despised man easily becomes despicable.

But however Levi came by so strange and hateful an office, Jesus saw in him no slavish earner of vile bread by doing the foreigner’s hateful work. He was more willing than they who scorned him to follow the true King of Israel. It is even possible that the national humiliations to which his very office testified led him to other aspirations, longings after a spiritual kingdom beyond reach of the sword or the exactions of Rome. For his Gospel is full of the true kingdom of heaven, the spiritual fulfillments of prophecy, and the relations between the Old Testament and the Messiah.

Here then is an opportunity to show the sneering scribe and carping Pharisee how little their cynical criticism weighs with Jesus. He calls the despised agent of the heathen to His side, and is obeyed. And now the name of the publican is engraved upon one of the foundations of the city of God.

Nor did Jesus refuse to carry such condescension to its utmost limit, eating and drinking in Levi’s house with many publicans and sinners, who were already

78

attracted by His teaching, and now rejoiced in His familiarity. Just in proportion as He offended the pharisaic scribes, so did He inspire with new hope the unhappy classes who were taught to consider themselves castaway. His very presence was medicinal, a rebuke to foul words and thoughts, an outward and visible sign of grace. It brought pure air and sunshine into a fever-stricken chamber.

And this was His justification when assailed. He had borne healing to the sick. He had called sinners to repentance. And therefore His example has a double message. It rebukes those who look curiously on the intercourse of religious people with the world, who are plainly of opinion that the leaven should be hid anywhere but in the meal, who can never fairly understand St. Paul’s permission to go to an idolater’s feast. But it gives no license to go where we cannot be a healing influence, where the light must be kept in a dark lantern if not under a bushel, where, instead of drawing men upward, we shall only confirm their indolent self-satisfaction.

Christ’s reason for seeking out the sick, the lost, is ominous indeed for the self-satisfied. The whole have no need of a physician; He came not to call the righteous. Such persons, whatever else they be, are not Christians until they come to a different mind.

In calling Himself the Physician of sick souls, Jesus made a startling claim, which becomes more emphatic when we observe that He also quoted the words of Hosea, "I will have mercy and not sacrifice" (Mat_9:13; Hos_6:6). For this expression occurs in that chapter which tells how the Lord Himself hath smitten and will bind us up. And the complaint is just before it that when Ephraim saw his sickness and Judah saw his wound, then went Ephraim to Assyria and sent to king Jareb, but he is not able to heal you, neither shall he cure you of your wound (Hos_5:13-15; Hos_6:1). As the Lord Himself hath torn, so He must heal.

Now Jesus comes to that part of Israel which the Pharisees despise for being wounded and diseased, and justifies Himself by words which must, from their context, have reminded every Jew of the declaration that God is the physician, and it is vain to seek healing elsewhere. And immediately afterwards, he claims to be the Bridegroom, whom also Hosea spoke of as divine. Yet men profess that only in St. John does He advance such claims that we should ask, Whom makest Thou Thyself? Let them try the experiment, then, of putting such words into the lips of any mortal.

The choice of the apostles, and most of all that of Levi, illustrates the power of the cross to elevate obscure and commonplace lives. He was born, to all appearance, to an uneventful, unobserved existence. We read no remarkable action of the Apostle Matthew; as an Evangelist he is simple, orderly and accurate, as becomes a man of business, but the graphic energy of St. Mark, the pathos of St. Luke, the profundity of St. John are absent. Yet his greatness will outlive the world.

Now as Christ provided nobility and a career for this man of the people, so He does for all. "Are all apostles?" Nay, but all may become pillars in the temple of eternity. The gospel finds men plunged in monotony, in the routine of callings which machinery and the subdivision of labor make ever more colorless, spiritless, and dull. It is a small thing that it introduces them to a literature more sublime than Milton, more sincere and direct than Shakespeare. It brings their little lives into relationship with eternity. It braces them for a vast struggle, watched by a great cloud of witnesses. It gives meaning and beauty to the sordid present, and to the future a hope full of immortality. It brings the Christ of God nearer to the humblest than when of old He ate and drank with publicans and sinners.

79

BIBLICAL ILLUSTRATOR, "And He went forth again by the seaside.

A walk by the sea

I. It was not a walk of absent reverie.

II. It was not a walk of sentimental admiration.

III. It was a walk hallowed by sacred teaching. We should endeavour to make our walks subservient to the moral good of men, and in this incidental manner we might do much to enhance the welfare of the Redeemer’s cause. (J. S. Exell, M. A.)

Christian work at the seashore

Can we not do something for Jesus on the sands? If so, let us not miss such a happiness. What situation and surroundings can be better for earnest, loving conversation with our young friends concerning their souls’ best interests? A few words about the sea of eternity and its great deeps, a sentence or two upon the broken shells and our frailty, upon the Rock of Ages and the sands of time, may never be forgotten, especially if they be but few, and those pleasant, solemn, and congruous with the occasion. A good book lent to a lounger may also prove a blessing. A handful of interesting pamphlets scattered discreetly may prove to be fruitful seed. Souls are to be caught by the seashore and in the boat: gospel fisherman, take your net with you. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

CONSTABLE, "Verse 13

"Again" (Gr. palin) identifies this incident as a different occasion (cf. Mark 1:16). Jesus had been in Capernaum, which was very close to the Sea of Galilee, but now He returned to the water's edge where He could teach the large crowds that followed Him (cf. Mark 1:45; Mark 2:13; Mark 3:7; Mark 3:13; Mark 4:1; Mark 5:21; et al.).

"This action becomes meaningful when it is seen as part of a recurring pattern in Mark's Gospel. After a demonstration of the saving power of God, Jesus withdraws from the populace to a lonely region, whether the wilderness, the mountain or the sea. ... Like the return to the wilderness, the move to the sea entails a deliberate entrance into the sphere of forces which manifest their hostility to God." [Note: Lane, p. 100.]

Verses 13-17

2. The call of Levi and his feast 2:13-17 (cf. Matthew 9:13; Luke 5:27-32)

The call of Levi as one of Jesus' disciples was the setting for the second instance of opposition from the religious leaders that Mark recorded in this section.

80

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

BARNES, "Levi, the son of Alpheus - The same, undoubtedly, as “Matthew,” the writer of the gospel which bears his name. It was not uncommon among the Jews to have two names.

The receipt of custom - See the notes at Mat_9:9.

CLARKE, "Levi - The same as Matthew; he appears to have been a Jew, though employed in

the odious office of a tax-gatherer. For an account of his call, see his Gospel, Mat_9:9, etc.

GILL, "And as he passed by,.... As he went from Simon's house, and from the city of Capernaum, to go to the sea side:

he saw Levi, the son of Alphaeus; the same with Matthew, Mat_9:9, and son to the same Alphaeus as James was, Mat_10:3, Beza's most ancient copy reads "James", instead of "Levi", very wrongly; but he was the brother of James, and also of Simon and Jude; so that there were four brothers of them apostles: and if Joses, called Barsabas, was the same Joses that was brother to these, as seems probable, a fifth was put up for an apostle, though the lot fell on Matthias. James, and Joses, and Simon, and Jude, are mentioned together, Mat_13:55, because they lived together, and were men of religion and seriousness, and known by their neighbours; but Matthew, or Levi, is not mentioned: it is thought, by some, probable, that he was a loose, extravagant young man, and so might depart from his father's family, and enter into this scandalous employment of a publican; and herein went contrary to his father's will, Cleophas, or Alphaeus, who was the husband of the sister of Mary, the mother of our Lord:

sitting at the receipt of custom; the toll booth, or custom house, where he sat to take toll of passengers that came, or went in ships or boats, The Syriac version renders it, "sitting among the toll gatherers"; and the Persic, "among publicans"; not only signifying the business in which he was, but the company he was among; which makes the grace of Christ the more illustrious and distinguishing, in looking upon him, and calling him:

and said unto him, follow me; and he arose, and followed him. Christ, the great shepherd of the sheep, who came to seek, in order to save that which was lost, was now locking up his lost sheep; and Matthew, or Levi, being one of them, he finds him, and calls him by his grace. Christ is always first with his people; he first seeks them, and then they seek him; he first finds them, and then they find him; yea, he is

81

found of them that sought him not. Levi took no notice of him, inquired not about him, and had no thought of leaving his employ; and going after him, but Christ knew him: his eye was upon him as he passed by him, and his time was a time of love, and so a time of life; he looked upon him, and said unto him, live; quickening power went along with his words, and he arose, and left all, and followed him: Christ, as the good shepherd, went before; and Levi, through the grace that was now given him, as one of his sheep, heard and knew his voice, and, without the least hesitation or reluctance, quitted his business, and became a follower of him. How powerful is efficacious grace! what is it, it can not do! it turns the heart of a sinner at once, inclines it to Christ, and causes it to leave all for his sake; it at once fills the soul with love to Christ, faith in him, and obedience to him; it works powerfully, and yet freely; it always obtains, and effects what it designs, yet puts no force upon the will: Levi, under the drawings of divine grace, followed Christ most willingly and cheerfully; See Gill on Mat_9:9.

HENRY, "II. His calling Levi; the same with Matthew, who had a place in the custom-house at Capernaum, from which he was denominated a publican; his place fixed him by the water-side, and thither Christ went to meet with him, and to give him an effectual call. This Levi is here said to be the son of Alpheus or Cleophas,husband to that Mary who was sister or near kinswoman to the virgin Mary and if so, he was own brother to James the less, and Jude, and Simon the Canaanite, so that there were four brothers of them apostles, It is probable that Matthew was but a loose extravagant young man, or else, being a Jew, he would never have been a publican. However, Christ called him to follow him. Paul, though a Pharisee, had been one of the chief of sinners, and yet was called to be an apostle. With God, through Christ, there is mercy to pardon the greatest sins, and grace to sanctify the greatest sinners. Matthew, that had been a publican, became an evangelist, the firstthat put pen to paper, and the fullest in writing the life of Christ. Great sin and scandal before conversion, are no bar to great gifts, graces, and advancements, after; nay, God may be the more glorified. Christ prevented him with this call; in bodily cures, ordinarily, he was sought unto, but in these spiritual cures, he was found of them that sought him not. For this is the great evil and peril of the disease of sin, that those who are under it, desire not to be made whole.

COFFMAN, "The call of Matthew is also reported in Matthew 9:9 and Luke 5:27. Both Mark and Luke refer to this apostle as Levi, Mark only indicating that he was the son of Alphaeus. Strangely, Mark also called James "the son of Alphaeus" (Mark 3:18), indicating that both Matthew and James were sons of fathers who were named Alphaeus. There is no hint in the New Testament that they were brothers.

And as he passed by ... Many of Jesus' most wonderful deeds were accomplished in the impromptu manner suggested here. The Lord was alert to the eternal potential of every moment and every situation or circumstance. Christ regarded the present moment, the present human being in his presence, and the present circumstance in all of its vast potential for the future. Unlike the Levite who passed by on the other side of the road, oblivious to the plight of the man who had fallen among thieves, Jesus gave every man that he ever met the benefit of his most careful thought and consideration.

He saw Levi ... sitting at the place of toll ... As a collector of taxes, probably upon

82

the caravans between Egypt and Damascus[1] which passed through Capernaum, Matthew was called a publican. It may not be inferred necessarily that he was in the employ of the Romans, because the word "toll" here is distinguished from "tribute," the latter going to Rome, the toll to the native government. Thus, Matthew's employer might well have been Herod Antipas. The application of the term "publican"' to Matthew (Luke 5:27), however, as well as the presence of such persons at the banquet later given by Matthew, together with the footnote under Luke 3:12 (English Revised Version (1885)) defining "publicans" as "collectors or renters of Roman taxes," strongly indicates that Mark probably used "toll" in this verse in its broader, rather than in its limited and technical sense. From these considerations, the traditional view that Matthew was a renter or collector of Roman taxes is preferable.

Jesus' choice of Matthew was therefore a challenge to the snobbery and exclusiveness of the Pharisees. It was also a move toward the socially unacceptable, the poor, and the deprived. The divine genius of Jesus quickly recognized the scholarly student of the prophets who sat at the seat of custom in Capernaum and called him to the apostleship.

And he arose and followed him ... Although no record of it exists, it would appear to be certain that this was not Matthew's first acquaintance with Jesus. Just as the first meetings with the four whose calling was recorded in Mark 1 is omitted, the beginning of acquaintance between Matthew and Jesus does not appear. "One can only conclude that Matthew had known at least something about Jesus earlier."[2]

[1] J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 657.

[2] Earle McMillan, The Gospel According to Mark (Austin, Texas: R. B. Sweet Publishing Company, 1973), p. 39.

NISBET, "CHRIST’S CALL‘And as He passed by, He saw Levi the son of Alphזus sitting at the receipt of custom, and said unto him, Follow Me. And he arose and followed Him.’Mark 2:14This incident is narrated also in Matthew’s Gospel (Mark 9:9) and in Luke’s Gospel (Mark 5:28). Luke adds that Levi (known to us at Matthew) not only rose up, but ‘left all’ to follow Jesus. From Matthew’s own account we should never have learned that he had anything to leave. He had resolved to follow Christ. In following Him he had found the pearl of great price, and gave no thought to the price at which he had obtained it. So he never mentions what he left. But there can be no doubt that he did, as we should say, make a considerable sacrifice in order to obey the Lord’s call, even though he may have thought nothing of it in comparison of the higher gain which he won.

We have a double lesson to learn from this point in the history.

I. When God calls us to make any sacrifice for His sake, we are not to be the

83

persons to speak of it, for we ought not to feel that it is any sacrifice at all. The Kingdom of Heaven is like unto a man who sells all that he has to secure the pearl of great price. When a man sells all that he has in order to procure the pearl, he is doing a voluntary action. It is not like having your goods taken from you in exchange for something else. It is your own voluntary deed, which you do because you consider it to be well worth while; because you consider the priceless pearl to be well and cheaply won by the sacrifice of all; and, therefore, your mind is so much more set upon what you have gained than upon what you have given up, that you do not even think of mentioning what it cost.

II. See the example Matthew sets us.—It would have been a loss to us if we had been left to imagine that Matthew had nothing to leave. And so this piece of information is supplied to us by Luke. From the way that Luke mentions it, it is clear that Matthew had much to give up. The word publican means tax-gatherer. And the tax-gathers of those days were a wealthy class of persons. They paid the Government a certain price for the taxes of a town or a district, and then made what profit they could out of their bargain. This being so, they were of course anxious to make as much as they could out of the taxes, and in most cases they grew rich by grinding the people to the uttermost. This is why they were so unpopular. The publicans are always mentioned in the New Testament along with sinners. An I the reasons were (1) that in most cases they were so extortionate that their very name was a by-word for ‘swindler’; and (2) that scarcely any one with a good character would become a publican at all. Matthew was one of these ‘publicans.’ Up to this time he had given up all for money. Now he gives up all his profits and all his future opportunities of wealth—gives them all up to follow Christ.

Illustrations

(1) ‘On the shores of the Lake of Galilee many fishing villages were situated, and from amongst the hardy fishermen of this district Christ chose his first four disciples. Simon and Andrew were called to follow Him whilst casting a net into the sea, and James and John as they sat in their boat with the crew mending their nets. Bethsaida, the house of fish, was the native place of Simon, Andrew, and of Philip, and from the same region Matthew was called as he sat at the “receipt of custom,” by the lake, collecting dues levied on fish, fruit, and other produce conveyed by boat to the towns and villages on the margin of the lake.’

(2) ‘When, after a great missionary meeting, the offerings of the people were counted over, among the banknotes, gold, silver, etc., was found a card. “Who put that in? “was asked; and it was discovered that it came from a young man at the back of the assembly. On it was written, “Myself.” That was the young man’s offering—“himself.” It was just this which Levi offered when he obeyed the call of our Lord and, in reality, if not in quite the same way, it is with nothing short of this that we must be satisfied.’

(3) ‘How people do slave for money! The wonder is that they do not see that money is their god when they obey it and slave for it so. If this is not making a god of money I do not know what is. And then having thus slaved and worked

84

for money, whether they have gained much or little, they worship what they have got. Having got it, the next thing is to keep it, except what, like Dives, they spend upon themselves. Any way, it is their god. And it draws off their whole mind and thoughts from all the many duties which God sent us into the world to do. The father of a family is so hard worked in money-getting for his children (as he says) that he cannot find time to attend to bringing them up so as to be good and upright and virtuous. That he must leave to others. He sees less of his own children than any one, and then when they grow up he wonders that they don’t care for him, and he complains that nowadays young people have no respect for their parents. But it is his own fault. He was busy worshipping money when he ought to have been winning his children’s love and respect, and he must reap as he has sown. You cannot serve God and Mammon. It is the same with a man’s other duties. How can a man be a good Christian, devout, prayerful, and God-loving, who makes money-getting his first object in life?’

PETT, "Verse 14‘And as he passed by he saw Levi, the son of Alphaeus, sitting at the place where tolls were collected, and he says to him, “Follow me.” And he arose and followed him.’

This is a simple sentence and yet it contains a multitude of significance. Levi was a man who served the hated ruler Herod Antipas as a local official collecting tolls on his behalf from those who passed along that route, possibly the trade route from Damascus, or perhaps covering imports by sea. For Capernaum was basically a frontier town between the territory of Herod and that of Philip and near the sea shore. Such people were despised. They were considered to be betrayers of the people, for they were dishonest and lined their pockets by mean of extra ‘taxes’ at everyone’s expense. And with their constant contact with Gentiles and sinners they were seen as continually ritually unclean. Overall they were seen as rather unpleasant, and certainly irreligious, people.

Thus when Jesus approached Levi, and called him to follow Him as a disciple, eyes must have been raised. Indeed they must have wondered what Jesus thought He was doing. But Jesus clearly knew the man in one way or another, and had equally clearly been impressed with him. To Him what the man had been was unimportant. What mattered was what he was willing to become. The rich young ruler was a man admired by his contemporaries, but he was not willing to do what Levi did, leave his riches and follow Jesus. And Jesus knew His man.

We are then told simply that Levi arose and followed Him. Given the choice between the service of Herod Antipas and growing riches, and the service of Jesus and poverty, he did not hesitate. He followed the authority of the greater King, the Servant of God. Here was living proof of the presence of God’s powerful reign present in Jesus. That is Mark’s implication. And his action was total. Unlike the others there was no way he could ever go back to his job, and he knew that from the beginning. In one move he risked everything. From Matthew 9:9 we know that he was also called Matthew, possibly a name he received on following Jesus, for in Mark 3:18 Mark himself calls him Matthew. And he used his skills and became the great writer who recorded so much of the teaching of

85

Jesus.

We need not think that this was the first time that they had met. Levi had probably been in the crowds following Jesus and may well have talked with Him and discussed his problems and his searching after truth. Thus Jesus had recognised in him one who was suitable to be an Apostle.

CONSTABLE, ""Levi" was this man's given name whereas Matthew ("gift of God," also Nathanael and Theodore) was a nickname. Matthew used the latter name for himself in his Gospel (Matthew 9:9; cf. Mark 3:18), but Mark and Luke spoke of him by his given name.

". . . in Galilee it was common to have two names-one the strictly Jewish, the other the Galilean. (Talmudic tractate Gittin 34 b)" [Note: Edersheim, 1:514.]"It was not uncommon for a man to receive or assume a new name upon entering a new career." [Note: Hiebert, p. 69.]The Jews despised tax collectors because they worked for the Romans and because they often extorted money for Rome from their fellow Jews. [Note: See. A. W. F. Blunt, The Gospel According to Saint Mark, pp. 155-56.] Levi worked for Herod Antipas since he lived in Capernaum. A major road passed through Capernaum connecting Damascus and the Mediterranean coast. The taxes Levi collected included export and import fees, sales and custom taxes, and various tolls. [Note: Guelich, p. 101.] Levi gave up a lucrative business when he chose to follow Jesus. A fisherman might return to fishing, but a tax collector could not return to his job since many people competed for this work even though it involved social ostracism. Nonetheless Levi responded immediately to Jesus' gracious and authoritative invitation to follow Him.

"When a Jew entered the customs service he was regarded as an outcast from society: he was disqualified as a judge or a witness in a court session, was excommunicated from the synagogue, and in the eyes of the community his disgrace extended to his family." [Note: Lane, pp. 101-2.]The fact that both Levi and James the Less had fathers named Alphaeus does not necessarily mean they were brothers. Apparently they were not. No Gospel writer linked them as they linked Simon and Andrew or James and John. Furthermore Alphaeus was a fairly common name.

BI 14-15, "And as He passed by, He saw Levi, the son of Alphaeus, sitting at the receipt of custom.

The call of Matthew

The story is placed immediately after a miracle, as if to hint that Matthew’s conversion was a miracle. There are points of similarity between the miracle and the conversion. Matthew was spiritually palsied by his sins and his money making; hence he needed the Divine command, “Arise and walk.” There may be points of likeness also between Matthew’s personal story and our own. These may be profitably considered.

I. His call seemed accidental and unlikely.

1. Jesus had often been at Capernaum, which He had selected to be “His own

86

city;” and yet Matthew remained unsaved. Was it likely he would now be called? Had not his day of grace closed?

2. Jesus was about other business; for we read, “As He passed by.” Would He now be likely to call Matthew?

3. Jesus left many other persons uncalled; was it not highly probable that the tax gatherer would be passed by? Yet Jesus called to Himself, “Levi, the son of Alphaeus,” while many another man had no such special call.

II. His call was altogether unthought of and unsought.

1. He was in a degrading business. None but the lowest of the Jews would care to gather taxes for the Roman conqueror. His discipleship would bring no honour to Christ.

2. He was in an ensnaring business. Money is bird lime to the soul.

3. He would not have dared to follow Jesus even if he had wished to do so. He felt himself to be too unworthy.

4. He would have been repulsed by the other disciples, had he proposed to come without the Lord’s open invitation.

5. He made no sign in the direction of Jesus. No prayer was offered by him, nor wish expressed towards better things.

III. His call was given by the Lord, with full knowledge of him. “He saw Levi,” and called him.

1. He saw all the evil that had been in him and was yet there.

2. He saw his adaptation for holy service, as a recorder and penman.

3. He saw all that He meant to make of him.

4. He saw in him His chosen, His redeemed, His convert, His disciple, His apostle, His biographer. The Lord calls as He pleases, but He sees what He is doing. Sovereignty is not blind; but acts with boundless wisdom.

IV. His call was graciously condescending.

1. The Lord called “Levi, the son of Alphaeus,” or, as he himself says, “a man named Matthew,”-that was his best.

2. He was a publican-that may not have been his worst.

3. He allowed such a sinner to be His personal attendant; yea, called him to that honour, saying, “Follow Me.”

4. He allowed him to do this immediately, without putting him into quarantine.

V. His call was sublimely simple.

1. Few were the words-“Follow Me.” It is very tersely recorded-“He saw … said … and he arose and followed Him.”

2. Clear was the direction.

3. Personal was the address.

4. Royal was the command.

VI. His call was immediately effectual.

1. Matthew followed at once.

87

2. He followed spiritually as well as literally.

3. He followed wholly.

4. He followed growingly.

5. He followed ever after, never deserted his Leader.

VII. His call was a door of hope for others.

1. His salvation encouraged other publicans to come to Jesus.

2. His open house gave opportunity to his friends to hear Jesus.

3. His personal ministry brought others to the Saviour.

4. His written Gospel has convinced many, and will always do so.

Application: Are you up to your neck in business? Are you “sitting at the receipt of custom”? Yet may a call come to you at once. It does come. Hear it attentively; rise earnestly; respond immediately. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

Call of Levi

Such as sit at the receipt of custom are hard to be converted; but Jesus manifests His power by doing it with one word alone. Grace disengages Matthew from the love of money, to make him an apostle; the love of money will separate Judas from Christ, to make him an apostate: thus our Lord makes Himself amends beforehand. St. Matthew’s example had no influence on Judas, though perhaps it was Christ’s design to lay it before his eyes. Let us profit by the one as well as the other; and let us, with feat and trembling, adore the different judgments of God in relation to souls. (Quesnel.)

Calls to duty joyful

When the Saviour calls, follow Him gladly. Never regret a duty, or lament a responsibility, or grieve over a sacrifice required. If we were as wise as Matthew, we should celebrate with festive joy every call to duty. (R. Glover.)

The attraction of the Divine call

We read in classic story, how the lyre of Orpheus enchanted with its music, not only the wild beasts, but the very trees and rocks upon Olympus, so that they moved from their places to follow him; so Christ, our heavenly Orpheus, with the music of His gracious speech, draws after Him those less susceptible to benign influences than beasts, and trees, and stones, even poor, hardened, senseless, sinful souls. Let Him but strike His golden harp, and whisper in thy heart, “Come, follow Me,” and thou, like another Matthew, shalt be won.

The call of Levi

Well might he sit down here; for he had a great weight upon him, the burden of his covetousness, and the desires of gold, bred in him by the often traffic he had with it. Gold is heaviest of all metals; but it is made more heavy by covetousness. For it more oppresses the heart of him that loves it, than the back of him that bears it. And where was he sitting? At the receipt of custom. “If it be more blessed to give than to

88

receive,” certainly to be a receiver of extorted oppression from the grudging people must be no happy nor blessed thing. This customhouse was such. The receiving of custom breeds a custom of receiving; and that, a desire still to receive more; which desire worldly men will ever seek to satisfy, though with the oppression of their poor brethren. This made this place and office hateful to the people. “Publicans and sinners” went ever together in their mouths … Christ found him, as he was Levi, the publican; but looked on him, as he was Matthew, the apostle … He called him to an office much more gainful … where he should still be a receiver, and a gainer too; but not, as here, ten or fifteen per centum; but where one should “bring forth thirty, one sixty, one an hundred-fold.” (Wm. Austin.)

God often calls men in strange places

Not in the house of prayer, not in the preaching of the Word; but when all these things have been absent, and all surrounding circumstances have seemed most adverse to the work of grace, that grace has put forth its power. The tavern, the theatre, the gaming house, the race course, and other similar haunts of worldliness and sin, have sometimes been the scene of God’s converting grace. As an old writer says, “Our calling is uncertain in respect of place, for God calls some from their ships, and some from their shops; some from under the hedges, and others from the market; so that, if a man can but make out unto his own soul that he is certainly called, the time when and the place where matter little.”

The call of Levi, or Christ’s voice to the soul

I. That Christ calls men to follow Him.

1. That the call of Christ is antecedent to any human endeavour after Him.

2. That it is often effectively addressed to the most unlikely men.

3. That it is addressed to men when they are occupied with the secular duties of life.

4. That it takes men from the lower duties and sends them to the higher.

II. That Christ’s call to men must be immediately obeyed-“And he arose and followed Him.”

1. That obedience must be immediate.

(1) Not to be hindered by intellectual perplexities.

(2) Not to be hindered by commercial or domestic anxieties.

2. That obedience must be self-sacrificing.

3. That it must be willing.

4. That it must be continuous.

Learn:

1. To heed the calls of Christ to the soul.

2. To subordinate the secular to the moral.

3. That true religion consists in following Christ.

4. That it is well to speak to men for their moral good. (J. S. Exell, M. A.)

89

Matthew the publican

Alas! that the son of a devout, God-fearing Israelite should have fallen so low. Even the outcasts, the sons of Belial, hesitated long before they thus sold themselves to work iniquity. But he had gone freely and voluntarily into the service of the heathen. A father’s stern commands, a mother’s earnest pleadings, the entreaties of a loving sister and the expostulations of manly and pure-hearted brothers, the fair fame of the family, upon whose proud escutcheon no such blot had ever come since the days of their great ancestor, David-all these were of no avail to turn this wayward young man from the evil course he had chosen, and at length his name had been blotted from their record and; to all outward seeming, he was to them as if he had never lived. The neighbours and friends left out his name when they spoke of the children of Kolas (as in Mar_6:3), and at morning and evening prayer no audible petition went up to heaven for the erring and sinful one. But, hardened as he was, and great as was the distress he had given to his family, Levi was not beyond the free grace of the Redeemer of men. Jesus was his cousin, according to the flesh, and though He knew how the hearts of that dear family at Nazareth were breaking with anguish over him as utterly lost, yet He, the Divine Redeemer, did not despair of his recovery from the depth of his degradation and sin. Having loved him with an everlasting love, He would draw him out of the depths by the power of His loving kindness. And so it came to pass that when Jesus had left Nazareth and the home of His youth for busy, bustling Capernaum, because there He could accomplish a more comprehensive and effective work in establishing the kingdom of God on the earth, His eye more than once rested on poor Levi, and He saw that, in spite of his bravado, his sins were making him wretched. And when on that bright summer morning He went from Peter’s house to His work of teaching and healing at the shore of the lake, as He passed the stall or booth where Levi was receiving the tolls and taxes, He said only, “Follow me;” and the tax gatherer, a few moments ago so hardened and brusque, instantly abandoned his books and accounts, his money and receipts, and, rising from his seat, followed Jesus. Nor did he ever return to the base employment he had left. The change of heart and purpose, though apparently instantaneous, was thorough and permanent. One evidence of its thoroughness was manifested in his desire to bring others who had fallen into the same degradation as himself under the gracious influence of Christ’s teachings. “And Levi made Him” (i.e., Christ), says the evangelist Luke, “a great feast in his own house; and there was a great company of publicans and of others that sat down with them.” To these sinful souls our blessed Lord spoke words of forgiveness and pardon, and they became, as St. Mark tells, His followers thenceforward. As for Matthew, he undoubtedly grew in grace, and was restored to the loving favour of his family; for it was, at the farthest, but a very few months later that Jesus chose him as one of the twelve, and with him two, and possibly three of his brothers, the devout and exemplary James the Just being one, and gave him his new name “Matthew,” “The gift of God.” Matthew’s remembrance of his early history and sins seems to have kept him humble, and have prevented him from participating in those unseemly wrangles as to who should be the greatest, in which some of the others indulged; but he was a keen observer, and from the day when he abandoned his publican’s stall to his death he must have felt more profoundly than any of the others the certainty that Jesus was the Son of God as well as the Son of Mary. Some practical lessons:

I. Family pride is not a sufficient preservative against deeds of shame.

II. Has dishonour been brought upon your family name by a prodigal? Do not despair of him. You have a great burden of shame and grief to bear; but do not cease to love the prodigal, to pray for him, to hope for him. He, like St. Matthew, may yet

90

hear and obey the voice of Christ.

1. If you did your best to train him in the way in which he should go, be very sure that the healthful influences by which you surrounded him are still with him, fighting mightily against the degrading influence by which he is now encompassed, and they may yet prevail. Not in vain did you do your duty in regard to him.

2. Ah, but it may be that you cannot recall the days of his boyhood without personal shame. You permitted many things to prevent you from training him duly in godliness and true manliness; the example you set before him was not really ennobling. Well, humble yourself before God, and hope in God for your son as well as for yourself. He may yet yield to the persistent drawings of the Divine love.

III. No man should permit his business or his social surroundings to hinder him from following Christ.

IV. One of the very best evidences of a man’s conversion is a real manifestation of care for the spiritual welfare of these of his own class. (Anon.)

The call of Levi

I. The person called, A publican, etc.

II. The manner in which he is called.

1. Externally-by the Word.

2. Internally-by Christ’s power and Spirit.

3. These two must ever be combined.

III. The manner in which Levi treated the call.

1. He did not disregard it, as many.

2. He did not promise a compliance like others.

3. He instantly obeyed, and is thus an example to all who are called.

IV. The call itself. Christ goes before-

1. To prepare Himself for sympathy.

2. To remove doubts as to the way.

3. To free from oppressive responsibility.

4. To show how we are to walk in the way.

5. To remove obstructions.

6. To be a companion. Are you following Christ? (Expository Discourses.)

The feast of Levi, or the festival of a renewed soul

I. It was a festival held to celebrate the most important event in the history of a soul.

1. It was indicative of joy.

2. It was indicative of gratitude.

91

3. It was indicative of worship. The newly converted soul is characterized by devotion.

II. It was held to introduce to Christ those who were in need of his loving mercy.

1. It was a time for the introduction of sinful companions to Christ.

2. It was a time of leave taking between Levi and his former friends. Not to leave the old life in a hostile spirit.

III. It was a festival too lofty in moral significance to be rightly interpreted by the conventional bigots of the age.

IV. It was a festival beautifully illustrative of Christ’s mission to the world.

1. We see from this festival that Christ came to save the morally sinful.

2. We see from this festival that Christ came to heal the morally diseased.

Lessons:

1. That the life of the renewed soul should be a constant festival of icy.

2. That Christians should endeavour to bring their comrades to the Saviour.

3. That humanity has a Divine Physician. (J. S. Exell, M. A.)

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

BARNES, "Sat at meat in the house - The words “at meat” are not in the original. The phrase means “as he reclined at his meal,” or “as he was eating.” This feast was made by Matthew in honor of the Saviour. See Luk_5:29.

Publicans - See the notes at Mat_5:47.

Sinners - Sinners of abandoned character - of the same character that publicans commonly sustained - fit companions of publicans - great sinners.

There were many - That is, many “disciples.” Their following him, leaving their homes, and going with him from place to place, was proof of their attachment to him. There is no doubt that our Saviour, in the early part of his ministry, was extremely popular. Multitudes of the common people attended him, and gave conclusive evidence that they were his real disciples, and it was only after much opposition from the rich and the great that he ever became unpopular among the people. Perhaps no preacher has ever attracted so universal attention, and produced so decisive effects upon mankind, as did our Lord in his personal ministry.

GILL, "And it came to pass, that as Jesus sat at meat in his house,.... In the house of Levi; not in the custom house, or toll booth, for that he left; but in his house

92

in the city of Capernaum, where he had him, and made an entertainment for him, in token of gratitude, for the high favour bestowed on him:

many publicans and sinners sat also together, with Jesus, and his disciples; being invited by Levi, and not objected to by Christ; See Gill on Mat_9:10.

for there were many, and they followed him; either Christ whom they had observed to have called Matthew, and had heard preach by the sea side; or else Matthew; and so the Persic version renders it, "for many followed Matthew". The Ethiopic version reads the words, "and they were many", that is, publicans and sinners, "and the Scribes and Pharisees followed him"; mentioned in the next verse, from whence it seems to be taken; though true it is, that not only a large number of publicans and sinners followed Christ, but also many of the Scribes and Pharisees; yet with a different view from the former, not to get any advantage to themselves, but, if they could, an advantage against Christ.

HENRY, "III. His familiar converse with publicans and sinners, Mar_2:15. We are here told, 1. That Christ sat at meat in Levi's house, who invited him and his disciples to the farewell-feast he made to his friends, when he left all to attend on Christ: such a feast he made, as Elisha did (1Ki_19:21), to show, not only with what cheerfulness in himself, but with what thankfulness to God, he quitted all, in compliance with Christ's call. Fitly did he make the day of his espousals to Christ a festival day. This was also to testify his respect to Christ, and the grateful sense he had of his kindness, in snatching him from the receipt of custom as a brand out of the burning. 2. That many publicans and sinners sat with Christ in Levi's house (for there were many belonging to that custom-house); and they followed him. They followed Levi; so some understand it, supposing that, like Zaccheus, he was chief among the publicans, and was rich; and for that reason, the inferior sort of them attended him for what they could get. I rather take it, that they followed Jesusbecause of the report they had heard of him. They did not for conscience-sake leave all to follow him, but for curiosity-sake they came to Levi's feast, to see him; whatever brought them thither, they were sitting with Jesus and his disciples. The publicans are here and elsewhere ranked with sinners, the worst of sinners. (1.) Because commonly they were such; so general were the corruptions in the execution of that office, oppressing, exacting, and taking bribes or fees to extortion, and accusing falsely, Luk_3:13, Luk_3:14. A faithful fair-dealing publican was so rare, even at Rome, that one Sabinus, who kept a clean reputation in that office, was, after

his death, honoured with this inscription, Kalōs�telōnēsanti - Here lies an honest

publican. (2.) Because the Jews had a particular antipathy to them and their office, as an affront to the liberty of their nation and a badge of their slavery, and therefore put them into an ill name, and thought it scandalous to be seen in their company. Such as these our blessed Lord was pleased to converse with, when he appeared in the likeness of sinful flesh.

COFFMAN, "His house ... This was the house of Matthew the publican, for he promptly made a feast to which Jesus' whole company of disciples was invited, as well as many of Matthew's friends from among the publicans and sinners of his associates. This feast was an unqualified outrage, as far as the religious hierarchy in Jerusalem was concerned. Of all classes of sinners, the despised collectors of the Roman taxes were the most odious; and here were Jesus and his disciples sitting down to eat with people like that! Having found the priests totally negative in their attitude toward himself, Christ, by such an action as this,

93

moved to take his saving message of eternal life to all men, including the outcasts.

BARCLAY, "WHERE THE NEED IS GREATEST (Mark 2:15-17)2:15-17 Jesus was sitting at a meal in Levi's house, and many tax-collectors and sinners were sitting with Jesus and his disciples, for there were many of them, and they sought his company. When the experts in the law, who belonged to the school of the Pharisees, saw that he was eating in the company of sinners and tax-gatherers, they began to say to his disciples, "It is with tax-collectors and sinners that he is eating and drinking." Jesus heard them. "It is not those who are in good health who need a doctor," he said, "but those who are ill. I did not come to bring an invitation to people who think that they have no faults but to those who know that they are sinners."

Once again Jesus is flinging down the gauntlet of defiance.

When Matthew had yielded himself to Jesus, he invited him to his house. Naturally, having discovered Jesus for himself, he wished his friends to share his great discovery--and his friends were like himself. It could not be any other way. Matthew had chosen a job which cut him off from the society of all respectable and orthodox people, and he had to find his friends among outcasts like himself. Jesus gladly accepted that invitation; and these outcasts of society sought his company.

Nothing could better show the difference between Jesus and the Scribes and Pharisees and orthodox good people of the day. They were not the kind of people whose company a sinner would have sought. He would have been looked at with bleak condemnation and arrogant superiority. He would have been frozen out of such company even before he had entered it.

A clear distinction was drawn between those who kept the law and those whom they called the people of the land. The people of the land were the common mob who did not observe all the rules and the regulations of conventional Pharisaic piety. By the orthodox it was forbidden to have anything to do with these people. The strict law-keeper must have no fellowship with them at all. He must not talk with them nor go on a journey with them; as far as possible, he must not even do business with them; to marry a daughter to one of them was as bad as giving her over to a wild beast; above all, he must not accept hospitality from or give hospitality to such a person. By going to Matthew's house and sitting at his table and companying with his friends Jesus was defying the orthodox conventions of his day.

We need not for a moment suppose that all these people were sinners in the moral sense of the term. The word sinner (hamartolos, Greek #268) had a double significance. It did mean a man who broke the moral law; but it also meant a man who did not observe the scribal law. The man who committed adultery and the man who ate pork were both sinners; the man who was guilty of theft and murder and the man who did not wash his hands the required number of times and in the required way before he ate were both sinners. These guests of Matthew no doubt included many who had broken the moral law and played fast

94

and loose with life; but no doubt they also included many whose only sin was that they did not observe the scribal rules and regulations.

When Jesus was taxed with this shocking conduct his answer was quite simple. "A doctor," he said "goes where he is needed. People in good health do not need him; sick people do; I am doing just the same; I am going to those who are sick in soul and who need me most."

Mark 2:17 is a highly concentrated verse. It sounds at first hearing as if Jesus had no use for good people. But the point of it is that the one person for whom Jesus can do nothing is the person who thinks himself so good that he does not need anything done for him; and the one person for whom Jesus can do everything is the person who is a sinner and knows it and who longs in his heart for a cure. To have no sense of need is to have erected a barrier between us and Jesus; to have a sense of need is to possess the passport to his presence.

