ii. 1-12. The incident of the Paralytic: Cf. Mark ix. 1-8; Luke v. 17-26. The event recorded in this paragraph has an important position in the narrative. It marks the point at which Jesus began to encounter opposition. So far his deeds and words had won a quick response from the people. His popularity was great, but it did not rest on a true recognition of what he was, and it came in the way of his intended course. From this time he has to face a series of collisions.

1. And when he entered again into Capernaum. The heady enthusiasm of the restored leper makes it necessary for him to change his plan. He has to bring the brief circuit among the Galilean synagogues to an end, and comes back to Capernaum. Luke agrees with Mark in introducing this narrative immediately after that of the leper. Matthew speaks of Jesus as coming to Capernaum from the other side of the lake.it was noised that he was in the house: or better, indoors, at home. It is not said where, but probably it was in Simon’s house. [Salmond, 1906]

no longer room for them, no, not even about the door. Mark’s description of the eagerness of the people, still under the spell of his person and work, is very graphic. He lets us see the excited crowds hurrying to the house at the news, pressing in with the freedom which is allowed only in the East, filling the room in a trice, and hanging outside about the door (which no doubt opened direct upon the street) with neck outstretched and ear intent.spake the word: a better rendering than ‘preached the word.’ Jesus was in a private room, not in the synagogue, and was speaking simply and informally. [Salmond, 1906]

And they come, bringing unto him a man sick of the palsy: or a paralytic. Here is a fresh excitement, creating the expectation of further wonders.

borne of four: that is, on a light pallet or mattress carried by two pairs of bearers. The number of bearers is given only by Mark. [Salmond, 1906]

they uncovered the roof: lit. ‘they unroofed the roof.’ The roof of a house in Palestine was easily reached by an outer staircase or ladder.

and when they had broken it up, they let down the bed. How is this to be understood? Some think that there was an awning over the open court, which had only to be lifted, others that there was a gallery or verandah running along the second story, a part of which was removed. But the phrase ‘broken it up’ is a strong one meaning ‘dug it out,’ which suggests something different, and in all probability the house was one of the modest, single-storied cottages suitable for humble folk. The roof of a Jewish house of this kind might consist of beams covered with poles and brushwood and overlaid with earth and gravel. It might be possible, therefore, to break it up, and let the man down through it. [Salmond, 1906]

And Jesus seeing their faith. It was the faith of the paralytic’s friends (nothing is said of the sufferer’s own faith) that attracted the notice of Jesus—a faith so ardent, persevering, expectant.saith unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins are forgiven. ‘Son,’ ‘child,’ a term used of a disciple, and a word of encouragement to the sufferer. Not ‘be forgiven,’ as in the A.V., but ‘are forgiven.’ Jesus speaks first of forgiveness, and of that as a thing accomplished, and only after that performs the cure. What is the point of this? Not that he meant by the forgiveness only the cure itself, the relief of the man from the physical consequences of ‘some sin affecting the nervous organization’ (Gould). That fails to do justice to the force of the word used here, which expresses the removal of guilt. Or it is that Jesus saw more than the faith of the friends—the sense of sin in the heart of the sufferer himself, deeper there than even his sense of the physical malady? The simpler explanation may be that Jesus acts in accordance with Jewish ideas of forgiveness and restoration. ‘There is no sick man healed of his sickness,’ said the Rabbis, ‘until all his sins have been forgiven him’ (Schöttgen, cited by Swete). [Salmond, 1906]

certain of the scribes sitting there: no doubt in the place of honour. The scribes of these parts had been joined by others from the south (cf. Luke v. 17). This is the first encounter with this powerful class.

reasoning in their hearts. They said nothing, but sat in suspicious watchfulness, ready to catch at any word. [Salmond, 1906]

