Chapter 2

1 Christ healeth one sick of the palsy, 14 calleth Matthew from the receipt of custom, 15 eateth with publicans and sinners, 18 excuseth his disciples for not fasting, 23 and for plucking the ears of corn on the sabbath day.

1. Again he entered. [The Paralytic Lowered Through the Roof, Mark 2:1–12=Matt. 9:2–8=Luke 5:17–26. Major comment: Mark. See Early Galilean Ministry; The Ministry of Our Lord; on miracles pp. 208–213.] Or, “he returned” (RSV). Mark characteristically uses the Greek word palin, “again,” in referring to places he has mentioned previously, or to similar circumstances (see chs. 2:13; 3:1, 20; 4:1; 5:21; 8:13). By way of contrast, Matthew commonly uses palin to introduce a new section of his narrative. Both Matthew and Mark note the fact that Jesus had recently returned from His first tour through the towns and villages of Galilee (see Matt. 9:1). Matthew adds the information that Christ’s return to Capernaum was by boat. Evidently either His first tour ended on the eastern shore of the Lake of Galilee, or He had retired to that region when the publicity given Him by the healed leper led to a temporary withdrawal from public ministry (see on Mark 1:45).

Capernaum. See on Matt. 4:13. Matthew refers to Capernaum as Christ’s “own city”; that is, the headquarters from which He conducted His Galilean ministry and which He seems to have considered His home.

After some days. Gr. diХ heµmeroµn, “after days.” This phrase is taken by some to refer to the whole period of Jesus’ First Galilean Tour, between the time of His departure from Capernaum (ch. 1:35–38) and His return to that city. Inasmuch, however, as that tour probably extended over a number of weeks, it may be more appropriate to understand the “days” here as being those during which Jesus retreated into the desert because of the crowds, when He “could no longer openly enter a town” (ch. 1:45, RSV). Thus understood, the period in question would be that between the events narrated at the end of ch. 1 and those at the beginning of ch. 2.

It was noised. Literally, “It was heard.”

That. Gr. hoti, “that,” which implies that the following words, literally, “he is in the house,” are a direct quotation of what was being reported by people generally.

In the house. Only Mark specifically mentions this fact, as is true of numerous details of the narrative that the other synoptists omit. This was equivalent to saying “at home,” a reference without doubt to the home of Peter (see DA 267, 271; see on ch. 1:29).

2. Straightway. Christ’s departure from Capernaum for His first missionary tour was occasioned by the popular excitement and the great throngs of people who came seeking Him (see ch. 1:33, 37). But His absence from Capernaum left the enthusiasm of the people unabated. No sooner was it known that Jesus was again in the city than the people flocked to Him.

3. One sick of the palsy. Gr. paralutikos, “a paralytic.”

Borne of four. A detail given by Mark only. This and other details not only reflect the factual nature of the account but also mark it as the account of an eyewitness, in this case probably Peter (see p. 563).

4. The press. That is, the throng of people.

Uncovered the roof. Literally, “unroofed the roof.” Luke (ch. 5:19) records that they “let him down through the tiling.” As is common in the Middle East, this house doubtless had a flat roof, with a stairway or ladder on the outside which gave access to it from the courtyard below (see Acts 10:9; cf. on Deut. 22:8). Apparently the roof was made by laying tiles over the rafters.

This unusual method of reaching Jesus was the desperate suggestion of the paralytic himself, who feared that, though now so close to Jesus, he might yet lose his opportunity (see DA 268). The way in which Jesus had left Capernaum so unexpectedly (ch. 1:37, 38), had remained away for several weeks, and finally had secluded Himself in the desert (ch. 1:45), probably added to the desperation of this man, who faced the prospect of an early death (see DA 267).

Bed. Gr. krabbatos, a poor man’s “couch,” or “bed.” The rude pallet on which the man lay was probably little more than a grass mat or a padded quilt.

5. Their faith. That is, of the four stretcher bearers and the paralytic. Their tearing of a hole through the roof spoke eloquently of their urgent sense of need, and of their faith that only Jesus could satisfy it. Such consciousness of need and such faith are essential before the healing power of Jesus can be applied to either body or soul (see on Luke 5:8).

Son. Gr. teknon, literally, “child.” When used in an address as here, it means “my child,” “my son.” Inasmuch as his disease had come upon him as the direct result of profligate living (DA 267), it would seem that his story must have been much like that of the prodigal son (see Luke 15:13, 14). The same had apparently been true in the case of the paralytic healed at Bethesda a few months previously (see John 5:14).

