Bible Commentaries
Mark 2

Verses 1-12

Mar 2:1-12

Commentary On Mark 2:1-12

J.W. McGarvey

About Power to Forgive Sins. Mark 2:1-12. (Matthew 9:1-8; Luke 5:17-26.)

Mark 2:1-2. into Capernaum.—There is no inconsistency between this statement and the one just previously made, that after the healing of the leper he "could no more openly enter into the city" (Mark 1:45); for the present statement is that "he entered into Capernaum after some days;" and even now he enters in privately, as appears from the remark, "it was noised abroad that he was in the house." When it was thus noised abroad, "straightway many were gathered together, insomuch that there was no room to receive them, no, not so much as about the door;" and this confirms the previous statement.

Mark 2:3-5. When Jesus saw their faith.—Their faith was very clearly seen in their actions. The man could not walk, but he had four friends whose faith in the power and willingness of Jesus to heal him was so great, that they bore him on his bedding to the house. Unable to get into the house, on account of the eager pressure of the crowd, but determined not to be baffled, they contrived by some means, most likely by an outside flight of stairs, to get upon the roof with their burden. It was no easy task for them to make the ascent, carrying a man who was perfectly helpless. They found, or perhaps they knew before, that the roof was one which could be broken open easily (it was a tile roof, Luke 5:19), and now, notwithstanding the expense they would incur, and the probable displeasure of the owner of the house, they tear open the roof and let the man down as low as they can reach, above the heads of the people within. It is difficult to see how they could have shown their faith more plainly. The reason why sinners do not now show their faith in him as plainly, when they have it, is because they have not so great a desire to be healed. Men who would risk every thing for the cure of bodily disease, often bear very patiently the maladies of the soul.

Mark 2:5-12.—On the argument of Jesus from this case, and the general design of the miracle, see notes, Matthew 9:1-8.

About Eating with Publicans and Sinners, Mark 2:13-17. (Matthew 9:9-13; Luke 5:27-32)

Verses 13-17

Mar 2:13-17

2. JESUS EATS WITH PUBLICANS AND SINNERS

Mark 2:13-17

(Matthew 9:9-13; Luke 5:27-32)

13 And he went forth--Jesus goes from Capernaum. Capernaum means "Village of Comfort." It was one of the chief cities of Galilee. It had a custom station where Matthew collected the taxes (Matthew 9:9), a Roman garrison, and a synagogue, built by the Roman centurion. The ruins of a synagogue at Tul Hum, said by McGarvey and other travelers to be the site of Capernaum, show it to have been finer than any other in all Galilee. No city could have enjoyed more exalted privileges. There Jesus not only resided, but taught in the synagogue, in homes, and on the seashore; did many miracles, and there five of his apostles lived. To it, in its wasted opportunities and despised privileges, Jesus said: "I say unto you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee." (Matthew 11:23-24.)

again by the sea side; and all the multitude resorted unto him, and he taught them.--The Lake of Galilee. The shore of this lake was a favorite resort of Jesus when surrounded by great multitudes. Jesus often taught by the seaside. (Mark 4:1; Luke 5:1.) By taking a position at the water’s edge, or on a boat fastened at the shore, he could prevent the people from surrounding him. As they stood or sat on the shore, he could easily make his voice reach all the multitude. He never lost any time in teaching people. He demonstrates that his followers ought not to wait for an opportunity to speak in fashionable church houses before teaching the people, but that they ought to teach wherever and whenever they can get hearers.

14 And as he passed by, he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus--Luke (Luke 5:27) speaks of him as Levi. But in Matthew (Matthew 9:9) we have the name of Matthew instead of Levi. The three narratives clearly relate the same circumstances, and point to Levi as identical with Matthew. He probably had two names as Peter and Paul.

sitting at the place of toll,--He was a tax collector and was sitting at his place of business in the customhouse. The revenues which the Roman government derived from conquered countries consisted chiefly of tolls, tithes, and harbor duties, taxes on public pasture lands, and duties on mines and saltworks. Customs were the taxes imposed by the government on both imported and exported goods. The Romans taxed almost everything--fish, trees, houses, doors, columns, and all property, real and personal. All human governments take this course and the burden of taxation grows heavier and heavier. This is the history of all human governments and the cause of their overthrow. Increased taxes become so burdensome, people rebel, rise up and overthrow the government. Christians cannot participate in such rebellions against civil government.

and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose and followed him.--Like Peter and Andrew (Mark 1:16-20; John 1:40-42), he did not delay his obedience but arose immediately and followed Jesus. He was not here called to be an apostle, though later he was made one. He was called as a disciple (learner) and a constant associate of Jesus. He, like those previously called, had to be schooled and trained before becoming an apostle. The apostles were chosen later. (Mark 3:13-14; Luke 6:13.) Luke (5:28) says: "He forsook all," which shows the great interest he had in Jesus from the start. He was called to a higher life, a nobler work--to gather no longer perishable money for the Roman treasury, but to gather souls for heaven.