Why doth … thus speak? he blasphemeth. The A.V. misses the point here. What stimulated their evil thoughts now, as on later occasions, was the claims he made. Here it was his claim to forgive sin. He had not indeed asserted that in so many words. He had simply said—’Thy sins are forgiven thee.’ But they read that declaration as a claim for himself, and held it to be blasphemy, that is to say, a kind of speech hurtful to the honour of God. [Salmond, 1906]

perceiving in their spirit. The word ‘perceiving’ here denotes complete, certain knowledge (cf. 1 Cor. xiii. 12), but a knowledge ‘in his spirit,’ not gained by the senses. This power of reading men’s thoughts intuitively is recognized on other occasions: see e.g. John ii. 24, 25, xxi. 17. [Salmond, 1906]

Whether is easier, to say … or to say. He places two declarations over against each other, not the acts themselves, but the authoritative words, and asks them which is easier. The word of healing might seem the harder, as it had to deal with visible effects, the failure of which would convict him. [Salmond, 1906]

But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins. ‘Power’ means authority here; and ‘on earth’ (as in contrast with the authority of God in heaven) defines it as an authority committed to the Son of man. The question was about forgiveness, a moral act implying authority. They challenged his right to forgive sins. He brings the matter at once to a test which they could understand, by asserting his possession of another power. If open, unmistakable results proved him to have that power, they could the less doubt his authority in a region where claims could not be attested by visible effects. [Salmond, 1906]

I say unto thee, Arise. He knew that, if he failed in this, he would be discredited. Yet he falters not—sublime, calm certitude! [Salmond, 1906]

arose, and straightway took up the bed. The event justified the assurance. The cure was immediate, thorough, and open to every eye. The man went forth ‘before them all,’ and all were moved profoundly, confessing the hand of God in the event. In this the healed man himself led the way, as we gather from Luke v. 25.

Here we have the first occurrence of the title ‘the Son of man’ in Mark’s Gospel. From this point we meet it often. ‘As to its import see under chap. ix. 12. [Salmond, 1906]

ii. 13-14. The call of Levi: cf. Matt. ix. 9-13; Luke v. 27-32. An event of importance as regarded both our Lord’s ministry and the causes of offence with him.

13. taught them. Jesus now leaves Capernaum and betakes himself again to the sea-side. There he resumes his teaching, which had been interrupted. The interest of the people is as great as ever. [Salmond, 1906]

Levi the son of Alphaeus. Who is this Levi? Some have taken him to be a different person from Matthew, while it has also been conjectured that he may have been the supervisor, and Matthew an officer under him. But it is most unlikely that there should have been two men, solemnly called in the same way and in the same place by Jesus, one becoming an apostle and the other remaining quite unknown. Most are of opinion, therefore, that Levi and Matthew are names of one and the same person. Matthew, not Levi, is the name that occurs in the lists of the Apostles. The mention of Alphaeus has led some to regard him as the brother of ‘James the less.’ But he is not coupled with that James in the lists of the Apostles, as Peter is with Andrew and John with James.

sitting at the place of toll. The Romans farmed out the taxes to rich citizens, who employed agents to do the work of collection. Levi was one of these subordinate, provincial custom-house officers. Such agents were usually natives. Their task was an odious one, and it lent itself readily to rapacity and oppression. They had an evil reputation in all the provinces, most of all perhaps in Palestine where the Roman yoke was so hateful. Capernaum was an important custom-house station. It is only in Matthew’s list of the Apostles (chap. x. 3), that Matthew is called ‘the publican.’ [Salmond, 1906]

ii. 15-17. The feast in Levi’s house: cf. Matt. ix. 10-13; Luke v. 29-32. Luke describes it as ‘a great feast’—a reception, to which Levi had invited many members of his own class. Jesus, no doubt, was the most honoured guest.