Thy sins be forgiven thee. See on v. 10. Affliction had given him time for reflection, and he had come to realize that his own sins were responsible for his suffering. It was to these sins, which now weighed so heavily on his mind, that Jesus referred. The paralytic came seeking for health of soul as well as for healing of body (see DA 267, 268). He was physically helpless and spiritually hopeless, until he presented his case to Jesus, who provided both help and hope. See on John 9:2.

6. The scribes. See p. 55, and on ch. 1:22. According to Luke (see on ch. 5:17) these “Pharisees and doctors of the law” came from all parts of “Galilee, and Judaea, and Jerusalem.” The coming of representatives from so many different places suggests that their presence upon this particular occasion was more than casual. The fact that these religious officials were from precisely the areas in which Jesus thus far had worked would seem to indicate that they were at Capernaum to investigate the One who had become the center of such intense public interest. The situation recalls the delegation that the leaders in Jerusalem dispatched to the Jordan to investigate the work of John the Baptist (John 1:19–28) two years previously. The present delegation from Judea, where Jesus had previously worked, may have been summoned to advise the leaders in Galilee regarding their course of action in view of Jesus’ more recent activities there.

These men were spies (see DA 267; cf. 213), and as if to remind them vividly of the healing of the paralytic at Bethesda (John 5:1–9), Jesus now healed another man suffering from the same disease. They did not have long to wait before finding what they were looking for—alleged evidence that Jesus was a blasphemer. His earlier statement before the Jewish leaders had been branded blasphemy (John 5:18); now He exercised publicly a divine prerogative that they likewise took to be blasphemy. This incident marks the first of Jesus’ several controversies with the Jewish authorities during His Galilean ministry.

Reasoning. Gr. dialogizomai, “to balance accounts,” “to converse,” “to debate,” “to argue.”

7. This man. Gr. houtos, “this [one],” as if spoken in contempt. They thought they had caught Jesus in the act of blasphemy, but strangely enough, the evidence was not such that they could bring it against Him at His trial a year and a half later (Matt. 26:59, 60; Mark 14:55, 56). Their difficulty lay in the fact that He confronted them with the practical operation of the power of Deity—in forgiving sin and healing disease—rather than the assertion of specific Messianic claims. See p. 209.

Blasphemies. Gr. blaspheµmiai, “injurious speeches,” “slanders,” that is, any derogatory statements. The scribes assumed that in forgiving the paralytic’s sins Jesus, a mere man as they claimed, had usurped the prerogatives of Deity. Under the ceremonial system the priest presided over a man’s confession but did not actually speak words of forgiveness. His acceptance of the sacrifice merely symbolized God’s acceptance of the confession (see Heb. 10:1–12). By their refusal to recognize evidence of the presence and operation of divinity the scribes were committing the very sin of which, in their hearts, they accused Christ (see Matt. 12:22–32). The Levitical penalty for blasphemy was death by stoning (Lev. 24:16), although the Jews in Jesus’ time were not generally at liberty to carry it out.

Who can forgive? The scribes were strictly correct so far as their theology was concerned, for the OT clearly pointed to God as the One who forgives sin (Isa. 43:25; Jer. 31:34; cf. John 10:33). Their error was in failing to recognize that the Man who stood before them was God. See p. 209.

8. Perceived. Gr. epiginoskoµ, “to know accurately,” “to recognize.” Repeatedly Jesus read men’s thoughts (Mark 12:15; Luke 6:8; 9:47; 11:17; cf. John 4:16–19; 8:7–9). This generally had the effect of making them furiously angry.

9. Whether is it easier? Apparently the scribes were thinking, “It is easy to say that a man’s sins are forgiven, for no one can really tell whether they are.” Jesus immediately took up their unspoken challenge and, in substance, inquired: “Which would you find easier, to forgive a man’s sins or to heal him of paralysis?” The answer was obvious.

10. That ye may know. Jesus offered a miracle that all could see as evidence of the reality of a far greater miracle that they could not see (cf. Rom. 1:20).