15 And it came to pass, that he was sitting at meat in his house--Jesus and the guests were eating in the house of Matthew. Matthew made Jesus a great feast in his own house. "A great multitude" was present. (Luke 5:29.) The guests consisted of Jesus and his disciples, publicans and sinners.

disciples:--Levi, being a publican or tax collector, had been excommunicated by loyal Jews, and hence forced to associate with the outcast, such as publicans and sinners. In making this feast in honor of Jesus, he invited his old associates, publicans and sinners, to enjoy his hospitality.

for there were many, and they followed him.--Probably it was a farewell feast, preparatory to leaving all and following Jesus.

16 And the scribes of the Pharisees,--These were learned men who copied, preserved, and explained the law of Moses and the traditions of the elders. (Ezra 7:6; Ezra 7:12; Nehemiah 8:1; Matthew 15:1-6.) They were called doctors of the law (Luke 5 17, 21) and lawyers (Matthew 12:35). Mark (1:22) suggests that the scribes were teachers as well as copyists and conservators of the law. They occupied the seat of Moses, but their teaching was very defective. (Matthew 23:2; Matthew 23:13; Matthew 23:23.) They taught with authority, but it was of tradition. They enforced the letter of the law. The Pharisees sprang up about one hundred and fifty years before the birth of Christ. They were a religious sect. The name "Pharisee" means separatist. They separated from Levitical and traditional purity, and were doubtless the most numerous sect among the Jews. They would neither eat nor associate with publicans and sinners, for as excommunicated persons they regarded them as heathen. (Matthew 18:17.) They held closely to the traditions of the elders (Mark 7:3) and attached more importance to them than even to the written law of Moses (Matthew 15:1-6).

when they saw that he was eating with the sinners and publicans,--Since Pharisees would hardly be found in the house of a publican, we are not to conclude that they were in the house where the feast was spread. They may have seen Jesus eating through an open hall, window or some other opening.

said unto his disciples,--Doubtless the conversation here mentioned took place with the disciples while they were going in and out from the feast, or probably when they were leaving for home.

How is it that he eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners?--The complaint of the scribes is here put in the form of a question. To eat in the first clause and to eat and drink in the second are equivalent expressions, both conveying the same general ideas of food and participation in it. The scribes and Pharisees were on the watch to trap Jesus, and felt confident that they had succeeded.

17 And when Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of a physician,--He either overheard the scribes and Pharisees when they asked the question, or through the disciples who went to him with it. The very idea of a healer or physician presupposes sickness--they that are whole--in good health--need no such help as rendered by physicians.

but they that are sick:--The sick man, not the well one, is in need of the doctor and is the party who sends for him. The physician attends the sick, not the well. Jesus was a spiritual physician and his great mission in the world was to heal the diseases of sin. If any were really righteous as the scribes and Pharisees imagined they were, then they did not need the healing power of Jesus. The fact that these publicans and sinners were notoriously depraved and wicked showed how sick they were, and how much they were in need of the best physician. The more complicated the disease, the more need there is for a skilled physician. Jesus was that physician.

I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.--Luke (Luke 5:32) says: "I am not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance." While Jesus made the application to the scribes and Pharisees, as to their own self-righteousness, yet he in-cluded all mankind for the reason "there is none righteous, no, not one." (Romans 3:10.) He came not to call righteous men, for there were really none. His mission was to sinners, and therefore no one should criticize him for trying to save them. The man who is sound physically does not need the physician; the spiritually whole, the righteous, do not need to repent. If these scribes and Pharisees were all they claimed for themselves--spiritually whole, strong and healthy morally --then they needed not the physician;but, from their own view-point, these publicans and sinners were in great need of relief and of repentance. These souls were sick. Jesus was the great soul physician. Hence, he went to the sinsick--to those who felt their need of healing. The self-righteous Pharisees did not realize their own sinful condition, and, therefore, felt no need of Christ. There is but little hope for the self-righteous. Before one can be spiritually healed he must first realize his lost and ruined condition and feel the need of a Savior. There is more hope for sinners, however deep in sin and depravity they may be, who realize their unworthiness of Jesus and their lost condition without him, than for the self-righteous. There is none for them until they humble themselves and desire mercy. The objection was addressed to the disciples, but replied to by Jesus, and as usual in an unexpected way. His reply put them in their own snare. He presented the true question at issue, and stated the true principle or method of solution. Their reproach implied a false view of Christ’s whole work and mission which was that of a spiritual physician.