The attitude of the orthodox Jews to the sinner was really compounded of two things.

(i) It was compounded of contempt. "The ignorant man," said the Rabbis, "can never be pious." Heraclitus, the Greek philosopher, was an arrogant aristocrat. One called Scythinus undertook to put his discourses into verse so that ordinary unlettered folk might read and understand them. The reaction of Heraclitus was put into an epigram. "Heraclitus am I. Why do ye drag me up and down, ye illiterate? It was not for you I toiled, but for such as understand me. One man in my sight is a match for thirty thousand, but the countless hosts do not make a single one." For the mob he had nothing but contempt. The Scribes and Pharisees despised the common man; Jesus loved him. The Scribes and Pharisees stood on their little eminence of formal piety and looked down on the sinner; Jesus came and sat beside him, and by sitting beside him lifted him up.

(ii) It was compounded of fear. The orthodox were afraid of the contagion of the sinner; they were afraid that they might be infected with sin. They were like a doctor who would refuse to attend a case of infectious illness lest he himself contracted it. Jesus was the one who forgot himself in a great desire to save others. C. T. Studd, great missionary of Christ, had four lines of doggerel that he loved to quote:

"Some want to live within the sound

Of Church or Chapel bell;

I want to run a rescue shop

Within a yard of hell."

The man with contempt and fear in his heart can never be a fisher of men.

PETT, "Verse 15

95

‘And it happened that he was sitting eating food in his house, and many tax collectors and sinners sat down with Jesus and his disciples, for there were many and they followed him.’

As a result Levi invited Jesus and his followers to his home. Among these followers were many tax collectors and sinners who had heard Jesus preaching and had in one way or another responded. ‘Sinners’ was a general term that could refer to those Jews who failed to live in accordance with the dictates of the Pharisees, but could also include those who were involved in deeper sin. Some were simply those who were not careful about avoiding ritual defilement, but others were those who were guilty of grave sins such as adultery or theft (although not necessarily present at Levi’s gathering). All were lumped together by the Pharisees. To share meals with such was looked on by the Pharisees as abhorrent. Such people did not keep themselves ritually clean. Thus Jesus would be seen as courting the possibility of defilement and as mixing with unfit people. We should note that these people were ‘followers’. Jesus was not going ‘partying’. He knew that their hearts were moved and that they were seeking Him.

It would not be true to say that the Pharisees would never welcome such a person. If they repented on their own volition and made the necessary sacrifices and began to maintain the necessary regulations, becoming ‘clean’ and submitting to the authority of the Scribes, they would finally after a considerable period of probation be accepted, but the route was a difficult one and no one took the trouble to seek such people out. The difference with Jesus was that He sought them out and welcomed them immediately. The Pharisees looked at the outward appearance, Jesus considered the sinner’s need and looked at the heart.

‘For there were many and they followed him.’ We must not miss the significance of these important words. These were not just tax collectors and sinners who had come together for a good time, and were joined in it by Jesus. These were tax collectors and sinners who had begun genuinely to ‘follow’ Jesus, that is, to look to Him and respond to His words. Their hearts had been touched and they were there to learn from Him. And there were many of them. Jesus’ influence was widespread even over such as these.

CONSTABLE 15-16, "Eating a meal together meant something in Jesus' world that it does not mean today in the West. Hospitality was a sacred duty in the ancient Near East. When someone invited someone else to eat with him, he was extending a pledge of loyalty and protection to that person. To accept an invitation to dinner implied a willingness to become a close friend of the host. Jesus' acceptance of table fellowship with sinners (i.e., outcasts) conveyed by action the forgiveness that He gave verbally in Mark 2:5. [Note: Guelich, p. 105.]

"It was an offer of peace, trust, brotherhood and forgiveness; in short, sharing a table meant sharing life." [Note: Joachim Jeremias, New Testament Theology, p. 115.]This meal took place in Levi's house (Luke 5:29). Apparently he had a large house that accommodated the throng easily, which indicates that he had some

96

wealth.

Normally the Jews of Jesus' day ate their meals seated. They only reclined on pillows or rugs when special guests were present or for festival meals. [Note: Idem, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, pp. 48-49.] Obviously Levi regarded Jesus' presence with him as a special occasion.

The antecedent of the "them" who followed Jesus is probably the tax gatherers and sinners, though it may be the disciples. The term "the scribes of the Pharisees" occurs nowhere else in the Gospels. These were teachers of the law who belonged to the sect of the Pharisees.

"The Pharisees were progressive, a party among, though not of, the people. Their goal was that Israel should become the righteous nation of the covenant. To this end they taught compliance with the 'tradition of the elders,' an oral code of conduct effectively adapting the law of Moses to later times and changing demands." [Note: Kingsbury, p. 63.]Tax collectors had a bad reputation because they were often dishonest. [Note: J. R. Donahue, "Tax Collectors and Sinners: An Attempt at Identification," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 33 (1971):39-61.] The term "sinners" refers to Jews who did not follow the Pharisees' traditions, as well as worse sinners. Jesus' critics believed that He should not associate with such people if He had a genuine regard for the Old Testament, as they professed to have. To do so risked ceremonial defilement.

". . . the Talmud distinguishes two classes of 'publicans': the tax-gatherer in general (Gabbai), and the Mokhes, or Mokhsa, who was specially the douanier or custom-house official. Although both classes fall under the rabbinic ban, the douanier-such as Matthew was-is the object of chief execration." [Note: Edersheim, 1:515.]

SPURGEON 15-17, "Mark 2:15-17. And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him. And when the scribes and Pharisees saw him eat with publicans and sinners, they said unto his disciples, How is it that he eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners? When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

For ordinary Christians to associate with those who are like the publicans and sinners of Christ’s day, might be dangerous, for “evil communications corrupt good manners;” and Christians should be careful as to the company in which they are found; but for Christians to go amongst such people to try to do them good, is Christlike. The Church of Christ always fails in her duty when she looks upon any class of persons as being beneath her observation, or too far gone for her to reach. Our Lord’s mission was to find out, and to supply the needs of mankind, and he seems to have paid particular attention to the very worst of men because they needed him most; and his Church should always be guided in

97

her choice of work by the necessity of the objects that need her care. And brethren, you and I, who are in the ministry, will do well to choose, not that sphere in which we may be most happy and comfortable, but that one in which we are most needed. If I were a lamp, and had my choice of where I would be hung, I should prefer to be hung up in the darkest place in London, where I could be of most service, and I think that every one of us would make just such a choice if we judged rightly, and desired to be where we were wanted, and to do as the Saviour did when he was on the earth.

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

CLARKE, "Sinners - By #µαρτωλοι, the Gentiles or heathens are generally to be

understood in the Gospels, for this was a term the Jews never applied to any of themselves, See the note on Mat_9:10.

How is it that he eateth - Some very good MSS., several versions, with Chrysostom and Augustin, read, Why doth Your Master eat?

GILL, "And when the Scribes and Pharisees saw him eat,.... They were offended at his eating and drinking, though it was in moderation; because he did not fast as they, and their disciples did; and especially, that he eat

with publicans and sinners; men of very infamous characters, and bad lives, with whom the Pharisees disdained to keep company:

they said unto his disciples, how is it that he eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners? The Vulgate Latin, Arabic, Persic, and Ethiopic versions read, "your master"; see Gill on Mat_9:11; so some Greek copies here.

HENRY, "IV. The offence which the scribes and Pharisees took at this, Mar_2:16. They would not come to hear him preach, which they might have been convinced the edified by; but they would come themselves to see him sit with publicans and sinners, which they would be provoked by. They endeavoured to put the disciples out of conceit with their Master, as a man not of such sanctity and severe morals as became his character; and therefore put the question to them. How is it, that he eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners? Note, It is no new thing for that which is both well-done, and well-designed, to be misrepresented, and turned to the reproach of

98

the wisest and best of men.

SBC, "I. The question which was asked by the scribes and Pharisees is very instructive, for the answer to it illustrates the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ in His work and person. Why was He at all at the feast of Matthew? Because He was and is the Friend of sinners. Here we have one of the most glorious titles of our Lord and Saviour; not merely because, being such as we are, we naturally fix our eyes upon those qualities in Him which meet most directly and consolingly the case of our fallen and wounded nature; not chiefly because, in ancient language, our wants are the real measure of our enthusiasms; but because God’s condescensions reveal His glory even more completely than it is revealed by His magnificence. The magnificence of God is altogether beyond us. By His condescension He places Himself within our powers of, in some degree, understanding Him. His condescension is the visible measure of His love. And thus the glory of His work depends upon and illustrates another glory—the glory of His character. He could—He can—afford to be the Friend of sinners. Purity is fearless where mere respectability is timid; where it is frightened at the whisperings of evil tongues; where it is frightened at the consciousness of inward weakness, if indeed it be only weakness. It was the glory of Christ, as the sinless Friend of sinners, which made Him eat and drink as He did, to the scandal of the Pharisees, in the house of Levi.

II. And the answer to the question of the scribes and Pharisees is a comment on the action and history of the Church of Christ. Of her, too, the complaint has been made, age after age, by contemporary Pharisees, sometimes in ignorance, sometimes in malice—"How is it that she eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners." Like her Lord, the Church has entered into the life of sinful humanity. The idea of a hermit Church—of a Church made up of recluses, such as Donatists—such as some Puritans have imagined, involves nothing less than a sacrifice of the whole plan of Jesus Christ for the regeneration of the world. Still must the Church do what she may for the blessing and improvement of all departments of activity and life. Duty is not less duty because it is dangerous. Precautions and safeguards are near at hand, but she may not cease to eat and drink with publicans and sinners.

III. These words are not without suggestiveness as to the duty and conduct of private Christians. On what terms ought a Christian to consort with those who openly deny the truth of religion, or who live in flagrant violation of its precepts? Here there are two dangers to guard against. (1) On the one hand, we must beware of Pharisaism; that rank weed which so soon springs up in the souls of those who are trying to serve God. (2) On the other hand, we must guard against an appearance or affectation of indifference to the known will of God, whether in matters of faith or conduct.

H. P. Liddon, Penny Pulpit, No. 898.

COFFMAN, "A feast of the size indicated here was probably held in the courtyard of the house, leaving passers-by an opportunity to observe all that was done. For a long while the Pharisees had opposed Jesus; and their cunning and craft were evident in their maneuvers here to open a wedge between the Lord and his disciples.

And when Jesus heard it ... Christ, of course, knew all that was said or even thought by those in his presence; but this seems to indicate that Jesus' disciples immediately told him what the Pharisees had said, or that he perhaps overheard them. At any rate, he promptly answered the objection. See next verse.

99

NISBET, "CONSORTING WITH SINNERS“How is it that He eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners?’Mark 2:16This question, which was asked by the scribes and Pharisees, is very instructive, for the answer to it illustrates the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ in His work and Person.

I. Christ and sinners.—Why was Christ at all at the feast of Matthew? Because He was and is the Friend of sinners. The magnificence of God is altogether beyond us. By His condescension He places Himself within our powers of, in some degree, understanding Him. His condescension is the visible measure of His love. And thus the glory of His work depends upon and illustrates another glory—the glory of His character. He could—He can—afford to be the Friend of sinners. It was the glory of Christ, as the sinless Friend of sinners, which made Him eat and drink as He did, to the scandal of the Pharisees, in the house of Levi.

II. The Church and sinners.—And the answer to the question of the scribes and Pharisees is a comment on the action and history of the Church of Christ. Like her Lord, the Church has entered into the life of sinful humanity. The idea of a hermit Church involves nothing less than a sacrifice of the whole plan of Jesus Christ for the regeneration of the world. Still must the Church do what she may for the blessing and improvement of all departments of activity and life. Duty is not less duty because it is dangerous. Precautions and safeguards are near at hand, but she may not cease to eat and drink with publicans and sinners.

III. The Christian and sinners.—These words are not without suggestiveness as to the duty and conduct of private Christians. On what terms ought a Christian to consort with those who openly deny the truth of religion, or who live in flagrant violation of its precepts? Here there are two dangers to guard against:—

(a) On the one hand, we must beware of Pharisaism, that rank weed which so soon springs up in the souls of those who are trying to serve God.

(b) On the other hand, we must guard against an appearance of indifference to the known will of God, whether in matters of faith or conduct.

—Rev. Canon Liddon.Illustration

‘Duty is not less duty because it is dangerous. When St. Francis Xavier, the “Apostle of the Indies,” proposed to set out on his mission his friends tried by every possible representation of the dangers and hardships involved to deter him from going. He replied, “The most tractable and opulent nations will not want preachers; but this is for me because others will not undertake it. If the country abounded in odoriferous woods and mines of gold, all dangers would be braved in order to procure them. Should merchants, then, be more intrepid than missionaries? Shall these unfortunate people be excluded from the blessings of

100

redemption? Should I be instrumental in the salvation of but one of them, I should think myself well recompensed for all the labours and dangers by which you endeavour to affright me.”’

PETT, "‘And the Scribes of the Pharisees, when they saw that he was eating with the sinners and tax collectors, said to his disciples, “He eats and drinks with tax collectors and sinners”.’

The sight of Jesus eating with tax collectors and sinners offended the Scribes. They were still following Him about in order to observe Him, still upset because of what He had previously said. Now they felt that they had indeed been justified in their views and criticism. He was mixing with the wrong kind of people and showing a lack of concern for ritual cleanliness. Eating with such people was against all that they believed in.

Let us first be fair to them. There was some truth in their attitude that mixing with riffraff and immoral people was not advisable. Such company could lead men into sin and worse. That is common sense. And they had made great efforts to lift themselves above the average man, and did not want to be in danger of being dragged down. But where they failed was in their self-satisfaction and in their failure to recognise the difference between general partying on the one hand, and mixing with such people when they were genuinely seeking spiritual help on the other. Their view was that such people must sort themselves out first, and then acceptance of them could be considered. But until then they must be avoided.

We note that they did not approach Him directly. Possibly they feared His forthright response. Even feared that somehow He might show them up. He seemed so good at doing that. But they could not withhold their condemnation. So they muttered to His disciples. Possibly they hoped to woo them from One Who was so clearly in the wrong.

We note also that these were ‘Scribes of the Pharisees’ (there were also Scribes of the Sadducees and more independent Scribes). And they were almost certainly comparatively local (the Jerusalem Scribes would be called in later - Mark 3:22). They were the local legal experts, well versed in the teachings of the Elders, that oral law that they so prized, which had taken the Law of Moses and added to it hundreds of regulations to ensure that it was properly kept. And they were Pharisees.

There were only about six to seven thousand Pharisees in all. They were generally ‘good living’ men, but often self-righteous, and strove to please God by keeping the hundreds of regulations laid down by their Scribes. By this response to the covenant they hoped to achieve eternal life. They not only accepted the Law of Moses as Scripture, but also the prophets. And they believed in the resurrection from the dead.

The people in general looked up to them and listened to and respected them and their teaching. They taught in the Synagogues and were regularly consulted,

101

especially their Scribes. But as such people will, many of them had begun to feel themselves superior to everyone else. Many of them overlooked the fact that true goodness consists in the attitude of heart and instead concentrated on ‘doing the right thing’, a large part of which consisted of ritual acts such as various washings at different times of the day, careful tithing, and observance to the letter of the traditions of the Elders which were often clever ways of avoiding the force of the Law, ‘making the word of God void through their tradition’ (Mark 7:13). Thus their sense of superiority increased, and the result was that many became hypocritical. They ignored justice and mercy and the central demands of the Law and concentrated on making great demands on people in lesser matters, demands which they could not meet satisfactorily themselves. They often became ultra-critical, separatist and intolerant. And it was of this kind that the opposition to Jesus was mainly made up.

So it was such men who criticised Jesus, men who thought they were on the right track, possibly even almost ‘there’, and who were offended that He did not fully agree with them. That He did observe their general teaching comes out in that they never criticised Him personally for actually breaking their ritual requirements, but what they objected to was the extreme claims that He seemed to be making without their support, and His readiness to proclaim repentance and forgiveness to ordinary people without insisting on all the legal requirements. And now He had added this, that He mixed with and ate with recognised sinners and despised tax collectors. He was keeping bad company.

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

CLARKE, "To repentance - This is omitted by ABDKL, twenty-seven others; both the Syriac, Persic, Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian, Gothic, Vulgate; six copies of the Itala; Euthymius and Augustin. Griesbach has left it out of the text; Grotius, Mill, and Bengel approve of the omission. See on Mat_9:13 (note). I leave it as in the parallel place above quoted. Properly speaking, the righteous cannot be called to repentance. They have already forsaken sin, mourned for it, and turned to God. In the other

parallel place, Luk_5:32, all the MSS. and versions retain µετανοιαν, repentance.

GILL, "When Jesus heard it, he saith to them,.... Christ either overheard what they said to his disciples, or he heard it from the relation of the disciples; and when

102

he did, he turned to the Scribes and Pharisees, and spoke to them the following words:

they that are whole, have no need of the physician, but they that are sick; which seems to be a proverbial expression, signifying that he was a physician; that these publicans and sinners were sick persons, and needed his company and assistance; but that they, the Scribes and Pharisees, were whole, and in good health, in their own esteem, and so wanted no relief; and therefore ought not to take it amiss, that he attended the one, and not the other. These words give a general view of mankind, in their different sentiments of themselves and of Christ; and of the usefulness of Christ to one sort, and not another. There are some that cry up the power of man's freewill, and plead for the strength and purity of human, nature, and extol its excellencies and abilities; and it is no wonder that these see no need of Christ, either for themselves or others: hence preachers of this complexion leave Christ out of their ministry for the most part; and generally speaking, lessen the glory and dignity of his person, depreciate his offices, reject his righteousness, and deny his satisfaction and atonement: and such reckon themselves the favourites of heaven, and are ready to say, whom shall God delight to honour, but us, who are so pure and holy? they therefore trust in their own righteousness, and despise others, and submit not to the righteousness of Christ; they make their own works their saviours, and so neglect the great salvation by Christ. There are others that are sick, and are quite sick of themselves; they see the impurity of their nature, how unsound and unhealthful they are; that from the crown of the head to the sole of the foot, there is no soundness in them, nothing but wounds, bruises, and putrefying sores: their loins are filled with the loathsome disease of sin; they are sensible of their inability to cure themselves, and that no mere creature can help them; and that all besides Christ, are physicians of no value: and therefore they apply to him, whose blood is a balm for every wound, and a medicine for every sickness and disease, and which cleanses from all sin: and whereas such, and such only, see their need of Christ as a physician, these only does he attend under this character; See Gill on Mat_9:12. Adding this as a reason,

I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. These words explain, what is more obscurely and figuratively expressed in the former; it appears from hence, that by "the whole" are meant, "righteous" persons; not such who are made righteous, by the righteousness of Christ imputed to them, but such who were outwardly righteous before men, who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, depended on their own righteousness, and fancied themselves, with respect to the righteousness of the law, blameless; and so, in their own apprehensions, stood in no need of Christ and his righteousness: yea, even needed not repentance, according to their own thoughts of things, and therefore were not called to it, but were left to their own stupidity and blindness; these were the Scribes and Pharisees; and by the "sick", are meant "sinners"; such who are made sensible of sin, and so of their need of Christ as a Saviour; and who have evangelical repentance given them, and are called to the exercise and profession of it: and Christ's calling sinners to repentance, and bestowing that grace, together with the remission of sins, which goes along with it, is doing his work and office as a "physician". This evangelist makes no mention of the passage in Hos_6:6, with which these words are introduced in Matthew. The last words, to "repentance", are omitted by the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, Persic, and Ethiopic versions, and are wanting in some ancient copies; but are retained in the Arabic version, and in most copies, as in Mat_9:13. See Gill on Mat_9:13.

HENRY, "V. Christ's justification of himself in it, Mar_2:17. He stood to what he did, and would not withdraw, though the Pharisees were offended, as Peter

103

afterwards did, Gal_2:12. Note, Those are too tender of their own good name, who, to preserve it with some nice people, will decline a good work. Christ would not do so. They thought the publicans were to be hated. “No,” saith Christ, “they are to be pitied, they are sick and need a physician; they are sinners, and need a Saviour.” They thought Christ's character should separate him from them; “No,” saith Christ, “my commission directs me to them; I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. If the world had been righteous, there had been no occasion for my coming, either to preach repentance, or to purchase remission. It is to a sinful worldthat I am sent, and therefore my business lies most with those that are the greatest sinners in it.” Or thus; “I am not come to call the righteous, the proud Pharisees that think themselves righteous, that ask, Wherein shall we return? (Mal_3:7), Of what shall we repent? But poor publicans, that own themselves to be sinners, and are glad to be invited and encouraged to repent.” It is good dealing with those that there is hope of; now there is more hope of a fool than of one that is wise in his own conceit,Pro_26:12.

COFFMAN, "Jesus' reply was undisguised irony. That assemblage in Matthew's house knew the Pharisees for what they were, proud, arrogant, unscrupulous, hypocritical, ruthless, and thoroughly wicked sons of the devil. Matthew himself was called of God to outline the character of those men in his gospel in order that all future generations would know WHAT KIND OF MEN engineered the chosen people's rejection of their Messiah.

They that are sick ... Indeed, the Pharisees were the sickest people in Jerusalem; and the Lord's suggestion that "the whole" needed no physician must have been greeted with a gale of laughter. Self-righteousness received its justly deserved rebuke.

I came not to call the righteous, but sinners ... Our Lord's mission was to redeem men from sin, and ever prerequisite to that redemption is the consciousness of the sinner that he needs it, that he is condemned, lost, out of fellowship with the Eternal, and utterly unable to merit anything other than the penalty of death due to sin, and that in Jesus Christ alone has man's sufficient sacrifice appeared. In him alone is the hope of cleansing, pardon, and eternal life. Alas, the Pharisees and their associates were never able to see it. Their sins were known to all except themselves; and they were too proud to learn from Jesus.

SIMEON, "THE WHOLE AND THE SICK, THE RIGHTEOUS AND SINNERS, DESCRIBED

Mark 2:17. They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

THERE is no action, however benevolent, which cavillers may not censure. Every part of our Lord’s conduct was worthy of his divine character; yet was he constantly “enduring the contradiction of sinners,” &c. He was now conversing familiarly with publicans for their good. This was condemned by the Scribes as unbecoming a holy person, if not also as giving countenance to sin. Our Lord vindicated himself on principles acknowledged by them.

104

His words contain,

I. A generally established maxim—

Persons desire not a physician unless they be sick. This is true according to its literal import—

[A person in health wishes not for any medical assistance: he would refuse it if it were tendered to him; he would not submit to any regimen that should be prescribed. But they who are diseased are glad to hear of a skilful physician: they will cheerfully put themselves under his direction; and they will follow his prescriptions, that they may obtain a cure.]

It is more particularly so in a figurative sense—

[There is an analogy between sickness and sin: this is a disorder of the soul as that is of the body. A person unconscious of his sinfulness desires not a Saviour; nor will he comply with the self-denying directions given him. But one who feels his lost state longs earnestly for a cure: he delights to hear of Christ, and to make application to him; nor does he esteem any injunction too severe [Note: 1 John 5:3.].]

This being acknowledged, our Lord proceeds to make,

II. An application of it to his own conduct—

The physician’s office leads him to converse with the sick. Our Lord’s work required him to maintain an intercourse with sinners.

There are many who conceive themselves to be “righteous”—

[None are absolutely and perfectly righteous [Note: None by nature, Job 14:4; Job 15:14. None by practice, Romans 3:10; Romans 3:12; Romans 3:23.], but many suppose that their sins are neither great nor numerous. Such were the Scribes and Pharisees whom our Lord addressed [Note: Luke 18:9; Luke 18:11]; and there are many of this description in every age [Note: Proverbs 30:12.].]

Such persons were not so much the objects of our Lord’s attention—

[He “willed indeed that all should come to repentance [Note: 2 Peter 3:9.],” but he knew that they would not receive his offers; they saw no need of the salvation which he came to accomplish; their pride and prejudice unfitted them for receiving it. He therefore bestowed less labour in calling them to repentance.]

But there are many of more ingenuous disposition—

[They are not really more heinous “sinners” than others, but they are made sensible of their guilt and danger. Such was the publican at whose house our

105

Lord was, and such are to be found in every place.]

To call these to repentance was the great object of Christ’s ministry—

[These were prepared, like thirsty ground for the rain; to them he was a welcome messenger; they rejoiced to hear that repentance could profit them; and our Lord delighted to encourage their hopes [Note: Luke 4:18-19.].]

Thus did his conduct accord with the dictates of reason, and with the great ends of his mission.

Infer—

1. The danger of self-righteousness—

[Men feel of themselves the danger of gross sin; but they cannot be persuaded that they will suffer any thing by self-righteousness. But a person who, under dying circumstances, denies his need of help, as effectually destroys himself, as if he drank poison or plunged a dagger to his heart. Deny not then your need of the heavenly Physician; nor think to heal yourselves by any self-righteous methods. You must resemble the publican, if ever you would enjoy his lot [Note: Luke 18:13-14.].]

2. The folly of unbelief—

[We are apt to make the depth of our misery a reason for despondency; but the doubting of the Physician’s power will be as destructive to the soul, as the denying of our need of him. O behold the remedy! Are you sick [Note: Jeremiah 8:22.]?—sinners [Note: 1 Timothy 1:15.]?— lost [Note: Luke 19:10.]? Christ suits his promises to your state; He addresses himself to each [Note: John 5:6.], nor shall any suppliant be disappointed [Note: John 6:37.].]

PETT, "Verse 17‘And when Jesus heard it, he says to them, “Those who are whole do not need a medical doctor, only those who are ill. I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners”.’

When Jesus heard the criticism He went right to the heart of the matter. He told them that He had come to reach sinners wherever they may be found and bring them to repentance. That He was like a doctor who seeks out the sick so as to help them. He was not saying that there actually were some who were so righteous that they did not need His teaching, only that there were some who thought that they were. But rather He was pointing out that His words were for those who had a conscious need, who were aware that they were sick. And those who acknowledged that need would come to Him and find wholeness. It was open to all, including the Pharisees once they were willing to acknowledge their basic need. But in order to fulfil this task He was ready to receive all who would come and to move among them in their sickness. Indeed for the doctor to spurn the sick would be ridiculous.

106

Notice the ‘I’ (included in the verb). Quietly and firmly He was contrasting Himself with the Pharisees and indeed with all men. And as such He had especially ‘come’. Thus for those who would see it His words went deeper than is at first apparent, for by putting Himself forward as the physician of the people He was aligning Himself with God. In Jeremiah 30:17 it was God Who says, “I will restore health to you and will heal you of your wounds, says the Lord, because they have called you an outcast, saying It is Zion whom no man seeks after.” In the same way Jesus came, seeking after those who were called outcasts, and with the same intention to restore them to health, aligned Himself directly with God in His actions. He was Himself acting as the divine Physician. For was it not God Himself Who said in Exodus 15:26, “I am the Lord Who heals you.”

God was portrayed as the Great Physician, and it was to Him that the Psalmist said, “I said, Oh Lord, have mercy on me, heal my soul for I have sinned against you” (Psalms 41:4). For He is the God Who is the healer of those with a humble and contrite spirit (Isaiah 57:15-19). And that is precisely what Jesus was intending to do here, to heal the souls of those who were repentant and who sought God. He was here on earth doing God’s healing work for sinners. And He could say, “I have come (as a doctor) not to call the righteous, but sinners”, thus aligning Himself with God as the Great Physician. He saw in these people those who said, “Come and let us return to the Lord. For He has torn us and He will heal us. He has smitten and He will bind us up” (Hosea 6:1). (Notice that Hosea 6:2 may well be behind His claim that He would be raised on the third day and Hosea 6:6 is quoted by Him against the Pharisees in Matthew 9:13. This was clearly a passage that He knew well and often applied to His ministry, which may well suggest that He had it in mind here).

Notice that this passage in Mark ends on this statement. This is its great climax. Mark is not at this point interested in the response made to His words. It is the words themselves, and what they have to say to his readers, that matter.

CONSTABLE, "Self-righteous people such as these Pharisees saw no need for true righteousness because they viewed themselves as righteous. However the people the Pharisees labeled "sinners" represented real sinners, those lacking righteousness. Jesus said He spent time with sinners because they were the people who felt a need for what He had to offer, namely, spiritual healing. He was evidently modifying a well-known proverb. Jesus was using the terms "righteous" and "sinners" ironically here.

"It would be true to say that this word of Jesus strikes the keynote of the Gospel. The new thing in Christianity is not the doctrine that God saves sinners. No Jew would have denied that. It is the assertion 'that God loves and saves them as sinners.' ... This is the authentic and glorious doctrine of true Christianity in any age." [Note: Hunter, pp. 40-41.]"The specific reference in Mark 2:17 to Jesus' call of sinners to the Kingdom suggests that the basis of table-fellowship was messianic forgiveness, and the meal itself was an anticipation of the messianic banquet." [Note: Lane, p. 106. Cf. Matthew 8:10-11; and Revelation 3:20; 19:6-9.]

107

This verse is a fine summary statement of Jesus' mission during His earthly ministry. It is one of only two sayings in Mark in which Jesus expressed His purpose in coming (cf. Mark 10:45). Here He presented Himself as the Healer, a divine title in the Old Testament (Exodus 15:26).

BI, "They that are whole have no need of the physician.

For whom is the gospel meant?

I. Even a superficial glance at our Lord’s mission suffices to show that His work was for the sinful. His descent into the world implied that men needed deliverance. The bearing of the gospel covenant is towards guilty men. His mission is described as one of mercy and grace. The gospel turns its face always towards sin. The gospel has always found its greatest trophies amongst the most sinful. To whom else could it look?

II. The more closely we look the more clear this fact becomes. Christ came that He might be a sin bearer. The gifts of the gospel, such as pardon and justification, imply sin. The great deeds of our Lord, such as His death, resurrection, and ascension, all bear upon sinners.

III. It is our wisdom to accept the situation. The very best thing you can do, since the gospel looks towards sinners, is to get where the gospel looks. You will then be in your right place. This is the safest way to obtain the blessing. This is a place into which you can get directly.

IV. This doctrine has a great sanctifying influence. It changes the sinner’s thoughts of God. It inspires, melts, enlivens, and inflames him. It deals a deadly blow at his self-conceit. It produces a sense of gratitude. It makes him ready to forgive others. It becomes the very soul of enthusiasm. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

Christ’s treatment of sinners

I. Sinners in their natural state have need of repentance. This duty is often urged in Scripture (Isa_55:7; Mat_3:8; Act_2:38).

1. Without repentance none can be saved.

2. Let all, therefore, lay held on it without delay.

II. Sinners cannot repent of themselves. They must be called to it by Christ.

III. One main end of Christ’s coming into the world was to call and convert sinners, and bring them to repentance.

1. This should encourage sinners to come to Christ by faith, and by true repentance and humiliation for their sins, in hope of mercy and pardon. Since He came for this purpose, He will not reject any who accept His invitation and hearken to His call.

2. How excellent a work it must he-since Christ Himself came to begin it-to be the means of converting sinners, and drawing them to repentance. This is not merely the duty of ministers: all Christians may take part in it.

3. If Christ came to call sinners to repentance, then He did not come to give liberty to any to live in sin, or to commit sin. Repentance is the beginning of a new life-a life of emancipation from the power as well as the penalty of sin. (G. Petter.)

108

All the lessons of this word could not be even named here, but these are certainly in it.

I. Sin is sickness of the worst kind.

II. Repentance and forgiveness are the healing of the soul.

III. Christ is the soul’s Physician, skilled to heal all its diseases.

IV. The more grave our case is, the more eager Jesus is to cure it. What should we have done had this not been the ease? Happily He still stoops to closest, tenderest fellowship with sinners. He pities most the guiltiest, and is ever nearest to the neediest. (R. Glover.)

Christ’s call

I. Christ came not to call the righteous.

1. Because there were no righteous to call.

2. Because if there had been they would not have needed calling.

II. He came to call sinners.

1. All sinners.

2. Especially those conscious of their sins.

III. He came to call to repentance. His call is not an absolute call to the privileges of the sons of God, but to the fulfilment of a condition-repent, and believe. (Anon.)

Wretchedness a plea for salvation

On entering a ragged school you see a boy who can spell his way through a Bible-once a sealed book to him; he knows now of a Saviour, of whom once he had never heard the name. Clean, sharp, intelligent, bearing an honest air with him, he bespeaks your favour. But were these his passport to the asylum? No. He was adopted not for the sake of these, but notwithstanding the want of them. It was his wretchedness that saved him; the clean hands, and the rosy cheeks, and all that won our favour, are the results of that adoption. (Dr. Guthrie.)

The spirit in which to seek salvation

On one occasion, when the late Duke of Kent expressed some concern about the state of his soul in the prospect of death, his physician endeavoured to soothe his mind by referring to his high respectability and his honourable conduct in the distinguished situation in which Providence had placed him; but he stopped him short, saying, “No; remember, if I am to be saved, it is not as a prince, but as a sinner.”

The sinner’s hope

A Hottentot of immoral character, being under deep conviction of sin, was anxious to know how to pray. He went to his master, a Dutchman, to consult with him; but his master gave him no encouragement. A sense of his wickedness increased, and he had

109

no one near to direct him. Occasionally, however, he was admitted with the family at the time of prayer. The portion of Scripture which was one day read was the parable of the Pharisee and publican. While the prayer of the Pharisee was read, the poor Hottentot thought within himself, “This is a good man; here is nothing for me;” but when his master came to the prayer of the publican-“God, be merciful to me, a sinner”-“This suits me,” he cried; “now I know how to pray.” With this prayer he immediately retired, and prayed night and day for two days, and then found peace. Full of joy and gratitude he went into the fields, and, as he had no one to whom he could speak, he exclaimed, “Ye hills, ye rocks, ye trees, ye rivers, hear what God has done for my soul! He has been merciful to me, a sinner.”

The great Physician and His patients

This was Christ’s apology for mingling with the publicans and sinners when the Pharisees murmured against Him. He triumphantly cleared Himself by showing that, according to the fitness of things, He was perfectly in order. He was acting according to His official character. A physician should be found where there is work for him to do, etc.

I. Mercy graciously regards sin as disease. It is more than disease, but mercy leniently and graciously chooses to view it as such. It is justified in such a view, for almost everything that may be said of deadly maladies may be said of sin.

1. Sin is an hereditary disease. The taint is in our blood, etc.

2. Sin, like sickness, is very disabling. It prevents our serving God. We cannot pray or praise God aright, etc. There is not a single moral power of manhood which sin has not stripped of its strength and glory.

3. Sin also, like certain diseases, is a very loathsome thing.

4. Fearfully polluting. Everything we do and think of grows polluted through our corruption.

5. Contagious. A man cannot be a sinner alone. “One sinner destroyeth much good.”

6. Very painful; and yet, on the other hand, at certain stages it brings on a deadness, a numbness of soul, preventing pain. Most men are unconscious of the misery of the fail. But when sin is really discerned, then it becomes painful indeed. Oh, what wretchedness was mine before I laid hold on Christ.

7. It is deep seated, and has its throne in the heart. The skill of physicians can often extract the roots of disease, but no skill can ever reach this. It is in its own nature wholly incurable. Man cannot cure himself. Jehovah Rophi the healing Lord, must manifest His omnipotent power.

8. It is a mortal disease. It kills not just now, but it will kill ere long.

II. It pleases Divine mercy to give to Christ the character of a Physician. Jesus Christ never came into the world merely to explain what sin is, but to inform us how it can be removed. As a Physician Christ is-

1. Authorised.

2. Qualified. He is, experimentally as well as by education, qualified in the healing art.

3. Has a wide practice.

4. His cures are speedy, radical, sure. His medicine is Himself. O Blessed

110

Physician for this desperate disease!

III. That need is that alone which moves our gracious Physician to come to our aid. His Saviourship is based upon our sinnership. Need, need alone, is that which quickens the Physician’s footsteps.

IV. It follows therefore, and the text positively asserts it, that the whole-that those who have no great need, no need at all-will be unaided by Christ.

V. It follows, then, that those who are sick shall be helped by Jesus. Are you sick, sinful, etc.? He loves to save. He can save the vilest. Trust Him. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

The Healer of souls

It is one of the most remarkable facts in the life of our Lord that He was obliged repeatedly to defend Himself for loving the sinful. It is a fact by which we may measure the usual progress of the world under the influence of Christian civilization. Now, philanthropy is generally practised and held in high esteem. Yet we do Christ’s censors injustice by looking on them as rare monsters of inhumanity. They were simply men whose thoughts and sympathies were dominated by the spirit of their age. For the love of the sinful was a new thing on the earth, whose appearance marked the beginning of a new era, well called the era of grace. Never was apology more felicitous or successful-Christ was a Physician. The defence is simple and irresistible.

I. That Christianity is before all things a religion of redemption. If such be its character, then to be true to itself Christianity cannot afford to be nice, dainty, disdainful, but must lay its healing hand on the most repulsive. Rabbinism may be exclusive, but not the religion of redemption. It is bound to be a religion for the masses. Christ is not merely an ethical Teacher, or Revealer of Divine mysteries; He is, in the first place, a Redeemer, only in the second the Revealer.

II. That Christianity is the religion of hope. It takes a cheerful view of the capabilities and prospects of man even at his worst. It believes that he can be cured. In this hopefulness Christianity stood alone in ancient times. It needed the eye of a more than earthly love, and of a faith that was the evidence of things not seen, to discern possibilities of goodness even in the waste places of society. The Church must have the Physician’s confidence in His healing art; she must be inventive. She must have sympathy with people for their good. She must not frown on the zeal of those who would try new experiments.

III. Christianity is fit and worthy to be the universal religion. (A. B. Bruce, D. D.)

The sickness-the Physician

I. The sickness spoken of.

1. The likeness between the sickness of the body and that of the soul. As sickness is a disordered body, so is sin a precious soul all in disorder. Sickness of body, not healed, will kill the body. Sin, not healed, not pardoned, will kill the never-dying soul. Or, take any of the particular diseases which Christ healed on the earth, and see the likeness in them. He healed madness. Sin is madness-flying in the face of God. He healed fevers. Sin is a lever-consuming, burning the soul. He healed palsies. Sin is a palsy-laying the soul prostrate. He healed leprosy. Sin is a leprosy-very foul and loathsome. He healed deafness, blindness. The sinner is

111

deaf, blind-deaf to the voice of God and of his own conscience-blind to all it most concerns him to see-to himself, God, Christ.

2. Well, sin is like disease; but see the difference: sickness is usually one disease. Sin is all diseases in one-the madness, the fever, the deafness, all in one! Men wish to be free of sickness of body. Alas! they do not wish to be free of sin, the disease of the soul. Sickness is disease; sin is crime-sin.

II. The glorious Physician.

1. Let me say of Him-there is no other. If you are sick in body you have a choice of physicians. But for the terrible sickness of sin none but Christ-“Neither is there salvation in any other,” etc. There needs no other.

2. That He knows our whole case, our whole disease, and so is able to deal with it. Other physicians have often to work in the dark. They are uncertain what the disease is, and, if they know, may be unable to heal.

3. That He is unspeakably tender. What else but love could have brought Him into this leprous world?

4. That He is a mighty, all-skilful Physician.

5. That He is a faithful Physician. He will not skin over your wound and say that it is healed-“A new heart also will I give you.”

6. He is a Physician very near at hand-“A very present help in trouble.” (C. J. Brown, D. D.)

Christ calling sinners to repentance

The call of St. Matthew the occasion of these words.