The Son of man. Here, for the first time, all three synoptic writers use this distinctive title (Matt. 9:6; Mark 2:10; Luke 5:24). It was Christ’s favorite designation for Himself, and appears in the Gospels some 80 times. No one, however, addressed Him by this title, nor do any of the gospel writers refer to Him by it. This title was understood at least among some Jews as a name for the Messianic ruler of the new kingdom to be established. Except under oath (Matt. 26:63, 64; Mark 14:61, 62), and in private to those ready to believe in Him as the Christ (Matt. 16:16, 17; John 3:13–16; 4:25, 26; 16:30, 31), Jesus made no direct Messianic claims. It was His purpose that men should recognize in His life, His words, and His works, evidence that the prophecies of the Messiah had met their fulfillment in Him. See p. 209.

Jesus was literally “the Son of man,” both in a purely historic sense (see Luke 1:31–35; Rom. 1:3, 4; Gal. 4:4) and in a higher sense. The title, Son of man, designates Him as the incarnate Christ (see John 1:14; Phil. 2:6–8). It points to the miracle whereby Creator and creature were united in one divine-human person. It testifies to the truth that sons of men may indeed become sons of God (John 1:12; Gal. 4:3–7; 1 John 3:1, 2). Deity was identified with humanity in order that humanity might be made over again into the image of divinity (DA 25). Concerning Jesus as the Son of God, see on Luke 1:35; John 1:1–3; and as Son of man, on Luke 2:49, 52; John 1:14; see Additional Note on John 1.

Power. Gr.exousia, “authority.” The usual Greek word for “power,” in the sense of “might” or “strength,” is dunamis. To work a miracle required power, but the forgiveness of sin was a matter of authority. In the present passage, exousia stands at the beginning of the clause, and so emphasizes Christ’s authority to forgive sin. The Jewish leaders repeatedly challenged this authority (see ch. 11:28).

Forgive sins. The cause of the disease must be removed before the sufferer could be relieved of the disease from which he suffered (see on v. 5). Healing of the body without healing of the soul could result only in a repetition of the course the young man had taken that brought on the disease. Therefore Christ, who gave the man a new body, first provided him with a new heart.

He saith. The parenthetical statement introduced by these words is inserted in the middle of Jesus’ pronouncement to indicate that at this point He turned from the scribes and addressed Himself to the paralytic. It appears at the same place in all three accounts of the narrative (see Matt. 9:6; Luke 5:24). Similar examples of identical language may be found in Mark 1:16 and Matt. 4:18; Mark 5:28 and Matt. 9:21; Mark 14:2 and Matt. 26:5; Mark 15:10 and Matt. 27:18. See pp. 177, 178; cf. pp. 306, 307.

11. I say unto thee. Gr. soi legoµ, “to thee I say.” The order of the words in Greek emphasizes here the one to whom Jesus was speaking. The words of v. 10 He addressed to the unbelieving scribes; now, as a proof to them, He turned to the paralytic and said, “To thee I say, Arise.” The power to heal physically was evidence of the authority to heal spiritually.

Take up thy bed. The sufferer had been carried to Jesus on his bed; he now leaves the presence of Jesus carrying his bed, an evidence of the great transformation that had occurred.

Go thy way into thine house. That is, “Go home” (RSV).

12. On this fashion. Or, “anything like this.” The man who had come into the presence of Jesus with a profound sense of need went away in triumphant joy, while those who came in self-satisfaction, pride, and malice went away “dumb with amazement and overwhelmed with defeat” (DA 270). The spirit in which men approach Jesus determines whether they find in Him a steppingstone to heaven or a stumbling block to destruction (see Matt. 21:44; Luke 2:34; 1 Peter 2:8).

13. He went forth again. [Call of Levi Matthew, Mark 2:13, 14=Matt. 9:9=Luke 5:27, 28. Major comment: Mark. See Early Galilean Ministry; The Ministry of Our Lord.] Apparently this was but a short journey in the vicinity of Capernaum, and not a major preaching tour of Galilee. The second such tour, which was preceded by the appointment of the Twelve and the Sermon on the Mount, did not begin until somewhat later.

14. He saw. See on Luke 5:27.

Levi. Luke also uses this name (ch. 5:27), but Matthew in the same story prefers the name Matthew (ch. 9:9). That the two names refer to the same man is indicated further by the fact that Matthew also is called “the publican [taxgatherer]” (ch. 10:3), and by the fact that in their lists of the Twelve, the other Gospels have Matthew and not Levi (Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; cf. Acts 1:13). It was common for Jews to have more than one name, as Simon Peter and John Mark. See on Mark 3:14.