Jesus is a wonderful physician. He makes no charges for his service. Salvation is without money and without price. His invitation is universal. (Matthew 11:28.) Our spiritual physician increases the happiness of the patient by giving unto him, instead of enriching his estate by charging for his services. Physicians of the human body bleed the patient, but Jesus bled and died to heal the patient.

Verses 13-18

Mar 2:13-18

Commentary On Mark 2:13-18

J.W. McGarvey

Mark 2:13. by the seaside.—The sloping shore of the lake of Galilee was a favorite resort of Jesus when surrounded by a multitude. By taking his position at the water’s edge, or on some fishing boat tied up at the shore, he could prevent the crowd from surrounding him, and as they stood or sat on the slope he could easily make his voice reach them all.

Mark 2:14. Levi the son of Alpheus.—Levi is the Hebrew name of Matthew, the latter being a Greek surname, adopted probably when he became a tax collector. (Comp. Matthew 9:9.) Whether his father Alpheus is the same Alpheus who was the father of James the younger (Mark 3:18), is quite uncertain. The name is too common to furnish safe ground for a conclusion, and we have no other evidence on the question.

Mark 2:15-18.—For remarks on the remainder of this paragraph, see the notes on Matthew 9:9-13, where the argument of Jesus is more fully reported.

About Fasting, Mark 2:18-22. (Matthew 9:14-17; Luke 5:33-39)

Mark 2:18. used to fast.—Literally, were fasting. They were at that time keeping a fast. Such is the force of the Greek verb, ἦσαν νηστεύοντες. Alford objects to this rendering, which was first insisted on by the German Commentator, Meyer, but the passages which he cites in support of his objection do not sustain it, and he admits that this may be the meaning. Mark certainly uses this combination of the verb and participle to express what was at the time being done, and not what was customary, in Mark 10:32 and Mark 14:4, as the reader of the Greek can see for himself. It was the circumstance that the Pharisees and the disciples of John were observing a fast at the very time that Jesus and his disciples were feasting in the house of Levi, which gave rise to the question, or which at least gave especial emphasis to it. Fasting was regarded as a mark of peculiar sanctity (Luke 18:12), and therefore it seemed unaccountable to the Jews that Jesus, with his lofty pretensions, should be feasting at a time when other holy men were fasting.

It is worthy of note that Matthew represents this question about fasting as having been raised by the disciples of John (Matthew 9:14); Luke puts it into the mouths of the scribes and Pharisees (Luke 5:30; Luke 5:33); while Mark says that the Pharisees and the disciples of John united in putting the question.

Thus it appears from the statement of Mark that Matthew and Luke, though apparently in conflict, are both correct. The disciples of John did put the question, as represented by Matthew, and the scribes and Pharisees did so, as represented by Luke. Each tells the truth, but each tells only a part of what was true, and we get at the whole truth by putting both of their statements together as one. This circumstance furnishes a key to the reconciliation of the different writers in many other places where there is an appearance of discrepancy, and we have used it freely. We should always, in such cases, suppose both statements to be true, and regard each as a part of the whole truth.

Verses 18-22

Mar 2:18-22

3. ABOUT FASTING

Mark 2:18-22

(Matthew 9:14-17; Luke 5:33-39)