I. The observations naturally arising from the several particular expressions made use of in the text.

1. That sin is to the soul what disease or sickness is to the body.

2. That repentance is not an original and primary duty of religion, only of secondary intention, and of consequential obligation. The original duty of all rational creatures is to obey the commandments of God, and such as have always lived in obedience are not obliged to the duty of repentance. It applies to those who have sinned. It is a privilege to them to be permitted to perform it (Act_11:18). There is a repentance to which even the best of men are continually obliged. But this is not that repentance to which our Saviour came to call sinners.

3. The just and sharp reproof contained in this answer to the hypocritical Pharisees.

II. The general doctrine of repentance as here laid down by our Lord. The design of His preaching was to call sinners to repentance. (S. Clarke, D. D.)

Moral sickness

For as the natural health of the body consists in this: that every part and organ regularly and duly performs its proper function; and, when any of these are disordered or perverted in their operations, there ensues sickness and diseases: so likewise, with regard to the spiritual or moral state of the mind and soul; when every

112

faculty is employed in its natural and proper manner, and with a just direction to the end it was designed for; when the understanding judges of things according to reason and truth, without partiality and without prejudice; when the will is in its actions directed by this judgment of right, without obstinacy or wilfulness; and when the passions in their due subordinate station, and the appetites under the government of sober intention, serve only to quicken the execution of what reason directs: then is the mind of man sound and whole; fit for all the operations of a rational creature, fit for the employments of a virtuous and religious life. On the contrary, the abuse or misemployment of any of these faculties, is the disease or sickness of the soul. And when they are all of them perverted, totally and habitually, by a general corruption and depravation of manners; then, as the body, by an incapacity of all its organs for the uses of natural life, dies and is dissolved; so the man in his moral capacity, by an habitual neglect and dislike of all virtuous practices, becomes (as the Scripture elegantly expresses it) dead in trespasses and sins. And as, in bodily diseases, some are more dangerous, and more likely to prove mortal, than others; in which sense our Saviour says concerning Lazarus, “This sickness is not unto death” (Joh_11:4); so, in the spiritual sense, the same apostle St. John, in his First Epistle, speaks of sins, which, according as there be any or no hope of men recovering from them, either are or are not unto death (1Jn_5:16). (S. Clarke, D. D.)

Christ came to call the sinner

Christ came to call not the righteous, but sinners to repentance. The schoolmaster does not gather the finest scholars in the country into his school, and try to teach them; he takes those who know little or nothing and educates them. The gardener does not bind up the strong, hardy plants; it is those that are weak and slender, those that have been broken down by the wind, that he trains to the pole or to the wall. It is the sick people, not the well people, who need the physician. No one can be too great a sinner to be beyond the need of Jesus; it was to save sinners that Jesus came. (The Sunday School Times.)

The value and capability of sinful man

By going to the lowest stratum of human nature, Christ gave a new idea of the value of man. He built a kingdom out of the refuse of society. To compare small things with great, it has been pointed out by Lord Macaulay that in an English cathedral there is an exquisite stained window which was made by an apprentice out of the pieces of glass which had been rejected by his master, and it was so far superior to every other in the church, that, according to tradition, the envious artist killed himself with vexation. All the builders of society had rejected the “sinners,” and made the painted window of the “righteous.” A new Builder came; His plan was original, startling, revolutionary; His eye was upon the condemned material; He made the first last, and the last first, and the stone which the builders rejected, He made the headstone of the corner. He always especially cared for the rejected stone. Men had always cared for the great, the beautiful, the “righteous”; it was left for Christ to care for “sinners.” (Dr. Parker.)

Christ an authorised Physician

When a physician presents himself, one of the first inquiries is, “Is he a regular practitioner? Has he a right to practise? Has he a diploma?” Very properly, the law

113

requires that a man shall not be allowed to hack our bodies and poison us with drugs at his own pleasure without having at least a show of knowing what he is at. It has been tartly said that “a doctor is a man who pours drugs, of which he knows little, into a body of which he knows still less.” I fear that is often the case. Still a diploma is the best safeguard mortals have devised. Christ has the best authority for practising as a Physician. He has a Divine diploma. Would you like to see His diploma? I will read you a few words of it: it comes from the highest authority, not from the College of Physicians, but from the God of Physicians. Here are the words of it in the sixty-first chapter of Isaiah - “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek. He hath sent me to bind up the broken hearted.” He has a diploma for binding up broken hearts. I should not like to trust myself to a physician who was a mere self-dubbed doctor, who could not show any authorization; I must have him know as much as a man can know, little as I believe that will probably be. He must have a diploma; it must be signed and sealed too, and be in a regular manner, for few sensible men will risk their lives with ignorant quacks. Now Jesus Christ has His diploma and there it is-God hath sent Him to bind up the broken-hearted. The next thing you want in a physician is education; you want to know that he is thoroughly qualified; he must have walked the hospitals. And certainly our Lord Jesus Christ has done so. What form of disease did He not meet with? When He was here among men it pleased God to let the devil loose, in order that there might be more than usual venom in the veins of poor diseased manhood: and Christ met the devil at his darkest hour and fought with the great enemy when he had full liberty to do his worst with Him. Jesus did, indeed, enter into the woes of men. Walked the hospital! Why the whole world was an infirmary, and Christ the one only Physician, going from couch to couch, healing the sons of men. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

Christ a competent Physician

His cures are very speedy-there is life in a look at Him; His cures are radical-He strikes at the very centre of the disease, and hence His cures are very sure and certain. He never fails, and the disease never returns. There is no relapse where Christ heals; no fear that one of His patients should be but patched up for a season, He makes a new man of him; a new heart also does He give him, and a right spirit does He put within him. He is a Physician, one of a thousand, because He is well-skilled in all diseases. Physicians generally have some specialite. They may know a little about almost all our pains and ills, but there is usually one disease which they have studied the most carefully, one part of the human frame whose anatomy is as well-known to them as the rooms and cupboards of their own house. Jesus Christ has made the whole of human nature His specialite. He is as much at home with one sinner as with another sinner and never yet did He meet with an out-of-the-way case that was out of the way to Him. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

TODAY IN THE WORD, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners. - Mark 2:17

TODAY IN THE WORD

The United States government is based on an intricate, three-way balance of power set up in our Constitution. Congress is responsible to make the laws, the President to enforce them, and the Supreme Court to interpret them.

114

Theoretically, each branch of government has its own set of powers, as well as a way to hold the other branches accountable. This is called a system of 'checks and balances.' While each part of the government has authority, no single part has absolute power.

God's authority, on the other hand, is absolute. No one holds Him accountable, there is no need for 'checks and balances,' because He is perfect.

When Jesus appeared on earth wielding the authority of God, He amazed and offended those who thought of Him as merely human. In fact, we could say that the Gospel of Mark is the story of Jesus revealing His divine identity and authority bit by bit until the evidence is overwhelming.

We find an example of this in the case of the paralytic. When friends lowered the paralytic through the roof into the room where Jesus was speaking, everyone expected a physical healing. And Jesus did heal the man, but first He forgave the man's sins. The teachers of the law understood that, in doing this, Jesus was claiming God's authority after all, only God can forgive sins but they could say nothing in the face of Jesus' self-evident power.

The religious leaders already opposed Jesus at this early time in His ministry. He was criticized for eating meals with sinners, a gesture of intimate fellowship to which no Pharisee would stoop. Jesus, on the other hand, had come to search out and save those who were lost.

The Pharisees also complained that Jesus' disciples didn't fast. To this, Jesus responds that His coming is a reason for rejoicing, not grieving (v. 19), though even this early He is hinting that He will be taken away before too long (v. 20). The Divine Bridegroom had arrived, but the Pharisees refused to recognize His identity or authority.

TODAY ALONG THE WAY

Studying any of the four Gospels takes us back to the basics. How? As Christians we are to be 'little Christs' and what better source of information than a biography of Christ? In studying the life of our Lord we find a pattern for our own lives.

In this spirit, we'd like to suggest that you keep a running list of the attributes of Christ observed during this month's study. For example, from today's reading you might jot down 'healer,' 'authority from God,' or 'cares for spiritual needs,' among other possibilities. Add to your list with each day's reading.

115

By the end of the month, you'll have a list of qualities from Jesus' life that is sure to challenge you to more Christ-like living.

TODAY IN THE WORD, "When you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, so that it will not be obvious to others that you are fasting. Matthew 6:17–18

The Bible is full of references to God’s people fasting. In the Old Testament the word fast is taken from the Hebrew word sum, meaning “to cover” the mouth; in the New Testament it comes from the Greek word nesteuo, meaning “to abstain.” In all cases, it meant to go without eating and drinking for spiritual reasons. Sometimes it was a form of lament, sometimes it was a physical way of pleading for God’s help in times of turmoil, sometimes it was a way to commemorate God’s actions on their behalf.

Today’s passage underscores the overarching reason God’s people fast: to draw near to God.

In verse 18 it’s noted that both the Pharisees and John the Baptist’s disciples were fasting, whereas Jesus’ followers were not fasting. Jesus says, in essence, I am already here so my followers don’t need to fast. In contrast, because they didn’t recognize God the Son, the others were leaning toward God the Father, fasting in an attempt to bridge the distance.

Jesus seems to affirm the practice of fasting in order to draw near to God when He says that His followers will fast in the future once He is no longer with them. “But the time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them, and on that day they will fast” (v. 20).

J. I. Packer likens fasting to clearing your schedule to spend time with a friend. He writes, “When friends need to be together, they will cancel all other activities in order to make that possible. There’s nothing magical about fasting. It’s just one way of telling God that your priority at that moment is to be alone with him, sorting out whatever is necessary, and you have cancelled the meal, party, concert, or whatever else you had planned to do in order to fulfill that priority.”

Apply the Word

Fasting has become a popular activity for those who recognize its health benefits even apart from any spiritual benefits. In this environment, it can be tempting to conflate dieting with intimacy with God. But Packer notes that we can fast from anything. “If we love music and decide to miss a concert in order to spend time with God, that is fasting.”!

116

Jesus Questioned About Fasting

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

BARNES, "And the disciples of John and of the Pharisees used to fast -Were accustomed often to fast. Compare Luk_5:33; Luk_18:12.

And they come and say - The disciples of John come, Mat_9:4.

CLARKE, "Why do the disciples of John and of the Pharisees fast - See this largely explained on Mat_9:14 (note), etc. The following vices are very common to Pharisees.

1. They are more busied in censuring the conduct of others than in rectifying their own.

2. They desire that every one should regulate his piety by theirs; and embrace their particular customs and forms of devotion.

3. They speak of and compare themselves with other people, only that they may have an opportunity of distinguishing and exalting themselves.

On the nature, times, and duration of fasting, see Mat_6:16; Mat_9:15.

GILL, "And the disciples of John and of the Pharisees used to fast,.... Or "were fasting"; perhaps that very day, and so were the more displeased at this entertainment, Matthew had made for Christ and his disciples, and at their being at it; or fasting was usual with them: they fasted often, both John's disciples, and the disciples of the Pharisees, or the Pharisees themselves; so the Vulgate Latin reads: of their frequent fasting; see Gill on Mat_9:14,

and they came: both the disciples of John, Mat_9:14, and the Scribes and Pharisees, Luk_5:30,

and say unto him, why do the disciples of John and of the Pharisees fast, but thy disciples fast not? See Gill on Mat_9:14.

HENRY, "Christ had been put to justify himself in conversing with publicans and sinners: here he is put to justify his disciples; and in what they do according to his will he will justify them, and bear them out.

117

I. He justifies them in their not fasting, which was turned to their reproach by the Pharisees. Why do the Pharisees and the disciples of John fast? They used to fast, the Pharisees fasted twice in the week (Luk_18:12), and probably the disciples of John did so too; and, it should seem, this very day, when Christ and his disciples were

feasting in Levi's house, was their fast-day, for the word is nēsteuousi - they do fast,

or are fasting, which aggravated the offence. Thus apt are strict professors to make their own practice a standard, and to censure and condemn all that do not fully come up to it. They invidiously suggest that if Christ went among sinners to do them good,as he had pleaded, yet the disciples went to indulge their appetites, for they never knew what it was to fast, or to deny themselves. Note, Ill-will always suspects the worst.

JAMIESON, "Mar_2:18-22. Discourse on fasting. ( = Mat_9:14-17; Luk_5:33-39).

See on Luk_5:33-39.

SBC, "A Word from Jesus on Fasting.

Fasting, in its essence, is the restraint of self in respect of lower appetite, with special reference to abstinence from that which nourishes the body. Its advantages Jesus Christ never denied; indeed He availed Himself of them for forty days in the wilderness. Even the Pagans understood something of them. For example, the third day in the festival of the Eleusinian mysteries was a fast-day, and every supplicant at the oracle of Trophonius fasted twenty-four hours before he was prepared to receive the answer. During our Lord’s days fasts were numerous, every Monday and Thursday being observed by the Essenes and the stricter Pharisees. He did not approve them, nor disapprove them, by any distinct declaration, but He very decidedly protested against the enforcement of them by any extraneous authority. He ordained, in short, that none were to regulate the piety of others by the rules which they might fairly make for themselves. It is to be feared that in this respect His law has often been violated. Coming now to a more close exposition of the text, we discern in it the four following truths:—

I. Hypocrisy is here condemned. We do not mean that John’s disciples were guilty of this sin. Our Lord did not, for a moment, imply that they were hypocrites; but He did imply that His own disciples would be if they joined outwardly in a fast which was untrue to their own feeling. Hopeful and jubilant in the presence of their Lord, they could not fast, for the Bridegroom was with them.

II. Ritualism is here rebuked. By ritualism we mean putting external religious ceremonies in the place of spiritual acts of worship. During our Lord’s ministry ritualism was rife. Customary observances had gradually usurped the place of vital religion with multitudes. Sacrifices were offered with no sense of guilt; washings were frequent even to absurdity, but they did not express conscious uncleanness of soul; alms were profusely given, yet without any stirring of generosity or pity; and fasts were observed without any humiliation of soul before God. It is in accordance with the whole doctrine of Christ that He declares here that fasting is not a rite of any value in itself.

III. Freedom is here proclaimed. The law you have no right to impose on others; you may be called upon to make a rule for yourself.

IV. Joyousness is here inculcated as the prevailing characteristic of the Christian life. It is not a joy which arises from the pleasant circumstances of life, or from a happy

118

and equable disposition, but from the assurance that Christ as your Saviour died for you.

A. Rowland, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xx., p. 121.

References: Mar_2:18.—G. E. L. Cotton, Sermons and Addresses in Marlborough College, p. 57. Mar_2:18-20.—J. S. Exell, Christian World Pulpit,vol. ix., p. 207; Homiletic Quarterly, vol. vi., p. 13.

Mark 2:18-22

I. There should be differences between Jesus Christ’s disciples and the disciples of all other men. It is noticeable how soon these differences were detected by the critics of the day. The differences should be as broadly marked now as they were in the days of Jesus Christ’s visible ministry.

II. These differences should find their explanation in Jesus Christ, not in the expression of the disciples themselves. Jesus Christ takes upon Himself the responsibility of determining the public attitude of His disciples.

III. The illustration about pieces of cloth and the different wines shows the perfect uniqueness of Christianity. There is to be no patching, there is to be no compromising; Christianity is to have a distinctiveness and speciality of its own.

Parker, City Temple, 1871, p. 59.

COFFMAN, "The Pharisees were up to their old tricks, trying to cause trouble for Jesus. Here. the strategy was designed to open a breach between the disciples of John the Baptist and those of Jesus.

Thy disciples fast not ... This was equivalent to "You are not in style! John the Baptist's disciples and the Pharisees are fasting, so what about you?"

The Lord replied to their objection with a triple parable: (1) new cloth on old garment, (2) new wine-skins for new wine, and (3) drinkers of old wine care not for new wine. Only Luke gave the full parable (Luke 5:33-39).

BURKITT, "Observe here, 1. A great difference betwixt John's disciples and Christ's in the matter of fasting. John's disciples imitated him, who was a man of an austere life, and much given to fasting; therefore he is said to come neither eating nor drinking, Matthew 11:18.

On the other side, Christ's disciples follow him, who came eating and drinking, as other men did; and yet, though there was a great difference betwixt John's disciples and Christ's in matters of practice, they were all of one faith and religion.

Thence learn, That there may be unity of faith and religion among those who do not maintain an uniformity in practice. Men may differ in some outward religious observances and customs, and yet agree in the fundamentals of faith and religion. Thus did John's disciples and Christ's; the one fasted often, the

119

other fasted not.

Observe, 2. In that the disciples of the Pharisees used to fast as well as John's disciples, we may learn, That hypocrites and wicked men may be, and sometimes are, as strict and forward in the outward duties of religion, as the holiest and best of christians; they pray, they fast, they hear the word, they receive the sacraments: they do, yea, it may be, they outdo and go beyond, the sincere christian in external duties and outward performances.

Observe, 3. The defensative plea which our blessed Saviour makes for the not fasting of his disciples; he declares that it was neither suitable to them, nor tolerable for them, thus to fast at present. Not suitable, in regard of Christ's bodily presence with them. This made it a time of joy and rejoicing, not of mourning and fasting.

Christ is the Bridegroom, and his church the bride; whilst therefore his spouse did enjoy his bodily presence with her, it was a day of joy and rejoicing to her, and mourning and fasting were improper for her. But when Christ's bodily presence shall be removed, there will be cause enough to fast and mourn.

Again, this discipline of fasting was not at present tolerable for the disciples; for they were raw, green, and tender, not fit for austerities; nor could bear as yet the severities of religion, no more than an old garment could bear a piece of new stiff cloth to be set into it, which will make the rent worse, if the garment comes to a stretch; or no more than old bottles can keep new wine.

As if our Saviour had said, "My disciples at present are tender and weak, newly called and converted; they cannot therefore bear the severities of religion presently; but ere long I shall leave them, and go to heaven, from whence I will send down the Holy Spirit upon them, which shall enable them to do all the duties which the gospel enjoins.

Now the intended lesson of instruction from hence is this, That it is hurtful and dangerous for young converts, for weak christians, to be put upon the severer exercises of religion, or to be urged to the performance of such duties as are above their strength. But they ought to be handled with that tenderness which becomes the mild and gentle dispensation of the gospel. Our Saviour here commends prudence to his ministers in treating their people according to their strength, and putting them upon duties according to their time and standing.

BARCLAY, "THE JOYOUS COMPANY (Mark 2:18-20)2:18-20 The disciples of John were in the habit of fasting, as were the Pharisees. So they came to Jesus and said, "Why do John's disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, while your disciples do not?" "Surely," Jesus said to them, "his closest friends cannot fast while the bridegroom is still with them? So long as they have the bridegroom they do not fast. But the days will come when some day the bridegroom will be taken away from them--and then, in that day, they will fast."

120

With the stricter Jews fasting was a regular practice. In the Jewish religion there was only one day in all the year that was a compulsory fast, and that was the Day of Atonement. The day when the nation confessed and was forgiven its sin was The Fast, par excellence. But the stricter Jews fasted on two days every week, on Mondays and Thursdays. It is to be noted that fasting was not as serious as it sounds, for the fast lasted from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. and after that normal food could be eaten.

Jesus is not against fasting as such. There are very good reasons why a man might fast. He might deny himself things he likes for the sake of discipline, to be certain that he is the master of them and not they of him, to make sure that he never grows to love them so well that he can not give them up. He might deny himself comforts and pleasant things so that, after self-denial, he might appreciate them all the more. One of the best ways to learn to value our homes is to have to stay away from home for a time; and one of the best ways to appreciate God's gifts is to do without them for a period.

These are good reasons for fasting. The trouble about the Pharisees was that in far too many cases their fasting was for self-display. It was to call the attention of men to their goodness. They actually whitened their faces and went about with dishevelled garments on their fast days so that no one could miss the fact that they were fasting and so that everyone would see and admire their devotion. It was to call the attention of God to their piety. They felt that this special act of extra piety would bring them to the notice of God. Their fasting was a ritual and a self-displaying ritual at that. To be of any value, fasting must not be the result of a ritual; it must be the expression of a feeling in the heart.

Jesus used a vivid picture to tell the Pharisees why his disciples did not fast. After a Jewish wedding the couple did not go away for a honeymoon; they stayed at home. For a week or so open house was kept and there was continual feasting and rejoicing. In a hard wrought life the wedding week was the happiest week in a man's life. To that week of happiness were invited the closest friends of the bride and the bridegroom; and they were called by the name children of the bridechamber. Jesus likened his little company to men who were children of the bridechamber, chosen guests at a wedding feast. There was actually a rabbinic ruling which said, "All in attendance on the bridegroom are relieved of all religious observances which would lessen their joy." The wedding guests were actually exempt from all fasting.

This incident tells us that the characteristic Christian attitude to life is joy. The discovery of Christ and the company of Christ is the key to happiness. There was a Japanese criminal called Tockichi Ishii. He was utterly and bestially pitiless; he had brutally and callously murdered men, women and children in his career of crime. He was captured and imprisoned. Two Canadian ladies visited the prison. He could not be induced even to speak; he only glowered at them with the face of a wild beast. When they left, they left with him a copy of the Bible in the faint hope that he might read it. He read it, and the story of the crucifixion made him a changed man. "Later when the jailer came to lead the doomed man to the scaffold, he found not the surly, hardened brute he expected, but a smiling,

121

radiant man, for Ishii the murderer had been born again." The mark of his rebirth was a smiling radiance. The life that is lived in Christ cannot be lived other than in joy.

But the story ends with a foreboding cloud across the sky. No doubt when Jesus spoke of the day when the bridegroom would be taken away his friends did not at the moment see the meaning of it. But here, right at the beginning, Jesus saw the cross ahead. Death did not take him unawares; even now he had counted the cost and chosen the way. Here is courage; here is the picture of a man who would not be deflected from the road at whose end there loomed a cross.

PETT, "‘And John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting, and they come and say to him, “Why do John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, and yet your disciples do not fast?”.’

The incident begins with this question about fasting. With the stricter Jews fasting was a regular practise. While the Day of Atonement was the only day on which fasting was actually compulsory (according to the general interpretation of Leviticus 16:29 in those days), they also fasted on other occasions such as at the Feasts of Dedication and Purim, and the fasts of the fourth, fifth, seventh and tenth months (Zechariah 8:19). And this included fasting on two days every week, (probably on Mondays and Thursdays), for the whole day until sunset (compare Luke 18:12). They felt that somehow this fasting would help them to achieve a higher standard of covenant life and give them credit with God (compare how David hoped that his fasting would move God - 2 Samuel 12:16; 2 Samuel 12:21-23). Within the idea of fasting there may well have been that of mourning over sin and of a greater determination to seek God unhindered by earthly restraints. And this could only be for the good. But sadly some of those who fasted had other ideas in mind. They made sure that it was brought to people’s attention. They whitened their faces and dishevelled their clothes, ‘that they might appear to men to fast’ (Matthew 6:16). And it thus made them self-righteous and did them great harm. But as men always will, others admired them for their self-sacrifice.

This would appear to have been a recognised fast when all pious men could be expected to fast, made even more potent for the disciples of John because of their master’s imprisonment or martyrdom. This last fact would make Jesus remarks all the more telling, as does His warning that one day His disciples will need to fast because of what will happen to Him. In the case of the Pharisees and that of John’s disciples, the fasting was clearly noted and admired by many.

Thus the failure of Jesus’ disciples to fast brought comment. Those who claimed to be extra-religious and to claim a special dedication to God were expected to fast at certain times, and to show that they were doing so. Why then did they not? Was there something lacking in their genuine dedication and mourning over sin? Jesus’ reply contains the idea that when fasting we must always consider what the purpose is. But it went further than that, for He seized the opportunity of further revelation concerning Himself.

122

‘The disciples of the Pharisees.’ An expression only used here but the same idea is conveyed by Matthew 22:16 and possibly also by Matthew 12:27; Luke 11:19. Perhaps they are mentioned especially because it was the learners who made the greatest efforts to make sure that people (and their own mentors) knew that they were fasting.

PETT, "Verses 18-22The Heavenly Bridegroom Has Come To Call His Bride and Provide New Truth (2:18-22).

In this passage Jesus defends His disciples right not to fast. John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting, seemingly at a season when fasting was expected of pious men. His point is that fasting indicates mourning and sorrow for sin as men hope for a better future, while for His disciples that is not necessary because a better future has already come. It was not right therefore that they fast, because the One is now among them Who will fulfil all God’s promises so that they should be rejoicing. For He Himself has come as the heavenly Bridegroom promised in the Scriptures, come to be united with His bride (compare Matthew 12:49-50; Hebrews 2:11 where He is their Elder Brother). That is why what they should be doing is rejoice. He then goes on to point out that what He has brought for men replaces the old rather worn out teaching. He is referring, not to the Scriptures themselves, which did not need to be replaced, but to what men had made of those Scriptures, which did.

Analysis of 2:18-22.

a And John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting, and they come and say to him, “Why do John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, and yet your disciples do not fast?” (Mark 2:18).b And Jesus said to them, “Can the sons of the bridechamber fast while the Bridegroom is with them? As long as they have the Bridegroom with them they cannot fast” (Mark 2:19).c “But the days will come when the Bridegroom will be taken away from them, and then they will fast in that day” (Mark 2:20).b “No man sews a piece of undressed cloth on an old piece of clothing, otherwise that which should fill it up (or ‘the patch’ - to pleroma) takes away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear is made” (Mark 2:21).a “And no man puts new wine into old wineskins, or else the wine will burst the skins, and the wine perishes, and the skins. But they put new wine into fresh wineskins” (Mark 2:22).Note that in ‘a’ the question is why Jesus’ disciples do not behave like other dedicated religious men, and in the parallel the answer is because new wine must be put into fresh wineskins. In ‘b’ Jesus says that the Bridegroom’s special friends cannot fast while the Bridegroom is with them, because by His presence a new situation has arisen and the old methods will spoil the new, and in the parallel no one tries to repair old clothing with a patch of new cloth, again because they are incompatible. Centrally in ‘c’ is what the future holds, that the Bridegroom will eventually be forcibly removed. Then indeed the disciples will fast (compare John 16:20).

123

BI 18-20, "And the disciples of John and of the Pharisees used to fast.

Fasting useful or baneful, according to circumstances

Men of opposing faiths are often united by a common scare. They are more zealous for religious custom than for the interests of truth. Jesus here puts fasting on its true basis.

I. Fasting has no moral value in itself. The appetite may have to be denied from prudential motives, and then fasting becomes a duty. But asceticism, per se, is not a virtue. It is the negation of a vice, but it may be the seed of twenty others, e.g., pride, self-righteousness.

II. Prescribed fasting may be injurious and rob the practice of its real value.

III. Fasting is imposed by sorrowful events. A natural instinct indicates its fitness.

IV. Beneficial fasting comes from heavenly feasting. It is the time for special activities of the soul. The best rule is-so far as fasting helps you in the elevation and improvement of your highest nature, adopt it; so far as it is injurious to this, avoid it. (D. Davies, M. A.)

I. The envious are more busied in censuring the conduct of others, than in rectifying their own. This is one vice belonging to a Pharisee, and which is very common.

II. It is another, to desire that everyone should regulate his piety by ours, and embrace our particular customs and devotions.

III. It is a third, to speak of others, only that we may have an opportunity to speak of and to distinguish ourselves. It is very dangerous for a man to make himself remarkable by such devout practices as are external and singular, when he is not firmly settled and rooted in internal virtues, and, above all, in humility. (Quesnel.)

Fasting

Fasting is one of the forgotten virtues, from the neglect of which probably we all suffer. The practice grew from a desire to keep down all grossness of nature; to give the soul a better chance in its conflict with the body. The more the appetite is indulged, the less the soul can act with energy, and the more the man shrinks from self-denial. Gluttony spoils sanctity, while self-denial in food and drink aids it. Accordingly, God ordained fasting, and His people have, in most ages, practised it. But in the nature of things it yielded most advantage when it was

(1) occasional,

(2) voluntary, and

(3) private. (R. Glover.)

Fasting determined by inward sentiment

Christ’s answer to the Pharisees’ objection is one of those clear and unanswerable statements of truth which, like a flash, light up the whole dark confused realm of obligation, where so many stumble sadly and hopelessly. Can you not see that what is

124

within must determine that which is without? The law of appropriateness is supreme in the moral and religious sphere as in the material. (De Witt S. Clark.)

Routine fasting formal

An aroused, loving, penitent nature will express itself; but a set series of motions will not quicken the torpid spirit. They are like empty shells, in which the life has died, or out of which it has crept. They are curiosities. The hermit crab may tenant in them; and thence come the useless prayers, the languishing hosannas, the weary exhortations, while the world rallies the Church as to the reality of the God it worships. (De Witt S. Clark.)

Fasting

I. Its nature. Fasting in a religious sense is a voluntary abstinence from food for a religious purpose.

II. Its obligations.

III. Benefits of fasting.

1. There is a scriptural, a psychological, a moral and religious ground for fasting.

(1) Each act of self-denial, the refusal to gratify the lusts of the flesh, even when natural and proper, is an assertion of the supremacy of the soul over the body, and tends to strengthen its authority.

(2) It is a general law of our nature that the outward should correspond with the inward. No man can maintain any desired state of mind while his bodily condition and acts are not in accordance. He cannot be sorrowful in the midst of laughter.

2. There is also the further ground of experience and the example of God’s people. All eminently pious persons have been more or less addicted to this mode of spiritual culture.

(1) It must, however, be sincere. The hypocritical fasting of the Pharisees is at once hateful and destructive.

(2) It must be regarded as simply a means and not an end.

(3) It must be left free. (C. Hodge.)

Why the disciples of Christ did not fast

Christ went in the face of many Jewish customs and prejudices.

I. The Jews, as a nation and church, had many fasts.

II. The disciples of John fasted often.

III. The Pharisees and their disciples fasted often-twice in the week, the second and fifth day. Their real state of mind contrasted with this exercise. How reason staggers in the things of God.

IV. These parties naturally complained of the disciples of Christ for not fasting.

125

1. Fasting seemed so essential.

2. They attributed the conduct of the disciples of Christ to Christ Himself.

3. In this instance, Christ gave His sanction and defence to the conduct of His disciples. His vindication was:-He was with them-they were joyful, fasting not suited, etc. He would leave them-they would be sorrowful, fasting then suitable.

This view enforced by two comparisons.

1. Christ sanctions fasting.

2. The time for fasting should be decided by the fact of Christ’s presence or absence. Beware of attaching too much importance to forms. (Expository Discourses.)

The ceremonial observances of the Christian life

I. That the same ceremonial observances may be advocated by men of strangely different creeds and character, animated by varied motives. “And the disciples of John and of the Pharisees used to fast; and they come and say unto Him, Why do the disciples of John and of the Pharisees fast, but Thy disciples fast not?”

1. That weak, but well-meaning, men may be led astray in their estimate of the ceremonial of the Christian life by proud and crafty religionists.

2. That men of varied creed, character, and conduct may be found contending for the same ceremonial of the Christian life.

3. That even good men are often found in open hostility because of their varied opinions in reference to the mere ceremonial of the Christian life.

II. That men may be so mindful of the ceremonial observances of the Christian life as to neglect the greater truths embodied and signified.

1. Men are in danger of neglecting the deeper truths of the Christian ceremonial because they are generally lacking in the habit of penetrating its unseen and hidden meanings.

2. Men are in danger of neglecting the deeper truths of the Christian ceremonial because they are lacking in the pure sympathy needful to such discovery.

3. Men are in danger of neglecting the deeper truths of the Christian ceremonial because they are lacking in that diligence needful to such discovery.

III. That men should regulate the ceremonial observances of the Christian life according to the moral experiences of the soul. “And Jesus said unto them, can the children of the bride chamber fast while the Bridegroom is with them?”

1. That Christ is the Bridegroom of the soul. Christ had just revealed Himself as the Great Physician of the soul. But this is a more endearing and condescending revelation of Himself. He loves the soul of man. He seeks to be wedded to and to endow it with all His moral wealth. This is a close union.

2. That the absence or presence of Christ the Bridegroom determines largely the emotions of the soul.

3. That the emotions of the soul, as occasioned by the absence or presence of the Divine Bridegroom, must determine the ceremonial of the Christian life.

Lessons:

126

1. That the moral character cannot be infallibly judged by an attention to the outward ceremony of the Christian life.

2. That if we would cultivate true moods of joy, we must seek habitual communion with Chris.

3. That the feeling of the soul must determine the religious ceremony of the hour. (J. S. Exell, M. A.)

The secret of gladness

I. The Bridegroom. The singular appropriateness in the employment of this name by Christ in the existing circumstances. The Master of these very disciples had said “He that hath the bride is the bridegroom,” etc. Our Lord reminds them of their own Teacher’s words, and so He would say to them, “In your Master’s own conception of what I am, and of the joy that comes from My presence, you have an answer to your question.” We cannot but connect this name with a whole circle of ideas found in the Old Testament; the union between Israel and Jehovah was represented as a marriage. In Christ all this was fulfilled. See here Christ’s self-consciousness; He claims to be the Bridegroom of humanity.

II. The presence of the Bridegroom. Are we in the dreary period when Christ “is taken away”? The time of mourning for an absent Christ was only three days. “Lo, I am with you alway.” We have lost the manifestation of Him to the sense, but have gained the manifestation of Him to the spirit. The presence is of no use unless we daily try to realize it.

III. The joy of the Bridegroom’s presence. What was it that made these rude lives so glad when Christ was with them? The charm of personal character, the charm of contact with one whose lips were bringing to them fresh revelations of truth. There is no joy in the world like that of companionship, in the freedom of perfect love, with one who ever keeps us at our best, and brings the treasure of ever fresh truth to the mind. He is with us as the source of our joy, because He is the Lord of our lives, and the absolute Commander of our wills. To have one present with us whose loving word it is delight to obey, is peace and gladness. He is with us as the ground of perfect joy because He is the adequate object of all our desires, and the whole of the faculties and powers of a man will find a field of glad activity in leaning upon Him, and realizing His presence. Like the apostle whom the old painters loved to represent lying with his happy head on Christ’s heart, and his eyes closed in tranquil rapture of restful satisfaction, so if we have Him with us and feel that He is with us, our spirits may be still, and in the great stillness of fruition of all our wishes and the fulfilment of all our needs, may know a joy that the world can neither give nor take away. He is with us as the source of endless gladness in that He is the defence and protection for our souls. And as men live in a victualled fortress, and care not though the whole surrounding country may be swept bare of all provision, so when we have Christ with us we may feel safe, whatsoever befalls, and “in the days of famine we shall be satisfied.” He is with us as the source of our perfect joy because His presence is the kindling of every hope that fills the future with light and glory. Dark or dim at the best, trodden by uncertain shapes, casting many a deep shadow over the present, that future lies, except we see it illumined by Christ, and have Him by our side. But if we possess His companionship, the present is but the parent of a more blessed time to come; and we can look forward and feel that nothing can touch our gladness, because nothing can touch our union with our Lord. So, dear brethren, from all these thoughts and a thousand more which I have no time to dwell upon, comes this one great consideration, that the joy of the presence of the Bridegroom is the victorious

127

antagonist of all sorrow-“Can the children of the bride chamber mourn,” etc. The Bridegroom limits our grief. Our joy will often be made sweeter by the very presence of the mourning. Why have so many Christian men so little joy in their lives? They look for it in wrong places. It cannot be squeezed out of worldly ambitions. A religion like that of John’s disciples and that of the Pharisees is poor; a religion of laws and restrictions cannot be joyful. There is no way of men being happy except by living near the Master. Joy is a duty. (Dr. McLaren.)

The presence of the Bridegroom a solace in grief

And we have, over and above them, in the measure in which we are Christians, certain special sources of sorrow and trial, peculiar to ourselves alone; and the deeper and truer our Christianity the more of these shall we have. But notwithstanding all that, what will the felt presence of the Bridegroom do for these griefs that will come? Well, it will limit them for one thing; it will prevent them from absorbing the whole of our nature. There will always be a Goshen in which there is light in the dwelling, however murky may be the darkness that wraps the land. There will always be a little bit of soil above the surface, however weltering and wide may be the inundation that drowns our world. There wilt always be a dry and warm place in the midst of the winter; a kind of greenhouse into which we may get from out of the tempest and the fog. The joy of the Bridegroom’s presence will last through the sorrow, like a spring of fresh water welling up in the midst of the sea. We may have the salt and the sweet waters mingling in our lives, not sent forth by one fountain, but flowing in one channel. (Dr. McLaren.)

A cheerful type of religion

There is a cry amongst us for a more cheerful type of religion. I re-echo the cry, but am afraid that I do not mean by it quite the same thing that some of my friends do. A more cheerful type of Christianity means to many of us a type of Christianity that will interfere less with any amusements; a more indulgent doctor that will prescribe a less rigid diet than the old Puritan type used to do. Well, perhaps they went too far; I do not care to deny that. But the only cheerful Christianity is a Christianity that draws its gladness from deep personal experience of communion with Jesus Christ. (Dr. McLaren.)

Liberty and discipline

It is one of the honourable distinctions of Christ’s doctrine that He is never taken, as men are, with a half-truth concerning a subject. If there is, for example, a free element in Christian life and experience, and also a restrictive side, He comprehends both and holds them in a true adjustment of their offices and relations. His answer to John’s disciples amounts to this Liberty and discipline, movement from God’s centre, and movement from our own sanctified inclination and self-compelling will, are the two great factors of Christian life and experience. It is obvious that both these conceptions may be abused, as they always are when taken apart; but let us find now how to hold with Christ the two sides at once. There is then-

I. A ruling conception of the Christian life which is called having the Bridegroom present; a state of right inclination established, in which the soul has immediate consciousness of god and is swayed in liberty by his inspirations. The whole aim of

128

Christianity is fulfilled in this alone. Discipline, self-regulation, carried on by the will, may be wanted, as I shall presently show. But no possible amount of such doings can make up a Christian virtue. Everything in Christianity goes for the free inclination. Here begins the true nobility of God’s sons and daughters-when their inclination is wholly to good and to God. The bridegroom joy is now upon them because their duty is become their festivity with Christ.

II. What then is the place or value of that whole side of self-discipline which Christ himself assumes the need of, when the Bridegroom is to be taken away. There is, I undertake to say, one general purpose or office in all doings of will, on the human side of Christian experience, viz., the ordering of the soul in fit position for God, that He may occupy it, have it in His power, sway it by His inspirations. No matter what the kind of doing to which we are called-self-government, self-renunciation, holy resolve, or steadfast waiting-the end is the same, the getting in position for God’s occupancy. As the navigator of a ship does nothing for the voyage, save what he does by setting the ship to course and her sails to the wind, so our self-compelling discipline is to set us in the way of receiving the actuating impulse of God’s will and character. All that we can do is summed up in self-presentation to God, hence the call to salvation is “Come.” And as it is in conversion, so it is of all Christian doings afterward. If, by reason of a still partial subjection to evil, the nuptial day of a soul’s liberty be succeeded by a void, dry state, the disciple has it given him to prepare himself for God’s help by clearing away his idols, rectifying his misjudgments, staying his resentments and grudges, and mortifying his appetites. There will be a certain violence in the fight of his repentances. Let none object that all such strains of endeavour must he without merit because they are, in one sense, without inclination. Holy Scripture commands us to serve, when we cannot reign. Do we “mortify our members,” “pluck out our right eye,” by inclination? Let us specify some humbler matters in which it must be done.

1. How great a thing for a Christian to keep life, practice, and business in the terms of order.

2. A responsible way has the same kind of value; a soul that stays fast in concern for the Church, for the salvation of men, for the good of the country, is ready for God’s best inspirations.