The son of Alphжus. Some have thought to identify “Levi the son of Alphaeus” with “James the son of Alphaeus” (ch. 3:18). However, in view of the evidence given above for the identity of Levi with Matthew, it appears certain that Levi and James were different men; whether they were brothers it is impossible to say (see on ch. 3:18).

The receipt of custom. That is, the tax office. It apparently was “by the sea side” (v. 13), and was probably an office at which Herod Antipas collected revenue from caravans and travelers passing along the main highway from Damascus and the East to Ptolemais (Accho) on the Mediterranean (see on Isa. 9:1), or over the Lake of Galilee from the territory of Herod Philip. As to the strategic, commercial location of Capernaum see on Matt. 4:13 and Luke 4:31.

In popular opinion tax collectors were considered disreputable. Not only were they frequently agents of Roman oppression, they also were often extortioners on their own account, who made use of their official power to oppress and defraud the people. They were hated and despised by all, as social and religious outcasts. See p. 66; see on Luke 3:12.

Follow me. The usual language Christ used in extending His invitation to discipleship (see Matt. 4:19; John 1:43). Called upon to make the great decision of his life on a moment’s notice, Matthew was ready; such a decision would presuppose his having had previous contact with Jesus. In his heart there must have been already a longing to follow Him. But since he knew full well the attitude of the rabbis toward tax collectors, it doubtless did not occur to him that this great Rabbi would condescend to have him among His disciples. Luke (ch. 5:28) adds that Matthew “left all” in order to follow Jesus; he left a profitable business to serve without pay.

15. Sat. [Matthew’s Feast, Mark 2:15–17=Matt. 9:10–13=Luke 5:29–32. Major comment: Mark. See Middle Galilean Ministry; The Ministry of Our Lord.] Gr. katakeimai, “to lie down.” Although in OT times it was usually the Jewish custom to sit while eating, by the time of Jesus, in the more pretentious houses at least, people commonly lay down to eat on a low platform or couch sloping away from the table. They rested on cushions and supported themselves by their left arms. The usual table was equipped on three sides with such slanting platforms, the fourth side being left open for attendants to serve the food. That Matthew’s home was equipped with such a table suggests that he was a man of means and culture.

Evidently the feast in Matthew’s home took place some weeks, perhaps months, after his call (see DA 342; see on ch. 5:21). It is recorded here probably in order to complete, in one context, the account of Matthew’s experiences.

At meat. Or, “at table” (RSV). This expression has been supplied by the translators to complete the idea implicit in the context (see v. 16).

In his house. The context makes apparent that this was Matthew’s house, and that Jesus was the guest of honor (see also Luke 5:29; cf. DA 274).

Publicans. Gr. teloµnai, “tax collectors,” “revenue agents” (see on Mark 2:14; Luke 3:12).

Sinners. See on v. 17. Such contacts as this, seeming at the time fruitless perhaps, doubtless contributed to producing the harvest of those who took their stand with the followers of Jesus, and became witnesses to the truth, when the Spirit was poured out upon the believers at Pentecost (see DA 274, 275).

They. That is, those who accepted His teachings. Some in addition to Matthew apparently took their stand for Jesus now; others doubtless did so later, particularly after the resurrection (see DA 275).

16. Scribes and Pharisees. Important textual evidence (cf. p. 146) may also be cited for the reading, “scribes of the Pharisees,” that is, scribes who were Pharisees. While some of the scribes were Sadducees, most were Pharisees, for it was the latter who took a particular interest in the minutiae of the law (see pp. 51, 52, 55). We may think of them as “Pharisee scribes” rather than “Sadducee scribes.”

Disciples. Gr. matheµtai, “learners,” “pupils.” In the Gospels this word is generally used of the group that accompanied Jesus and assisted Him in His ministry. The disciples were matheµtai; Christ was their didaskalos, “master” or “teacher” (see on John 3:2).

By complaining to the disciples, the scribes hoped to alienate their respect for their Master. Luke says that the scribes “murmured” against the disciples (Luke 5:30), apparently realizing that a direct attack on Jesus would avail them nothing, even as previous attempts to silence Him had proved fruitless (see Mark 2:6–11; John 2:18–20; 5:16–47).

Eateth and drinketh. To eat and drink with Gentiles was an infraction of the ritual law and involved ceremonial uncleanness (Acts 11:3). For practical purposes, tax collectors were classed with the Gentiles and thus were considered among the social outcasts (see on Mark 2:14; Luke 3:12, 13).