18 And John’s disciples--His converts. They (some, not all) were still holding John as their captain. A part of his disciples did not accept the leadership of Jesus as readily as did John. John recognized Jesus immediately as the Son of God and captain of the new movement and received him as such. He said: "He must increase, but I must decrease." (John 3:30.) Had John’s disciples possessed the spirit he himself had and followed his precepts, they too would have accepted Jesus as their great leader without delay. (John 1:29-36; John 3:27-34.) But while John was baptizing some of them manifested a spirit of rivalry (John 3:26) and much more now since his imprisonment. Those who held aloof from Christ really sympathized with the Pharisees. (Luke 5:33.) and the Pharisees were fasting:and they come and say unto him, Why do John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but thy disciples fast not--A statement of what John’s disciples and the Pharisees were doing. Both the foundation for and the question asked are plainly stated. They left no room for quibbling. A third ground of opposition to Jesus is now introduced. The opposition to Jesus about him eating with publicans and sinners had no sooner been disposed of than the question about his disciples not fasting was introduced. This question probably came up the day Matthew spread his feast, however, some think it is doubtful. Whether this charge was made upon the same or a different day is unimportant. John’s disciples and the Pharisees fasted, the disciples of Jesus did not, so they ask for the reason why they did not. The question was fair and legitimate. The Pharisees fasted twice a week (Luke 18:12), and John’s disciples imitated them, and did not understand why Jesus did not require his disciples to do likewise. There was a great difference between John’s disciples and Christ’s in the matter of fasting. John’s disciples imitated him, who "came neither eating nor drinking." On the other side, Christ’s disciples followed him, who "came eating and drinking" as other men did. (Matthew 11:18.) Thus did John’s disciples and Christ’s--the one fasted often, the other fasted not. The Pharisees fasted as well as John’s disciples.

From this we learn that 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 partake in the Lord’s Supper; they do, yea, it may be, they outdo and go beyond the sincerest Christian in external duties and outward performances. Fasting was always connected with sorrow and humiliation. When the Jew sinned God forsook him or punished him. Under a sense of sin and sorrow he humbled himself, fasted and prayed that he might be freed from sin, might draw near to God, so that God would draw near to him. So fasting and mourning for sin are connected. Fasting rather grows out of a sense of sinfulness and a desire to humble the flesh before God than out of any command to fast. Fasting, like prayer, grows out of our sense of need of help from God, and leads us to draw close to him in spirit. The Pharisees fasted often as a display of piety. This was hypocrisy.

19 And Jesus said unto them,--In the question about eating with publicans and sinners, the complaint was made to the disciples about Jesus; but this time the complaint is placed before Jesus about his disciples. In both instances, Jesus makes the reply. The reply to this question is as unexpected and as logical as was the former, and made still more striking by its being borrowed from a well-known custom of that country, namely, from its marriage ceremonies, and especially from the practice of the bridegroom bringing home his bride accompanied by select friends, rejoicing over them and for 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.--The form of the question here asked by Jesus is idiomatic, being that used when a negative answer is expected. The nearest approach to it in English is a negative followed by a question--they cannot--can they? The incapacity implied is not a physical but a moral one. They cannot be expected or required to fast; there is no reason why they should fast. The general principle involved or presupposed is that fasting is not a periodical or stated, but a special and occasional, observance, growing out of a particular emergency. This doctrine underlies the whole defense of his disciples, which proceeds upon the supposition that a fast, to be acceptable and useful, must have a reason and occasion of its own, beyond a general propriety or usage. It is also assumed that fasting is not a mere opus operatum, but the cause and the effect of a particular condition, that of spiritual grief or sorrow. (Matthew 9:15.) "Sons of the bridechamber" were the male attendants of the bridegroom, who, on the day of marriage, accompanied him to the home of the bride, to bring her home. This would remind John’s disciples that he taught them Christ is the bridegroom (John 3:29); and the Pharisees that their prophets, in speaking of Christ, used the same figure to illustrate the relation between God and Israel (Psalms 45; Isaiah 54:5; Isaiah 62:5). Jesus compared himself to the bridegroom, his disciples to the children of the bridechamber, or friends who were eating at the bridal feast; and that he, as the bridegroom, was with his friends.

The guests at the wedding cannot mourn. Mourning or fasting on such occasions would be out of order. It is a time of rejoicing and feasting, instead of mourning and fasting. While Jesus, the bridegroom, was with his disciples, they were enjoying a wedding feast, and it would be out of order to fast as if they were mourning. But when he left them they would fast, because that would be a time of sorrow. Real fasting takes place when there is real occasion for it. (Acts 13:2; Acts 14:23; 2 Corinthians 6:5; 2 Corinthians 11:27.) Probably John’s disciples were mourning and fasting, because John, their friend, had been taken from them and placed in prison. If so, it was a time of fasting with them. But with the disciples of Jesus, it was a time of festivity and rejoicing. Their sorrow had not as yet come upon them. There must be a reason, something that calls for fasting and makes it appropriate. The arbitrary appointment of fast days, such as has been made by the Romish and other churches, is out of harmony with the teaching of Jesus.