3. Openness and boldness for God is an absolute requisite for the effective revelation of God in the soul.

4. Honesty, not merely commercial, but honesty engaging to do justice everywhere, every way, every day, and specially to God’s high truth and God. I could speak of yet humbler things, such as dress and society. These are commonly put outside the pale of religious responsibility. And yet there is how much in them to fix the soul’s position towards God! But what of fasting? The very thing about which my text is concerned. Does it belong to Christianity? I think so. Christ declared that His disciples should fast when He was gone, He began His great ministry by a protracted fast, and He discourses of it just as He does of prayer and alms. A certain half-illuminated declamation against asceticism is a great mistake of our time. An asceticism belonging to Christianity is described when an apostle says: “I exercise myself to have a conscience void of offence.” If we cannot find how to bear an enemy, if we recoil from sacrifices laid upon us, we shall emulate the example of Cromwell’s soldiers, who conquered first in the impassive state, by fasting and prayer, and then, sailing into battle as men iron-clad, conquered their enemies; or those martyrs who could sing in the crisp of their bodies because they had trained them to serve. But none should ever go into a fast when he has the Bridegroom consciously with him, and it must

129

never amount to a maceration of the body-never be more frequent than is necessary to maintain, for the long run of time, the clearest, healthiest condition of mind and body. There ought to be a fascination in the severities of this rugged discipline. Our modern piety, we feel, wants depth and richness, and it cannot be otherwise, unless we consent to endure some hardness. To be merely wooed by grace, and tenderly dewed by sentiment, makes a Christian mushroom, not a Christian man. So much meaning has our Master, when charging it upon us, again and again, without our once conceiving possibly what depth of meaning He would have us find in His words. “Deny thyself take up thy cross and follow Me.” (Horace Bushnell, D. D.)

SPURGEON 18-20, "Mark 2:18-20. And the disciples of John and of the Pharisees used to fast: and they come and say unto him, Why do the disciples of John and of the Pharisees fast, but thy disciples fast not? And Jesus said unto them, If the children of the bridechamber 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 shall they fast in those days.

While Christ was with his people in person, they could not help having joy and gladness; but when he was gone from them, they must lament his absence.

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

CLARKE, "Can the children of the bride-chamber fast while the bridegroom is with them? - Among the Hindoos, large parties of friends, belonging both to the bride and bridegroom, attend on both during the wedding day; on the following day, when the bridegroom leaves the house of his father-in-law, the attendants are filled with sorrow, especially the near relations. - Ward’s Customs.

GILL, "And Jesus said unto them,.... Both to John's disciples and the Pharisees,

can the children of the bride chamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them? Suggesting that he was the bridegroom, as John their master had called him, Joh_3:29, and that his disciples were the children of the bride chamber; and that it was very unsuitable for them, and very unreasonable to desire them to fast at such a time, and under such a character: wherefore the answer returned by Christ himself to the question is,

130

as long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast: all which

the Syriac version expresses by לא, "no": see Gill on Mat_9:15.

HENRY, "Two things Christ pleads in excuse of his disciples not fasting.

1. That these were easy days with them, and fasting was not so seasonable now as it would be hereafter, Mar_2:19, Mar_2:20. There is a time for all things. Those that enter into the married state, must expect care and trouble in the flesh, and yet, during the nuptial solemnity, they are merry, and think it becomes them to be so; it was very absurd for Samson's bride to weep before him, during the days that the feast lasted, Jdg_14:17. Christ and his disciples were but newly married, the bridegroom was yet with them, the nuptials were yet in the celebrating (Matthew's particularly); when the bridegroom should be removed from them to the far country, about his business, then would be a proper time to sit as a widow, in solitude and fasting.

COFFMAN, "In context, this was a devastating reply, John the Baptist had already identified Jesus Christ as the bridegroom, and this metaphor was appropriately used here as an appeal to John's disciples. Furthermore, the Pharisees relaxed the rules for themselves regarding fasts on the occasion of their attending weddings. With many weddings to attend, the Pharisees found little need to do any fasting at all, despite the fact that they were always preaching it. What a center shot this part of Jesus' reply achieved! It is as though he had said, "Look, you Pharisees, this is a wedding!"

The bridegroom ... John the Baptist had declared, "He that hath the bride is the bridegroom" (John 3:29); and, from this, some have erroneously concluded that the bride, or church, was in existence when John spoke. The bride of God, or of Christ (he and the Father are one), is actually the true or spiritual Israel; and, when John spoke, the genuine Israel was being separated through his preaching from the secular Israel wherein it was until then commingled. That spiritual Israel (which in time would include the church) John had directed to follow Jesus Christ, hence, the statement that he had the bride

CONSTABLE, "Jesus responded with a parable in which He is the bridegroom and His disciples are the friends of the bridegroom (cf. John 3:29). Jesus had come to unite with Israel, His bride, as her Messiah. The figure of Messiah as a bridegroom may have been unknown among the Jews at this time. [Note: See Lane, p. 110.] The wedding banquet seemed just a short time away. The prophets said it would occur after Messiah's death and resurrection and after the Tribulation. The bridegroom would have to leave His friends and His bride before the banquet. Still while they were together they could and did rejoice, not mourn, which fasting represented. Jewish custom exempted the friends of a bridegroom from certain religious obligations including participating in the weekly fasts. [Note: Hiebert, p. 74.] This was Jesus' first hint of His coming death in Mark's Gospel

PETT, "Verse 19‘And Jesus said to them, “Can the sons of the bridechamber fast while the

131

Bridegroom is with them? As long as they have the Bridegroom with them they cannot fast”.’

His first point is that fasting is reserved for times of mourning and unhappiness, mourning over failure and unhappiness about sin. But those who are appointed at a wedding to be with the bridegroom to sustain him cannot fast, for they would then mar the celebrations. Rather must they eat and drink and be joyful. A Jewish wedding lasted for seven days, and they were days of feasting and merriment during which the bridegroom would be celebrating. And he would have with him his closest friends to share his joy with him. To seek to fast under such circumstances would be an insult. Indeed the Rabbis actually excluded people at a wedding feast from the need to fast. Thus a unique occasion, and only a unique occasion exempted men from fasting, and Jesus is saying that such a unique occasion was now here.

This in itself was a remarkable claim, that because He had come men need not fast. It was to claim divine prerogative, and to indicate the arrival of a new beginning. Moses could not have said it. Elijah could not have said it. John the Baptiser could not have said it. It required a greater than they.

But unquestionably Jesus was conveying a deeper message even than this, as the next verse brings out. He was pointing to Himself as the great Bridegroom whose presence meant that men need not fast, the great Bridegroom promised in the Scriptures. In Isaiah 62:5, the prophet says “As the bridegroom rejoices over the bride, so will your God rejoice over you”. The picture is emphasised and poignant. Isaiah points out that they have been called Forsaken, and their land Desolate, but they will be renamed because God delights in them and their land will be married. He will be their Bridegroom. There God is the Bridegroom, and His restored people are the Bride. Thus Jesus, by describing Himself as the Bridegroom of God’s restored people, shows that He sees Himself as uniquely standing in the place of God in His relationship to the people.

A similar vivid picture is also brought out in Jeremiah 2:2 where the Lord says of His people, “I remember concerning you the kindness of your youth, the love of your espousals, how you went after me in the wilderness, in a land that was not sown.” Here we have the Lord as the Bridegroom in waiting (compare Jeremiah 2:32. Compare also Ezekiel 16:8-14). It is thus very doubtful whether a discerning listener would fail to catch at least something of this implication.

That Jesus emphatically saw Himself as the Bridegroom comes out elsewhere in the Gospels. Consider the marriage feast for the son (Matthew 22:2-14) and the Bridegroom at the wedding where the foolish virgins were excluded (Matthew 25:1-13), both clear pictures of Jesus. And John the Baptiser described Him in the same way (John 3:29). Thus Jesus was declaring in another way that the ‘the Kingly Rule of God has drawn near’, and that He was a unique figure come from God, the heavenly Bridegroom, with the aim of receiving the loving response of God’s people..

132

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

CLARKE, "In those days - But instead of εν�εκειναις�ταις�/µεραις, many of the

best MSS. and versions read, εν�εκειν0�τ0�/µερ1, in that day; viz. the day in which

Jesus Christ should be delivered up to the Jews and Gentiles. Mill and Bengel approve of this reading, and Griesbach adopts it. The former part of the verse seems to vindicate the common reading.

GILL, "But the days will come,.... As they were in some sense now come to the disciples of John, their master being taken up by Herod, and confined in prison, and so it was a mourning time with them:

when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then shall they fast in those days: referring to the time of the sufferings and death of Christ, which would be, and was a sorrowful season to his disciples.

COFFMAN, "This is a clear prediction of the Lord's suffering and death. We cannot agree with the assertion that in Mark "Jesus does not mention suffering until after (Peter's) confession."[3] It is true that the word "suffering" is not here in this verse, but the concept of both suffering and death is inherent in the Lord's concise prophecy that the bridegroom (himself) shall be taken away from them. If removal of the bridegroom from the bride by force (the bridegroom will not merely go away; he shall be "taken away") is not a prediction of the sufferings and death of Christ, to what can it refer?

And then will they fast in that day ... is not a reference to fasting as some formal ordinance that shall be bound on the church of all ages, but it is a reference to the sorrow (of which fasting was a sign) that would descend upon the apostles during his Passion and brief residence in the tomb.

ENDNOTE:

[3] Ibid., p. 11.

PETT, "Verse 20“But the days will come when the Bridegroom will be taken away from them, and then they will fast in that day.”

133

These words confirm that we are to see in the picture of the Bridegroom something significant concerning Jesus. For the Bridegroom Who was now here, would one day be snatched away (the verb is forceful - compare Isaiah 53:8) and then they will have good cause to fast. Jesus knew already from the voice at His baptism that He was called on to fulfil the ministry of the suffering Servant, and this was confirmed by John’s words, “Behold the Lamb of God, Who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). Thus we have here the first indication of His awareness of the brutal end that awaited Him. He knew that He must face suffering on behalf of His people. And then indeed His disciples would fast.

Interestingly the words do not encourage regular fasting. The disciples would indeed sorrow but their sorrow would be turned into joy (John 16:20). Thus the need for fasting would quickly pass and would be no more. There is no real encouragement to fasting here.

21 “No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment. Otherwise, the new piece will pull away from the old, making the tear worse.

CLARKE, "No man - seweth - See Mat_9:16. No man seweth a piece of unscoured cloth upon an old garment. In the common editions this verse begins with

και, and, but this is omitted by almost every MS. and version of note. The

construction of the whole verse is various in the MSS. The translation given here, and in Mat_9:16, is intelligible, and speaks for itself.

GILL, "No man also seweth a piece of new cloth, The traditions of the elders are meant, particularly concerning eating and drinking, and fasting, things before spoken of; and which occasioned this parable, and which were new things in comparison of the commands of God: some of them were of very short standing, devised in, that age; and most, if not all of them, were since the times of Ezra.

On an old garment; the moral and ceremonial righteousness of the Jews, in obedience to the law of God; signifying, that the former were not to be joined with these, to make up a justifying righteousness before God; which were not sufficient for such a purpose, either singly, or both together:

else the new piece that filled it up, taketh away from the old, and the rent is made worse; for by attendance to the traditions of the elders, the Jews were taken off from, and neglected the commandments of God; nay, oftentimes the commands of God were made void by these traditions, so that the old garment of their own righteousness, which was very ragged and imperfect of itself, instead of

134

being purer and more perfect, became much the worse, even for the purpose for which it was intended; See Gill on Mat_9:16.

HENRY, "2. That these were early days with them, and they were not so able for the severe exercises of religion as hereafter they would be. The Pharisees had long accustomed themselves to such austerities; and John Baptist himself came neither eating nor drinking. His disciples from the first inured themselves to hardships, and thus found it easier to bear strict and frequent fasting, but it was not so with Christ's disciples; their Master came eating and drinking, and had not bred them up to the difficult services of religion as yet, for it was all in good time. To put them upon such frequent fasting at first, would be a discouragement to them, and perhaps drive them off from following Christ; it would be of as ill consequence as putting new wine into old casks, or sewing new cloth to that which is worn thin and threadbare, Mar_2:21, Mar_2:22. Note, God graciously considers the frame of young Christians, that are weak and tender, and so must we; nor must we expect more than the work of the day in its day, and that day according to the strength, because it is not in our hands to give strength according to the day. Many contract an antipathy to some kind of food, otherwise good, by being surfeited with it when they are young; so, many entertain prejudices against the exercises of devotion by being burthened with them, and made to serve with an offering, at their setting out. Weak Christians must take heed of over-tasking themselves, and of making the yoke of Christ otherwise than as it is, easy, and sweet, and pleasant.

COFFMAN, "Patching old clothes was a familiar thing to our Lord, suggesting his poverty that has made us rich. The force of this humble metaphor lies in the fact that: if a piece of new, unshrunk cloth is used to mend a hole in an old garment, then just as soon as the garment is washed, the new material will shrink, thus tearing out an even larger hole in the garment. The application of this means that Christ did not come to patch up Judaism with the new teachings of Christianity. His holy religion was not designed to mend old religions but was a gloriously new thing, bearing the same relationship to Judaism that a building has to the scaffolding that precedes it.

BARCLAY, "THE NECESSITY OF STAYING YOUNG IN MIND (Mark 2:21-22)2:21-22 No one sews a patch of new cloth on to an old garment. If he does the bit that was meant to fill in the hole tears it apart--the new from the old--and the tear is made worse. No one puts new wine into old wineskins. If he does the wine will burst the wineskins, and the wine will be lost as well as the wineskins. New skins for new wine!

Jesus knew quite well that he was coming with a message which was startlingly new; and he also knew that his way of life was shatteringly different from that of the orthodox rabbinic teacher. He also knew how difficult it is for the minds of men to accept and to entertain new truth; and here he uses two illustrations to show how necessary it is to have an adventurous mind.

No one ever had such a gift as Jesus for the discovery and the use of homely illustrations. Over and over again he finds in the simple things pathways and pointers to God. No one was ever such an expert in getting from the "here and now" to the "there and then." For Jesus "earth was crammed with heaven." He

135

lived so close to God that everything spoke to him of God. Someone tells how, on Saturday afternoons, he used to go for country walks with one of the most famous of Scottish preachers. They used to have long talks together. Telling of it afterwards he said, "Wherever the conversation started, he had a way of cutting straight across country to God." Wherever Jesus' eye lighted it had a way of flashing straight on to God.

(i) He speaks of the danger of sewing a new patch on an old garment. The word used means that the new cloth was still undressed; it had never been shrunk; so when the garment got wet in the rain the new patch shrunk, and being much stronger than the old, it tore the old apart. There comes a time when the day of patching is over, and re-creating must begin. In the time of Luther it was not possible to patch up the abuses of the Roman Catholic church; the time for reformation had come. In the time of John Wesley, for Wesley at least, the time for patching the Church of England was done. He did not want to leave it, but in the end he had to, for only a new fellowship would suffice. It may well be that there are times when we try to patch, when what is wanted is the complete abandonment of the old and the acceptance of something new.

(ii) Wine was kept in wineskins. There was no such thing as a bottle in our sense of the term. When these skins were new they had a certain elasticity; as they grew old they became hard and unyielding. New wine is still fermenting; it gives off gases; these gases cause pressure; if the skin is new it will yield to the pressure, but if it is old and hard and dry it will explode and wine and skin alike will be lost. Jesus is pleading for a certain elasticity in our minds. It is fatally easy to become set in our ways. J. A. Findlay quotes a saying of one of his friends--"When you reach a conclusion you're dead." What he meant was that when our minds become fixed and settled in their ways, when they are quite unable to accept new truth and to contemplate new ways, we may be physically alive but we are mentally dead.

As they grow older almost everyone develops a constitutional dislike of that which is new and unfamiliar. We grow very unwilling to make any adjustments in our habits and ways of life. Lesslie Newbigin, who was involved in the discussions about the formation of the United Church of South India, tells how one of the things that most often held things up was that people kept asking, "Now, if we do that, just where are we going?" In the end someone had to say bluntly, "The Christian has no right to ask where he is going." Abraham went out not knowing whither he went. (Hebrews 11:8.) There is a great verse in that same chapter of Hebrews: "By faith Jacob, when dying, blessed each of the sons; of Joseph bowing in worship over the head of his staff." (Hebrews 11:21.) With the very breath of death upon him the old traveller still had his pilgrim staff in his hand. To the end of the day, with the evening now upon him, he was still ready for the road. If we are really to rise to the height of the Christian challenge, we must retain the adventurous mind. I received a letter once which ended "Yours aged 83 and still growing"--and with the inexhaustible riches of Christ before us, why not?

CONSTABLE, "Two more parables clarified why fasting was inappropriate for

136

Jesus' disciples then. Not only was the timing wrong, but the messianic age that Jesus would introduce would render the old traditional forms of Judaism obsolete. Judaism had become old, and Jesus was going to set up a new form of God's kingdom on earth that would be similar to a new garment (cf. Hebrews 8:13), the messianic kingdom.

A garment symbolized the covering of man's sinful condition in Old Testament usage (e.g., Genesis 3:21; Isaiah 61:10). The Jews were to lay aside the old garment of the Mosaic dispensation and put on the new of the messianic age. Judaism had also become rigid and inflexible because of the traditions that had encrusted it, like old goatskins that contained wine. Jesus' kingdom could not operate within those constraints. It would be a new and more flexible vehicle for bringing joy (wine) to humanity.

The first of these three parables may have been more relevant to John's disciples since they anticipated a coming change. Jesus may have directed the second and third parables more to the Pharisees since they wanted to maintain the legalistic practices of Judaism that were now threadbare and inflexible.

NISBET, "THINGS WHICH DIFFER‘No man seweth a piece of new cloth on an old garment … and no man putteth new wine into old bottles.’Mark 2:21-22These words were a parable and the principle laid down in them is one of great importance. The evils that have arisen from trying to sew the new patch on the old garment, and put the new wine into old bottles, have neither been few nor small.

I. How was it with the Galatian Church?—It is recorded in St. Paul’s Epistle. Men wished in that Church to reconcile Judaism with Christianity, and to circumcise as well as baptize. They endeavoured to keep alive the law of ceremonies and ordinances, and to place it side by side with the Gospel of Christ. In fact they would fain have put the ‘new wine into old bottles.’ And in so doing they greatly erred.

II. How was it with the early Christian Church, after the Apostles were dead?—We have it recorded in the pages of Church history. Some tried to make the Gospel more acceptable by mingling it with Platonic philosophy. They ‘sewed the new patch on the old garment.’ And in so doing they scattered broadcast the seeds of enormous evil.

III. How is it with many professing Christians in the present day?—We have only to look around us and see. There are thousands who are trying to reconcile the service of Christ and the service of the world, to have the name of Christians and yet live the life of the ungodly—to keep in with the servants of pleasure and sin, and yet be the followers of the crucified Jesus at the same time. In a word, they are trying to enjoy the ‘new wine’ and yet to cling to the ‘old bottles.’

—Bishop J. C. Ryle.

137

Illustration

‘Leather bottles in course of time become hard and liable to crack, and they would soon give way under the pressure caused by the fermentation of new wine, but new skins might be sufficiently supple and elastic to yield to the pressure and thus stand the strain. With this allusion compare the reference in the Book of Job. Elihu, having listened to Job’s attempts to justify himself before God, and to the heartless condemnation passed upon him by his three friends, could at last no longer repress the thoughts which were seething in his mind, and began to speak. “Behold” (he says), “I am full of words, the spirit within me constraineth me: my breast is like wine which hath no vent, like new wineskins (or wine-skins of new wine) it is ready to burst” (Job 32:18-19). Thus the thoughts fermenting within the mind and clamouring for utterance are likened, by way of analogy, to new wine fermenting within a skin-bottle.’

PETT, “Verse 21‘No man sews a piece of undressed cloth on an old piece of clothing, otherwise that which should fill it up (or ‘the patch’ - to pleroma) takes away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear is made.’

Jesus then emphasises the changed state of affairs by two illustrations. In context He is arguing against fasting. He is saying that we should not take old ideas, in context the ideas about fasting, and apply them to a new situation. Otherwise both will be spoiled. This suggests that He saw fasting as being mainly for the old dispensation, but not for the new. The old world fasted because they waited in penitence for God to act. But now God was acting and fasting was therefore a thing of the past. Now was the time for rejoicing.

The words contain within them the general idea that what Jesus has come to bring is new, that is that ‘the Kingly Rule of God has drawn near’. So His point is that now, because of that, the present is a time of rejoicing and everything must be looked at in its light. The old has passed, and the new has come (compare 2 Corinthians 5:17). The extraordinary significance of this statement must not be overlooked. Jesus was clearly declaring that in His coming as the Bridegroom a whole new way of thinking and living had been introduced. He was the introducer of a new age. It was the acceptable year of the Lord. Repentance and forgiveness in the new age into which they were now entering would lead to lives of joy, first with the earthly and then with the heavenly (risen) Bridegroom. Thus fasting will be unnecessary except in exceptional circumstances, in the brief period before final victory. Everything is different and old ways must be forgotten.

‘A piece of undressed cloth.’ That is, one that has not been washed and shrunk, thus making it unsuitable for repairing old clothing, for once the clothing was washed the patch would shrink and tear the clothing.

While not being the direct significance here where it is simply an illustration of incompatibility, this reference to clothing gains new meaning in the light of Jesus’ idea elsewhere, which He Himself may have had in mind, for the man who

138

seeks to enter the heavenly wedding without having a proper wedding garment on will be cast out (Matthew 22:11-12 compare Revelation 19:8; Revelation 3:5; Revelation 3:18). Those who would enter His presence must be clothed in His imputed and imparted righteousness alone. No partially patched up dress will do for them.

BI 21-22, "No man also seweth a piece of new cloth on an old garment.

New cloth on an old garment

God’s forces not to be fettered by man. You cannot thrust life into human moulds.

I. Every force has a definite mode of action. Spring does not produce the same results as autumn, nor can young converts yield the same fruits as aged saints.

II. To coerce these forces into human channels is impossible. No one dress will fit all men. If you want to alter men’s habits begin by changing their principles.

III. It is only wise and safe to act with God. Learn the methods of the Spirit’s working and follow them. (D. Davies, M. A.)

The new supplanting the old

A missionary in India writes of a large tree near his home, in whose branches a second top of entirely different species appeared. The old was the “bitter nim,” the other the “sacred fig.” And this, on examination, was found to have thrust its root through the decaying heart of the great trunk to the ground. There, like a young giant in the embrace of some huge monster, each was engaged in a struggle for life. If the old could tighten its grasp, the young tree must die. If the young continued to grow it must at last split open and destroy the old. This it seemed already to be doing. So with the good seed of the gospel dropped into the rotten heart of some ancient system or practice. Thrusting its root downward and its branches upward, it is gradually to supplant all else and stand, bearing twelve manner of fruits, yielding her fruit every month; and the leaves will be for the healing of the nations. (De W. S. Clark.)

New things in Christianity

Christianity sets up a new kingdom-a kingdom within men-a reign over the spiritual in man. “The kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.” It publishes a “new law,” and gives men “a new commandment.” “Love is the fulfilling of the law.” Christianity introduces us into a “New Jerusalem,” “the Jerusalem which is the mother of us all.” Everything in the city is new. The Temple is new; it is a spiritual temple; spiritual men “are builded together for a habitation of God through the Spirit.” “What! know ye not that ye are the temple of God?” The Altar is new; “we have an altar whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle.” The Sacrifice is new; it is the “offering up of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” The Incense is new; “the sacrifice of praise, even the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to His name.” The Priesthood is new; “we have a great High Priest who is passed into the heavens for us, even Jesus, the Son of God.” The Way into the “Holiest” is new; it is “a new and living way consecrated for us.” The Worship is new; the hour has come when the character, and not the scene of worship, is everything. The song is new; we sing “a new song.” The Ritualism is new; “for in

139

Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.” God sustains a new relation to us; He is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. We come to God and say, “Doubtless Thou art our Father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not.” “Christ is the Mediator of the new covenant.” The days have come when God has made a new covenant with man. The Spirit is new; even the Comforter, proceeding from the Father and the Son. The gospel is new; “God hath spoken unto us by His Son.” The phraseology is new; “we preach Christ crucified.” The symbolism is new; “the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Since everything in Christianity is new, we must ourselves be new; we must be “born again.” There must be the passage from death to life. The life we live in the flesh must be a new life. “Old things must pass away; all things must become new.” (H. J. Bevis.)

New things in Christianity

I. That the spirit of Christianity is new. It is “new wine.” Judaism was the body; Christianity is the soul. The one was materialism; the other is spiritualism. The one was “the letter;” the other is “the spirit.” The one was a “ministration of death;” the other a “ministration of life.” “The law came by Moses, but grace and truth by Jesus Christ.” We have got beyond the shadow, we have the substance. “We behold with unveiled face the glory of the Lord.”

II. That the thoughts and words of Christianity are new. New thoughts require new utterances. The people said of Christ, “Never man spake like this Man.” New things want new words. The everlasting Son has taken our nature and become our brother. The gospel calls this “the mystery of godliness.” God hath given His Son, that whosoever believeth on Him might have eternal life. Even the gospel seems to want words here, and can only say, “God so loved.” The gospel takes us by the hand and leads us to the cross; and as we look on the Crucified, it unfolds the record, and bids us read, “God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.” We want not old forms. We have truth for the understanding; we have love for the heart. We have new thoughts and new words, the utterances of which are as the divinest music to the soul that is seeking a Saviour. “This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, even the chief.”

III. The manifestations of Christianity are new. “There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.” Christianity is from heaven. God’s work is not to be improved by man. Where there is real religion in man, its own manifestations will not be wanting in a Divine life, in all the graces of the Spirit, in godlikeness.

IV. The ritualism of Christianity is new. It has few symbols, but these are most expressive and appropriate. It meets us on the very threshold of life with its washing of water, and water is the universal and undying type of purity. It gives us, as Christians, the memorials of Christ’s death. The ritualism of your spirit must be left to the moods and feelings of your own heart. You may content yourselves with mere outward acts of reformation, but these are manifestly insufficient. This is but a new piece of cloth on an old garment. This is the world’s attempt to mend human nature. Christianity requires “a new heart and a right spirit.” You must be a “partaker of the Divine nature,” “a new creature in Christ Jesus,” to be a Christian. The “inner man” must have its new attire. You must put off the old garment and put on the new. You must “put on Christ Jesus the Lord, and walk in Him.” Do not try to mend the old nature Seek a new one. Old habits will not do for a new spirit, and yet we cling to them, or they cling to us There is often little agreement between our principles and our practice. (H. J. Bevis.)

140

Legal ceremonies superseded

Paul calls legal ceremonies “beggarly rudiments;” such are the popish-like a beggar’s cloak, full of patches. When the debt is paid, it is unjust to keep back the bond: Christ being come, and having discharged all, it is injurious to retain the bond of ceremonies. In the spring we make much of buds and flowers to delight the eye and cheer the sense of smelling; but in autumn, when we receive the fruits to content our taste and appetite, and to nourish us, the other are nothing worth The affianced virgin esteems every token her lover sends her and solaceth her affections with those earnests of his love in his absence: but when she is married, and enjoys himself, there is no regard of the tokens. It was something to have a ceremony or a sacrifice, representing a Saviour; but this “made nothing perfect” and all the life which those things had was from that Saviour whom now we, have. (T. Adams.)

Old bottles and new wine

Christ gave his replies to John’s disciples and the Pharisees. The first had a temporary application; the other a permanent one.

1. Fasting was a sign of sorrow; but how could these disciples sorrow while Jesus was with them? it was like trying to weep in the midst of a wedding feast. Christians have alternations of experience. Sometimes the Bridegroom is with us; sometimes far away.

2. The other answer sets forth the essential difference between the new dispensation and the impossibility of confining it by the old forms and ceremonies of religion. Now, these bottles represent religious forms, and wine represents religious spirit or life. Consider-

I. The superior energy of Christianity over Judaism. It is new wine. Judaism was wine; but this is newer, and also better. But this is not the point of comparison. The point is, that the gospel has a freshness, expansiveness, and power, beyond what we find in Judaism, so that it is like new, working and fermenting wine as compared with old acetic wine, now cold and still. See it in a few particulars:-

1. Its earnest aggressive spirit and aim. It was meant for the world, to go out to all nations. Judaism was for the Jews, or if for Gentiles, it was by these coming to the Jews as proselytes. Its agency is the same.

2. Its potent and stimulating motives. Christ’s love and death constrain us; and the apocalypse of the eternal world is made more impressive and influential. Compare these with Jewish types, etc.

3. The ardour of affection awakened in the followers of Christ. Their whole nature is elevated and vivified by a new love and a new hope.

4. The accompanying energy of the Holy Ghost.

II. The unsuitableness of old Jewish forms to the new Christian spirit. All are too narrow, cold, and cramping. As fastings, sacrifices, priestly exclusiveness, and even the Sabbath.

III. Yet Christianity has its own forms. The wine is not spilt on the ground, but kept in bottles-the Christian Church in its New Testament simplicity, the ordinances, the Lord’s day, spiritual modes of worship. All these naturally come out of the spirit of

141

the gospel. The life makes its own body. Truly, this law has been tampered with most grievously by men, and the energy of the gospel has suffered; its freedom has been trammelled, and its life deadened. Lessons:

1. Our supreme concern should be to get the life of the gospel into our souls.

2. We should avoid a superstitious stickling for mere forms, however old and elegant, if they are but arbitrary and mechanical.

3. We should be willing to endorse and adopt the simple, natural, and living forms of the New Testament-joining the church, engaging in worship, etc.

4. We should apply it to our whole deportment and life-all must be renewed, and new wine put in new bottles. Let all our habits be determined and controlled by the inner spirit of piety. Things once pleasant to us will now be unpleasant and irksome. Many amusements and pleasures will be instantly abandoned, when we have got the right spirit within us; whereas, otherwise, it would be vain to contend and argue against them. (Congregational Pulpit.)

SPURGEON 21-22, "Mark 2:21-22. The man also seweth a piece of new cloth on an old garment: else the new piece that filled it up taketh away from the old, and the rent is made worse. And no man putteth new wine into old bottles: else the new wine doth burst the bottles, and the wine is spilled, and the bottles will be marred: but new wine must be put into new bottles.

The bottles were made of skin, and the wine put into them must be of a suitable port. To prescribe fasting to his disciples, while he was making them glad with his personal presence, would have been incongruous and absurd; and there are some things that we ought not to expect from young Christians, and other things that we ought not to expect from old and mature Christians. We should not expect to find new wine in old bottles, nor old wine in new bottles. “A place for everything, and everything in its place,” is not only a rule for the home and the merchant’s counting-house, but it is also a rule which should be observed in the Church of Christ; for God, as a God of order, always puts things in their proper places, and in due order.

22 And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins.”

142

GILL, "And no man putteth new wine into old bottles,.... By "old bottles" are meant, the Scribes and Pharisees, the whole, which needed not a physician, and the righteous, Christ came not to call; and by new wine, either the love of God, which is not shed abroad in the hearts of such persons; or the blessings of the new covenant, which are not bestowed upon them; or the Gospel, which brings an account of both, which is not received by carnal men:

else the new wine doth burst the bottles, and the wine is spilled, and the bottles will be marred: the Gospel will only fill them with rage and fury, and they will despise it, and let it go; which will be an aggravation of their sin and misery, and so will prove the savour of death unto death unto them:

but new wine must be put into new bottles; into the hearts of sinners, who are called to repentance, and are renewed in the Spirit of their minds; are newborn babes, that desire the sincere milk of the word, and wine of the Gospel; in these the love of God is exceeding abundant, and it comes in with full flows into their souls; all grace is made to abound towards them, and the word of Christ richly dwells in them; in whom these things remain and abide, and they themselves are saved with an everlasting salvation; See Gill on Mat_9:17.

HENRY, "2. That these were early days with them, and they were not so able for the severe exercises of religion as hereafter they would be. The Pharisees had long accustomed themselves to such austerities; and John Baptist himself came neither eating nor drinking. His disciples from the first inured themselves to hardships, and thus found it easier to bear strict and frequent fasting, but it was not so with Christ's disciples; their Master came eating and drinking, and had not bred them up to the difficult services of religion as yet, for it was all in good time. To put them upon such frequent fasting at first, would be a discouragement to them, and perhaps drive them off from following Christ; it would be of as ill consequence as putting new wine into old casks, or sewing new cloth to that which is worn thin and threadbare, Mar_2:21, Mar_2:22. Note, God graciously considers the frame of young Christians, that are weak and tender, and so must we; nor must we expect more than the work of the day in its day, and that day according to the strength, because it is not in our hands to give strength according to the day. Many contract an antipathy to some kind of food, otherwise good, by being surfeited with it when they are young; so, many entertain prejudices against the exercises of devotion by being burthened with them, and made to serve with an offering, at their setting out. Weak Christians must take heed of over-tasking themselves, and of making the yoke of Christ otherwise than as it is, easy, and sweet, and pleasant.

II. He justifies them in plucking the ears of corn on the sabbath day, which, I will warrant you, a disciples of the Pharisees would not dare to have done; for it was contrary to an express tradition of their elders. In this instance, as in that before, they reflect upon the discipline of Christ's school, as if it were not so strict as that of theirs: so common it is for those who deny the power of godliness, to be jealous for the form, and censorious of those who affect not their form.

Observe, 1. What a poor breakfast Christ's disciples had on a sabbath-day morning, when they were going to church (Mar_2:23); they plucked the ears of corn, and that was the best they had. They were so intent upon spiritual dainties, that they forgot even their necessary food; and the word of Christ was to them instead of that; and their zeal for it even ate them up. The Jews made it a piece of religion, to eat dainty food on sabbath days, but the disciples were content with any thing.

143

COFFMAN, "Skins of animals were used in those times for containing liquids; and, in the case of wine, if new, the process of fermentation increased the volume which was compensated for by the elasticity of the new skins. However, if new wine was put into old skins (hardened and no longer elastic), the fermentation process would burst them, resulting in the loss of both the wine and the wineskins.

The application of this has been understood to mean that Jesus' new teaching could not be put into John's disciples; but it seems preferable to make the forms, ceremonies, and ordinances of Judaism to be the old wineskins; and Jesus' new teachings could not be subordinated to and synchronized with such things as Jewish fasts. To understand this to mean that Jesus would not put his new teaching into John's disciples violates the fact that some of John's disciples became apostles of Christ (John 1:35). However, the majority seem not to have done so; and the reluctance of many of John's disciples to follow Jesus would appear to be the primary meaning of the third phase of this triple reply. "No man having drunk old wine desireth new; for he saith, The old is good" (Luke 5:89). Thus, if certain exceptions are noted, it may still be appropriate to understand the old wineskins as John's disciples.

PETT, “Verse 22‘And no man puts new wine into old wineskins, or else the wine will burst the skins, and the wine perishes, and the skins. But they put new wine into fresh wineskins.’

The double illustration enforces the lesson. Old wineskins (for containing wine) have become dried out and frail as a result of the action of the wine. They have ceased to be pliable. They are thus unable to contain the action of the new wine. So if new wine is put into them they will burst and both the wine and the wineskins will be lost.

Once more the emphasis is on the fact that in this new age which was beginning, the old outward things must be done away. Many religious ideas and practises had grown up through the centuries, and as will happen to such ideas they had become old and dried up. One such idea was regular fasting. But now that the new age has come, a new look must be taken at everything. This was the time for drinking new wine, the time for rejoicing. To put that new wine into the old wineskins would destroy it and people would then be bereft of both the old and the new. They would have lost everything.

Paul had the same thought from a different perspective when he said, “if any man is in Christ he is a new creature, the old things are passed away. Behold they are become new.” For when we come to Christ we are taken out of the past and brought into a new future. Everything becomes new. And we do well not to go back to the old, and indeed must be careful not to.

144

Jesus Is Lord of the Sabbath

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

BARNES, "The cornfields - The fields sown with wheat or barley. The word “corn,” in the Bible, refers only to grain of that kind, and never to “maize” or “Indian corn.”

To pluck the ears of corn - They were hungry, Mat_12:1. They therefore gathered the wheat or barley as they walked and rubbed it in their hands to shell it, and thus to satisfy their appetite. Though our Lord was with them, and though he had all things at his control, yet he suffered them to resort to this method of supplying their wants. When Jesus, thus “with” his disciples, suffered them to be “poor,” we may learn that poverty is not disgraceful; that God often suffers it for the good of his people; and that he will take care, in some way, that their wants shall be supplied. It was “lawful” for them thus to supply their needs. Though the property belonged to another, yet the law of Moses allowed the poor to satisfy their desires when hungry. See Deu_23:25.

CLARKE, "Went through the corn fields - See on Mat_12:1 (note).

GILL, "And it came to pass,.... The Vulgate Latin adds, "again"; and so Beza says it was read in one of his copies:

that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day, and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn, and to rub them, and get the grain out of them, and eat them; See Gill on Mat_12:1.

HENRY, "II. He justifies them in plucking the ears of corn on the sabbath day,which, I will warrant you, a disciples of the Pharisees would not dare to have done; for it was contrary to an express tradition of their elders. In this instance, as in that before, they reflect upon the discipline of Christ's school, as if it were not so strict as that of theirs: so common it is for those who deny the power of godliness, to be jealous for the form, and censorious of those who affect not their form.

Observe, 1. What a poor breakfast Christ's disciples had on a sabbath-day morning, when they were going to church (Mar_2:23); they plucked the ears of corn, and that was the best they had. They were so intent upon spiritual dainties, that they forgot even their necessary food; and the word of Christ was to them instead of that; and their zeal for it even ate them up. The Jews made it a piece of religion, to eat dainty food on sabbath days, but the disciples were content with any thing.

JAMIESON, "Mar_2:23-28. Plucking corn-ears on the Sabbath day. ( = Mat_

145

12:1-8; Luk_6:1-5).

See on Mat_12:1-8.

COFFMAN, "THE CHARGE OF SABBATH-BREAKING

The Pharisees blew this incident up as a violation of the sabbath. It was, of course, a violation to thresh wheat on the sabbath; but the charge that Jesus' disciples' plucking a few ears of wheat, shelling them in their hands, and eating a bite as they passed along - the charge that made such actions threshing wheat on the sabbath was absolutely ridiculous. It would have been just as reasonable, if they had knocked off a little dew on the ground, as they walked along, to have charged them with irrigating land on the sabbath! It is crystal clear that Jesus' disciples did not in any sense whatever violate the sabbath laws of God; what they did violate was the silly Pharisaical rules which those hypocrites had imposed upon people INSTEAD of God's law.

BENSON, "Mark 2:23. He went through the corn-fields — This passage we had Matthew 12:1-8, where it was largely explained. In the days of Abiathar the high-priest — From the passage in the history referred to, (1 Samuel 21:1-9,) it appears that Abimelech, the father of Abiathar, was then high-priest; Abiathar himself not till some time after. This phrase, therefore, only means, In the time of Abiathar, who was afterward high- priest. The sabbath was made for man — And therefore must give way to man’s necessity. The Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath — Being the supreme Lawgiver, he has power to dispense with his own laws, and with this in particular.

BURKITT, "Observe here, 1. The poverty, the low estate and condition, of Christ's own disciples in this world; they wanted bread, and are forced to pluck the ears of corn to satisfy their hunger. God may, and sometimes doth, suffer his dearest children to fall in streights, to taste of want, for the trial of their faith, and dependence upon his power and providence.

Observe, 2. How the Pharisees (who accompanied our Saviour only with a design to cavil at, and quarrel with, every thing that either he or his disciples did) blame this action of the disciples, namely, the plucking the ears of corn on the sabbath-day.