15. in his house. Whose house? Levi’s surely. Some say the house of Jesus. But this would conflict with Luke’s account, and there is no reference elsewhere to our Lord having a house of his own. [Salmond, 1906]

the scribes of the Pharisees. So in Acts xxiii. 9 we read of ‘scribes of the Pharisees’ part,’ i.e., those belonging to that religious party.

with publicans and sinners. The word ‘publican,’ which means properly the renter or farmer of the taxes, is used in the N.T. of the subordinate collectors. ‘Sinners’ in this connexion may not mean more than men not recognized by the official religionists. That Jesus should associate with the class held outcast by the strict Jews, and should even receive one of these despised men into the circle of his intimate friends, was a second cause of offence. Notice the first occurrence here of the name ‘disciples’ of Jesus. [Salmond, 1906]

not to call the righteous, but sinners. ‘The philosophy, in a nutshell, of all home and foreign missionary operations’ (Morrison). Jesus came to do a physician’s part. If there were any whole, they required him not; if there were any really righteous, they had no need of his call. [Salmond, 1906]

ii. 18-22. Questions of fasting, raised by observance of the fact that the disciples of Jesus did not act as John’s disciples and the Pharisees did; cf. Matt. ix. 14-17; Luke v. 33-39.

18. John’s disciples. The Baptist’s followers, therefore, remained a distinct party, with their own religious practice.

were fasting. Not ‘used to fast’ (A.V.), but were so engaged then. Fasting had come to have a great importance attached to it. In the law its observance was prescribed on the great Day of Atonement. But the traditional law had added much to the written law, and zealous Jews are said to have made the second and fifth days of each week days of fasting.

they come. Who? Some say the scribes, and the form of the question favours this. But Matthew says, ‘the disciples of John,’ and gives the question in terms including them with the Pharisees.

thy disciples fast not. The suggestion is that either John’s disciples and the Pharisees did too much, or that Jesus did too little in allowing his disciples to disregard fasting. [Salmond, 1906]

sons of the bridechamber: the bridegroom’s particular friends, who attended to matters belonging to the marriage ceremony.

cannot fast. It would not be in character for them to do so. In later Judaism, waiting on the bridegroom brought exemption, as it is said, from certain prescriptions of the traditional law. [Salmond, 1906]

the bridegroom. Thus Jesus indirectly applies to himself the great figure by which O.T. prophecy (e.g., Hos. ii. 21) sets forth Jehovah in His covenant relation to Israel. The same figure was used by the Baptist (John iii. 29).

shall be taken away. The word is a strong one, expressing violent removal. Preserved as it is by each of the three Synoptists, it can with reason be taken as the genuine utterance of our Lord, and it shews that already the thought of suffering and death was in his mind.

then will they fast in that day. Times, therefore, differ and observances with them. Fasting is not a necessary or constant part of religious duty; yet there may be occasions on which it will be appropriate and helpful. [Salmond, 1906]

No man seweth … a worse rent is made. A sentence more difficult in form than in sense. What is in view is the fact that new undressed cloth shrinks, and if used to mend old cloth, is apt to break away and increase the rent it is meant to cover. [Salmond, 1906]

wine-skins. A better rendering than the ‘bottles’ of the A.V. Wine-bottles in those days were skins. But skins wear out and become thin by age; and in that condition they are unable to bear the strain put upon them by the inpouring of the ‘young wine,’ the newly fermented wine of the season.

These homely comparisons, parables in germ, express how mistaken it is to think of mixing up things which differ. A religion of fasting is one thing; the religion of Christ is another. To patch up the old religious system with the new, or to burden the new with the old, is a thing at once incongruous and injurious. [Salmond, 1906]

ii. 23-28. The question of the Sabbath; cf. Matt. xii. 1-8; Luke vi. 1-5. Mark and Luke agree in the order in which they introduce this incident. Matthew proceeds from the questions about the case of the daughter of Jairus, and brings in the present paragraph only after the record of the gracious words of Jesus about his yoke and burden. Here Mark reports a fourth cause of offence found with Jesus. He has noticed his claim to forgive sin, his company with publicans and sinners, his indifference to fasting. Now he instances the fault found with his disregard of the conventional sabbath law.