20 But the days will come,--The time will come when Jesus, the bridegroom, will be put to death--when the circumstances will be changed, and fasting with his disciples will be becoming and very appropriate. When he is taken away, then their festivity will be ended, then will be the proper time of sorrow and fasting.

when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them,--A prediction of the death of Christ.

and then will they fast in that day.--The day or time of Christ’s death and removal. That will be a special time of sorrow and of fasting for his disciples. That will be the time to use the tokens of sorrow and grief. The duty of fasting, being thus dependent upon circumstances, may and will become incumbent when those circumstances change, as they are certainly to change hereafter. The bridegroom is not always to be visibly present, and when he departs, the time of fasting will be come. To express this more strongly, he is said to be removed or taken away, as if by violence. Then, at the time of this removal, as an immediate temporary cause of sorrow, not forever afterwards, which would be inconsistent with the principle already laid down, that the value of religious fasting is dependent on its being an occasional and not a stated duty. There is no foundation therefore for the doctrine of some Romish writers, who evade this argument against their stated fasts, by alleging that, according to our Lord’s own declaration, the church after his departure was to be a fasting church. But this would be equivalent to saying that the Savior’s exaltation would consign his people to perpetual sorrow. For he evidently speaks of grief and fasting as inseparable, and in Matthew’s narrative of his reply, the former term is substituted for the latter. (Matthew 9:15.) Even the plural form, in those days, has respect to the precise time of his departure, much more the singular, in that day, which the latest critics have adopted as the true text.

21 No man seweth a piece of undressed cloth on an old garment:--Jesus in reply to his interrogators used three illustrations, all of them going to establish the same thing, namely, that we should observe a fitness and propriety in things. The first is taken from a marriage. Having fully stated the facts and made the applications of this illustration, Jesus here introduces a second which was familiar to all his auditors --namely, putting new cloth as patches on old garments. This, like the first illustration, shows that there is a propriety or fitness of things. Mark states how the patch is put on by the word "seweth." He points out to his hearers what no one of them would think of doing.

else that which should fill it up taketh from it, the new from the old, and a worse rent is made.--Jesus here gives the reason why an old garment should not be patched with new cloth. A patch from new cloth would shrink and tear the old cloth and make the slit in the old garment larger. Such patching would be folly. But it would be just as unbecoming and foolish to unite fasting, which is a sign of sorrow and grief, with the joyous work of the disciples of Jesus, while he, the bridegroom, is with them. "What is meant is not simply new cloth, but cloth which has not been completely dressed. A part of the process of preparing woolen cloth for use consists in shrinking it, and a patch of unfulled cloth not duly shrunk would contract the first time it became wet; and, as the older and weaker cloth around it must give way, the result would be a worse rent. We must remember that Jewish garments at that day were all wool;and if unfulled, would shrink like our flannel." (Broadus.)

22 And no man putteth new wine into old wineskins; else the wine will burst the skins, and the wine perisheth, and the skins: but they put new wine into fresh wineskins.--This is the third illustration to demonstrate that we should observe a fitness and propriety in things. It, like the other two, was familiar and well understood by his hearers. [He presents the incongruity of applying the rules and practices that had grown up under the Jewish law, or even the preaching of John the Baptist to the disciples of Jesus, by another comparison: putting unfermented wines into old, dried skins, that had been stretched and dried until they had lost all their elasticity. Under the fermentation of the wine in the new skin, the skin would yield and stretch so there would be no danger of the skin bursting and losing both it and the wine. In the dried skin the fermentation of the wine would cause the skin to burst, and the wine would be spilled, the skin worthless.] The argument drawn from these two examples is not, as some have supposed, that it would be absurd to patch the old Jewish garment with the unfulled cloth of the gospel, or to put the new wine of the gospel into the old Jewish bottles; for the question at issue was not one concerning the proper relation of the gospel dispensation to the old Jewish law, but one concerning the propriety of fasting on a certain occasion. Moreover, in Luke’s report of this answer we find the additional argument, "No man having drunk old wine desireth new; for he saith, The old is good." (Luke 5:39.) To carry out the interpretation just named would make Jesus here argue that the old dispensation was better than the new. But the argument is the same as in the first example. It shows that it would have been absurdly inappropriate to the occasion for his disciples to fast, as much so as to mourn at a wedding, to patch an old garment with unfulled cloth, or to put new wine into old bottles. The arguments not only vindicated his disciples, but taught John’s disciples that fasting has value only when it is demanded by a suitable occasion.