Yet note, 1. It was not any theft which the disciples were charged with; for to take in our necessity so much of our neighbour's goods as we may reasonably suppose that, if he were present, and knew our circumstances, he would give us, is no theft. But it is the servile labour on the sabbath, in gathering the ears of corn, which the Pharisees scruple.

Whence observe, How zealous hypocrites are for the lesser things of the law, whilst they neglect the greater, and are superstitiously addicted to outward ceremonies, placing all holiness in the observation of them, neglecting moral duties.

146

Observe farther, 3. How our Saviour defends the action of his disciples in gathering the ears of corn in their necessity, by the practice and example of David. Necessity freed him from fault and blame in eating the consecrated bread, which none but the priests might lawfully eat. For in cases of necessity a ceremonial precept must give way to a moral duty. Works of mercy and necessity for preserving our lives, and for the better fitting us for sabbath-services, are certainly lawful for the sabbath-day.

Observe, 4. A double argument which our Saviour uses, to prove that the sabbath's observation may be dispensed with in a case of absolute necessity; 1. Drawn from the end of the sabbath's institution: the sabbath was made for man; that is, instituted of God for the good and benefit of mankind, both with respect to their souls and to their bodies. The outward observing and keeping of the sabbath is subordinate to the good of man, and therefore the good of man is to be preferred before the outward keeping of the sabbath.

2. Argument is drawn from the authority which Christ, the Institutor of the sabbath, has over it. The Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath; that is, he has authority and power, both as God and as Mediator, to institute and appoint a sabbath, to alter and change the sabbath, to dispense with the breach of it upon a just and great occasion; and consequently, acts of mercy, which tend to fit us for works of piety, not only may, but ought to be done upon the sabbath-day: which was the proposition which our Saviour undertook to prove.

BARCLAY, "PIETY, REAL AND FALSE (Mark 2:23-28)2:23-28 One Sabbath day Jesus was going through the corn fields. His disciples began to pluck the ears of corn as they made their way along. The Pharisees began to say to him, "Look! Why are they doing what is not allowed on the Sabbath?" "Have you never read," he said, "what David did when he and his friends were in need and hungry? Have you never read how he went into the house of God, when Abiathar was High Priest, and ate the shewbread--which none is allowed to eat except the priests--and gave it to his friends as well?" "The Sabbath," he said to them, "was made for the sake of man and not man for the sake of the Sabbath. Therefore the Son of Man is lord also of the Sabbath."

Once again Jesus cut right across the scribal rules and regulations. When he and his disciples were going through the corn fields one Sabbath day, his disciples began to pluck the ears of corn and to eat them. On any ordinary day the disciples were doing what was freely permitted (Deuteronomy 23:25). So long as the traveller did not put a sickle into the field he was free to pluck the corn. But this was done on the Sabbath and the Sabbath was hedged around with literally thousands of petty rules and regulations. AH work was forbidden. Work had been classified under thirty-nine different heads and four of these heads were reaping, winnowing, threshing and preparing a meal. By their action the disciples had technically broken all these four rules and were to be classified as law-breakers. It seems fantastic to us; but to the Jewish rabbis it was a matter of deadly sin and of life and death.

147

The Pharisees immediately launched their accusation and pointed out that Jesus' disciples were breaking the law. They obviously expected him to stop them on the spot. Jesus answered them in their own language. He cited the story which is told in 1 Samuel 21:1-6. David was fleeing for his life; he came to the tabernacle in Nob; he demanded food and there was none except the shewbread. Exodus 25:23-30 tells of the shewbread. It consisted of twelve loaves placed on a golden table three feet long, one and a half feet wide, and one and a half feet high. The table stood in the tabernacle in front of the Holy of Holies and the bread was a kind of offering to God. It was changed once a week; when it was changed it became the property of the priests and of the priests alone and no one else might eat it (Leviticus 24:9.) Yet in his time of need David took and ate that bread. Jesus showed that scripture itself supplies a precedent in which human need took precedence of human and even divine law.

"The Sabbath," he said, "was made for the sake of man and not man for the sake of the Sabbath." That was self-evident. Man was created before ever the elaborate Sabbath law came into existence. Man was not created to be the victim and the slave of Sabbath rules and regulations which were in the beginning created to make life fuller and better for man. Man is not to be enslaved by the Sabbath; the Sabbath exists to make his life better.

This passage confronts us with certain essential truths which we forget at our peril.

(i) Religion does not consist in rules and regulations. To take the matter in question--Sunday observance is important but there is a great deal more to religion than Sunday observance. If a man might become a Christian simply by abstaining from work and pleasure on the Sunday, and by attending church on that day, and saying his prayers and reading his Bible, being a Christian would be a very easy thing. Whenever men forget the love and the forgiveness and the service and the mercy that are at the heart of religion and replace them by the performance of rules and regulations religion is in a decline. Christianity has at all times consisted far more in doing things than in refraining from doing things.

(ii) The first claim on any man is the claim of human need. Even the catechisms and the confessions admit that works of necessity and mercy are quite legal on the Sabbath. If ever the performance of a man's religion stops him helping someone who is in need, his religion is not religion at all. People matter far more than systems. Persons are far more important than rituals. The best way to worship God is to help men.

(iii) The best way to use sacred things is to use them to help men. That, in fact, is the only way to give them to God. One of the loveliest of all stories is that of The Fourth Wise Man. His name was Artaban. He set out to follow the star and he took with him a sapphire, a ruby and a pearl beyond price as gifts for the King. He was riding hard to meet his three friends, Caspar, Melchior and Balthasar, at the agreed place. The time was short; they would leave if he was late. Suddenly he saw a dim figure on the ground before him. It was a traveller stricken with fever. If he stayed to help he would miss his friends. He did stay; he helped and

148

healed the man. But now he was alone. He needed camels and bearers to help him across the desert because he had missed his friends and their caravan. He had to sell his sapphire to get them; and he was sad because the King would never have his gem.

He journeyed on and in due time came to Bethlehem, but again he was too late. Joseph and Mary and the baby had gone. Then there came the soldiers to carry out Herod's command that the children should be slain. Artaban was in a house where there was a little child. The tramp of the soldiers came to the door; the weeping of stricken mothers could be heard. Artaban stood in the doorway, tall and dark, with the ruby in his hand and bribed the captain not to enter. The child was saved; the mother was overjoyed; but the ruby was gone; and Artaban was sad because the King would never have his ruby.

For years he wandered looking in vain for the King. More than thirty years afterwards he came to Jerusalem. There was a crucifixion that day. When Artaban heard of the Jesus being crucified, he sounded wondrous like the King and Artaban hurried towards Calvary. Maybe his pearl, the loveliest in all the world, could buy the life of the King. Down the street came a girl fleeing from a band of soldiers. "My father is in debt," she cried, "and they are taking me to sell as a slave to pay the debt. Save me!" Artaban hesitated; then sadly he took out his pearl, gave it to the soldiers and bought the girl's freedom.

On a sudden the skies were dark; there was an earthquake and a flying tile hit Artaban on the head. He sank half-conscious to the ground. The girl pillowed his head on her lap. Suddenly his lips began to move. "Not so, my Lord. For when saw I thee hungered and fed thee? Or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw I thee a stranger, and took thee in? Or naked and clothed thee? When saw I thee sick in prison, and came unto thee? Thirty and three years have I looked for thee; but I have never seen thy face, nor ministered to thee, my King." And then like a whisper from very far away, there came a voice. "Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as thou hast done it unto one the least of these my brethren, thou hast done it unto me." And Artaban smiled in death because he knew that the King had received his gifts.

The best way to use sacred things is to use them for men. It has been known for children to be barred from a church because that church was considered too ancient and sacred for such as they. It can be that a church is more concerned with the elaboration of its services than with the help of its simple folk and the relief of its poor. But the sacred things are only truly sacred when they are used for men. The shewbread was never so sacred as when it was used to feed a starving man. The Sabbath was never so sacred as when it was used to help those who needed help. The final arbiter in the use of all things is love and not law.

PETT, “Verse 23‘And it happened that he was going on the Sabbath day through the cornfields, and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn.’

What the disciples were doing in plucking the corn would have been seen as

149

within their rights on any other day of the week, as long as they did not use a sickle (Deuteronomy 23:25), and it is not for that that they would be criticised. The problem lay in the fact that they did it on the Sabbath day and that what they were doing was seen as reaping and threshing corn, both forbidden on the Sabbath (Exodus 34:21). The Rabbis had at various times laid down a considerable number of regulations about the Sabbath in order to prevent it being violated and this was included among them. And it was not just a matter of being awkward. They genuinely believed that such activity could have awful consequences.

PETT, “Verses 23-28The Son of Man Is Lord of the Sabbath (2:23-28).

In this incident we are provided with an example of how the Pharisees sought to cling to the old, while Jesus was introducing the new. The Pharisees believed that there were certain things that epitomised Israel’s covenant with God, and that it would be by observing these fully that they would help to issue in God’s Kingly Rule. These included washing rituals which kept them ‘clean’ from defilement by an outer world which did not observe God’s requirement to be ritually ‘clean’; strictly tithing all their possessions; avoiding being involved with all who did not subscribe to their ideas, and strictly observing the Sabbath. These things had become the be all and end all of their lives. Thus when they saw the disciples of the new prophet flouting the Sabbath rules as laid down by the Scribes, they were both horrified and furious. It went against all in which they believed. This prophet was, in their eyes, actually delaying the time when God’s Kingly Rule would come, so mechanical were they in their views. And when Jesus brought out that as the new David He took a different view of the Sabbath, and supported it by citing the Scriptures, it was beyond what they could take. It was one thing for David to behave like this (no one had ever criticised David for it), it was quite another for this upstart ‘prophet’ to do it. And this was especially so when He claimed as the Son of Man to be Lord of the Sabbath (although they might not have been sure at this stage whether He was referring to Himself or someone else).

Analysis.

a And it happened that he was going on the Sabbath day through the cornfields, and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn (Mark 2:23).b And the Pharisees said to him, “Look, why do they on the Sabbath day what is not lawful?” (Mark 2:24).c And he said to them, “Have you never read what David did when he had need and was hungry, he and those who were with him? How, in the passage headed ‘Abiathar the High Priest’, he entered into the house of God, and ate the shewbread which it is not lawful to eat, except for the priests, and gave also to those who were with him?” (Mark 2:25-26).b And he said, “The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27).a “So that the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath (Mark 2:28).”Note that in ‘a’ we have described what happened on the Sabbath, and in the

150

parallel it could not be criticised because the Son of Man was Lord of the Sabbath. In ‘b’ the Pharisees charge the disciples with doing what was not lawful on the Sabbath, and in the parallel Jesus points out that man was not made in order to establish and preserve the Sabbath, but that God’s purpose for the Sabbath was that it might benefit man. Centrally in ‘c’ He demonstrates that as the new David He has the authority to shape God’s Law.

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

GILL, "And the Pharisees said unto him,.... To Christ, the same they said to his disciples, Luk_6:2.

Behold, why do they on the sabbath day, that which is not lawful? see how they pluck the ears of corn and rub them, and eat things, which by the law, especially by the traditions of the elders, were not lawful to be done on the sabbath day; See Gill on Mat_12:2.

HENRY, "2. How even this was grudged them by the Pharisees, upon supposition that it was not lawful to pluck the ears of corn on the sabbath day, that that was as much a servile work as reaping (Mar_2:24); Why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful? Note, If Christ's disciples do that which is unlawful, Christ will be reflected upon, and upbraided with it, as he was here, and dishonour will redound to his name. It is observable, that when the Pharisees thought Christ did amiss, they told the disciples (Mar_2:16); and now when they thought the disciples did amiss, they spoke to Christ, as make-bates, that did what they could to sow discord between Christ and his disciples, and make a breach in the family.

CALVIN, "Mark 2:24.Why do they on the Sabbath what is not lawful? The Pharisees do not blame the disciples of Christ for plucking ears of corn from a field that was not their own, but for violating the Sabbath; as if there had been a precept to this effect, that famishing men ought rather to die than to satisfy their hunger. Now the only reason for keeping the Sabbath was, that the people, by sanctifying themselves to God, might be employed in true and spiritual worship; and next, that, being free from all worldly occupations, they might be more at liberty to attend the holy assemblies. The lawful observation of it, therefore, must have a reference to this object; for the Law ought to be interpreted according to the design of the Legislator. But this shows clearly the malicious and implacable nature of superstition, and particularly the proud and cruel dispositions of hypocrites, when ambition is joined to hatred of the person. It was not the mere affectation of pretended holiness, as I have said, that made the Pharisees so stern and rigorous; but as they expressly wished to carp at every thing that Christ said or did, they could not do otherwise than put a wrong meaning in cases where there was nothing to blame, as usually happens with

151

prejudiced interpreters. The accusation was brought—according to Matthew and Mark—against our Lord, and—according to Luke—against his disciples. But there is no inconsistency here; for the disciples were in all probability so harassed, that the charge was directed chiefly against the Master himself. It is even possible that the Pharisees first wrangled with the disciples, and afterwards with Christ, and that, in the rage of their malice, they blamed him for remaining silent, and permitting his disciples to break the Sabbath.

COFFMAN, "One can only be distressed at the interpretations of this event which accept this charge of the Pharisees as valid. It was not valid. It was a false charge. God's sabbath law had not been violated at all; but the petty regulations legislated and imposed by the Pharisees had been flouted. Of course, IN THEIR VIEW, their human regulations were equated with God's law; but no Christian should fall into such an error as that. Christ said of this very incident that his disciples were "guiltless" (Matthew 12:7).

PETT, “Verse 24‘And the Pharisees said to him, “Look, why do they on the Sabbath day what is not lawful?”

They were probably quite genuinely upset. There is no one more vulnerable than the sincere person who has established a set of regulations as being right and then sees them being flouted. They just could not understand how Jesus, Who seemed willing to live within their requirements (which they saw as God’s requirements), could allow such a thing to be done. They considered that the disciples were behaving unlawfully with great abandon. They were defiling God’s day of rest.

But the statement may be a little more sinister than that. The punishment for Sabbath breaking was stoning, and certainly later it was laid down that a warning must first be given before the stoning could take place. Men must be given one chance. Thus ‘what is not lawful’ may have been an official warning. They may have been saying, ‘we are giving them a last chance. If they do it again they will be punished by the synagogue.’

SPURGEON, "According to some Rabbis, you might pick an ear of wheat on the Sabbath-day, but if you rubbed it between your hands, they said that was a sort of thieving which was a kind of labour that must not be performed on the Sabbath. They made all sorts of ingenious restrictions, too ridiculous for us to quote. These disciples were therefore, according to them, chargeable with sin, because they had plucked ears of corn, and had performed the operation of threshing them on the Sabbath-day, and we have some of that sort of folk living now who take the smallest matter, which is altogether insignificant, and in which there is neither good nor harm, and magnify and distort it, and then make a man a grave offender all for next to nothing. We have learned not to be very much troubled by anything that they choose to say.

152

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

GILL, "And he said unto them,.... By way of answer to their question, and which was a full one, and enough to silence them:

have ye never read what David did; referring to the history in 1Sa_21:1.

when he had need: of bread, was in great necessity, and in the utmost distress:

and was an hungered, he, and they that were with him? which was a justifiable reason for what he and his company did; as it was for the action of the disciples; being in a like case, and therefore very appropriate to the purpose; See Gill on Mat_12:3.

HENRY, "3. How Christ defended them in what they did.

(1.) By example. They had a good precedent for it in David's eating the show-bread, when he was hungry, and there was no other bread to be had (Mar_2:25, Mar_2:26); Have ye never read? Note, Many of our mistakes would be rectified, and our unjust censures of others corrected, if we would but recollect what we have readin the scripture; appeals to that are most convincing. “You have read that David, the man after God's own heart, when he was hungry, made no difficulty of eating the show-bread, which by the law none might eat of but the priests and their families.” Note, Ritual observances must give way to moral obligations; and that may be done in a case of necessity, which otherwise may not be done. This, it is said, David did in the days of Abiathar the High-Priest; or just before the days of Abiathar, who immediately succeeded Abimelech his father in the pontificate, and, it is probable, was at that time his father's deputy, or assistant, in the office; and he it was that escaped the massacre, and brought the ephod to David.

COFFMAN, "David did indeed do an unlawful thing, to which Christ referred; but why did Jesus cite such an example? Is this to be understood to mean: "Look, David sinned; therefore it is all right for us to sin"? No! Christ was not here seeking to justify his disciples on the basis that "everybody else" is doing it. The true purpose of David's conduct being brought in here was to show how unreasonable and partial the Pharisees were in their judgments. David's flagrant violation they approved; yet they would make what Jesus' disciples did sabbath-breaking!

PETT, “Verse 25-26‘And he said to them, “Have you never read what David did when he had need

153

and was hungry, he and those who were with him? How, in the passage headed ‘Abiathar the High Priest’, he entered into the house of God, and ate the shewbread which it is not lawful to eat, except for the priests, and gave also to those who were with him?”

At first this answer seems to have little to do with the question, for there is no suggestion that David did it on the Sabbath (although it is true that that is at a later time suggested by a leading Rabbi). But Jesus’ point is looking higher than that. He is talking about authority. In the passage in question (1 Samuel 21:1-6) David and his men, pretending to be on the king’s business, required food, and the priest told them that that the only food available was the shewbread which had been on the table in the house of God (Exodus 25:23-30). This was intended only for the priests for it was ‘holy’, that is, set apart as God’s. But, no doubt in some fear of this powerful man with his armed warriors (see Mark 2:1), he allowed him to have the shewbread for his men as long as they had kept themselves from women and were not therefore ‘unclean’. He basically yielded to David’s authority. (It may be that the regulations were not being so strictly enforced at that time, as often happens with ritual. But it may simply be that the priest was prepared to allow sacrilege to save his life).

The point of the story could be seen as indicating two things. Firstly that when men were hungry and in need cultic regulations could be set aside for people in a suitable condition, and secondly that this was on the authority of and by the action of the future King David. Yet the Pharisees had never been heard to condemn David for his behaviour, because David was held in such high regard. Rather they saw it as his right because of who he was, the chosen and ‘anointed’ of God. And it was clear also that the Scriptures had not condemned it. But the question must be asked, why not? And the answer could only be that they accepted that the regulations could be set aside in cases of need when one with sufficient authority from God was there to set them aside.

The fact is that Jesus did not argue that they were simply accusing the disciples on a technicality. He appears to have accepted that they could be seen as ‘breaking’ the Sabbath Law as interpreted by the Rabbis. (What he says later, that the Sabbath was made for man, seems to confirm this. That only comes in as an argument if this was seen as the breaking of the strict Sabbath rule as interpreted by the Rabbis). Nor would either Jesus or the Pharisees have agreed that God’s Law could be set aside for man’s convenience. (And the disciples were neither starving nor hungry soldiers on the run). Nor would either Jesus or the Pharisees have allowed the specific and forceful ordinances of the Law in the Pentateuch, with their blessings and cursings, to be easily set aside. The Law was seen as rigid in both their eyes. Jesus would not have maintained otherwise, and certainly the Pharisees would not have accepted it. And both knew that the Law was especially rigid about the Sabbath. A man had been stoned for gathering sticks on the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32).

Thus the point could only be that the regulations could be set aside in cases of need when one with sufficient authority from God was there to set them aside. And Jesus certainly puts the onus on David. “Did you never read whatDavid

154

did? --- he entered in -- ate the shewbread -- gave also to those who were with him.” And that is the point. It was because it was David that the action remained uncriticised.

The implication must therefore be that the disciples could also therefore be allowed to gather food and feed themselves on the Sabbath when they were hungry (not a little peckish) because the equivalent in authority to David was permitting it. The Sabbath Law could be set aside in this case because the Son of Man had determined it, and ‘the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath’. This is the only explanation that fits all the facts.

It would always have been open to Jesus to argue that what the disciples had done was not really ‘working’ and should not therefore be treated as a breach of the Sabbath (they had probably done it unconsciously not for a moment thinking of it as work, possibly unaware of the Pharisees’ detailed regulations). But He was well aware that His opponents would be able to produce Rabbinic teaching that asserted that it was. What He was asserting therefore was that it was allowable in this case because an authority greater than that of the Rabbis was present.

Jesus’ point was that the Kingly Rule of God was here and that its authority was being exercised by Him. Thus He had the right to make new regulations about the Sabbath, as David had before Him about the shewbread, in his case also when his new kingdom was about to come in. This also ties in with his illustrations of the patching of the old clothes and the filling of the old wine skins with new wine. The old had passed, the new had come. In a very real sense it was a Messianic claim, but it was discreetly put. It was a claim to a unique authority from God as had been illustrated by His teaching, the casting out of evil spirits and His power over disease, and was now claimed over the interpretation of the Law. It was the equivalent of, ‘but I say to you’ (found regularly in Matthew 5).

‘In the passage headed ‘Abiathar the High Priest’. For the purpose of the readings in the Synagogue the Law was split into sections each given a heading. This would then be one of the headings, the heading of the passage containing the incident of the shewbread. It is then not saying that it happened in the days of Abiathar as High Priest, only that it is described in Scripture in that passage which was headed ‘Abiathar the High Priest’ (e.g. 1 Samuel 21-22). Another such passage was headed ‘The Bush’ (Luke 20:37). (This incident actually led to Abiathar being made High Priest).

Others see the mention of Abiathar as taking a famous and unmistakable name in order to date the incident (thus ‘in the days of Abiathar who subsequently became the High Priest’, or ‘during the lifetime of Abiathar, who later became High Priest’). It should be noted that no one appears to have objected to this description, neither the Pharisees nor the Gospel writers. And yet they knew the Scriptures better than most of us do, and were as well aware as Jesus was that it was Ahimelech who was actually High Priest at the time. They were clearly satisfied with the accuracy of the description.

155

‘The house of God.’ For an example of this description being applied to the Tabernacle see Judges 18:31.

BI, "And He said unto them, Have ye never read what David did?

How to read the Bible

I. In order to the true reading of the Scriptures there must be an understanding of them. The mind must be well awake to it. We must meditate upon it. We must pray about it. We must use all means and helps.

II. In reading we ought to seek out the spiritual teaching of the Word. This should be the case in reference to the historical passages, ceremonial precepts, and doctrinal statements.

III. Such a reading of Scripture as implies the understanding of, and the entrance into, its spiritual meaning, and the discovery of the Divine Person, who is the spiritual meaning, is profitable. It often begets spiritual life. It comforts the soul It nourishes the soul. It guides us. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

Pedantic Bible readers

The scribes and Pharisees were great readers of the law. They made notes of very little importance, but still very curious notes-as to which was the middle verse of the entire Old Testament, which verse was half-way to the middle, and how many times such a word occurred, and the size of the letter, and its peculiar position. According to Pharisaic interpretation, to rub an ear of corn is a kind of threshing, and, as it is very wrong to thresh on the Sabbath day, therefore it must be very wrong to rub out an ear or two of wheat when you are hungry on the Sabbath morning. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

The grace of Bible doctrine

The doctrines of grace are good, but the grace of the doctrines is better. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

Living in God’s Word

As I sat, last year, under a wide-spreading beech, I was pleased to mark with prying curiosity the singular habits of that most wonderful of trees, which seems to have an intelligence about it which other trees have not. I wondered at, and admired the beech, but I thought to myself, I do not think half as much of this beech tree as yonder squirrel does. I see him leap from bough to bough, and I feel sure he dearly values the old beech tree, because he has his home somewhere inside it, in a hollow place; these branches are his shelter, and these beech nuts are his food. He lives upon the tree. It is his world, his playground, his granary, his home; indeed it is everything to him, and it is not so to me, for I find my rest and food elsewhere. With God’s Word it is well for us to be like squirrels, living in it, and living on it. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

Bible glancing not Bible reading

156

An old preacher used to say: The Word has mighty free course among many nowadays, for it goes in at one of their ears, and out at the other. So it seems to be with some readers-they read a very great deal because they do not read anything. Their eye glances, but the mind never rests. The soul does not light upon the truth and stay there. It flits over the landscape as a bird might do, but it builds no nest therein, and finds no rest for the sole of its foot. Such reading is not reading. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

An interior reading of Scripture

In prayer there is such a thing as praying in prayer-a praying which is the bowels of the prayer. In praise there is a praising in song, an reward fire of intense devotion, which is the life of the hallelujah. It is even so with the reading of the Scriptures. There is an interior reading, a kernel reading; and, if it be not there, the reading is a mechanical exercise, and profits nothing. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

Illumination necessary to emotion

When the high priest went into the holy place he always lit the golden candlestick before he kindled the incense upon the brazen altar, as if to show that the mind must have illumination before the affections can rise towards God. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

Use of the Scriptures

The cause of so many gross and foolish opinions which many amongst us hold and maintain, is nothing else but their ignorance of the Scriptures, either because they read them not duly and diligently, or else because they understand them not aright. How many foolish and absurd opinions are held by ignorant people in many places? Such as these for example: That faith is nothing but a man’s good meaning: That God is served by rehearsing the Ten Commandments and the Creed instead of prayers: That the Sabbath is kept well enough if men and women come to church, and be present at public prayers and at the sermon, though they spend the rest of the day either idly or profanely: That the Sabbath is well enough sanctified by bare reading of prayers, and so much preaching is needless: That it is lawful to swear in common talk to that which is true: That in religion it is best to do as the most do: That a man may make of his own as much as he can: That such as are not book learned need have no knowledge of religion. These, and such-like absurd opinions, proceed from nothing but ignorance of the Scriptures. If we would avoid such errors, and be led into all truth of doctrine necessary to salvation, let us

(1) be frequent and diligent in hearing the Scriptures explained in church;

(2) search them diligently and often in private reading;

(3) pray daily to God to open our understanding, that we may perceive their true meaning;

(4) confer with others touching those things which we read and hear. (G. Petter.)

Mercy better than sacrifice

157

When the Romans had ravaged the province of Azazane, and seven thousand Persians were brought to Armida, where they suffered extreme want. Acases, the bishop of that city, observed that as God said, “I love mercy better than sacrifice,” He would certainly be better pleased with the relief of His suffering creatures, than with being served with gold and silver in their churches. The clergy were of the same opinion. The consecrated vessels were sold, and with the proceeds, the seven thousand Persians were not only maintained during the war, but sent home at its conclusion with money in their pockets. Varenes, the Persian monarch, was so charmed with this humane action, that he invited the bishop to his capital, where he received him with the utmost reverencer and for his sake conferred many favours on the Christians.

CONSTABLE, "The incident Jesus referred to is in 1 Samuel 21:1-6. Mark was the only evangelist to mention that Abiathar was the high priest then. This seemingly contradicts the Old Testament since Ahimelech, the father or Abiathar, was the high priest then according to the writer of 1 Samuel. The best solution to this problem seems to be that Jesus referred to Abiathar because he was the better-known priest during David's reign. The phrase "in the time of" or "in the days of" probably means "during the lifetime of" rather than "during the high priesthood of." [Note: James Morison, A Practical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Mark, pp. 60-63, gave 10 possible solutions to this problem.]

Jesus' point was this. David technically broke the ritual law by eating bread that only the priests were to eat. Nevertheless he could do so because David was on the Lord's service. As such, he could do things other Israelites, not on the Lord's service, could not do. Furthermore the offense was a matter of religious ritual, not a moral violation of the law, as the Pharisees were implying. Another example of violating the letter of the law to observe its spirit is King Hezekiah's granting the Israelites who were unclean permission to eat the Passover (2 Chronicles 30:18-20). God did not object to that either. Another explanation of David's action is that God permitted it because of the urgency of his situation and that Jesus was claiming that His mission was equally urgent. [Note: Mark L. Bailey, in The New Testament Explorer, p. 72.]

The Pharisees failed in two respects. First, they did not distinguish which laws were more important. Serving the Lord is more important than resting, and man is more important than the Sabbath.

"Human need is a higher law than religious ritual." [Note: Ralph Earle, The Gospel According to Mark, p. 49.]

Second, they did not recognize Jesus as the anointed Servant of the Lord that the Old Testament predicted would come, the Son of David. Mark did not mention, as Matthew did, that Jesus pointed out that one greater than the temple had come (Matthew 12:6). Mark's emphasis was not on Jesus as the King as much as it was on Jesus as the Lord's anointed Servant. As God's anointed Servant, Jesus had the right to provide for His disciples' physical needs even though that meant

158

violating a tradition governing ritual worship.

SPURGEON, "Mark 2:25-28. And he said unto them, have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him? How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the High priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him? And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

He has made it to be no longer a day of bondage, but a day of blessed rest and holy service for God. Works of necessity, works of piety, and works of mercy, are not only allowed to be done, but are commanded to be done upon the Sabbath-day.

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

BARNES, "Abiathar the priest - From 1Sa_21:1, it appears that Ahimelech was high priest at the time here referred to. And from 1Sa_23:6, it appears that “Abiathar” was the son of “Ahimelech.” Some difficulty has been felt in reconciling these accounts. The probable reason as to why Mark says it was in the days of “Abiathar” is that Abiathar was better known than Ahimelech. 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 afterward known. “Abiathar,” 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 special garments of the high priest. For a long time, during David’s reign, he was high priest, and it became natural, therefore, to associate “his” name with that of David; to speak of David as king, and Abiathar the high priest of his time. This will account for the fact that he was spoken of rather than his father. At the same time this was strictly true, that this was done in the days of “Abiathar,” who was afterward high priest, and was familiarly spoken of as such; as we say that “General” Washington was present at the defeat of Braddock and saved his army, though the title of “General” did not belong to him until many years afterward. Compare the

159

notes at Luk_2:2.

showbread - See the notes at Mat_12:4.

CLARKE, "The days of Abiathar the high priest - It appears from 1Sa_21:1, which is the place referred to here, that Ahimelech was then high priest at Nob: and from 1Sa_22:20; 1Sa_23:6, and 1Ch_18:16, it appears that Abiathar was the son of Ahimelech. The Persic reads Abimelech instead of Abiathar. Theophylact supposes that Abiathar was the priest, and Ahimelech or Abimelech the high priest, and thus endeavors to reconcile both the sacred historians. Others reconcile the accounts thus:

Ahimelech was called Ahimelech Abiathar, אב ab, father, understood; and Abiathar

was called Abiathar Ahimelech, בן ben, son, understood. Probably they both

officiated in the high priesthood; and the name of the office was indifferently applied to either.

Shew-bread - See Mat_12:4.

GILL, "How he went into the house of God,.... The tabernacle; for the temple was not yet built: thither David went to get bread for himself and his men, being hungry: so in a spiritual sense, where should such go, who are hungering and thirsting after righteousness, but into the house of God? Here is bread enough, and to spare; here is a table furnished with excellent provisions; here the Gospel is dispensed, which is milk for babes, and meat for strong men; here Christ, the bread of life, is set forth, whose flesh is meat indeed, and whose blood is drink indeed; here the ordinances are administered, which are breasts of consolation to the children of God; here is a feast of fat things, all things are ready, and souls are welcome, and therefore it must be right to attend here. And this was on the sabbath day that David went into the house of God: when the showbread loaves were removed, and divided, among the priests, and new ones were placed in their room: and so under the Gospel dispensation, on the Lord's day, the day set apart for public worship, it becomes the saints to go up to the house of the Lord, and feed upon the provisions of it: they are a royal priesthood, they are priests, as well as kings to God; and their business is in the house of the Lord, to offer up spiritual sacrifices to him; and as the goodness and fulness of his house appertains to them, they do well to attend and partake thereof.

In the days or Abiathar the high priest: and yet from the history it is clear, that it was in the days of Ahimelech the high priest, the father of Abiathar; wherefore the Jew charges (k) Mark with an error, and Matthew and Luke too: whereas the two last make no mention of the name of any high priest; and it might be observed, that in the Persic version of Mark it is rendered, "under Abimelech the high priest"; and in an ancient copy of Beza's, the whole clause is omitted; though it must be owned, that so it is read in other Greek copies, and in the ancient versions, the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, Arabic, and others: wherefore let it be further observed, that the fact referred to was done in the days of Abiathar, though it was before he was an high priest; and the

particle επι may be so rendered, about, or "before Abiathar was high priest", as it is in

Mat_1:11. Besides, Abiathar was the son of an high priest, and succeeded his father in the office: and might be at this time his deputy, who acted for him, or he by has advice; and according to a rule the Jews (l) themselves give,

"the son of an high priest, who is deputed by his father in his stead, הרי�כהן�גדול�אמור,

"lo! he is called an high priest".''

160

So that Abiathar might at this time be called the high priest; and is the rather mentioned, because he was the more eminent and famous man; and whom the Jews call (m) Urim and Thummim, because there was much inquiry made by them; in his and his father's days, and very little after: to which may be added, that the names of the father and the son are sometimes changed; Ahimelech is called Abiathar, and this Abiathar is called Ahimelech, the son of Abiathar, 2Sa_8:17, and Abimelech the son of Abiathar, 1Ch_18:16. And it seems as if both father and son had two names, and were sometimes called by the one, and sometimes by the other: for as the father is sometimes called Abiathar, the son is called Ahimelech, or Abimelech, as in the places mentioned; and which refer to the times when David was king of Israel, and long after the death of Saul, and consequently long after Ahimelech, and the rest of the priests at Nob, were killed by the order of Saul: wherefore Ahimelech, or Abimelech, in the said places, must be the son of Abiathar; and who afterwards was thrust out of the priesthood by Solomon, for joining with Adonijah in his usurpation, 1Ki_1:25. And from whence it appears, that his father was called Abiathar also, and which some take to be their family name; and if so, then there is no difficulty, and the evangelist rightly says, that this affair was in the days of Abiathar: but be it that he intends the son, what has been before observed is a sufficient solution of this difficulty; for the evangelist does not say that Abiathar was high priest, when David came and eat the showbread; he only says, "it was in the days of Abiathar the high priest": for certain it is, that this happened in his days; and as certain, that he was an high priest; and Mark might with great propriety call him so, though he was not strictly one, till after this business was over: besides, he was not only the son of an high priest, and it may be his deputy, and some have thought officiated at this time, his father being sick or infirm through old age; but inasmuch as his father was directly killed by the order of Saul, he narrowly escaping, immediately succeeded him in the office of the high priesthood; and therefore his being an high priest so very near the time of this action, without any impropriety and impertinence, and especially without incurring the charge of falsehood, the evangelist might express himself as he does.

And did eat the showbread, which is not lawful to eat, but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him? Who not only ate the showbread, which was set before the Lord, and was sacred, and which none but the priests might eat of, after it was removed from the table; but he did this on the sabbath day; and he not only eat of it himself, but the soldiers that were with him: and all this with the knowledge and leave of the high priest: for the Jews (n) have no reason to charge this evangelist and the others with an error, that others besides David ate of the showbread, urging that he came alone to Ahimelech; since it is evident from 1Sa_21:2,

that David had servants in company with him when he fled, though they did not attend him when he went to the high priest; and that he asked bread, and it was given him, not only for himself, but for the young men that he had appointed to be at such a place: and therefore, if this was allowed to David and his men, when hungry, it ought not to be charged as an evil upon the disciples, for plucking and rubbing a few ears of corn to satisfy their hunger, though on a sabbath day; and especially when he, who was Lord of the sabbath, was present, and admitted of it; See Gill on Mat_12:4.

HENRY, "3. How Christ defended them in what they did.

(1.) By example. They had a good precedent for it in David's eating the show-bread, when he was hungry, and there was no other bread to be had (Mar_2:25,

161

Mar_2:26); Have ye never read? Note, Many of our mistakes would be rectified, and our unjust censures of others corrected, if we would but recollect what we have readin the scripture; appeals to that are most convincing. “You have read that David, the man after God's own heart, when he was hungry, made no difficulty of eating the show-bread, which by the law none might eat of but the priests and their families.” Note, Ritual observances must give way to moral obligations; and that may be done in a case of necessity, which otherwise may not be done. This, it is said, David did in the days of Abiathar the High-Priest; or just before the days of Abiathar, who immediately succeeded Abimelech his father in the pontificate, and, it is probable, was at that time his father's deputy, or assistant, in the office; and he it was that escaped the massacre, and brought the ephod to David.

COFFMAN, "Abiathar ... The alternative reading (English Revised Version (1885)), "in the days of Abiathar" is correct, apparently because Abiathar was not high priest at the time referred to, but later when David was king. His father Ahimelech was high priest when David ate the showbread (1 Samuel 21:1-6). It could also be that Abiathar also bore the name Ahimelech, as the Bible gives many examples of persons called by two names.

Which it is not lawful to eat ... Christ here clearly indicated David's actions as unlawful, the point being that a genuine violation in the case of David was openly approved by the Pharisees, while the inconsequential thing Jesus' disciples did was blown up into a charge of sabbath-breaking. Christ was not here seeking to justify his disciples' sabbath-breaking by the statement that "David did it also"; but he was pinpointing the unfairness and unjust judgments of the Pharisees.

Christ never meant, as some assert, that "human need takes precedence over God's law." Christ taught no such doctrine. His refusal to permit his own dire hunger to cause him to yield to the devil's temptations to change stones into bread (Matthew 4:1-4) refutes the conceit that human need justifies setting aside God's laws. Christ's true teaching here is that God's law justifies setting aside petty human regulations.

Such interpretations of this as that advocated by Dummelow and many others should be rejected. He said:

Christ laid down the principle that even divine law itself, so far as it is purely ceremonial, is subservient to human needs, and can be broken without sin for adequate cause.[4]As McGarvey expressed it:

If Christians may violate law when itsobservance would involve hardship or suffering, then there is an end to suffering for the name of Christ, and an end, even, of self-denial.[5]SIZE>

The fact of the Pharisees' approval of David's unlawful conduct, while at the same time pressing their silly little charge against the disciples, is evident in the fact that, if they had not approved it, they could have said, "Ah! So David was a sinner, and so are you!" That they did not so reply shows that they approved David's violation; thus their hypocrisy was open for all to see.

162

"Human needs take precedence over ritual law"[6] could be applied only to very few things in the Christian faith, because Christianity is not a ritual religion. Only two ceremonial ordinances distinguish the faith of Christ, namely, the Lord's Supper and baptism. To the extent that marriage and church attendance might be considered in any degree "ritual" or "ceremonial," these also would be excluded from any such deduction based on Jesus' teachings here. Moreover, the deduction cited above is not a logical derivation from New Testament teaching concerning this incident; but it is due to a failure to take account of Matthew's more complete narrative of it, that writer quoting Jesus as denying all guilt of his apostles. Expositors who ignore Matthew 12:7, set aside the Lord's statement of the apostles' innocence, accept the crooked charge of the Pharisees that they broke the sabbath, and then make our Lord's alleged approval of it the basis of a deduction that men may set aside God's laws whenever they fancy their "human needs" are in any manner denied by holy law - such expositors do violence to the word of God. To accept such "interpretations" would justify every divorce ever granted. It is clear that some who hold such views have not considered the logical consequences of such interpretations.

[4] J. R. Dummelow, op. cit., p. 666.

[5] J. W. McGarvey, Commentary on Matthew (Delight, Arkansas: The Gospel Light Publishing Company), p. 104.

[6] Earle McMillan, op. cit., p. 43.