17. They that are whole. Gr. hoi ischuontes, “those having strength.” Luke reads, hoi hugiainontes, “those who are sound.” Luke’s expression is a more exact term, from hugieµs, a usual Greek word for “health.” Paul repeatedly uses the same word as does Luke, and applies it to “sound” doctrine (1 Tim. 1:10), “sound” words (2 Tim. 1:13), and of being “sound” in the faith (Titus 1:13).

I came not. In stating the profound truth of the purpose of His mission to earth Christ revealed the hypocrisy and fallacy of the Pharisees and their attitude toward Christ’s association with tax collectors. If these men were such sinners as the Pharisees claimed, they must be in greater need than other men. Were they not then the very ones for whom Christ should put forth His best efforts? He had come to “save” men (Matt. 1:21), but if He were able only to save those who were already righteous, He could not be truly a Saviour. The test of His mission as the Saviour of men turned on the point of what He could do for sinners.

The righteous. The Pharisees claimed to be able to attain righteousness through strict compliance with the requirements of the ritual law. Later, Jesus made it clear that such “righteousness” was counterfeit and without value in the kingdom He had come to proclaim (Matt. 5:20; cf. ch. 23:1–33). But on this occasion, for the sake of argument, He granted their implied claim to personal righteousness (Mark 2:16, 17), for by so doing He was able to make clear the reason why He ought to minister to the spiritual needs of the publicans.

In actual fact, the Pharisees were at times guilty of the very sins they so bitterly detested in the tax collectors. Jesus declared that they would “devour widows’ houses” (Matt. 23:14) and release an avaricious son from caring for aged parents (see on Mark 7:11), if thereby they themselves might be enriched. Thus the Pharisees, laying emphasis on legal correctness, too often were hypocrites. On the other hand, the publicans, who made no pretense at ritualistic respectability, were sometimes in a better position to accept the teaching of Jesus, in spite of their sins. See on Luke 18:9–14.

18. The disciples of John. [The Question About Fasting, Mark 2:18–22=Matt. 9:14–17=Luke 5:33–39. Major comment: Mark. See Middle Galilean Ministry; on parables pp. 203–207.]

Used to fast. Probably better, “were fasting.” Doubtless John’s disciples shared at least to some extent in his abstemious way of life (see Matt. 3:4), as is evidenced here by their fasting. It seems clear that they were, indeed, fasting at the very time they brought their question to Jesus.

An ancient Jewish treatise on fasting from the 1st century a.d., Megillath TaФanith, mentions Jews who at that time regularly fasted on the second and fifth days of the week, that is, Monday and Thursday (see Luke 18:12). Although Jewish tradition attributes this custom to the story that Moses began his 40-day fast on Mt. Sinai (see Ex. 34:28) on a Thursday and terminated it on a Monday, it seems probable that the observance of these two days as fasts actually arose from the desire to keep them as far as possible from the Sabbath, and at the same time not to have them too close together. See Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, vol. 2, pp. 241-243.

Strack and Billerbeck, leading authorities on ancient Judaism, indicate that the exact motives behind these biweekly fasts are not entirely clear, but it seems probable that they arose through a desire on the part of particularly earnest people to seek to atone for the worldliness of the nation, which they felt was fast bringing on its destruction. In general among the ancient Jews fasting was undertaken by individuals in order to make good a misdeed or to ensure the favorable answer to a prayer or fulfillment of a wish. Indeed, many seem to have fasted because they believed such an act earned special merit for them before God.

These uses of fasting rested, of course, upon a misconception of the character of God and of the nature of righteousness. Too often fasting degenerated into a means of righteousness by works through which men hoped to appease an austere God and earn His favor, regardless of the state of their hearts. Centuries before the time of Jesus the prophets had denounced such ideas, declaring that God had come to abhor Israel’s fasts and other religious observances (Isa. 58:3–5; Zech. 7:5, 6).

There are times when the Christian needs keenness of thought and discriminating judgment; he may have important decisions to make, or may need to discern more clearly the will of God. Under such circumstances fasting can prove a great blessing. Such fasting may not necessarily mean complete abstinence from food, but a diet limited to the simple essentials for maintaining health and vigor. The Christian may, like Daniel, refrain from the use of “pleasant bread” (Dan 10:3). God is not honored and one’s Christian experience is not promoted by any practice that weakens the body or impairs the health. See Matt. 6:16.