Verses 19-22

Mar 2:19-22

Commentary On Mark 2:19-22

J.W. McGarvey

Mark 2:19-22.—For remarks on the answer of Jesus, see the notes on Matthew 9:15-17. By comparing the answer as given by the two writers, the reader will again discover an identity of thought indicating a common choice of materials, and at the same time a variety of expression indicating perfect independence in composition.

About Plucking Grain on the Sabbath, Mark 2:23-28. (Matthew 12:1-8; Luke 6:1-5)

Verses 23-28

Mar 2:23-28

4. PLUCKING CORN ON THE SABBATH

Mark 2:23-28

(Matthew 12:1-8; Luke 6:1-5)

23 And it came to pass, that he was going on the sabbath day through the grainfields;--Sabbath was the seventh day or our Saturday. A day of rest for both man and beast of burden. The name is derived from a Hebrew verb, meaning to rest from labor, to cease from action. In Judea, grain begins to ripen around the first of May. It was at this time Jesus and his disciples were going through the grainfields. Matthew says: "They walked." They were fields sown with wheat or barley.

and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears.--[Several months have been passed over and we are now in the early summer of the second year of the public ministry of Jesus. The corn mentioned here is wheat or barley. Wheat can be rubbed out in the hand and eaten, and will satisfy hunger, while it is fairly palatable. This must have been when the wheat was ripe, yet in the fields, either before it was cut or while in the shock. This is too late for the harvest of the first year, so must be in the summer of the second year of the public ministry of Jesus. They began to gather the wheat heads and rub out the wheat in their hands (Luke 6:1) and eat. It was not wrong, according to the Jewish law, for men to take enough of the fruits or the grain to satisfy hunger. They could take nothing away. (Deuteronomy 23:24.) The disciples did not violate this law, but the point raised by the Pharisees, was it a violation of the Sabbath law to gather and eat the grain on the Sabbath day?)

24 And the Pharisees--The Pharisees were a kind of Jewish Puritans, but had in our Savior’s time degenerated into a sect of formalists, who paid more attention to outward forms than to inner life. They were very scrupulous in observing ceremonies, very orthodox, but were filled with spiritual pride and thought themselves wise. They soon became strong opposers of Christ.

said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?--An exclamation of surprise expressed to Jesus by the Pharisees. They desired to direct his attention to something strange and unexpected. Here a fourth charge or ground of opposition, on the part of the more scrupulous and rigid Jews, was brought against Jesus, namely, suffering his disciples to do what was unlawful. They demand with what right, or by what authority, he allowed them to do this. The question implies censure. They considered plucking the heads was a kind of reaping, and rubbing out the grain, a kind of threshing, and this they considered unlawful. It was doing work, namely, harvesting on the Sabbath. The disciples really transgressed, not the divine law of the Sabbath, but the Pharisaical interpretation of that law. [All the Jews, in theory at least, held the law of Moses in reverence. The Pharisees were especial sticklers for the observance of all the forms of the law to the neglect of the spirit. The Sabbath had been very sacred by the enactment of Moses and the teaching of succeeding prophets. The Pharisees were shocked that the disciples of Christ should violate the law concerning the Sabbath and made complaints to Jesus. It was done in a fault-finding spirit with Jesus.]

25 And he said unto them, Did ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was hungry, he, and they that were with him?--Note the emphasis on need and hungry. His followers, too, were hungry; but it is on the act of David, as one of the most eminent of the Jews, that our Lord concentrates attention. [David (1 Samuel 21:1-6) had come to the priest at Nob hungry and wearied; had asked for bread. The priest said: "There is no common bread." So the priest gave him hallowed bread, "for there was no bread there but the showbread, that was taken from before Jehovah, to put hot bread in the day when it was taken away." The showbread was replaced with fresh bread every Sabbath. The priest then ate the old.] David and his followers under necessity took and ate the showbread which was lawful for priests only to eat. Necessity rose higher than ceremonials.