COKE, "Mark 2:26. In the days of Abiathar— In the history, the priest from whom David received the shew-bread is called Ahimelech; and it is generally agreed that he was the high-priest, because Doeg accused him of inquiring of the Lord for David, (1 Samuel 22:10.) a thing which none but the priest, having on him the ephod, could do. If that be true, Ahimelech must have been the high-priest, becausehe himself confessed that he had often inquired of the Lord formerly without blame, Mark 2:15 accordingly Josephus calls him the high priest several times. But to make this matter easy, Hammond supposes that ,the phrase here used, should be translated, before the day of Abiatharוניֱ◌גיבטבס as וני פחע לופןיךוףיבע, Matthew 1:11 seems to signify before the captivity. Lightfoot thinks it should be translated, In the days of Abiathar, the son of the high-priest, as פןץַ◌כיsignifies the son of Eli, Luke 3:23. Whitby is of opinion, that בסקיוסוץע, in this passage, signifies a chief-priest, an eminent man of the order; which sense, it must be acknowledged, the word has often in Scripture. Grotius supposes that Abiathar, being a more celebrated person than his father, is mentioned rather than him. Possibly Abiathar was present when David came, whose request he might advise his father to grant: if so, it was abundantly proper to mention him in this affair. He is called Abiathar the high-priest, although when David applied to him he did not possess that dignity,it being common to denominate people in every part of their life, by such eminent offices as they have held in any part thereof. Perhaps it may illustrate the matter to observe, that Ahimelech,the father of Abiathar, was not slain with the priests of Nob: for though Saul threatened him and all his father's house with death, (1 Samuel

163

22:16.) it is not said that he was killed. We are onlytold that Doeg fell upon the priests, and slew fourscore and five of them. Besides, had Ahimelech been slain, the high-priesthood would have been taken from his family, which it was not; for Solomon's deposition of Abiathar, Ahimelech's son, is declared to have been an accomplishment of the word of the Lord concerning the house of Eli. Till this period, therefore, Eli's descendants enjoyed the high-priesthood. But, what puts the matter beyond doubt, Ahimelech is said to have been high-priest in David's reign; 1 Chronicles 18:16 where he is called the son of Abiathar, who was high-priest, being alive when David received the shew-bread. So our Lord says expressly. Probably, being old, he was incapable of officiating, which was the reason that his eldest son Ahimelech supplied his place, and inquired of the Lord for David. It is true, in the history of this affair, Ahimelech is called the son of Ahitub, (1 Samuel 22:20.) but everywhere else he is called the son of Abiathar. Most probably, Ahimelech's father had two names, which was no uncommon thing in those days. Respecting the shew-bread, &c. See the notes on Exodus 25:23-30.

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

BARNES, "The sabbath was made for man - For his rest from toil, his rest from the cares and anxieties of the world, to give him an opportunity to call off his attention from earthly concerns and to direct it to the affairs of eternity. It was a kind provision for man that he might refresh his body by relaxing his labors; that he might have undisturbed time to seek the consolations of religion to cheer him in the anxieties and sorrows of a troubled world; and that he might render to God that homage which is most justly due to him as the Creator, Preserver, Benefactor, and Redeemer of the world. And it is easily capable of proof that no institution has been more signally blessed to man’s welfare than the Sabbath. To that we owe, more than to anything else, the peace and order of a civilized community. Where there is no Sabbath there is ignorance, vice, disorder, and crime. On that holy day the poor and the ignorant, as well as the learned, have undisturbed time to learn the requirements of religion, the nature of morals, the law of God, and the way of salvation. On that day man may offer his praises to the Great Giver of all good, and in the sanctuary seek the blessing of him whose favor is life. Where that day is observed in any manner as it should be, order prevails, morals are promoted, the poor are elevated in their condition, vice flies away, and the community puts on the appearance of neatness, industry, morality, and religion. The Sabbath was therefore pre-eminently intended for man’s welfare, and the best interests of mankind demand that it should be sacredly regarded as an appointment of merciful heaven intended for our best good, and, where improved aright, infallibly resulting in our temporal and eternal peace.

Not man for the sabbath - Man was made “first,” and then the Sabbath was

164

appointed for his welfare, Gen_2:1-3. The Sabbath was not “first” made or contemplated, and then the man made with reference to that. Since, therefore, the Sabbath was intended for man’s “good,” the law respecting it must not be interpreted so as to oppose his real welfare. It must be explained in consistency with a proper attention to the duties of mercy to the poor and the sick, and to those in peril. It must be, however, in accordance with man’s “real good on the whole,” and with the law of God. The law of God contemplates man’s “real good on the whole;” and we have no right, under the plea that the Sabbath was made for man, to do anything contrary to what the law of God admits. It would not be for our “real good,” but for our real and eternal injury, to devote the Sabbath to vice, to labor, or to amusement.

CLARKE, "The Sabbath was made for man - That he might have the seventh part of his whole time to devote to the purposes of bodily rest and spiritual exercises. And in these respects it is of infinite use to mankind. Where no Sabbath is observed, there disease, poverty, and profligacy, generally prevail. Had we no Sabbath, we should soon have no religion. This whole verse is wanting in the Codex Bezae, and in five of the Itala.

GILL, "And he said unto them,.... Continuing his answer to them, and adding, in confirmation of what he had said, and for the further vindication of his disciples,

the sabbath was made for man; for his good, and not for his hurt; both for the good of his soul, that he might have an opportunity of attending divine worship, both in public and private; and for the good of his body, that he might have rest from his labour; and this was the end of the original institution and appointment of it; and therefore works of necessity are not forbidden on this day; such as are for the necessary comfort, support, and preservation of life; or otherwise it would be apparent, that the sabbath was not appointed for the good, but for the hurt of men. By "man", is not meant all mankind; for the sabbath was never appointed for all mankind, nor binding upon all; only the Jews, who are emphatically called "man", or "men"; see Eze_34:30, upon which the Jewish writers remark (o), that

"they are called, אדם, "man"; but the idolatrous Gentiles, and nations of the World,

are not called "men";''

but dogs, beasts, &c. Our Lord may here be thought to speak in their language, as he does in Mat_. 15:26; see Gill on Mat_15:26. And that the observation of the seventh day, was only designed for the children of Israel, seems manifest from Exo_31:16, "wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant; it is a sign between me and the children of Israel"; and not between him and the rest of the world: and in Exo_31:14, "ye shall keep the sabbath, for it is holy unto you": on which the Jews (p) make

this remark, עממין to you, and not to the rest of the nations": nor did" ,לכם�ולא�לשאר

they ever think that the Gentiles were obliged to observe their sabbath, only such who became proselytes to their religion; even those who were proselytes of righteousness: for a proselyte of the gate, was not bound to observe it; for so says (q)Maimonides,

"those who take upon them the seven commandments of Noah only, lo! they are as a proselyte of the gate, and they are free to do work on the sabbath day for themselves,

165

openly, as an Israelite on a common day.''

Yea, they not only say, they were not obliged to keep the sabbath, but that it was not lawful for them to observe it; and that it was even punishable with death them to regard it; for so they say (r),

"a Gentile that keeps the sabbath before he is circumcised, is guilty of death, because it is not commanded him.''

They judged them unworthy of having this precept enjoined them, as being not men, but beasts, and worse than they, and had not the privilege the ass has: hence one of their commentators (s) says,

"concerning the rest of an ass, thou (O Israelite!) art commanded; but concerning the rest of a Gentile, thou art not commanded.''

And not man for the sabbath; who was in being long before that was appointed and enjoined.

HENRY, "(2.) By argument. To reconcile them to the disciples' plucking the ears of corn, let them consider,

[1.] Whom the sabbath was made for (Mar_2:27); it was made for man, and not man for the sabbath. This we had not in Matthew. The sabbath is a sacred and divine institution; but we must receive and embrace it as a privilege and a benefit, not as a task and a drudgery. First, God never designed it to be an imposition upon us, and therefore we must not make it so to ourselves. Man was not made for the sabbath,for he was made a day before the sabbath was instituted. Man was made for God, and for his honour and service, and he just rather die than deny him; but he was not made for the sabbath, so as to be tied up by the law of it, from that which is necessary to the support of his life. Secondly, God did design it to be an advantage to us, and so we must make it, and improve it. He made if for man. 1. He had someregard to our bodies in the institution, that they might rest, and not be tired out with the constant business of this world (Deu_5:14); that thy man-servant and thy maid-servant may rest. Now he that intended the sabbath-rest for the repose of our bodies, certainly never intended it should restrain us, in a case of necessity, from fetching in the necessary supports of the body; it must be construed so as not to contradict itself - for edification, and not for destruction. 2. He had much moreregard to our souls. The sabbath was made a day of rest, only in order to its being a day of holy work, a day of communion with God, a day of praise and thanksgiving; and the rest from worldly business is therefore necessary, that we may closely apply ourselves to this work, and spend the whole time in it, in public and in private; but then time is allowed us for that which is necessary to the fitting of our bodies for the service of our souls in God's service, and the enabling of them to keep pace with them in that work. See here, (1.) What a good Master we serve, all whose institutions are for our own benefit, and if we be so wise as to observe them, we are wise for ourselves; it is not he, but we, that are gainers by our service. (2.) What we should aim at in our sabbath work, even the good of our own souls. If the sabbath was made for man, we should then ask ourselves at night, “What am I the better for this sabbath day?” (3.) What care we ought to take not to make those exercises of religion burthens to ourselves or others, which God ordained to be blessings; neither adding to the command by unreasonable strictness, nor indulging those corruptions which are adverse to the command, for thereby we make those devout exercises a penance to ourselves, which otherwise would be a pleasure.

166

CALVIN, "Mark 2:27.The Sabbath was made for man. This Fifth argument is related by Mark alone. The general meaning is, that those persons judge amiss who turn to man’s destruction, (83) the Sabbath which God appointed for his benefit. The Pharisees saw the disciples of Christ employed in a holy work; they saw them worn out with the fatigue of the journey, and partly with want of food; and yet are offended that, when they are hungry, they take a few grains of corn for the support of their wearied bodies. Is not this a foolish attempt to overturn the purpose of God, when they demand to the injury of men that observation of the Sabbath which he intended to be advantageous? But they are mistaken, I think, who suppose that in this passage the Sabbath is entirely abolished; for Christ simply informs us what is the proper use of it. Though he asserted, a little before, that he is Lord of the Sabbath, yet the full time for its abolition (84) was not yet come, because the veil of the temple was not yet rent, (Matthew 27:51.)

COFFMAN, "Sabbath made for man, not man for sabbath ... is a reference to the sabbath: (1) as God made it, and (2) as the Pharisees made it. God indeed had made it for man; and quite early in the history of the sabbath law a man decided that his "human needs" took precedence over it, picking up sticks on the sabbath. Did God approve of such conduct? He commanded Israel to stone the man to death. Christ was one with the Father, and it cannot be argued that Jesus was here critical of the way God made the sabbath for man. On the other hand, the Pharisees, by their unbelievable multiplication of little frills and furbelows regarding sabbath-keeping, and their extrapolation of the basic God-given laws concerning it to include an entire dictionary of "do's" and "don't's" God never heard of, and then by their construing their own doodlings in that regard as on an equality with the law of God and as even more sacred than God's law - that was making man for the sabbath!

The Son of man is lord even of the sabbath ... "Son of man" as used in Psalms 8 is merely a synonym for man; but that should not be allowed to contravene Jesus' use of the words in a unique sense as applicable only to himself. In Christ's usage of this title it refers to one who has the power to forgive sins (Mark 2:10), hence to himself as God. Jesus meant everything by this title that he meant by "Son of God," the evident reason for his preference for "Son of man" deriving from its freedom of the secular connotations (in the Jewish mind) of "Son of God." The latter title they identified with "Messiah," the re-establishment of Solomon's throne, and the lifting of the yoke of Roman tyranny.

McMillan is correct in pointing out that if "Son of man" in this passage is reduced to mean any man, or all men, it would make Jesus say that "Man is greater than any religious institution and that religious laws were made for the benefit of his own self-expression!"[7] This view, of course, must be rejected.

For fuller discussion of the title "Son of man," see Commentary on John, p. 54.

Lord of the sabbath ... Wholly apart from the fact that no violation of God's sabbath law had happened, there was the additional truth that Jesus' disciples were exempted from God's true sabbath laws, due to their being in the service of

167

Jesus Christ. Matthew's record emphasizes this. The Pharisees themselves "profaned the sabbath and were guiltless"; because the sabbath law did not apply to servants of the temple, who every sabbath day continually did things which in any other service would have been sabbath-violations. After pointing this out, Jesus said that "One greater than the temple is here," the same being a reference to himself. Therefore, the apostles in his service were even more entitled to exemption from the true sabbath restrictions than were the Pharisees who served in their temple, inasmuch as Christ was the greater temple (Matthew 12:5,6).

Furthermore, Jesus' lordship over the sabbath derived from his oneness and equality with God. He was in the process of abolishing the sabbath institution altogether. He would nail it to his cross, abolishing it totally and completely; and his words here were a prophecy of that very thing.

ENDNOTE:

[7] Ibid., p. 44.

CONSTABLE, "The Pharisees made the Sabbath a strait jacket that inhibited the Jews, though the rabbis conceded that some activities superceded Sabbath observance. [Note: Edersheim, 2:57, 60-61.] Jesus pointed out that God gave the Sabbath as a good gift. He designed it to free His people from ceaseless labor and to give them rest. Sabbath observance had to contain enough elasticity to assure the promotion of human welfare. Jesus' point was the following.

"Since the Sabbath was made for man, He who is man's Lord ... has authority to determine its law and use." [Note: Taylor, p. 219.]Only Mark recorded, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath" (Mark 2:27). One of his concerns in this Gospel was the welfare of mankind.

Since in the Old Testament the Sabbath was the Lord's day in a special sense, Mark's statement about Jesus in Mark 2:28 identifies Him again for the reader as God. [Note: See Daniel Doriani, "The Deity of Christ in the Synoptic Gospels," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:3 (September 1994):333-50.] Jesus had the right to determine how people should use the Sabbath. As mentioned previously, there is some question as to whether the words in this verse were those of Jesus or of Mark (cf. Mark 2:10).

". . . the exousia [authority] of Jesus manifests itself vis-a-vis the rabbinic tradition, the religious hierarchy, and the temple tradition. Foremost here is Jesus' reinterpretation of the Sabbath ..." [Note: Edwards, p. 224. ]"With this word Mark drives home for his readers the theological point of the pericope. These things were written that they may understand Jesus' true dignity: he is the Lord of the Sabbath." [Note: Lane, p. 120.]One writer sought to prove that the New Testament teaches Sabbath observance for Christians. [Note: Walter J. Chantry, "Does the New Testament Teach the

168

Fourth Commandment?" The Banner of Truth 325 (October 1990):18-23.] I do not think it does (cf. Romans 7:4; Romans 10:4; Romans 14:5; Galatians 4:10-11).

PETT, Verse 27‘And he said, “The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath.’

Jesus was not saying by this that because the Sabbath was made for man he could do whatever he liked on it. What He was pointing out was that the Sabbath with its strict rules had been intended for man’s benefit. For slaves and bondservants and suchlike it had always been a huge blessing, for it guaranteed them a day of complete rest. And therefore what Jesus was saying was that to castigate men because they had simply and innocently taken a few grains of corn and rubbed them between their hands was taking the Sabbath rules too far. But in view of the fact that those rules had been expanded and pronounced on by the Rabbis, it was necessary for Jesus to make His claim to have the right to change the Law of the Sabbath.

SIMEON, "THE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE SABBATH

Mark 2:27. And he said unto them, The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.

IN nothing is the force of prejudice more strongly seen, than in the blame cast by the world upon the followers of Christ for the most trifling offence, whilst the greatest enormities of ungodly men are suffered to pass without any animadversion whatever. Nor is it only for a real deviation from duty that they are condemned, but for the smallest departure from rules, which have their foundation in nothing but human policy or superstition. The Disciples of our Lord had been attending the Synagogue on the Sabbath-day, and, being hungry [Note: Matthew 12:1.], they plucked some ears of corn as they passed through the corn-fields, and ate it. This was an act which God himself had particularly specified as lawful [Note: Deuteronomy 23:25.]; and therefore the Pharisees could not condemn it: but the law forbade men to do any servile work upon the Sabbath-day; and therefore the Pharisees, being determined to find fault, construed the plucking and rubbing a few ears of corn as a reaping and threshing of the corn; and inquired with indignation, Why they presumed to do so on the Sabbath-day [Note: Matthew 12:2. with Luke 6:1-2.]? But our blessed Lord vindicated their conduct: he shewed that works of necessity or mercy might be performed, as well on the Sabbath as on any other day. He reminded them of David’s conduct in eating the holy bread, which was forbidden to be eaten by any but the priests and their families: he had never been censured for it either by God or man, because he was impelled to it by unavoidable necessity. He reminded them also of the priests in the temple, who performed very laborious work in killing, flaying, and consuming the sacrifices, yet incurred no guilt thereby, because they were serving God: and from these precedents he shewed them, that the Disciples were not worthy of blame, since what they had done was in attending upon Him, and from a necessity imposed by the imperious calls of hunger. The sanctity of the Sabbath he acknowledged; but informed them at the

169

same time, that, where the observance of it militated against the welfare of man, its authority was superseded; for that “the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.”

From this declaration of our Lord, we shall take occasion to shew,

I. The end for which the Sabbath was instituted—

The appointment of the Sabbath did not take place, till the whole work of creation was complete: therefore man, who was created on the sixth day could not be made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath as far as man was concerned, must be made for him. But, without laying any stress on the priority of man’s existence, we may confidently affirm, that the Sabbath was instituted for the benefit,

1. Of individuals—

[It is no small privilege to men that God has appointed them a day of rest, wherein they are to cease from the cares and labours of this world, and to attend to the concerns of another world [Note: Exodus 23:12. Deuteronomy 5:14.]. We know by experience how worldly occupations affect the mind; how powerfully they draw us from God, and impede us in the pursuit of heavenly things; and there is reason to fear, that if no such appointment had existed, we should, long ere this, have been immersed in heathen darkness: we should have been satisfied with the things of this life, and not thought of inquiring after any thing beyond. But on every return of this sacred rest, we are reminded, that there is a God whom we must serve, and that there is an eternal portion which it behoves us to secure. We are led to take a retrospective view of our past lives, in order to see what we have done for our souls, and what prospect we have of attaining that happiness, for which we were created, and for which we were redeemed. In short, this appointment of a Sabbath affords exactly the same occasion for advancing the welfare of our souls, as the permission to labour on the six other days does for the advancement of our temporal interests: as, on the six days, we devise and execute plans for the acquisition of wealth, so, on the seventh day, we are occupied in attaining higher degrees of faith and holiness: and as, in the one case, we frequently cast up our accounts in order to see what progress we have made, so, in the other case, the periodical leisure that is afforded us, enables us to ascertain with precision the state of our souls before God.

Who then has not reason to be thankful for an institution which is so replete with benefit to his soul? Well might God number it amongst the highest obligations which he had ever conferred upon his people, the Jews [Note: Nehemiah 9:13-14. Ezekiel 20:12-20.]; and well may we number it amongst our choicest blessings.]

2. Of the whole community—

[Had no specific time been appointed by God, none could ever have been agreed upon by men: no day would have suited the convenience of all; nor could human authority have prevailed to establish a law that should be universally and

170

irrevocably obeyed. But God having fixed a day, the whole race of mankind is bound to yield obedience to his command: so that all who acknowledge his authority, wake upon the Sabbath with the same views, the same desires, the same purposes; all feeling in themselves an obligation to keep it holy, and all conscious that the same feeling pervades the Lord’s people in every quarter of the globe. In respect to this, there is no difference of rank or station. The rich man sees, that he is to lay aside both his cares and pleasures, in order to attend to the concerns of his soul: the poor man also sees, that though he may be, as it were, a slave on other days, on this day he is the Lord’s free-man. Indeed the poor have very peculiar cause for thankfulness on account of the Sabbath; for the rate of wages in every country is calculated by the amount that is necessary to support a man and his family; and that is given to a man for six days’ work, because God has commanded him to rest the seventh: but, if no such command had been given by God, the poor would have been required to work the seven days without any augmentation of their wages: in this respect, therefore, the poor are peculiarly benefited. But indeed the whole community being thus set at liberty for heavenly pursuits, and means of instruction being provided for all, such instruction too as they would not very readily receive in private, all meet, as by common consent, in the house of God, and there offer their united sacrifices of prayer and praise. From thence ail return to the bosom of their families, to diffuse a kindred spirit in their domestic circles, and thus to advance the temporal, no less than the eternal, happiness of themselves and others. Doubtless the degree in which these ends are promoted, must depend on the dispositions of the persons themselves; they who have no desire after spiritual blessings, will make no improvement of the opportunities afforded them: but they whose minds are spiritual, and whose situations in life preclude them from devoting much of their time to religion on other days, will now unite in social exercises, and in heavenly converse, with tenfold pleasure; and their hearts will burn within them, whilst they speak of the things which God has done for their souls. Nor will these persons he contented with seeking good to themselves; they will endeavour to do good to others: they will think whether there be not some ignorant neighbour whom they can instruct, or some afflicted neighbour whom they can comfort. On this day the poor is on a par with the richest: his time is his own, to spend for God, either in a way of personal improvement, or for the edification of those around him.

Suppose then the Sabbaths to be thus employed, who can calculate the good accruing from them to all ranks and orders of men; to the rich and to the poor; to the man in health, and to the roan immured in prison, or languishing on a bed of sickness; to those who are advanced in years, and those who are just entering on the stage of life?]

If, from these views of the Sabbath, we are made sensible of its value, let us consider,

II. The manner in which it should be improved—

It is not intended that we should be in bondage, as the Jews were; and much less that we should bear such an intolerable yoke as the Pharisees imposed on their

171

Disciples: yet we are bound to venerate the Sabbath, and to keep it holy. God has enjoined that duty with very peculiar solemnity; “Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath-day.” In what manner we should keep it holy, the text will inform us: we should keep it,

1. With a grateful sense of our privilege—

[God, in infinite love and mercy, has made this day on purpose for us: he knew how much such a periodical season of reflection would conduce to our happiness, and therefore appointed the observance of it even in Paradise. To us, who are so corrupt and sinful, and are immersed in the cares and pleasures of an ensnaring world, this institution is still more important: and therefore, when we wake on a Sabbath morning, our first thoughts should be, “This is the day that the Lord hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it [Note: Psalms 118:24.]” On rising from our beds, we should shut the door of our minds against the intrusion of worldly thoughts, and should set our-selves to the contemplation of heavenly subjects. We should invite our God to come and take possession of our souls, and to banish from thence every imagination that may interfere with his service, or retard our spiritual improvement. We should consider what great objects are to be attained that day; what innumerable sins to be lamented; what great and Precious promises to be embraced; what communion with God the Father, and with the Lord Jesus Christ to be enjoyed; what grace, and mercy, and peace to be brought into the soul; what victories to be gained; what glory to be secured. Methinks, on retiring to our closet, we should say, ‘Now, vain world, begone; let nothing belonging to thee interrupt me for a moment: welcome, precious Bible, thou inestimable treasure: let me now unfold thy sacred pages, and obtain an insight into thy mysterious truths: and, O my God, “shine into my heart, to give me the light of the knowledge of thy glory in the face of Jesus Christ!” ’ In short, precisely as a carnal man embraces with avidity an occasion of worldly gain, and uses with energy the means of accomplishing his desire, so should we regard every Sabbath with increased joy, and improve it with augmented diligence.

That this is really the proper way of sanctifying the Sabbath, we are sure; since it is the very way prescribed by God himself: nothing of a temporal nature should (any further than is absolutely necessary) be admitted into our minds; but our whole delight should be in the God of our salvation [Note: 2 Corinthians 4:15. Isaiah 58:13-14.].]

2. With a humble sense of our responsibility—

[If God has instituted Sabbaths for our good, they are a talent of which we must give an account to him. And O what an awful responsibility have we incurred by means of them! A person that is seventy years of age has had no less than ten years of entire Sabbaths! What might not have been done in that time, if they had been properly improved? — — — When therefore the Sabbath arrives, though we should welcome it as a blessing, we should welcome it with fear and trembling: lest, when designed for our good, it should only aggravate our final condemnation. We should pray to God to raise our minds to the occasion; to spiritualize our affections; to draw nigh to us in our secret retirement, and to

172

reveal himself to us in the public assembly. We should bear in mind, that without Him we can do nothing: and that it is His presence and His blessing alone that can render any means effectual for our good. And when we come to the close of the Sabbath, we should inquire diligently, how far the designs of God’s love and mercy have been accomplished in us, and how far we have been forwarded in our preparation for the eternal Sabbath. It is this mixture of “joy and trembling” which we ought to cultivate, as the most desirable of all frames; contented to wait for unmixed joy, till all our dangers and responsibility shall be for ever past.]

We cannot conclude without adding a word,

1. Of reproof—

[As for those who make scarcely any difference between the Sabbath and other days, but follow their business or pleasure in a shameless manner, we shall leave them to the reproof of Nehemiah [Note: Nehemiah 13:15-16.], only warning them that their present gains or pleasures will but ill repay them for the loss of their souls. Our present subject leads us rather to notice those who detain their wives or servants at home, in order to provide them a more palatable repast. How different was the conduct of Christ and his Disciples! They had been so occupied in holy exercises, that they had even omitted to make the necessary provision for the calls of nature; and were contented to satisfy their appetite with a little barley rubbed out of the ears which they gathered by the way. It should seem that they were regardless of bodily indulgence, when they were called to attend to the concerns of their souls. O that we would learn of them, and imitate their self-denying piety! True it is, as we have said before, that works of mercy and necessity may be done; but it is equally true, that an attention to the soul is a work of the greatest mercy, and of indispensable necessity.]

2. Of encouragement—

[Though the alleged violation of the Sabbath was the pretext for condemning the Disciples, the real cause was, their adherence to Christ. Thus, if some sacrifice of time or bodily comfort be made in order to serve our God, the proud Pharisees, who hate the light, will inveigh against us as violating some duty either to God or man; when, if we spent our time in any other way, they would find no occasion of offence at all. But, if we be treated thus, let us remember who suffered in like manner before us; and let us comfort ourselves with this reflection, that, though man may condemn our piety, our God will both approve and reward it.]

ELLICOTT, "The Gift of the SabbathThe sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath.—Mark 2:27.The innocent act of plucking corn and eating it as one went along, was regarded by the Pharisees as a breach of the commandment which forbade reaping on the Sabbath. This trivial formalism was a reductio ad absurdum of the Pharisaic method of interpreting the law. Our Lord defends the action of His disciples by a three-fold argument. First, He quotes the example of David at Nob, as a scriptural precedent for the breaking of a ceremonial law when necessity demands it (Mark 2:25-26). Then, taking a wider ground, He shows the meaning

173

of the institution of the Sabbath (Mark 2:27). It was a provision for man’s benefit, and therefore was of relative, not absolute, obligation. Our Saviour here enunciates a principle with regard to religious observances which is valid for all time. They are means to an end, and are never to be regarded in such a way that the end is sacrificed to the means. Thirdly, He declares that He Himself, as man’s Head and Representative, has the right to control that which was made for the good of man (Mark 2:28). It was a tremendous claim, which, considering the Divine sanction of the ordinance in question, could without blasphemy have been made by no one but the God-Man Himself.1 [Note: J. C. Du Buisson, The Gospel according to St. Mark, 24.]

Our immediate subject is God’s gift to man of the Sabbath. It may be dealt with in two parts—

The History of the GiftThe Use of the GiftIThe History of the Gifti. The Sabbath of CreationOn the sixth day of creation man appears. He is a higher creation. He is to be on earth the representative of God in dominion—one with God; having knowledge, in his measure, like God’s knowledge, life like God’s life, authority like God’s authority, and the possibility of righteousness like God’s righteousness. And how shall man be helped to a true conception of a godlike life—a life, not of indolence, but of strength, repose, and peace? How shall man, with this wealth of material resources, be reminded of his spiritual endowment, mission, and dependence? How shall he be brought into a life of communion with God, his Maker, his Father—a life above the physical life; a life for the development of his spiritual nature, derived from God; a life nobler than a life of physical, commercial, social, political interest and activity; a life of preparation for all other and lower relations and responsibilities? And if man made innocent shall, when tested, fail of virtue and drop to lower levels, how shall he be brought up to righteousness and true holiness? Therefore the inspired poet of the creation added to his time-scale another day—a seventh day, a Lord’s day, a day of Divine rest and of human opportunity. It was not a day of God’s withdrawal from His universe, a day of the suspension of Divine interest and activity. It was an impressive symbol of human need and of the true rest of the soul of man—godlike only when in perfect harmony and communion with Him. Thus the primeval Sabbath was instituted as a reminder of man’s high relationships, and as a help to his highest training for dominion on the earth and for the unutterable glories of his destiny beyond.1 [Note: J. H. Vincent.]

ii. The Sabbath of the DecalogueThe account of the observance of the Sabbath in the sixteenth chapter of Exodus precedes the giving of the law on Mount Sinai. When the manna fell, it marked the Sabbath day. None fell on that day. Twice as much fell on Friday as on any other day. For forty years that standing miracle marked the division of time into weeks, and made one day sacred as a day of rest and of worship. Then when the moral law was given, as you find it in the twentieth chapter of Exodus,

174

observance of the Sabbath was incorporated in it by the finger of God. What else did God ever write with His finger? God’s finger wrote upon the tables of stone, “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.” He wrote it in what company? “Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.” In what other company? “Honour thy father and thy mother.” Do you want to vacate that commandment? And what other? “Thou shalt not kill.” You want to abrogate that? And what other? “Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not bear false witness.”

Take a single example of the way in which modern states have dealt with the day of rest along the lines of the Decalogue: The law of the State of Indiana and its penalty are found among the General Laws, chap. xxxv., sec. 1: “If any person, of the age of fourteen years and upward, shall be found on the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday, at common labour, or engaged in his usual vocation, works of charity and necessity only excepted, such person shall be fined in any sum not less than one nor more than ten dollars; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to affect such as conscientiously observe the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath.”

iii. The Sabbath of Subsequent TimesCome at once to the fifty-eighth and sixty-sixth chapters of Isaiah, the Messianic part of that book, the very last part of it, that glorious prophetic consummation which commences with the fifty-second chapter and extends to the end, presenting a Saviour who is Christ the Lord, unfolding the glorious hope of eternal life, and describing the crowning glories of Messianic days. Now in the very end of that book, where the prophet stands on tiptoe to see the remotest events, to see the last forecast of man in Messianic days, there he says, “And from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord.”

Not all Jews, but all flesh. And so the Old Testament leaves it. Now how does the New find it? First, in this second chapter of Mark, our Saviour affirms in the broad language of the text that the Sabbath was made for man. What a catholic utterance! How universal in its application! Then, in the twenty-second chapter of Matthew, and from the thirty-fifth to the fortieth verse, we have an instructive lesson. A lawyer came to Him for light on the Ten Commandments: “Master, which is the greatest commandment in the law?” And He said, “This is the first and great commandment: ‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, strength, soul, and mind.’” That covers four of the ten, the four that relate to God. “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” That covers the other table of the law.1 [Note: B. H. Carroll.]

1. The Pharisaic Misunderstanding.—I suppose that the Christian conception of religion may be briefly defined as communion with a God who has revealed Himself as a loving Father by the manifestation of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To the Jew, on the other hand, religion appeared to be rather communion with a God who had revealed Himself by the law of Moses. What the Lord Jesus Christ is to the Christian, that the law of Moses was to the orthodox Jew of the

175

time of Christ. As it is our aspiration to grow up into the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ, so it was the aspiration of the pious Jew to conform in all respects to the law, or, as St. Luke puts it, “to walk in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.” It was, perhaps, almost inevitable under such circumstances that men should study the law with a minute attention to detail which was fatal to the apprehension of the great principles of right which it embodied. It was not that the Scribes and Pharisees (I refer, not to the hypocrites among them, who are always to be found in every religion, but to the sincerely religious men, who were numerous)—it was not that they were wilfully disloyal to the great principles of the law, but that their method of looking to its details rendered them incapable of seeing its general effect. Since they regarded the law as all given by God, they did not, for the most part, perceive the relative importance of the various commandments, nor did they endeavour to trace out the principles underlying them. Their great object was to ensure that no commandment should be passed over. They carefully counted the exact number to be kept, and arrived at the conclusion that there were 365 negative commandments, “Thou shalt not,” or one for every day of the year; 248 positive commandments, “Thou shalt,” or one for every bone of the body.1 [Note: Canon R. H. Kennett.] [Josh Bond's Module Maker Note: The original text above said, " negative commandments". Hastings is trying to say that there are a total of 615 commandments, with 365 being negative and 248 being positive].

Thus it may be said of the majority of religious Jews of the time of Christ that their object was not to mould their lives according to some few great principles, but to keep 613 distinct commandments. Some great men, it is true, were exceptions to this general rule. Thus, a generation or so before the time of Christ, Rabbi Hillel had summed up the whole law to an impatient proselyte in the memorable words quoted in a slightly different form by our blessed Lord Himself: “What thou wouldest not have thy neighbour do unto thee that do not thou to thy neighbour: this is the whole law; all the rest is commentary; go, study.” But among men of less spirituality and genius than Hillel the idea of religion was not to work out a great principle, but to avoid transgression of a number of more or less distinct commandments.2 [Note: Ibid.]

The Rabbis themselves occasionally admitted the principle; see Mechilta, in Exodus 31:13 : “The Sabbath is delivered unto you, and ye are not delivered to the Sabbath.” Our Lord’s words rise higher, and reach further: at the root of the Sabbath law was the love of God for mankind, and not for Israel only.3 [Note: H. B. Swete, The Gospel according to St. Mark, 49.]

2. Christ’s Interpretation.—The Sabbath in Christ’s time was a veil upon the eyes of the people. It blinded the Jews so that they could not see further than the narrow walls of the synagogue, or the exclusive walls of the Temple court. It prevented them beholding any duty on that day further than the hearing of the law, or the offering of the set form of sacrifice. But Jesus Christ came to show them of the Father. A man who, believing that the Sabbath was specially God’s day, and that because it was His day he was on no account to cure a sick man and tell him to realise he was cured by taking up his bed and walking,—on no account to lift an ox or an ass out of a pit, if either of them was the ox or ass of a

176

foreigner,—what could such a man know of the duties of man to man, or of man to lower animals, as children of one Father who is in Heaven? No, the Sabbath, if men were to see in its ordaining the work of a Father of love and pity, mercy and gladness, must be spiritualised. They must make the Sabbath a real Sabbath if they would see that the Maker of it is a real Father.

If this was part of the mind of Jesus Christ, if He came to get men to sit loose to the world, or as St. Paul put it, “to crucify the world unto themselves, and themselves unto the world,” to care little about the kingdom of earth and the glory of it as compared with the Kingdom of Heaven—if Jesus came to show men of the Father of their spirits, and that all religious ordinances, all Sabbath observances, were but to lead men to behold God and live—then surely our Lord, speaking in metaphor as was His wont, might well have said, as one of the Oxyrhynchus Logia has it, “Except ye fast to the world, ye shall in no wise find the kingdom of God,” and, “Except ye keep the Sabbath in the spirit—a real Sabbath—sabbatise the Sabbath—ye shall not see the Father.” This is what the reputed saying seems to assert.1 [Note: H. D. Rawnsley, Sayings of Jesus, 23.]

iv. The Lord’s Day1. Its Origin.—We have at the close of the Gospels the earliest record of the first day of the week as the time of our Lord’s resurrection; and in memory of that event it became, during the Apostolic age, the recognised festival of the infant Christian community. We know not the exact date when it began to be set apart, but the notices of it are quite enough to show its character. It is mentioned in the Acts as the time when “the disciples came together to break bread,” i.e. for the Lord’s Supper. It is urged by the Apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 16:2) that believers should “lay by in store” on the first day, for the offering on behalf of the poor; and the passing allusion makes it probable that it had become already a fixed time of worship. It is named again in the book of Revelation (Mark 1:10); and from the phrase, “the Lord’s Day,” we may fairly infer that it had gained that place in Christian worship which must have preceded the specific name. Henceforth it grew more and more into the reverent affection of the Church, until it became the great season of religious gathering; and at last, under Constantine, the laws of the empire forbade the opening of the courts and other secular business. Such was its origin and growth. It was the weekly Easter. It spoke to the early believer, as to us, of the risen Lord, and of that risen life in which was the bond of all holy fellowship.

2. Its Relation to the Sabbath.—What was the relation of the Lord’s Day to the Sabbath? We turn for an answer to the New Testament. There can be no doubt whatever that the ancient law was kept among all Jewish Christians, for we read constantly of the Apostles as teaching and joining in the synagogue service of the seventh day. But it is as plain that the Gentile was in no sense bound to observe it. No one can read the striking passages from the Epistles of Paul (Colossians 2:16-17; Romans 14:5-6) without perceiving that it is classed with all those Jewish usages, new moons, unclean meats, in regard to which no obligation was laid on the believer. Nor can any one fairly accept the express decision of the first Council at Jerusalem, without allowing that it is not included in the “necessary things” for Gentile duty. It must be noted, further, that the Lord’s Day was

177

never substituted for the seventh. Each rested on its own ground. The Gentile kept the feast of the Resurrection. The Jewish Christian kept both days, just as he circumcised his children and baptized them likewise. It remained for many years, and by slow degrees faded away; it was long retained in some churches of the West as a fast, in memory of our Lord’s burial before the day of His rising; yet at length it dropped from use, and by the natural law of life the first day remained alone, the one weekly season of worship. This is the sum of the evidence. It leaves it exactly as in the case of baptism, where the Christian rite took the place of circumcision by historic change, yet rests on the commandment of Christ and the spirit of a larger Gospel.1 [Note: E. A. Washburn.]

In the “Apology for Christians,” which Justin Martyr wrote to Antoninus Pius, between the years 138 and 150, he says: “We all of us assemble together on Sunday, because it is the first day in which God changed darkness and matter, and made the world. On the same day also Jesus Christ, our Saviour, rose from the dead, for He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn; and on the day after that of Saturn, which is that of the Sun, He appeared to His apostles and disciples, and taught them what we now submit to your consideration.” It is evident from this, and from other historic documents, that Christ’s resurrection made the first day far more illustrious to Christians than the seventh; and when the Temple was destroyed, and Judaism, like a shadow, vanished, the Jewish Sabbath vanished with it. In this change, which was, we believe, wrought by the Spirit of Him who was with His people always, we have a proof of this startling declaration: “The Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath day”; and the justification for the change lies there. The shell was broken, but the kernel remained; the transient and typical passed away, but only in order that the permanent and true might remain for ever. And it was because St. Paul saw and understood this, that, in his Epistle to the Colossians (Mark 2:16-17), he wrote about the Sabbath words so bold that many are still afraid to take them in their legitimate and obvious signification: “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days, which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [or substance] is of Christ.”1 [Note: A. Rowland.]

The Christian motive for observing the Lord’s Day is the Resurrection of Christ from the dead. That truth is to the Christian Creed what the creation of the world out of nothing is to the Jewish. The Lord’s Day marks the completed Redemption, as the Sabbath had marked the completed Creation. The Resurrection is also the fundamental truth on which Christianity rests; and thus it is as much insisted on by the Christian Apostles as is God’s creation of all things by the Jewish prophets. Not that the creation of all things by God is less precious to the Christian than to the Jew: but it is more taken for granted. In Christian eyes, the creation of the world of nature is eclipsed by the creation of the world of grace; and of this last creation, the Resurrection is the warrant. The Resurrection is commemorated, as St. Irenזus points out, on the first day of the week, when God brought light out of darkness and chaos. It is the risen and enthroned Lamb who says, “Behold, I make all things new”: and therefore if “any man be in Christ, he is the new creation.”2 [Note: H. P. Liddon, Easter in St. Paul’s, 282.]