They come and say. Those here designated are not clearly identified, nor is the Gospel of Luke clearer in this respect (see Luke 5:33). However, Matthew states definitely that it was the disciples of John the Baptist who plied Jesus with the query in regard to fasting (Matt. 9:14).

According to the tentative chronology adopted in this commentary, John had been imprisoned in the early spring of this year, a.d. 29, and probably was executed shortly before the Passover of a.d. 30 (see on Matt. 4:12; Mark 6:14–29; Luke 3:19, 20). His disciples raised their question on fasting probably not more than a few months before he died.

Thy disciples fast not. Thus the scribes apparently hoped to alienate the rapidly growing body of disciples from their Master.

19. Children of the bridechamber. A contemporary Jewish idiom for wedding guests. The comparison Jesus used here has its roots in OT prophecy, where Jehovah’s relation to His people is depicted as that of the bridegroom to the bride (Isa. 62:5; cf. Hosea 1:2). John had already used the same figure to explain His relationship to the Messiah (ch. 3:25–30), upon the former occasion when the Jewish leaders had sought to drive a wedge of rivalry between John and Jesus, probably a year or so prior to this occasion. It seems significant, therefore, that Jesus used this brief figure in the presence of the disciples of John the Baptist.

In no particular did Jesus deviate from the religious requirements He Himself had enjoined on Israel through Moses. Contention between Himself and the Pharisees centered in the traditions of the elders, the “heavy burdens” that were “grievous to be borne” (Matt. 23:4). These traditional requirements had been elevated to a position of such honor and importance that at times they were allowed even to counteract the true spirit of the law of Moses (ch. 15:3–6; cf. DA 395). Thus the form of religion that the scribes and Pharisees sought to impose upon the people rendered their worship of God “vain” and meaningless (Mark 7:7). See on Matt. 23:2, 3.

What Jesus now set forth, in three brief figures, was the incompatibility of His teachings with those of the scribes. John’s disciples, although presumably accepting Christ as the Messiah (see John 1:35–37), nevertheless adhered at least to some of the ritual regulations imposed by the scribes and Pharisees (Mark 2:18). In the parable of the wedding guests, “the children of the bridechamber,” Christ defended His own disciples against the charge that they did not conform likewise to tradition. He implied that ritual practices were to be subordinated to concerns of higher importance. Then by the examples of the new wine (v. 22) and the new cloth (v. 21), Jesus developed still further the fundamental principle involved—the irreconcilable difference between the new teachings and the old. Here He explained why He considered rabbinical ritual observances as of no value. Taken together, these three parables were designed to make clear to the disciples of John the Baptist that if they truly believed the teachings of their master, they would accept His also.

They cannot fast. It would be considered an insult to the bride and groom should the wedding guests be mournful and gloomy and refuse to partake of the wedding feast.

20. The days will come. Here for the first time Christ publicly implied that eventually He would be taken from His disciples, like a bridegroom forcibly taken from the wedding festivities. More than a year before this He had told Nicodemus in private that He would be “lifted up” (John 3:14).

Taken away. Gr. apairoµ, “to lift off,” “to carry away.” In the present context the word may imply forced and painful separation, as was true in the violent death of Jesus.

He was “taken away” from them at the cross, and restored to them after the resurrection.

21. No man also seweth. See on Luke 5:36. In this extended metaphor, or brief parable, Christ points out the folly of attempting to patch the old mantle of Judaism with the new fabric of His teachings.

Piece. Rather, “a patch.” Jesus’ teachings were not simply a patch to be applied to the worn-out Jewish religious system.

New. Gr. agnaphos, “uncarded,” hence, “new,” here meaning “unbleached,” or “unshrunk.”

An old garment. Here Judaism is compared to a worn-out cloak, one that has become useless and is on the point of being discarded. The original spirit of the Jewish religion had long since been lost by the majority of those who adhered to it, and in its place there had grown up a system of forms. By the use of this figure Christ endeavored to make clear to the disciples of John the Baptist the futility of trying to interweave the good news of the kingdom of heaven with the worn-out observances of Jewish tradition.

Made worse. That is, when the garment first becomes wet after the application of the patch. What is intended to improve the old mantle only serves to make its defects more evident.