26 How he entered into the house of God when Abiathar was high priest, and ate the showbread,--The tabernacle was at Nob, an eminence near Jerusalem; on the north probably within sight of the city. The showbread was the bread that was kept on the golden table in the Holy Place.

which it is not lawful to eat save for the priests, and gave also to them that were with him?--David and those that were with him entered into the tabernacle and ate the showbread. David took, ate, and gave to his companions. Whatever may have been the meaning of this singular observance, it was certainly a necessary and divinely instituted part of the tabernacle service, resting on the same authority, though not on the equal moment with the Sabbath. [The tabernacle was movable as long as the children of Israel were wandering and unsettled; but as soon as they had taken full possession of the promised land, which was not till the reign of David, and in the reign of Solomon, the portable tent was exchanged for a permanent substantial dwelling.] To do good was made lawful by Moses without distinction of days but the Pharisees had denied its lawfulness on the Sabbath day. Christ shows them from their own law, and by the example of David, that it was not unlawful to do good on the Sabbath day. [This showbread was kept before the Lord seven days; it was then replaced with fresh bread, and the old was eaten by the priests. David, being hungry, ate of it and gave it to his companions. The meaning of it was that David, a servant of God, was permitted, in case of necessity, to eat of this bread that was lawful only for the priests.]

27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, --For man’s whole body, for body and soul, for physical rest, for mental and social improvement, for his spiritual and moral growth, and for his eternal salvation. They treat man as nothing but an animal who advocate the use of the Sabbath for mere physical recreation and pleasure. The Sabbath was not made for man’s physical body only, but for man, his whole nature. And it was made for man as man, that is, all men; and it was to be so kept so as not to take it away from others. Christ’s principles carried out would have brought a perfect keeping of the Sabbath. It was made for man’s benefit and happiness. It was created for his use and intended for his highest spiritual good. To keep it holy--that is, the manner of keeping it, must be in accordance with its design. It was for his rest from toil, the cares and anxieties of the world, to give 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 consolation 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, and Benefactor. The Sabbath here mentioned is the seventh day Sabbath and the Jews were to keep it in remembrance of their deliverance from bondage in Egypt. The Sabbath day and the first day of the week are two separate and distinct days and we ought not to confound the two. The Lord came from the grave on the first day of the week, making it possible for us to be delivered from the bondage of sin through his blood. For this cause the early Christians observed this day--they assembled around the Lord’s table and partook of the Lord’s Supper and carried out all the Lord’s directions concerning that day. It was never called the Sabbath day in the New Testament and the name ought not to be applied to it now. The first day of the week is called the Lord’s day (Revelation 1:10), but never the Sabbath day. No day has been more blessed to man’s welfare than the first day of the week--the Lord’s day. To that day we owe more than to any other day, the peace and order of civilization. Where there is no Lord’s day, there is ignorance, vice, disorder, and crime. On that day, man may offer his praises to the Giver of all good, and around the Lord’s table seek the blessings of him whose favor is life. When that day is observed 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.

not to be injured and his true interests destroyed for the sake of any law or any day. [It was made to bless and benefit man, and when the good of man demanded it the stringency of its law might be relaxed, or itself might be taken out of the way, as those concerning the eating the showbread had been for David. Matthew (Matthew 12:5-6) adds: "Or have ye not read in the law, that on the sabbath day the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are guiltless? But I say unto you, that one greater than the temple is here." The law of God was, "Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon the sabbath day" (Exodus 35:3), and they were to do no cooking, yet in the temple service they cooked the showbread on the Sabbath. This was done by the order of God, and the point Jesus makes is that God, for the sake of the temple service, set aside the Sabbath law, and here is one greater than the temple, and who has the authority to repeal or supersede the Sabbath law. He acted by the authority of God, and being divine could set the law of the Sabbath aside. But he did not deny they broke the Sabbath law.] The argument here is the law of the Sabbath is to bend to the highest interest and happiness of man, and not the highest interest and happiness of man to the Sabbath. The Sabbath laws must not, by a superstitious observance, be perverted to the exclusion of mercy and necessity. The Sabbath was not first made, and then man made to fit the Sabbath. Man was made first, and then the Sabbath was made to fit the man. Since it was intended for his good, therefore, the law respecting it must not be interpreted so as to oppose his real welfare. It must be interpreted in consistency with a proper attention to the duties of mercy to the poor and the sick, and to those in peril.