178

IIThe Use of the GiftThe importance of Christ’s statement, “The Sabbath was made for man,” is permanent and universal; it establishes not the exception, but the rule; it deals not with temporary and fluctuating prejudices, but with fixed, eternal principles. It puts us in a new position with reference to the question, Why do I observe the Lord’s Day? The old questions, What has a Christian to do with Jewish enactments? What to him is the ceremonial law? Why is our liberty to be narrowed by the opinions of bigots incapable of distinguishing between the spirit and the letter? All these had their use, as they certainly have had their misuse, in the past. But put the question in this form. The Sabbath was made for man; why then should man be deprived of it? If to the Jewish Church in its best ages, to its most enlightened seers, the Sabbath was a delight, holy and honourable, full of happy thoughts and feelings, a season of refreshment, of bodily repose and spiritual rejoicing, why should the Christian Church forfeit the privilege?1 [Note: Canon F. C. Cook.]

i. It is a Gift for every Man1. If the Sabbath was made for man, it must have been because man needed it; not, certainly, as a mere temporary provision for special purposes, but as a permanent blessing. Who shall take from us one of God’s first gifts to His creatures—a gift bestowed with a special regard to their physical and spiritual wants, and consecrated by His own example? Look at the question in this light, test the principle by its application to the facts of daily experience, to the wants of your inner and outer life, and you will dismiss, as matters of exceedingly little importance to the man of common sense, the greater part of the discussions which have filled large volumes of wearisome controversy, and which will remain unsettled so long as men differ in feelings and habits. and in the power of dealing with the accumulated masses of conflicting theories and ill-digested facts. If we know that now in the Lord’s Day, its new and most significant designation, we have all that made the Sabbath a boon to man, a season in which the soul, free from earthly trammels, may realise its nearness and affinity to God—what to us can it matter that at a period of struggle and of reaction, good and conscientious, though narrow-minded, men sought to counteract licentious tendencies by recurrence to enactments which appertained altogether to a dispensation long since passed away? We are surely in a position to maintain the truth, to hold fast the good for which such men contended, without reference to their prejudices, without involving ourselves in their mistakes. Why, in short, should we trouble ourselves with any question but this? Do I use for my own real benefit, for the benefit of all over whom I have any control, the Sabbath which was made for me, which my Saviour has claimed as His own; of which He is now, as ever, the Lord; which His Spirit, working in and through His Church, has associated for ever with the crowning fact of His religion, His resurrection from the dead? These are to my mind the questions which we are bound to consider as Christians, as men who have to work out our own salvation, whose duty it is, so far as may be possible, to communicate our blessings and convictions to our fellow-men.1 [Note: Canon F. C. Cook.]

179

Robertson of Brighton, whose insight into spiritual philosophy was as direct and penetrating as his practical surrender to its teaching was complete, says of Sabbath observance: “I am more and more sure by practical experience that the reason for the observance of the Sabbath lies deep in the everlasting necessities of human nature, and that as long as man is man the blessedness of keeping it, not as a day of rest only, but as a day of spiritual rest, will never be annulled.”

This is the day of light: let there be light to-day;O Dayspring, rise upon our night, and chase its gloom away!This is the day of rest: our failing strength renew,On weary brain and troubled breast shed Thou Thy freshening dew.This is the day of peace: Thy peace our spirits fill,Bid Thou the blasts of discord cease, the waves of strife be still.This is the first of days: send forth Thy quickening breath,And wake dead souls to love and praise, O Vanquisher of death!1 [Note: John Ellerton.]2. All God’s children have a right to share in its blessings, poor as well as rich, servants equally with masters and mistresses, employed and employers alike; for station in life and outward circumstances cannot alter man’s needs. Instincts are universal; they are our common inheritance as human beings.

The first day of the week is, to many Christians, not only the one day of rest but the one day of worship. The majority of men and women in our land, owing to the exacting claims of everyday life on their time and thought in these times of high pressure, have little or no opportunity of meeting together in united worship on any other day. More than that, the question of Sunday observance is fitly linked with that of worship, because the social aspect of Christianity is forcibly emphasised by both. No Christian who attempts to grasp all that is involved in a right use of Sunday can persuade himself that his individual observance or non-observance of the day is a matter to be decided solely on personal and selfish grounds, but must acknowledge that his decision as to whether or how he will keep the day affects not only himself and his own conscience, but also the well-being of others.

Not all that is lawful to do is right for the Christian to do. Even if right in itself, it becomes wrong if it be done at the unnecessary expense of others’ time and thought, or at the cost of the health of the body or mind or spirit of others. Sunday cannot be a day well and wisely spent by a man if in what he does, or neglects to do, he thinks only of himself, and is indifferent to what extent others are obliged to work in order that he may rest, or is careless whether recreation, in itself lawful and innocent, means toil to those who ought to have rest.2 [Note: C. J. Ridgeway.]

Christianity has given us the Sabbath, the jubilee of the whole world, whose light dawns welcome alike into the closet of the philosopher, into the garret of toil, and into prison-cells, and everywhere suggests even to the vile the dignity of spiritual being.3 [Note: Emerson.]

It is the student’s day, whereon he may turn from the ordinary to the sublimer

180

world of thought and find new inspiration for his daily endeavour. It is the doubter’s day, on which he may investigate the most momentous questions of God and duty and destiny. It is the children’s day, when the home circle may be perfect, and sweet memories be planted which shall fill the later years with their fragrance. The children need the gentle influence of the Sabbath. And if we who are no longer children were to give ourselves up to the consecration and the conservation of the day in the interest of the young life of the land, we should not only ensure a better and a larger life to the next generation, but we should ourselves enter more fully and with greater plenitude of power into that Kingdom of which its Founder said to His disciples, “Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” The Sabbath is the poor man’s day, when he can have leisure to reward the love of wife and children, go with them to the house of God, and enjoy to the full what Longfellow calls “the dear, delicious, silent Sunday, to the weary workman both of brain and hand the beloved day of rest.” It is the rich man’s day, when, if he will, he may throw off the burdens of anxiety and prove to his family that there are some things he prizes as much as stocks and estates and silver and gold—a day when he may transfer some of his treasures to the heavens and fix his heart on things above, where moth and rust cannot corrupt, nor thieves break through and steal. It is the mourner’s day, on which eyes that weep in sore bereavement may look upward and hear a voice out of the heavens say, “In my Father’s house are many mansions.” It is the true all saints’ day, when, rising above the littleness, the rivalries, the limitations of this life, we may look through Sabbath skies to the innumerable company in the city on Mount Zion, the heavenly Jerusalem.1 [Note: J. H. Vincent.]

I have a birthright straight from heaven,A birthright in which all men share;By my own Maker’s hand ’twas given,’Tis sanctified by praise and prayer;I shall not give that right away;No man shall have my Sabbath day!All through the week let anvils ring,And hammers clang and bellows blow;Let bright sparks fly and sledges swing,And bar and furnace gleam and glow:But speak up, blacksmith; boldly say,“No man shall have my Sabbath day!”Bend, weary weaver, o’er your loomAll week from dawning’s glimmering sky,And till the twilight gathers gloomLet treddles tramp and shuttles ply:But speak up, brother; boldly say,“You shall not have my Sabbath day!”Let axes flash in forest gladesWhile oak and ash and elm tree fall;Let the slow team toil through the shades,Obedient to their driver’s call:But speak up, woodman; boldly say,

181

“You shall not have my Sabbath day!”From mill and factory and mineStill let this selfsame cry arise;Claim one day as a holy shrineIn which to commune with the skies:Speak up, and loudly, boldly say,“You shall not have my Sabbath day!”It is our birthright straight from heaven,’Tis sanctified by praise and prayer;By our great Maker’s hand ’twas given,And trench upon it who shall dare:We shall not give that right away,No man shall have our Sabbath day!1 [Note: The British Workman, 1867.]ii. It is a Gift for the Whole ManThe Sabbath is made for man, that is, for man as God designed and created him. The whole man must have the opportunity of sharing in the benefits of the day, or it fails in its object. The body of man finds in it the rest it needs; not, indeed, by doing nothing, for idleness is never true rest, but in change of occupation. The mind of man rests not by lying fallow and thinking of nothing, but by diverting its energies into new channels. The heart of man renews its strength not by ceasing to love, but in change of surroundings, in the quiet of home life and home affections and interests. The spirit of man puts forth new powers, as raised heavenward it contemplates the unseen, and looks up to God instead of being engrossed in the earthy. “On Sunday,” says Lord Macaulay, “man, the machine of machines, is repairing and winding up, so that he returns to his labours on Monday with clear intellect, with livelier spirits, and with renewed vigour.” The quaint rhymes of Sir Matthew Hale emphasise this in familiar words—

A Sunday well spentBrings a week of content,And health for the toils of to-morrow.But a Sunday profaned,Whate’er may be gained,Is a certain precursor of sorrow.1 [Note: C. J. Ridgeway.]1. It is necessary for our Physical Health. The laws and conditions of man’s bodily life and health are such as to make intervals of repose absolutely essential to the proper and continued performance of the labours that most men have to endure. In asserting this we do but affirm man to be a part of Nature, and human life to be no exception to earthly life in general, for rest is one of Nature’s primal and universal laws. Without repose neither plant-life nor animal-life can reach the best possible forms. The soil must sometimes lie fallow, or its energies and treasures will ultimately become exhausted. No animal can long survive without rest and sleep. Men who systematically set at naught this physiological demand hasten on prematurely the infirmities and decay of old age.

The fundamental idea of the Sabbath is that of physical rest. “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.” Then, as the first comment upon this—the only comment, indeed—abstinence from labour is enjoined, and enlarged upon to a degree somewhat unusual in a condensed code like the Ten Commandments.

182

Take care of the body, it seems to say, as the foundation on which the spiritual and the intellectual are to rise. If we are ever tempted to be surprised at the purely physical aspect of this commandment, let us not forget the stress St. Paul lays on bodily culture. “Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own; for ye are bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body.” There the exhortation stops. The words “and in your spirit which are his,” were added by some late hand. And the very fact that we are now and then startled by the emphasis that is laid by the Bible upon bodily culture is in itself a proof that we are on a wrong line of thought—the line of the mediזval theology which viewed the body, not as God’s agent, but as God’s enemy; not as a servant to be trained and developed to do His will, and to be the minister of mind and soul, but as an encumbrance to be ignored in mental and spiritual culture, and as a tempter and seducer, to be kept down by fasting and maceration. Too readily we fall into the habit of thinking that while we are under obligation to glorify God with our spirit, we may do with our body pretty much as we please. And as a correction of that error it will do us good to remember that God has wrought the obligation to our bodies into the very heart of the moral law as well as into the gospel.

Lord Beaconsfield once said, “Of all Divine institutions, the most Divine is that which secures a day of rest for man. It is the corner-stone of civilisation.”

There are about twenty-five millions of persons now in England and Wales. Let us drop the word millions and say, for simplicity’s sake, that there are twenty-five, and that these twenty-five form (as, indeed, they do form in God’s sight) a single family. Well, if so, these are their proportions and occupations: eight of the twenty-five are the young children, six are the women of the household, the rest are grown men; of these men two till the soil, six are in shops or manufactories, one is a tradesman, one is in either the jail or the workhouse, and one belongs to the independent, the wealthy, or the professional classes. Now, even this one million of the ruling and the professional classes need Sunday as a day of holy rest; but how much more do the eight million children, and the six million women, and the nine or ten million labourers, and artisans, and clerks, and shopmen need it!1 [Note: F. W. Farrar, Bells and Pomegranates, 129.]

Dr. Farre, as a physiologist, has demonstrated the fact that the rest of the night without the additional rest of the Sabbath is insufficient for the maintenance of bodily vigour, and for the prolongation of life. History confirms this. The National Convention in Paris abolished public worship in 1793, and appointed the tenth day instead of the seventh for the partial cessation of labour; but every one knows that it was at least for the physical advantage of the nation when Napoleon restored the seventh day, in the year 1806.

Not only animals need regular off-days, when they are to do no work, but all mechanical and scientific instruments need it, in order to reach maximum usefulness. It has been demonstrated that a steam-engine, an axe, a hand-saw, will do more work in the long run with regular days of absolute rest. An instance is given in a late review by an experienced engineer, of two engines of like pattern, capacity, and material. One was run every day so many hours. The

183

other only six days in seven, but yet as many hours in the six days as the first in seven. The one which had its Sabbaths outlasted and outworked the other so far as to excite marked attention.1 [Note: B. H. Carroll.]

2. It is necessary for our Mental Health. Man is not a mere animal. He has a life of the mind which likewise demands occasional relief from the wearing toils and anxieties of secular life. Our nervous force, which lies at the basis of thought and feeling, can bear only a certain amount of strain, and if this be transgressed, an impaired and morbid condition of mind is sure to be the result. Every one knows that incessant and anxious brooding over any one subject or idea will induce melancholy and even insanity.

’Tis painful thinking that corrodes our clay.Very weighty are the words of John Burns on this question: “Sunday rest is physically good, mentally invigorating, and morally healthful. It has been commercially beneficial to the people of this land. It has done more than anything else to buttress and maintain the excellent institution we call ‘home.’ The day of rest is, from every point of view, a national treasure.” So, too, writes a great French statesman, President Arnot: “The Sunday rest is an essentially democratic institution, more needed now than ever owing to the high pressure at which we live.”2 [Note: C. J. Ridgeway.]

We have a picture given to us of how one who was no grim Puritan or narrow-minded Pharisee spent Sunday in his home, and there is nothing in it which might not be reproduced, so far as the surroundings of our lives allow, in English homes to-day. “The Sundays were bright to the children, who began the day with decking the graves in the churchyard, an example which the poor people learned to follow, so that it looked like a garden. And when his day’s work was done—and Sunday was the busiest day of the week to him—there was always the Sunday walk, a stroll on the moors, some fresh object of beauty pointed out. Or indoors the Sunday picture-books were brought out. Each child had its own book and chose its subject for father to draw—some short story, or bird or beast or flower mentioned in the Bible. Happy Sundays! never associated with gloom or restriction, but with God’s works or God’s Word.” Such was Sunday in the home of Charles Kingsley.

“Do the birds know when it is Sunday?” a little girl asked her mother; “they always seem to be more cheerful, and sing much more, on Sundays.” I remember having heard a child ask on a similar occasion, why the birds did not rest on Sundays. In these two questions there seems to lie the whole difference between the keeping of Sunday and the desecration of it: the former child knew what a true keeping of the Sunday is; the latter did not.1 [Note: James Gordon.]

3. It is necessary for our Moral Health. The quality of our moral character is vitally influenced by the habit of regular cessation from the more sordid cares and efforts of life. Contentment of spirit, cheerfulness of disposition, clearness of judgment, sensitiveness of conscience, strength and directness of will, are all to some extent dependent upon physical conditions, while these human excellences can certainly not be cultivated to their highest pitch without regular

184

opportunities for the contemplation of moral truth and exalted ideals. Nations have become morally debased and have been torn by anarchic convulsions when deprived of opportunities of this sort. At the end of the last century a sad illustration of this was presented to the world. The Sabbath was abolished in France. Every trace of religion was as far as possible wiped out. Reason was worshipped as a goddess. The names of the days were altered, and decades took the place of weeks. The results were most disastrous. It was not long before the whole nation was thrown into disorder. All morality languished. Every heart trembled before the greed and tyranny that were practised by those in power. And at length the people, almost in despair, and clinging to the spars of goodness and virtue that alone remained to them in their wreck, welcomed those against whom they had fought, and by the help of their foes restored the weekly Sabbath. How true are the words of Blackstone, the greatest of our lawyers—“A corruption of morals usually follows a profanation of the Sabbath.”2 [Note: W. Spiers.]

Although I would not pin my faith to any political party or religious sect; and though I would not advocate or practise all the Puritan restrictions, yet I agree with Fred. W. Robertson, when he says: “If we must choose between Puritan over-precision, on the one hand, and, on the other, the laxity which, in many parts of the Continent, has marked that day from other days only by more riotous worldliness and a more entire abandonment of the whole community to amusement, no Christian would hesitate—no English Christian, at least, to whom that day is hallowed by all that is endearing in early associations, and who feels how much it is the very bulwark of his country’s moral purity.”1 [Note: A. Rowland.]

Although certain superstitious fears that I had detract somewhat from my thought of the Sabbath of my childhood, yet the thought of my father and mother remains; the sanctity of that day remains; its stillness remains. When I waked up in the morning, and found the Sabbath morning’s sun pouring full into my room; it was the carpet on the floor and the paper on the wall; for there was none other but the golden sunlight. When I remember the voice of the cock (and there were no wheels rolling to disturb the clarion tones), when I remember how deep the heaven was all the day, when I remember what a strange and awe-inspiring sadness there was in my little soul, when I remember the going down of the sun and the creeping on of the twilight, there is not in my memory anything that impresses me as so rich in all the tropics as a Christian Sabbath on the old Litchfield hills. My children have not that—woe to me—and their children, I am afraid, will not have it; but you take out of the portfolio of my memory the choicest engravings if you take away from me the old Puritan Sunday of Connecticut. Let the framework stand; but unite with it a better usage. Bring into it less sanctity of the superstitious kind, less rigour, less restriction, but more love, more singing, more exultation, more life. Make the Sabbath honourable and joyful. Then the people will accept it, and it will stand as immovable as the mountains.2 [Note: Henry Ward Beecher.]

4. It is necessary for our Spiritual Health. Above all things it was ordained because it was indispensable to our spiritual growth. Our health, mental and

185

bodily, depends upon the harmonious and complete development of all our faculties The neglect of any power which belongs to the integrity of our nature leaves us stunted, deformed, liable to physical or mental disease, to subtle and overpowering temptations, such as daily consign multitudes to wretchedness; and this must especially be the result if that faculty is suffered to decay for want of its proper nourishment, which, as many writers have had occasion to observe, constitutes the most special characteristic of man as distinguished from the brute. The religious instinct, the capacity and the desire of communion with the Divine, the reception and assimilation of spiritual truth—that, we must never for a moment forget, is the true distinctive mark of man; man with the upward-looking eye, man with his intellect in proportion to its elevation conversant with abstract truth, man with a heart and conscience responding and testifying to the truth of the living God. It is for man specially, as such, man as a spiritual being, that the Sabbath was especially made, and so far as regards his noblest faculty, made not for its repose, for its suspension or temporary cessation from action, but for its active exercise, its perfect development, its continuous growth. The labourer, as such, whatever may be the field of his occupation, whether the toil and drudgery of manual work, or the far more exhausting struggle of intellectual efforts, ceases to be a mere labourer on the Sabbath day. The Lord of that day, who determines its obligations and dispenses its blessings, relieves him of the burden which he bears so long, and which but for Christ he would bear hopelessly until he lays down his worn-out frame in the quiet grave. But the inner man, the spiritual man, as such, far from ceasing to act, acquires the full consciousness of himself, the full use of all his powers, when he consecrates that day to the purposes for which it was bestowed.

Few of us may realise this fact thoroughly from our own experience; all of us must be conscious how far we have been at the best from such a consecration of our Lord’s own day; but just to the extent that we have done it, or seriously attempted to do it, we can satisfy ourselves that it is so. It is simply unreasonable to suppose that any of our faculties will attain to their full and healthy development unless special care and special seasons be appropriated to their culture; nor can one who trusts the Word of God, or tests that Word by the facts of inner experience or the accredited records of the past, doubt that, over and above the daily care which must be bestowed upon the noblest and loftiest principle of our human nature, one-seventh portion of the week is asserted, and is found, to be an indispensable condition of its healthy growth.

George Washington, at the beginning of the War of the Revolution, issued an order from which I quote:—“That the troops may have an opportunity of attending public worship, as well as to take some rest after the great fatigue they have gone through, the general in future excuses them from fatigue duty on Sundays, except at the shipyards or on special occasions, until further orders. We can have but little hope of the blessing of Heaven on our arms if we insult it by our impiety and folly.”1 [Note: J. H. Vincent.]

“I wonder how it is,” said Farmer Denton, “that our Daisy seems so much happier on Sundays than on other days!” Then Daisy spoke up from her seat on her father’s knee. “You see, papa, Sunday is God’s day, and I want to make it as

186

nice a one for Him as I can.” “Bless the child,” said her father, “if it is right for you to do this, it is right for everybody else to do the same.”2 [Note: H. S. Dyer, The Ideal Christian Home, 118.]

Every day a Christian should practise communion with God. He should be like the Yorkshireman who said he enjoyed religion every day. He had a happy Monday, a blessed Tuesday, a joyful Wednesday, a delightful Thursday, a good Friday every week, a glorious Saturday, and a heavenly Sunday.

Bright shadows of true Rest! some shoots of blisse;Heaven once a week;The next world’s gladness prepossest in this;A day to seekEternity in time; the steps by whichWe climb above all ages; Lamps that lightMan through his heap of dark days; and the rich,And full redemption of the whole week’s flight!The Pulleys unto headlong man; time’s bower;The narrow way;Transplanted Paradise; God’s walking houre;The cool o’ th’ day!The creature’s Jubile; God’s parle with dust;Heaven here; man on those hills of myrrh and flowres;Angels descending; the Returns of Trust;A Gleam of Glory after six-days-showres!The Churche’s love-feasts; Time’s Prerogative,And InterestDeducted from the whole; The combs, and hive,And home of rest!The milky way chalkt out with Suns, a clueThat guides through erring hours; and in full storyA taste of Heav’n on earth; the pledge and cueOf a full feast; and the out-courts of glory!1 [Note: Henry Vaughan.]iii. It is a Gift that is without Repentance“There remaineth a sabbath rest for the people of God” (Hebrews 4:9). The Epistle to the Hebrews was written to prevent Jewish Christians from apostasy to Old Testament Judaism. The un-Christian Jews would entice them thus: “We have Moses; we have Aaron, the high priest; we have Joshua, who led the people into Canaan; we have a Sabbath, pointing to Canaan as the promised land; we have a ministry of angels.” Now, to furnish the Christian with an argument to meet all these weighty claims this letter was written. The Christian can say: Jesus is greater than angels, greater than Moses, a greater priest than Aaron, greater than Joshua, redemption is greater than creation, and as God rested from the works of creation, sanctifying the seventh day for a Sabbath, so as Jesus rested from the works of redemption on the first day of the week, they too have a Sabbath. So it is established that the people of God are to have a Sabbath-keeping. If the reference be exclusively to the heavenly rest, the argument is not weakened, since the type must abide until the antitype fulfils it.2 [Note: B. H. Carroll.]

187

This blessed day is an earnest, an infallible prophecy of the eternal rest which awaits us in heaven. Here, we have conflicts and trials. This life is full of toil and strife and disappointment and bereavement. There is no absolutely perfect rest in this life. But that rest which remains to God’s people in the immortal life which is to come, will be perfect. The toil is here, but the rest is yonder. The conflict is here, but the victory is yonder. The cross is here, but the crown is yonder. The sorrow is here, but the happiness is yonder. God gives us one day in every week in which to think especially about these things. Every Lord’s Day this perfect rest, this final victory, this complete happiness, this glorious reward should be brought prominently before the Christian’s mind and heart.1 [Note: W. G. Neville.]

Yes, there remaineth yet a rest!Arise, sad heart, who now dost pine,By heavy care and pain opprest,On whom no sun of joy can shine;Look to the Lamb! in yon bright fieldsThou’lt know the joy His presence yields;Cast off thy load and thither haste;Soon shalt thou fight and bleed no more,Soon, soon thy weary course be o’er,And deep the rest thou then shalt taste.The rest appointed thee of God,The rest that nought shall break or move,That ere this earth by man was trodWas set apart for thee by Love.Our Saviour gave His life to winThis rest for thee; oh, enter in!Hear how His voice sounds far and wide:Ye weary souls, no more delay,Nor loiter faithless by the way,Here in my peace and rest abide!2 [Note: Lyra Germanica.]The Gift of the Sabbath

NISBET, "A NATIONAL TREASURE‘The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath therefore the Son of Man is Lord also of the sabbath.’Mark 2:27-28This is our Lord’s endorsement of the Fourth Commandment. The Sabbath, that is God’s holy Sabbath ordained at Creation, the hallowing of which is commanded at Sinai as part of the moral law, was made for man. Not for the Jews only, but for the whole race.

I. The authority of the Fourth Commandment cannot be overthrown.—It is not less than that of each and all of the other Commandments. Parents are glad to fall back upon the Fifth Commandment to preserve order in the family. The State falls back upon the Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Commandments to guard society and the home against the murderer and the adulterer, the thief and

188

the perjurer. Surely those who avail themselves of the protection afforded by these five Commandments ought not to deny the authority of the Commandment which immediately precedes them. Some try to represent the Fourth Commandment as an impossible one, because of the words in the Prayer Book version, ‘Thou shalt do no manner of work.’ The words in Exodus are: ‘Thou shalt not do any work’; and they must be taken in connection with the words of the preceding verse: ‘Six days shalt thou labour and do all thy work.’ The week-day work is to cease on the Sabbath day. Many of our Lord’s injunctions in the Sermon on the Mount might just as reasonably be called impossible commands. But we think it childish to stumble over the exact wording of them. We recognise the beauty of the law of love which they embody, and only the enemies of the Gospel find fault with them. So, whatever the motive which actuates them, those who carp at the Fourth Commandment are acting as enemies of God and of the highest welfare of mankind.

II. Our Lord has given us clear guidance in this matter of Sabbath observance.—There was no laxity in His days upon this question, but the plain Sabbath law had been almost smothered by tradition. In the case of some of the Commandments the Jewish traditions tended to laxity. In the case of the Fourth Commandment they rather added to and magnified the Divine requirements. Our Lord set Himself to correct all that was traditional and mistaken in the Jewish observance of the Sabbath, and to leave the Sabbath law in its primitive simplicity and beautiful adaptability to man’s needs. He lifted the law into its right position, a Divine law, but not to be so interpreted as to break other laws of equal authority, and on a higher plane—the law of mercy and the law of love. All this full teaching of our Lord (He said more about the Fourth Commandment than He did about all the other nine put together) is decisive proof of the perpetuity of the Sabbath law. What legislator intending to abrogate a law would thus elaborately explain it, bring out its spirit, make known its limits, and yet not utter a single word of disapproval or give the least hint of an approaching abolition? The pains our Saviour took to ‘mend’ the Sabbath law distorted by Jewish traditions, is clear proof that he had no thought of ‘ending’ it. He claimed, however, to be Lord of the Sabbath, and in the exercise of a Sovereign’s right He changed the day of the week, and the first day was observed as His own Lord’s Day.

III. St. Paul’s teaching is in no way out of harmony with this view.—The testimony of Hebrews 4 is very clear. The author clearly views the Sabbath rest as dating from the Creation, and he reminds us that there still remains a keeping of Sabbath for the people of God.

IV. The teaching of the early fathers is in complete accord with this view.—Tertullian (born about 150 a.d.) writes: ‘That very day which was holy from the beginning by His Father’s benediction, He made more holy by His own benefaction.’ Irenaeus, consecrated Bishop of Lyons in 169 a.d., writes: ‘On the Lord’s Day every one of us Christians keeps the Sabbath, meditating on the law, and rejoicing in the works of God.’ Clement of Alexandria, who died about 220 a.d., writes: ‘The Fourth Commandment informs us that the world was made by God, and that He gave us the seventh day for rest on account of the sufferings

189

and afflictions of life, and the eighth appears to be rightly called the seventh, and to be the true seventh.’ Epiphanius states, ‘The first Sabbath from the beginning decreed and declared by the Lord in the creation of the world has revolved in its cycle of seven days from that day till now,’ and Athanasius declares that the Lord ‘transferred the Sabbath to the Lord’s day.’

How shall I impress upon you the deep importance of this question. There is something radically wrong in your spiritual condition if you need any urging to keep the Sabbath day. The Sabbath is one of God’s best gifts to men—like sleep and sunshine. Better a city without a park, a world without flowers, than a week without a Sabbath.

—Rev. F. S. Webster.Illustration

‘We cannot let Sunday go without quickly discovering and realising our loss. Very weighty are the words of the Right Hon. John Burns, m.p., on this question: “Sunday rest is physically good, mentally invigorating, and morally healthful. It has been commercially beneficial to the people of this land. It has done more than anything else to buttress and maintain the excellent institution we call ‘home’. The Day of Rest is from every point of view a national treasure.” The same view was emphasised not long ago in America by the overwhelming popular vote which decided that the Chicago Exhibition should be closed on Sunday; not, certainly, because of the religious intolerance of fifty millions in the United States, but because of their recognition of the importance of Sunday to a people. And a strange confirmation of the same principle comes to us from the French Republic in the law lately passed, which seeks to compel the observance of Sunday as a day of rest.’

(SECOND OUTLINE)FROM THE DAYS OF CREATION UNTIL NOWThe Sabbath was made for man:—

I. For his body.—In the evidence taken before a Select Committee of the House of Commons, it was proved that there must be a day of rest for the bodies of men; and those who keep horses know quite well that, if they are to be wrought up to their strength, you must give them rest one day in seven. So it is with man; if he has to work up to his strength, he requires one day of rest in seven. Now does not this prove that He that made our bodies has also appointed the Sabbath for the whole human race? For had He pleased He could have made our bodies of iron.

II. According to the example of God.—We are told in Genesis 2 of God making the Sabbath. It is a very common thing for Sabbath-breakers to say that it is a Jewish ordinance. But the first Sabbath dawned on a sinless world two thousand years before ever the mention of a Jew was heard of. The first Sabbath dawned in the bowers of sinless Paradise.

III. From the command that God gave concerning it.—When God brought Israel

190

out of Egypt to the rocky mount of Sinai He there gave them a clear revelation of His holy law; and it is said, that ‘it was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made’ (Galatians 3:19). And in the very bosom of it was written, ‘Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.’ This is God’s Word—this is God’s unchangeable law.

IV. All God’s children love the Sabbath day.—God said to Israel, ‘My Sabbaths you shall reverence.’ And Ezekiel says: ‘He gave them a Sabbath to be a sign between them and Him’; it marked them out as God’s peculiar people. It’s the same still.

V. God’s enemies hate the Sabbath day.—It was the same first: it will be the same to the last.

Illustration

‘A well-known Secularist leader, the late Mr. George Holyoake, asserted with an absolutely true instinct of the real issues which underlie this question, “It is on the religious observance of Sunday that the Christian religion in England mainly depends.” In other words—attributed, rightly or wrongly, to Voltaire, most clear-headed and far-seeing of statesmen—“If you would destroy this Christianity, you must first kill Sunday.” Or, in the language of Montalembert—“Il n’y a pas de Religion sans culte; et il n’y a pas de culte sans Dimanche.”’

COKE, "Mark 2:27-28. And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man— The sabbath was contrived for the benefit and relief of man, being instituted in commemoration of the creation of the world finished in six days, and to perpetuate to latest ages the knowledge of this grand truth,—that the world was made by God,—in opposition both to atheism and idolatry. It was instituted also, in order that men, abstaining from all sorts of labour, but such as are necessary to the exercises of piety and charity, might have leisure for meditating on the works of creation, and that by these meditations they might acquire not only the knowledge of God, but a relish of spiritual and divinepleasures, flowing from the contemplation of God's attributes, from the exercise of the love of God, and from obedience to his commands. It is thus that men are prepared for entering into that heavenly rest, of which the earthly sabbath is an emblem: further, among the Israelites the sabbath was appointed to keep up the remembrance of their deliverance from Egypt, and for the comfort of their slaves and beasts; humanity to both being especially incumbent upon a people who had once groaned under the heaviest bondage. From all which it is evident, that to burden men, much more to hurt them, through the observation of the sabbath, is to act quite contrary to the design of God in appointing it. Therefore, says Christ, the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath; "Since the sabbath was instituted for the benefit of man, the observation of it in cases of necessity, may be dispensed with by any man whatever; but especially byME, who am the Lawgiver of the Jewish commonwealth, and can make what alterations in its institutions I think fit." Our Lord insisted largely on this argument, drawn from the considerations of his own dignity, when he was persecuted for a pretended profanation of the sabbath, by the cure which he

191

performed at Bethesda. See John 5:16-30 and the note on Matthew 12:8. Dr. Clarke explains the 27th verse thus: "Duties of a ritual nature were appointed only for the present use of man, to be subservient to the more convenient practice of the great duties of religion." Sermon 3: vol. 10. Instead of Lord also of the sabbath, we may read, Lord even of the sabbath.

Inferences.—The number of the apostles was not yet full; one place is left void for a future possessor; who can fail to expect that it is reserved for some eminent person?—and behold! Matthew the publican is the man! Wonderful choice of Christ! Those other disciples, whose calling is recorded, were from the fisher-boat; this from the receipt of custom: they were unlettered, this infamous. The condition was not itself sinful; but as the taxes which the Romans imposed on the Jews were odious, so the collectors, the farmers of them, were abominable; besides, it was hard to hold that seat, without oppression, without exaction: one who knew it thoroughly, branded it with those odious titles; (see Luke 19:8.) and yet, behold one of these publicans called to the family, to the apostleship of God! Who can despair, from the consciousness of his unworthiness, when he sees this instance of infinitely condescending grace?

The just man is the first accuser of himself. Whom have we here to blazon the shame of Matthew, but his own mouth? Matthew the Evangelist tells us of Matthew the publican. (See Matthew 9:9.) His fellows call him Levi, as willing to cover with their finger the spot of his unpleasing profession, which himself will not smother, but publishes it to all the world, in a thankful recognition of the mercy that called him; liking well that his unworthiness should serve for a foil, to set off the glorious lustre of His grace by whom he was called.

It was not a more busy than profitable trade, that Matthew abandoned to follow Christ into poverty. He now contemned his heaps of cash, in comparison of that better treasure which he foresaw lay open in this happy attendance. If any commodity be valued of us as too dear to be parted with for Christ, we are more fit to be publicans than disciples. Our Saviour invites Matthew to a discipleship, Matthew invites him to a feast; the joy of his call makes him begin his abdication of the world in a banquet.

Here was not a more cheerful thankfulness in the inviter, than a gracious humility in the guest. The new servant invites his master, the publican his Saviour; and is honoured with so blessed a presence. I do not find where Jesus was ever invited to any table, and refused; if a Pharisee, if a publican invited him, he made no scruple to go; not for the pleasure of the dishes,—for what was that to Him, who began his work in a whole lent of days?—but (as it was his meat and drink to do the will of his Father) for the benefit which might arise from his improving conversation. If he sat with sinners, it was to convert them; if with converts, to confirm and instruct them; if with the poor, to feed them; if with the rich in substance, to make them richer in grace: at whose board did he ever sit, and left not his host a gainer? The poor bridegroom entertains him, and has his water-pots filled with wine; Simon the Pharisee entertains him, and has his table honoured with the public remission of a penitent sinner; Zaccheus entertains him, and salvation comes that day to his house, with the Author of it;

192

Matthew is recompensed for his feast with an apostleship: and Martha and Mary, for theirs, besides divine instruction, receive their brother from the dead. O Saviour! whether thou entertainest us, or we entertain thee, in both of them is blessedness!

Where a publican is the feast-master, it is no wonder if the guests be publicans and sinners. Whether they came only out of the hope of that mercy which they saw their fellow had found, or whether Matthew invited them to be partakers of that plentiful grace whereof he had tasted, I inquire not; publicans and sinners will flock together; the one hateful for their trade, the other for their vicious life. Common contempt has wrought them to an unanimity, and sends them to seek mutual comfort in that society, which all others esteem abominable and contagious. Moderate correction humbles and shames the offender; whereas a cruel severity makes men desperate, and drives them to those courses whereby they are more dangerously infected. How many have gone into the prison faulty, and returned flagitious! If publicans were not sinners, they were not at all beholden to their neighbours.

What a table-full is here! the Son of God surrounded with publicans and sinners! O happy publicans and sinners, who have found out their Saviour! O merciful Saviour, who disdained not publicans and sinners! What sinner can fear to kneel before thee, when he sees publicans and sinners sit with thee! Who can fear to be despised of thy meekness and mercy, which did not abhor to converse with the outcasts of men? Thou didst not despise the thief confessing upon the cross; nor the sinner washing thy feet with her tears; nor the Canaanite crying unto thee in the way, nor the blushing adulteress, nor the odious publican, nor the forswearing disciple; nor the persecutor of disciples, nor thine own executioners! how can we then be unwelcome to thee, if we come with tears in our eyes, faith in our hearts, restitution in our hands? O Saviour! our breasts are too often shut against thee; thy bosom is ever open to us. We are as great sinners as the consorts of these publicans;—Why should we despair of room at thy table?

The jaundice-eyed Pharisees behold evil in all the actions of Christ: where they should have admired his mercy, they cavil at his holiness. They said to his disciples, (Mark 2:16.) How is it that your Master eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners? They durst not speak thus to the Master; whose answer they knew would soon have convinced them: this wind, they hoped, might shake the weak faith of the disciples. They speak where they may be most likely to do hurt. All the crew of satanical instruments have learned this craft of their old tutor in paradise. We cannot reverence that man whom we think unholy; Christ would have lost the hearts of his followers, if they had entertained the least suspicion of his impurity; which the murmur of these envious Pharisees would fain insinuate. "He cannot be worthy to be followed, who is unclean; he cannot be clean, who eateth with publicans and sinners." Proud and foolish Pharisees! ye fast, while Christ eateth; ye fast in your houses, while Christ eateth in other men's; ye fast with your own sect, while Christ feasts with sinners:—but if ye fast in pride, while Christ eats in humility; if ye fast at home, for merit or popularity, while Christ feeds with sinners, for compassion, for edification, for conversion; your fast is unclean, his feast is holy; ye shall have your portion with

193

hypocrites, when those publicans and sinners shall be glorious.

When these censurers thought the disciples had offended, they speak not to them, but to their Master; Why do thy disciples that which is not lawful? Now, when they thought Christ had offended, they speak not to Him, but to the disciples. Thus, like true mischief-makers, they endeavour to make a breach in the family of Christ, by separating the one from the other. The quick eye of our Saviour, from whose piercing glance nothing can be hid, instantly discerns their fraud; and therefore he takes the words out of the mouths of his disciples into his own. They had spoken of Christ to the disciples; Christ answers for the disciples concerning himself. The whole need not a Physician, but the sick. According to the two qualities of pride, scorn, and self-sufficiency, these insolent Pharisees over-rated their own holiness, and contemned the noted unholiness of others; as if themselves were not tainted with secret sins, as if others could not be cleansed by the blood of a Saviour.

The Searcher of hearts meets their arrogance, and finds those self-righteous sinful, those sinners just. The spiritual Physician finds the sickness of those sinners wholesome, the health of those Pharisees desperate; that wholesome, because it calls for the help of the physician; this desperate, because it thinks it needs it not. Every soul is sick, those most that feel it not; those that feel it complain; those that complain find a cure; those that feel it not, will find themselves dying ere they can wish to recover. O blessed Physician! by whose stripes we are healed; by whose death we live; happy they who are under thy hands, sick, as of sin, so of sorrow for sin. Sin has made us sick unto death; make thou us but as sick of our sins, and we shall assuredly find thee our successful Physician!

REFLECTIONS.—1st, No sooner had our Lord returned to Capernaum, from his journey through the villages of Galilee, than the rumour of it quickly spread through the place; and, eager to improve the precious opportunity of his presence, such multitudes assembled at the house, that there was no coming even to the door, so thick was the crowd. And a blessed sight it is to behold such numbers flocking to the Saviour.

1. He preached to them. Some might have thought the time, and the place, improper for a sermon. There were synagogues; what need of preaching in a house, or at the window?—Perhaps to teach us, that no time or place is improper to speak a word for God and for immortal souls.