23. the cornfields: literally sown lands; no doubt in the neighbourhood of Capernaum.

began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn. In strict grammatical usage the words would mean, as in the margin of the R.V., ‘began to make their way plucking.’ The idea thus would be that the corn had overgrown the path, and the disciples had to open a way by plucking the ears, and the offence then would be in the doing of a thing which it was not lawful to do on any day. But this would not be consistent with the express statement of Matthew, and it would take the point from what is afterwards said about the hunger and the eating. Hence most prefer the rendering of the A.V. and the R.V. texts. The offence lies thus in doing on the sabbath day a thing which was lawful in itself. [Salmond, 1906]

on the sabbath day that which is not lawful. The Deuteronomic law had some simple prescriptions bearing on the liberty to be taken with a neighbour’s corn (Deut. xxiii. 25). But the traditional law had gone far beyond these, and had made plucking the corn equivalent to reaping it. But reaping on the sabbath was forbidden (Exod. xxxiv. 21). [Salmond, 1906]

Did ye never read? He refutes them out of their own Scriptures, shewing by the case of David and his hungry men, as recorded in 1 Sam. xxi. 1-6, how such restrictive regulations had to give place to the higher requirements of necessity and mercy. [Salmond, 1906]

the house of God: i.e., the tent of meeting pitched at that period at Nob, a ‘city of the priests’ (1 Sam. xxii. 19), probably the place also referred to in Neh. xi. 32; Isa. x. 32, not far from Jerusalem, Anathoth, and Ramah.

when Abiathar was high priest: i.e., when he was actually in office. But according to the narrative in 1 Sam. xxii. 11 Ahimelech was priest at the time. There seems to be some confusion in the O.T. text. In 1 Sam. xxii. 20 Abiathar is ‘one of the sons of Ahimelech, the son of Ahitub’; in 2 Sam. viii. 17 we have ‘Ahimelech, the son of Abiathar’; in 1 Sam. xiv. 3 we have ‘Ahijah, the son of Ahitub’; in 1 Chron. xviii. 16 we have ‘Abiathar, the son of Ahimelech.’

the shewbread. ‘The bread of the setting-forth,’ in the O.T. ‘the bread of the face’ or ‘the presence’ (Exod. xxv. 30, xxxv. 13, xxxix. 36), called also ‘the continual bread’ (Num. iv. 7), ‘the holy bread’ (1 Sam. xxi. 4-6). It consisted of twelve new-baked loaves, placed every sabbath day on a table, in two rows of six, sprinkled with incense, and left for the week. See its laws in Lev. xxiv. 5-9. A solemn rite (cf. e.g. 2 Chron. xiii. 11), yet one the meaning of which is not explained in the O.T. itself. It is supposed by some to have been a symbol of a higher life than that of the senses, a life of fellowship with God, requiring a special spiritual nourishment. It may have been an acknowledgement rather of God as Israel’s Provider, an offering by the people of a portion of their substance in token of their dependence on Jehovah, and as witness of their covenant relation and duty (Lev. xxiv. 9). [Salmond, 1906]

The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath. The refutation of these Pharisees is carried now beyond the witness of the O.T. narrative to the principle of the institution in question. The sabbath is an ordinance of grace, meant to bring man relief from toil and to be to him for good. It is his servant, not his taskmaster. [Salmond, 1906]

Lord even of the sabbath. The sabbath being meant for man, and man not being intended to be its slave, the Representative Man, he in whom the Divine idea of man is embodied, is its lord, not its servant, and his disciples, acting as such, were free of blame. ‘Even of the sabbath,’ that is, a lordship which extended over other things and did not stop short even of an institution so sacred to the Jew as this. This lordship did not imply the claim to abolish, but the authority to adapt and fulfil. The real purpose of the sabbath law had been obscured and overlaid by a mass of exasperating prescriptions. It is relieved and reaffirmed. [Salmond, 1906]