28 so that the Son of man is lord even of the sabbath.--He ordained the Sabbath; he instituted the law; he knew its full meaning and object and value, and therefore had a right to interpret the meaning of the Sabbath law. [If they could set aside the law for David, in reference to the showbread, because he was hungry, or if God would change the Sabbath law to have the bread cooked on the Sabbath, he was Lord of the Sabbath to modify its laws for his disciples. The whole argument is an assertion of his power to supersede or set aside the law of the Sabbath. Necessity freed David from fault and blame in eating the showbread, for in cases of necessity a ceremonial precept must give way to a moral duty. Works of mercy and necessity for preserving life, and for better fitting men for Sabbath services, were certainly lawful on the Sabbath day. The passage teaches, then, not that men might violate the law of the Sabbath when their welfare seemed to them to demand it, but that Jesus could set it aside, as he afterward did, when his own judgment of man’s welfare required him to do so. He made it clear on this occasion that said law was not to be so construed as to prevent men from providing necessary food on the Sabbath day.]

Verses 26-28

Mar 2:26-28

Commentary On Mark 2:26-28

J.W. McGarvey

Mark 2:26. of Abiathar.—The reader will observe that the critics correct the reading of the common version here, giving us "in the high-priesthood of Abiathar," instead of "in the days of Abiathar."

This is doubtless the correct rendering, but it involves an apparent conflict between this passage and the account in 1 Samuel 21:1-6, where Ahimelech is said to have been the high priest at the time referred to. Abiathar is there represented as a son of Ahimelech, who took refuge with David after his father and the other priests had been slain by Doeg (1 Samuel 22:18-20), and who was high priest throughout the reign of David. This confusion of the two names is not confined to the New Testament, for in 2 Samuel 8:17, and 1 Chronicles 18:16, the names are reversed, and Ahimelech is called the son of Abiathar. It is evident that some mistakes of transcribers in this matter have crept into the text of the Old Testament, and it is probable that in a similar way Abiathar has been substituted for Ahimelech in the text of Mark. For other opinions on the subject, see the note on this verse in Lange.

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

For comments on other parts of this paragraph, see the notes on Matthew 12:1-8.

Questions by E.M. Zerr For Mark Chapter Two

1. To what city did Jesus again go?

2. Who were attracted to the house?

3. What did Jesus do for them?

4. Tell whom they brought to him.

5. How did they get to him?

6. What did this indicate to Jesus?

7. To which of the five did he speak?

8. Repeat his words.

9. Who were sitting in the crowd ?

10. State their reasoning.

11. Was it done orally?

12. Who perceived it?

13. State his question to the scribes.

14. Which of these works would be the harder?

15. Which would be visible?

16. State which would prove the other.

17. What then was done?

18. How were the people impressed ?

19. Where did Jesus next go?

20. Was he left alone ?

21. What did he do for the people?

22. On the way whom did he see ?

23. State this man’s occupation.

24. What did Jesus have him do ?

25. With whom did Jesus and his disciples eat?

26. Tell who criticized this.

27. What subject did Jesus use in reply?

28. Tell what sick people need.

29. For what did Jesus come?

30. Who had disciples beside Jesus?

31. State one of their customs.

32. What did they ask Jesus?

33. In the answer, who is the bridegroom?

34. What is predicted of this bridegroom?

35. What’will be appropriate then?

36. How is appropriateness taught also by a garment

37. What other article is used for the lesson ?

38. Tell why not put new wine into old bottles.

39. Through what field did he pass?

40. On what day?

41. What did the disciples do ?

42. Was this lawful?

43. Who objected?

44. Did they accuse them of stealing?

45. What did they claim was unlawful ?

46. To whom did Jesus refer?

47. Who was Abiathar?

48. Why was David’s act not sinful?

49. What about the sabbath and man?

50. Also the Son of man and the sabbath?

Mark Chapter Two

By Ralph L. Starling

In Capernaum an interesting thing happened.

A man came to Jesus sick with the palsy.

He couldn’t reach Jesus because of the crowd,

So they opened the roof and let the man down.

Jesus saw their faith and healed him immediately.

The Scribes said He was guilty of blasphemy.

Jesus countered, “Is it easier to say ‘you’re forgiven,’

Or take up your bed and walk even?”

As Jesus was walking by the wayside

He saw a Tax Collector called Levi.

Levi left his seat of collecting customs

For a work with which he was unaccustomed.

Later, Christ was sitting with Publicans and Sinners,

When they questioned Him about “why so many?”

He replied, “Those that are well need not a physician.

I came to call sinners needing repentance.”

On a Sabbath Day they saw Him picking corn.

“He should know that’s unlawful from the day he was born.”

He replied, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.”

Furthermore, the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”