2. During Christ's preaching, or in some interval of his discourses, the friends of a poor paralytic man, solicitous to present his pitiable case before him, would fain have pressed through the crowd; but finding the attempt impracticable, they carried him up to the top of the house where Jesus was, and let down the sick man on his bed before him. (See the annotations.) Note; They who truly seek the Lord, will not be discouraged by any difficulties from coming to him.

3. Struck with such an instance of their faith, the compassionate Jesus kindly accosts the afflicted patient, and seals the pardon of his sins, as the introduction

194

to his cure. This being the cause of every sickness and disease, the bitterness of them is past, when the sin that occasioned them is forgiven.

4. The scribes and Pharisees, who were present, regarded it as arrant blasphemy in a mere man, as they regarded Jesus, to assume the incommunicable prerogative of God, in thus by his own authority presuming to forgive sin. He knew their secret reasonings, and in his answer gave them a proof of his Divinity, as the searcher of hearts. To shew them, therefore, that he possessed the power which he assumed, he bids the man arise and walk, and appeals to themselves for the conclusion, whether he who could thus sovereignly, in an instant, remove the effects of sin, could not as easily remit the guilt of it. Note; The man Christ Jesus is also very God, able to forgive and to save to the uttermost every poor sinner that comes to him.

5. The paralytic man received his cure the moment Jesus commanded him to arise; and, to the astonishment of all, he was so perfectly restored to health and strength, as to carry home the bed on which he had been brought. Such unprecedented cures extorted acknowledgments from the beholders in general, that the like was never seen before in Israel.

2nd, Having departed from the house to the sea-side, thither the multitude followed him, and he preached to them the Gospel. After which,

1. He called Levi, or Matthew, a publican, who was sitting in his office receiving the customs, and such power accompanied his word, that instantly he left his gainful profession, and followed Jesus as his disciple. Note; (1.) Nothing is too difficult for Almighty grace: if we follow its first sacred drawings, and improve the power which it imparts from time to time, we shall assuredly experience all the heights and depths of Christian experience. (2.) If Christ did not first seek us, we should never have sought him.

2. Levi, in tender regard for his brother publicans, longed to make them acquainted with Jesus, whose grace he himself had so richly tasted, and therefore invited them to his house, where Jesus disdained not to sit among them; infamous in general as their characters were, he joined them not as an associate, but, as the great Physician of souls, visited them as diseased patients. Note; They who have tasted the grace of the Redeemer themselves, cannot but be solicitous that their friends and neighbours should partake with them.

3. Christ vindicates his conduct from the censorious cavils of the Pharisees. He despised not the poor sinners' souls; and as this was the very end of his coming, to call such to repentance, he was unaffected by the reviling of those who conceited themselves righteous, and yet were much farther from the kingdom of heaven than the very sinners whom they despised. Note; (1.) The best deeds are often most basely misrepresented by the envenomed tongue of malice. (2.) None have ought to do with Christ but sin-sick souls, who feel themselves lost without him; the proud and self-righteous are left to perish in the delusions that they have chosen.

195

3rdly, Christ, having justified his own conduct from the censure of Pharisaical pride, justifies also his disciples for not observing unnecessary austerities: and vindicates them for plucking the ears of corn on the sabbath-day to satisfy their hunger.

1. The disciples of John, who, after their master's example, fasted often; and the Pharisees, who placed great dependance on this bodily exercise, express their wonder that Jesus enjoined no such rigid rules on his disciples as they practised. So ready are those who fancy their own strictness meritorious, to censure all who come short of their standard of excellence. Christ answers their question, and vindicates his disciples; they were but beginners, and it was improper to put them on the more difficult exercises of self-denial, lest they should be discouraged thereby, and contract a disgust to the service. Besides, during his presence with them, like that of a newly-married bride, it became them to rejoice: it would be time enough to mourn and fast when he should be taken from them. Thus should we learn not to exact too much from young converts, and the lambs of the flock; and especially in fasting we should consider the great end and use of it, and that of itself it is no farther good, than these are obtained.

2. The Pharisees soon seized another occasion of offence, from the disciples plucking the ears of corn on the sabbath-day, as they passed through the fields.—Rigidly scrupulous, as many others like them still are, about the form of godliness, and severe in judging all who do not coincide with them; yet blind to the deep-rooted evil and abominations of their hearts. Christ vindicates his disciples by a precedent which the Pharisees will not dispute, and reasons with them by arguments that they cannot disprove. David had done what seemed a much more exceptionable thing, in eating the shew-bread; and Abiathar, who succeeded his father soon after as high-priest, had consented to it, because ceremonial observances must give way to the great law of charity and self-preservation. Besides, the very institution of the sabbath was designed for man's benefit, to give rest to his body, and time to spend in the immediate service of God, and in the care of his soul; and therefore does not require him to abstain from what is more immediately necessary for the support and preservation of his life; the provision for which was a law of nature, and subsisted previous to the express institution of the sabbath. The Messiah, therefore, who can best interpret his own laws, and is Lord of the sabbath, has an undoubted right to permit this liberty to his disciples, as such refreshment of their bodies will enable them more effectually to discharge the duties of the holy day. Note; (1.) Our sabbaths should be our delight; and therefore must not, by unreasonable strictness, be made a burden. (2.) Though we are allowed to eat and drink, as shall best enable us for the service of the sabbath, it is a gross violation of the day, by indulging our appetite to stupify our faculties, and render body and soul utterly unfit for the exercises of devotion.

BI 27-28, "And He said unto them, the Sabbath was made for man.

The Sabbath and its Lord

“The Sabbath was made for man”-not for the Jews only-not a mere ceremonial observance for the time; but of universal obligation; made for man when man was

196

made.

I. “The Sabbath was made for man” as a working man. It is a simple fact in medical science, that the human frame is not made so as to bear up under constant labour without rest. He can no more do it than he can live under water; it is contrary to nature; and the consequence will be premature decay; the frame will break down and wear out before its time. This is a simple fact in science. Besides, labour is God’s appointment, His wholesome and needful law. But did He mean us to bear the drudgery of ceaseless toil? How wretched, how degrading, how brutalizing! And God has not appointed it: “Six days shalt thou labour.” But on this head I need say no more; those admirable Essays by Working Men, which ought to be in everybody’s hands, and which so vividly portray the experience of those who have kept the Sabbath, exhaust this part of the subject.

II. “The Sabbath was made for man,” as a social being. What is God’s great instrument for promoting the temporal good of His creatures? It is the family tie. What is the great stimulant to exertion? What the great safeguard, what the great cordial of life-speaking of mere human things, I mean? It is to be found in the word “home.” My experience as a gaol chaplain convinces me that the great cause of crime arises from the breach of the fourth and fifth commandments. Let but the family tie be rent asunder, and society falls to pieces. And how can this be maintained without a Sabbath? The observation of an omnibus conductor the other day sets this in a striking light: “Sir, I am at work every Sunday, all the day, as well as on week days, and I hardly know the face of my own children.” Then what must become of those children? And why should they be deprived of a father’s care, and he of his children’s love? And how has God provided against such a danger? “The Sabbath was made for man.” Then the various members of the family, scattered through the week, are once more united; the mutual feelings of affection are elicited; they are excited to seek each other’s welfare, and to value each other’s good opinion and esteem; and, short of the power of God’s grace, there is no bond half so strong, no security half so certain, that they will fill up their places as good members of society. I constantly meet with those who are lost to every other feeling of shame but this.

III. “The Sabbath was made for man,” as a spiritual being. Earthly things must not engross all the time and thought of man. God interposes, “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.”

IV. But it is not enough to offer man the blessing-it is made imperative; it is confirmed by the sanction which is added, “The Son of Man is Lord also of the Sabbath.” Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath, the Proprietor of it, the Owner of it, the Master of it. It is His. It was made for man, but never given to man. The six days were given to man-the seventh never was. He is “the Lord” of it. It is at His disposal, not at yours, nor any man’s, nor any body of men, however great or powerful. “Will a man rob God?” Yes. If he apply to his own purposes that which does not belong to him, what is it? Robbery. You have no right over another’s Sabbaths; you have no right over your own. It is the Lord’s day. It is for Him to say how the day shall be spent; and man has no more the right to alienate that day from the service of God to his own service than he has to appropriate his neighbour’s property or despoil him of his honour for his own behoof. The Sabbath is not man’s, but the Lord’s, and you can’t repeal that law, no more than you can change the laws of motion or reverse the force of gravity. You may arrest it for a time, but it will prevail at last; the laws of God execute themselves, you cannot make them inoperative and null.

V. “The Son of Man is the Lord of the Sabbath”-the judge to punish the breach of it. Nothing is more certain than that this is one of the sins which He especially requires at the hands of men. We know it from His dealings with Israel; Jeremiah is full of

197

such declarations; so are many of the other prophets; to refer only to one, Eze_20:13; Eze_20:16; Eze_20:21; Eze_20:24. He is the Lord-the Judge-to vindicate His own law. And why? First, Sabbath breaking is a deliberate sin. And then Sabbath breaking is (if I may coin such an expression) a fundamental sin. It goes to the root of all godliness; an habitual Sabbath breaker cannot have any true religion. It opens the door of his heart wide to Satan.

VI. “The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath”-to direct the mode of its observance. It is the Lord’s day-the Lord who died for us. He claims it, to be devoted to His service and consecrated to His honour.

VII. And is it not the Lord’s day?-the day on which He specially manifests Himself to His people; when He invites them to draw water with joy out of the wells of salvation. (J. Cohen, M. A.)

The Sabbath a necessity

It was “made for man,” as man; as a thing necessary, suited, essential for him. Just as the atmosphere was made for man to breathe, just as the earth was made for him to cultivate, just as the seasons were made for him-just as these and such-like things were taken into account, when man was put upon the earth, as necessary to fit it for man’s abode physically, so the Sabbath was made for man, as a necessary requisite for man morally-and that, when man was unfallen, a holy being, like unto the angels. And if indispensable for man’s moral and spiritual health then, can it be less indispensable now? And in His mercy God spared it to us. It has survived the fall-a remnant of paradise lost, and the best help to paradise regained. (J. Cohen, M. A.)

The working man a self sovereign on the Sabbath

Now, I say to this large class of men, the Sabbath comes as a boon from God. It is like an island in a stormy sea. There is a way in which poor men, for the most part, own themselves. The man whose horse and dray are imperatively at the command of his employer, on whose favour he depends, who says to him on Monday, “Go,” and he goes, and that from daylight to dark-it being the same on Tuesday, on Wednesday, on every day of the week, so that the man cannot go out of Brooklyn without permission of his employer, cannot go to this or that exhibition unless his employer gives his consent-that man has sold out his industry, which carries his person with it, and for six days in the week he is restricted by the will of another; but when the seventh day comes round he says, “Thank God, I have nobody to ask today. I am free to come and go. I can rise up or lie down as I please.” That is the only day that the poor man has out of the seven in which he has absolute ownership of his body and soul in the thronging industries of modern civilized society. And yet it is this very class of men who are being taught to throw stones at the Sabbath day. It is precisely the same thing over again which occurred when Moses appeared as the deliverer of his people against the Egyptians, and sought to reconcile the quarrel which had arisen between the two peoples. They turned against him and said, “Who art thou?” And he had to run for his life. The Sabbath comes to men who are tied hand and foot, and need emancipation; and upon this beneficent day of rest for them they turn and say, “It is the priests’ day; it is the church’s bondage; and we are not going to be tied up to any Sunday.” Tied up! It is the only day on which your hands are untied. It is the only day on which the poor man is sovereign. (H. W. Beecher.)

198

The Sabbath a poetic gift to the mechanical agent

Well, how is it about the poor man? His brain is not taxed. He is almost a mechanical agent. That part of a man’s brain which has cognisance of the lower functions only is overtaxed, and the rest which is wanted in his case is the transfer of excitement from the lower part of the brain to the higher-to the realm of the moral and spiritual elements. It is needful that a man who is instructed should rise up into the crystal dome of his house. Ordinarily he is working on the ground floor; but there comes a day in which, if he improves the means that are within his reach, a man can cease to be altogether a mechanical agent, can cease to think of physical qualities or things, and rise into the realm of ideas, into the realm of social amenities, into the realm of refined and purified affections, into the great mysterious, poetic realms of the spirit. And is there any class that need that more than poor labouring men? (H. W. Beecher.)

The Sabbath helpful to self-respect

On such a day as this it is no small means of grace for millions of men in this world to have a chance to wash them selves clean. You smile; but washing is one of the most important ordinances of God to this human family. It is said that cleanliness is next to godliness; not to men that are godly, but to men that are on their way toward godliness. When Kaffirs are converted, they are called “shirt men,” because when the grace of God enters their heart a shirt goes over their bodies for the first time. Wellington said he found that in his army the men who had the self-respect which is indicated by carefully clothing themselves, were the best men he had. In a report on labour made to the British Parliament by one of the largest employers of men, it was said that a workman who on Sunday did not wash himself and dress in his best could not be depended upon. (H. W. Beecher.)

Stealing the Lord’s day

If you give six days to worldly success, and then voluntarily take the seventh day, which God demands for His worship and especial service, and give that to worldly amusements, then you are wrong; you are so wrong that you could not be any more wrong. If I say my child is sick: I think by taking it to the beach it could be helped, but I cannot take it except on the Sabbath day, and therefore I will have to let it die, then I make a miserable misinterpretation of the text in one direction. But if you say, “Come, let us go down for some fine sport; let us examine the picturesque bathing dresses; let us have a jolly time with our friends,” then you misinterpret my text in the other direction. The fact is that nine out of ten of you-yes, I will go further than that and say that ninety-nine out of a hundred of you-I think I will go one step farther and say that nine hundred and ninety-nine out of a thousand of you, can go on other days and other nights, instead of the Christian Sabbath. Your work, your business engagement ends at six o’clock; that is true with the most of you. In a flash you get to the seashore: in a flash you get back. You can be in your home at six o’clock and ten o’clock the same evening, and in the interregnum have spent three hours in looking at moonlight on the sea. Now, if God gives you during the week opportunity for recreation, is it not mean for you to take Sunday? If I am a poor man, and I come into your store, and beg some socks for my children, and you say, “Yes, I’ll give you six pairs of socks,” and while you are binding them up in a bundle I steal the seventh pair, you say, “That is mean.” If you, the father, have seven oranges, and you give to

199

your child six of them, and he steals the seventh, that is mean. But that is what everyone does who, after the Lord gives him six days, steals the seventh. (Dr. Talmage.)

The secularization of the Sabbath inimical to the spiritual welfare of mankind

I also oppose this secularization of the Christian Sabbath because it is war on the spiritual warfare of everybody. Have you a body? Yes. A mind? Yes. A soul? Yes. Do you propose to give them a chance? Yes. Do you believe that all these Sunday night concerts will prepare a single man for the song of the one hundred and forty and four thousand? Have you any idea that all the fifty-two Sundays of secular amusements, operatic singing, concerts, and theatres would prepare in a thousand years one man for heaven? Do you not think that the immortal soul is worth at least one-seventh as much as our perishable body? Here is a jeweller who has three gems-a carnelian, an amethyst, a diamond. He has to cut and set them. Upon which does he put the most care? The diamond. Now, the carnelian is the body, the amethyst is the mind, the diamond is the soul. You give opportunity to these other faculties of your nature, but how many of you give no opportunity to that which is worth as much more than all other interests as a thousand million dollars are more than one cent? (Dr. Talmage.)

The Lord’s right in the Sabbath above that of the people

We hear a great deal about the people’s rights in selecting their own amusements on Sunday. I would not invade the people’s rights, but it seems to me that the Lord has some rights. You are at the head of your family; you have a right to govern the family. The Governor is at the head of the State; he governs the State. The President is at the head of the nation; he governs the nation. The Lord God is at the head of the universe, and He has a right to lay down an enactment: “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.” Whether popular or unpopular, I now declare that the people have no rights except those which the Lord God Almighty gives them. (Dr. Talmage.)

The Lord’s Day

I. We must consider the Lord’s day as a gift, rather than a command. So it will come to us in the light of a privilege. No laws are given by Christ or by His apostles concerning the forms of observance. We shall become perplexed if we attempt to rest our case upon simple legal enactment. Our safety in such discussions consists in our fastening attention upon the gracious and benevolent character of the Divine institution. God gives us this one day of the week as His peculiar offering for our bodily and spiritual need; He does not order it nor claim it for any necessities of His own.

II. We must consider the Lord’s day as a freedom, rather than a restriction. So it will seem to us a gracious respite.

III. This leads us on to say that Christians should consider the Lord’s day as a rest rather than a dissipation. So it will become a recuperation to us from its chance of a change. The original idea of the Sabbath was rest; the word signifies rest; the fourth commandment gives as the basis of the law the fact that God rested and so hallowed the rest day. We come up to the end of the week worn and excited. Most of us know what the poet Cowper meant when he wrote to his friend John Newton: “The meshes

200

of that fine network the brain are composed of such mere spiders’ threads in me, that when a long thought finds its way into them, it buzzes, and twangs, and bustles about, at such a rate as seems to threaten the whole structure.” At these times we need tranquil hours for change of occupation, as well as for genial and agreeable entertainment. Dr. Addison Alexander used to say he found his recreation in change of toil. He would go from the study of languages to the study of mathematics. He would turn from writing commentaries to writing sermons. He would discuss theology, and refresh himself after his dry work by composing little poems for children. We all ought to know and recognize this principle. What we need for Sunday rest is not so much sleep as something to do different from what we do during the week; and what we should shun the most is this wear and tear of a crowded excursion. A real rest is found in variety of labour, inside of exhaustion and fatigue. Quiet does not mean stupid slumber on the Lord’s day, or on any other. The best relief from worldly cares is discovered oftenest in the gentle industries of religious work.

IV. We must consider the Lord’s day as a benediction rather than a fret. Thus we shall rebut the charge of bigotry. It is sometimes claimed that Sabbath laws exasperate men who make no claim to religion, and this is a free country. It has to be admitted that there are always some people who grow exasperated whenever the subject of law is mentioned. But liberty is not licence, nor is freedom lawlessness. This one day in seven is no less a blessing because some men do not think so; it is not a fret because they are fretted. Even decent people have some rights. God does not engage to commune with His children, and then expect them to allow the interview to be disturbed by the rollicking riot of a beer garden, or the band of target-shooting parades.

V. We must consider the Lord’s day as a help rather than an institution. (C. S. Robinson, D. D.)

Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath

Nothing can show the Divine nature of our Lord more clearly than that He is above such a law of God, so that He should modify it, relax it, change it at His pleasure. He exercised but a small part of this authority when He freed His disciples from the yoke of its burdensome pharisaic observance. He exercised His lordship over the day far more royally when He by His Spirit made the day of His resurrection the weekly religious festival of His Church. By this He gave it altogether a new character. Henceforth it is a day, not of mere rest, but of renewed life, the life of His own resurrection; and so its characteristic ordinance is not the slaying of beasts, but the life-giving celebration of the sacrament of His own risen body. (M. F. Sadler.)

The Sabbath was made for man

I. As a periodical reprieve from the curse of labour.

II. As a stated season for attention to religious truths and interests.

III. As a day of holy convocation for the purpose of worship and instruction.

IV. As an emblem and an earnest of the saint’s everlasting rest. (G. Brooks.)

201

The Son of Man Lord of the Sabbath

I. It was instituted by Him.

II. It is kept on a day which is fixed by His authority.

III. It is intended to commemorate His resurrection.

IV. It ought to be observed with a special regard to His will, and word, and work. (G. Brooks.)

The Sabbath for man as a complex creature

The question has been revived in our own generation: “In what spirit is that day which has superseded the Sabbath to be kept, especially by the working classes?” This, no less than the other, “was made for man.” Now man, it must be remembered, is a complex creature. He has a tripartite nature, consisting of body, soul, and spirit; and it is necessary to provide for him as such, not ignoring either his physical, or his social, or his religious needs. All must be kept in view. It is a manifest duty to furnish the masses with the means of bodily recreation, and to draw them from their squalid homes into the pure air which will invigorate the frame. It is no less a duty to elevate their tastes, to offer them, as far as possible, variety of scene, and that relief from the monotony of labour which the rich man finds in his club or library; but all must be subordinated to the paramount duty of worship. That is due from every creature to the Great Creator. It is that, moreover, in which he may find his highest enjoyment. No scheme, therefore, which ignores this claim can possibly carry out the principle here laid down by Christ. (H. M. Luckock, D. D.)

Man cannot do without the Sabbath

A distinguished merchant, who for twenty years did a vast amount of business, remarked to Dr. Edwards, “Had it not been for the weekly day of rest, I have no doubt I should have been a maniac long ago.” This was mentioned in a company of merchants, when one remarked, “That is the case exactly with a poor friend of mine. He was one of our greatest importers. He used to say Sunday was the best day in the week to plan successful voyages; showing that his mind had no Sabbath. He has been in the insane hospital for years, and will probably die there.” Many men are there, or in the maniac’s grave, because they allowed themselves no Sabbath. They broke a law of nature, and of nature’s God, and found “the way of the transgressor is hard.”

The Sabbath a service to the State

The keeping one day in seven holy, as a time of relaxation and refreshment as well as for public worship, is of admirable service to a state, considered merely as a civil institution. (Sir W. Blackstone.)

The Sabbath for man’s happiness

The usages and ordinances of religion ought to be regulated according to their end, which is the honour of God and the advantage of men. It is the property of the religion of the true God, to contain nothing in it but what is beneficial to man. Hereby God plainly shows that it is neither out of indigence, nor interest, that He requires men to worship and obey Him, but only out of goodness, and on purpose to make them happy. God prohibited work on the Sabbath day, for fear lest servants

202

should be oppressed by the hard-heartedness of their masters, and to the end that men might not be hindered from attending upon God and their own salvation. (Quesnel.)

The Sabbath law fibred in the nature of man

For as the old masters put their colours upon the fresh, damp plaster of the wall until, hardening together, picture and plaster were one in their witness to the future of the glories of the past, so fibred in the need and future of man is the law of the Sabbath. (Monday Club Sermons.)

The Sabbath a physical necessity

The testimony is cumulative, from experience and careful scientific experiment, that in all departments of continuous work-as mines, factories, railroads, mechanic arts, telegraphy, and commercial pursuits-the rest of the night does not restore the vitality lost in the day. The New York Central engineers, who petitioned for their Sundays on the ground that they could do more and better work in six than in seven days, have clearer heads and firmer hands, and that under pressure of constant service age came on prematurely, put on record their own experience. In a paper before the British Association it was stated by an employer of labour that he could work a horse eight miles a day for six days better than he could six miles a day for seven days; so that by not working on Sunday he saved 12 per cent. (Monday Club Sermons.)

Man needs the rest of the Sabbath in addition to the rest of night

In the same line of witness is the testimony of medical and scientific experts, that the rest of the night does not restore the powers of mind and body to the same vitality they had twenty-four hours before, and that the natural forces run steadily lower and lower from Monday morning until Saturday night, until these powers can be lifted back to their normal vitality and place only by the relaxation and rest of the seventh day. It is a curious scientific fact that Proudhon, the great socialistic philosopher of France, attempted to work out mathematically the relative ratio of work to rest, which should secure the greatest efficiency and the largest product. Biased by no religious claim, but rather avowedly hostile to such influence, he found that six days of work and one day of rest was the only right proportion: that is, to shorten the present working week by one day made the rest too much for the labour, while adding a single day to the labouring week made the rest too small for complete recuperation. Humboldt, years before, arrived at the same mathematical conclusion: and when France, loyal to her decimal system, put the tenth day in the place of the seventh, she found that the working man took two holidays instead of one, and thereby entailed a loss upon the industrial production of the empire. Therefore Chevalier rightly said: “Let us observe Sunday in the name of hygiene, if not in the name of religion.” For Sunday is the best friend of the working man-his defence against decay, disease, and premature death. And every railroad corporation, every steamship line, every factory bell which calls to Sunday labour, every lax law and every lax practice-these are the enemies of the working man, aye, every poor man! The rich can rest when they will; but the poor man cannot, save as his day of rest is conserved by the law of the land and of God. (Monday Club Sermons.)

203

The Sabbath is a social necessity

What are the great working factors of society? Why, we say, the family, the church, and the school-law and order. Put neglect upon any of these great fountains and the stream grows muddy and shallow, and yet no agency is more potent in conserving these social factors than the Sabbath. It acts as a brake upon the rush and roar of traffic and self-interest, which for six days engross the mind and busy the hand. It bids men stop and breathe, think of God and cultivate the social amenities of life, and thereby makes them better neighbours and better citizens. (Monday Club Sermons.)

The Sabbath necessary to the weary man

Wherever mind and body are taxed and exhausted by toil-and it is meant in the laws of our being that they shall everywhere be employed-there the Sabbath is destined to come as a day of rest. The ship, indeed, will glide along at sea, for its course cannot be arrested; and the Sabbath of the mariner may often be different from that of a dweller in a palace or a cottage, and different from that which the seaman feels that he needs. The sun and the stars will hold on their way, and the grass will grow, and the flower open its petals to the light, and the streams will roll to the ocean; for there is need that the laws of nature should be uniform, and the fibres of plants, and suns, and planets, and streams experience no exhaustion, and He who directs them all “fainteth not, nor is weary;” but man is weary and needs rest. (A. Barnes, D. D.)

The Sabbath necessary for the higher being of man

Man, with these relations, and these high powers to cultivate, the Sabbath meets as a day of leisure, that he may show on such a day of rest that he is distinguished from beasts of burden, and creatures governed by instinct, and those incapable of moral feeling, and those destined to no higher being, and those not knowing how to aspire to fellowship with God. The bird, indeed, will build its nest on the Sabbath, and the beaver its dam, and the bee its cell, and the lion will hunt its prey; for they have no higher nature than is indicated by these things. But man has a higher nature than the fowls of the air and the beasts of the forest, and the world would have been sadly disjoined and incomplete, if there had been no arrangements to develop it. The Sabbath is among those arrangements. It is, indeed, a simple thing merely to command a man to rest one day in seven; but most of the great results which we see depend on very simple arrangements. The law which controls the falling pebble is a simple law; but all these worlds are kept by it in their places. The law which you see developed in a prism, bending the different rays in a beam of light, is a simple law; but all the beauty of the green lawn, of variegated flowers, of the clouds at evening, of the lips, the cheek, the eye, and all that we admire on the canvass when the pencil of Rubens or Raphael touches it, is to be traced to these simple laws. It is one of the ways in which nature works to bring out most wonderful results from the operation of the simplest laws. (A. Barnes, D. D.)

Exertion demands rest

This is true, as we all know, of the muscular system, voluntary and involuntary. In breathing, in winking of the eyes, in the beating of the heart, there is a system of alternate action and repose, each brief indeed in their existence, but indispensable to

204

the healthy action of the muscles, and to the continuance of life. Each one of these organs, too, though they seem to be constantly in motion, will have the rest which nature demands, or disease and death will be the result. The same is true of our voluntary muscles. He that should endeavour to labour at the same thing constantly, he that should attempt to run or walk without relaxation, he that should exercise the same class of muscles in writing, in the practice of music, in climbing, or in holding the limb in a fixed position, would soon be sensible that he was violating a law of nature, and would be compelled by a fearful penalty to pay the forfeit. Nay, in doing these very things, in running, or leaping, or climbing, or in the most rapid execution of a piece of music, nature has provided by antagonist muscles that the great law demanding repose shall not be disregarded. A long-continued and uninterrupted tension of any one of the muscles of the frame would soon bring us into conflict with one of the universal laws of our being; and we should be reminded of the existence of those laws in such a way that we should feel that they must be observed. Yet the operation of this law of our nature is not enough. We need other modes of rest than those which can be obtained by the intermitted action of a muscle which is soon to be resumed. We need longer repose; we need an entire relaxation of the system; we need such a condition that every muscle and nerve shall be laid down, shall be relaxed, shall be composed to rest, and shall be left in an undisturbed position for hours together, where there shall be no danger of its being summoned into action. Nature has provided for this too, and this law must be obeyed: for a few hours only can we be employed on our farms, or in our merchandise, and then the sun refuses us light any longer, and night spreads her sable curtains over all things, and the affairs of a busy world come to a pause. Darkness broods on the path of man, comes into his counting house and his dwelling, meets him in his travels, interrupts his busiest employments, wraps the world in silence; and he himself sympathizes with the universal stillness of nature, and sinks down into a state of unconsciousness. The heart continues, indeed, still to beat, but more gently than under the excitements of political strife, of avarice and revenge; the lungs heave, though more gently than in the hurry and excitement of the chase, or in the anxious effort for gold. But the eyelid heavy will not suffer the eye to look out on the world, and even its involuntary action entirely ceases, and it sinks to repose. The ear, as if tired of hearing so many jarring and discordant sounds, hears nothing; the eye, as if wearied with seeing, sees nothing; the agitated bosom is as calm as it was in the slumberings of infancy: the stretched and weary muscle is relaxed, the nerve is released from its office of conveying the intimations of the will to the distant members of the exhausted frame. The storm may howl without, or the ocean roll high its billows, or perhaps even the thunder of battle may be near, but nature will have repose. Napoleon, at Leipsic, exhausted by fatigue, reposed at the foot of a tree even when the destiny of his empire depended on the issue of the battle; and not even the roaring storm at sea can prevent compliance with this necessary law. (A. Barnes, D. D.)

The mighty mind and the vigorous frame of Napoleon once enabled him to pass four days and nights in the exciting scenes of an active campaign without sleep, and then he fell asleep on his horse. The keenest torture which man has ever invented has been a device to drive sleep from the eyes, and to fix the body in such a position that it cannot find repose; and even this must fail, for the sufferer will find repose on the rack or in death. The same law, demanding rest, exists also in relation to the mind, and is as imperious in regard to the intellectual and moral powers, in order to their permanent and healthful action, as to the muscles of the body. No man can long pursue an intellectual effort without repose. He who attempts to hold his mind long to one train of close thinking, he who pursues far an abstruse proposition, and he

205

who is wrought up into a high state of excitement, must have relaxation and repose. If he does not yield to this law, his mind is unstrung, the mental faculties are thrown from their balance, and the frenzied powers, perhaps yet mighty, move with tremendous but irregular force, like an engine without balance wheel or “governor,” and the man of high intellectual rowers, like Lear, becomes a raving maniac. So with our moral feelings. The intensest zeal will not always be on fire, the keenest sorrow will find intermission, and even love does not always glow with the same ardour in the soul. This law, contemplating our welfare, cannot be violated without incurring a fearful penalty. (A. Barnes, D. D.)

The Sabbath breaks the monotony of life

The mind is not in a condition for its best development when it is under an unbroken influence of any kind, however good in itself. It is not made for one thing, but for many things; not for the contemplation of one object, but of many objects. Life is not all one thing; it is broken up into many interests, many hopes, many anxieties, many modifications of sorrow and joy. On the earth it is not all night or all day, all sunshine or all shade, all hill or all vale, all spring or all winter. No man is made exclusively for any one pursuit, or for the exercise of one class of affections or feelings only, or to touch on society, like a globe on a plain, only on one point. Now look one moment, for illustration, at the effect of unbroken and uninterrupted worldliness on a man’s mind. The man referred to may develop, in the highest degree, the powers of mind which constitute the successful merchant; he may have a far-reaching sagacity in business; he may never send out a vessel on an unsuccessful adventure; he may possess the powers of calculation in the highest degree; he may become rich, and build him a palace, and be “clothed in fine linen and purple;” but what is he then? Is he a man in the proper sense of the word man? There is but one single class of his faculties which has ever been developed, and he is not a man: he is but a calculating machine, though the powers of his nature may have been carried as far as possible in that direction. But what is he as a social being? Beyond the circle of the most limited range of topics he has no thoughts, no words. What is he as an intellectual being? Except in one limited department of the intellectual economy, his mind has never been cultivated at all. What is he as a man of sensibility, of refinement, of cultivated tastes? Not one of these things has been cultivated, and in none of them, unless by accident, has he any of the qualities of a man. He is acquainted with the world for commercial purposes only; he knows its geography, its ports of entry, its consuls, its custom house laws; but he knows not the world as an abode of suffering and of wrong, and, I may add, as dressed up in exquisite beauty by its Maker. Man, in the costume of China or India, he knows as a trafficker: man, as made in the image of God, and as a moral being, he knows not in any costume or land. This unbroken influence on the mind the Sabbath is adapted, without perilling anything good, to break up. (A. Barnes, D. D.)

The Sabbath need not be a day of gloom

There is enough to be accomplished in every soul by duties appropriate to the day, to rescue every moment from tedium and ennui. If it were as pleasant to man to cultivate his heart as it is his intellectual powers; if he felt it to be as momentous to prepare for the life to come, as for the present world; if he delighted in the service of his Maker, as he does in the society of his friends below-the difficulty would not be that it would be impossible to fill up the day, but that the hours on the Sabbath had taken a more rapid flight than on other days, and that the shades of the evening came

206

around us when our work was but half done. Let this one thought be borne with you to your homes, if no other, that the appropriate work of the Sabbath is the heart, all about the heart, all that can bear upon it, all that van make it better; and, I am persuaded, you will see no want of appropriate employment for one day in seven. See what there is in your heart permanently abiding there that demands correction. See what an accumulation of bad influences there may be during the toils and turmoils of the week, that may require removal. See how in the business of the world, in domestic cares, in professional studies or duties, the heart may be neglected, and there may arise a sad disproportion between the growth of the intellect and the proper affections of the soul. See how, in the gaieties and vanities of life, the pursuits of pleasure, the love of flattery and applause, there may have been a steady growth of bad propensities through the week, not, for one moment, broken or checked. See how there may have bees a silent but steady growth of avarice, pride, or ambition, all through the week, riveting the fetters of slavery on the soul, and bringing you into perpetual and ignoble bondage. See the tendency of all these things to harden the heart, to chill the affections, to stifle the voice of conscience, and to melee the mind grovelling and worldly. See what an unnatural growth the intellect of man sometimes attains to, while all the finer feelings of his nature, like fragrant shrubs and beautiful flowers under the dense foliage of a far-spreading oak, are overshadowed and stinted. And then see what in nature and in grace is open for the cultivation of the heart-the worship of God adapted to assimilate the soul to the Creator, the Bible full of precepts and promises bearing directly on the heart. (A. Barnes, D. D.)

I. The day designed. “The Sabbath was made for man” by Him who also made man.

II. The day perverted. It is so, and variously, by different people.

1. These Pharisees made it everything, and regarded the day more than man, and his need (to supply which it was first given).

2. Others pervert it by regarding it as a day for mere physical rest and recreation, as if man were a mere animal. Such are secularists and materialists, etc.

3. Others, again, pervert the day who make it a day for study, as if man were a purely intellectual being. Such would open museums.

III. The day changed. Learn-

1. Rightly to understand the Sabbath as meeting a human need.

2. To honour the Lord of the Sabbath by preserving His day from innovation, and by services of religion and mercy. “It is lawful to do good on the Sabbath day.”

3. A practical reverence for the Lord of the day is the best way to keep the day from being stolen from us. (C. Gray.)

A world without a Sabbath:-A world without a Sabbath would be like a man without a smile, like a summer without flowers, and like a homestead without a garden. It is the joyous day of the whole week. (H. W. Beecher.).

207

28 So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”

CLARKE, "The Son of man is Lord - See on Mat_12:7, Mat_12:8 (note). Some have understood this as applying to men in general, and not to Christ. The Son of man, any man is Lord of the Sabbath; i.e. it was made for him, for his ease, comfort, and use, and to these purposes he is to apply it. But this is a very harsh, and at the same time a very lax, mode of interpretation; for it seems to say that a man may make what use he pleases of the Sabbath; and, were this true, the moral obligation of the Sabbath would soon be annihilated.

God ordained the Sabbath not only to be a type of that rest which remains for the people of God, but to be also a mean of promoting the welfare of men in general.

The ordinances of religion should be regulated according to their end, which is the honor of God, and the salvation of men. It is the property of the true religion to contain nothing in it but what is beneficial to man. Hereby God plainly shows that it is neither out of indigence or interest that he requires men to worship and obey him; but only out of goodness, and to make them happy. God prohibited work on the Sabbath day, lest servants should be oppressed by their masters, that the laboring beasts might have necessary rest, and that men might have a proper opportunity to attend upon his ordinances, and get their souls saved. To the Sabbath, under God, we owe much of what is requisite and necessary as well for the body as the soul.

GILL, "Therefore the son of man is Lord also of the sabbath. Meaning himself, who had a power not only to dispense with it, but to abrogate it as he did, with the rest of the rituals of the ceremonial law; See Gill on Mat_12:8. So that it did not become them to find fault with what his disciples did, with his leave and approbation.

HENRY, "[2.] Whom the sabbath was made by (Mar_2:28); “The Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath; and therefore he will not see the kind intentions of the institution of it frustrated by your impositions.” Note, The sabbath days are days of the Son of man; he is the Lord of the day, and to his honour it must be observed; by him God made the worlds, and so it was by him that the sabbath was first instituted; by him God gave the law at mount Sinai, and so the fourth commandment was his law; and that little alteration that was shortly to be made, by the shifting of it one day forward to the first day of the week, was to be in remembrance of hisresurrection, and therefore the Christian sabbath was to be called the Lord's day(Rev_1:10), the Lord Christ's day; and the Son of man, Christ, as Mediator, is always to be looked upon as Lord of the sabbath. This argument he largely insists upon in his own justification, when he was charged with having broken the sabbath, Joh_5:16.

208

TODAY IN THE WORD, "The Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath. Mark 2:28

The book Olive Kitteridge by Elizabeth Strout tells the story of the title character through thirteen interconnected stories. Even when a story doesn’t seem to feature Olive, by the end of the book the reader realizes that each vignette has offered another perspective on the title character and provided a richer portrait of a complex human being.

At first glance, our passage today appears to be a random collection of stories from the life of Jesus. The Gospel of Mark is noted for its rapid-fire, bullet-point exposition, but when we slow down and read carefully we see that this chapter is presenting different angles to the same theme: Who is Jesus?

In verses 1 through 12, Jesus proclaims the forgiveness of sins for a paralyzed man. The religious leaders immediately recognize that Jesus has claimed the ability to perform the divine act of forgiveness. Jesus goes further: to prove that His declaration of forgiveness is not empty words, He also heals the man, performing a miraculous act in front of the skeptics. Jesus is the God who forgives and heals.

Next, the Pharisees grumble that Jesus eats with known sinners, accepting the offer of hospitality in their homes. The Pharisees also complain that Jesus’ disciples didn’t follow their practice of fasting and they picked and ate grain on the Sabbath. Each of these practices violated the Pharisees’ understanding of what was required to have ritual purity before God.

They were missing the point. Trying to maintain religious purity through rigid rules was unnecessary when God Himself was standing before them. He was calling them not to religious perfection but to compassion for sinners. He was asking them not to fast but to follow Him. Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath, the true rest from our religious exertion.

Apply the Word

This passage is not calling us to abandon worship and service for God. It does ask us to evaluate why we are doing these. Are we trying to impress God and others with our piety and good deeds? Or are we responding out of faith, obedience, and gratitude like the healed paralytic? We must acknowledge we are the sick and the sinners, and that Jes

PETT, "Verse 28‘So that the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.’

That is, has the right to shape and mould the Sabbath Law just as the Rabbis had, and as David had cultic Law, and had the right to, as it were, go above the Rabbis’ heads because of His position of extreme authority. This was an essential part of Jesus’ argument. It was the factor that justified His argument.

Mark therefore intends his readers to recognise in this argument and statement one more reason why they can recognise Jesus as the Son of God. It is because as the glorious Son of Man He is Lord over the Sabbath.

209