22. New wine. See on Luke 5:39. By “new wine” is meant wine in which the forces of fermentation have not begun their work, or in which the work has been begun but not completed. The representation of the gospel by “new wine” and its work by the process of fermentation resembles in essence the parable of the leaven, but emphasizes a different result (see on Matt. 13:33). The “new wine” represents the vital truth of God at work in the hearts of men.

Bottles. In ancient times these would be wineskins, which were skins of sheep or goats with the skin of the legs sewn up, and the neck serving as a mouth of the bottle. “Old bottles” would have lost their original resilience, and become dry and hard. Such was the condition of Judaism in the time of Christ.

Burst the bottles. Jesus’ revolutionary teachings could not be reconciled with the reactionary dogmas of Judaism. Any effort to contain Christianity within the dead forms of Judaism, that is, to unite the two by forcing Christianity to take the shape of, and be reconciled to it, would prove vain. Jesus taught that the principles of the kingdom of heaven applied to the souls of men would lead to the outworking of those principles in lives of active, radiant religion (see on Matt 5:2).

Wine is spilled. The attempt to unite the new with the old would result in two-fold destruction. The “wine” of the gospel would be “spilled,” and the “bottles” of Judaism would be “marred.”

New bottles. Probably either a reference to the people ready to receive the gospel or to the new type of church organization through which the gospel was to be promoted.

23. It came to pass. [Plucking Grain on the Sabbath, Mark 2:23–28=Matt. 12:1–8=Luke 6:1–5. Major comment: Mark. See Early Galilean Ministry.] This incident probably took place on a Sabbath day in the late spring of a.d. 29, since it is grouped with events of that period of time.

Through the corn fields. Or, “beside the fields of grain.” Undoubtedly the disciples were not walking through the grain, treading it down, but along a path that went through the fields.

On the sabbath. Inasmuch as the Pharisees here made no objection to the distance covered, it would seem that it was not more than a Sabbath day’s journey, that is, about 2/3 mi. (see p. 50).

Of corn. Literally, “of grain”; in this instance almost certainly either wheat or barley. Luke (see ch. 6:1) adds that the disciples began rubbing the barley or wheat in their hands to remove the hulls.

24. Pharisees said. This is Christ’s fourth recorded encounter with the scribes and Pharisees since the opening of His Galilean ministry (see vs. 6, 16, 18; see on Luke 6:6).

Not lawful. Upon any other day of the week than the Sabbath the action of the disciples would undoubtedly have passed unchallenged, for OT law specifically provided that a hungry person could eat of the fruit or grain of a field as he passed (see on Deut. 23:24, 25).

Christ’s approval of what His disciples did here, and His own acts of healing upon the Sabbath day, are often misunderstood by modern writers as proof that He neither observed personally nor taught His disciples to observe the OT laws and regulations in regard to Sabbath observance. Some also assert that the stand Christ took with regard to these matters is to be interpreted as a rejection by Him of the fourth commandment. The facts are that Jesus personally adhered to the requirements of the law of Moses and the Decalogue in every respect and taught His followers to do the same. He repeatedly affirmed the eternally binding nature of the moral law (see on Matt. 5:17, 18; John 15:10; etc.), and recognized also the validity of the ritual law of Moses as applicable to Jews at that time (see on Matt. 23:3). Jesus, of course, was a Jew.

But throughout His ministry on earth Christ was in conflict with the Jewish leaders over the validity of man-made laws and traditions (see on Mark 7:2, 3, 8). Toward these requirements, which apparently many of His contemporaries had come to regard as even more essential to piety than the laws of Moses and the Decalogue, Christ took a position of uncompromising opposition (see on ch. 2:19). The most cursory examination of many of these requirements makes their absurdity evident, yet the Pharisees sternly taught that salvation was to be obtained through the rigorous observance of all these rules. A pious Jew’s life tended to become one endless and vain effort to avoid ceremonial uncleanness, incurred when the least detail of these purely human requirements might have been disobeyed inadvertently. This system of righteousness by works was in mortal conflict with righteousness by faith.

The Mishnah lists 39 primary, or major, types of labor prohibited on the Sabbath day (Shabbath 7. 2, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, pp. 348, 349). The first 11 of these were steps leading to the production and preparation of bread: sowing, plowing, reaping, binding sheaves, threshing, winnowing, selecting (sorting what was unfit for food from what was fit), grinding, sifting, kneading, and baking. The next 12 apply to similar steps in the preparation of clothing, from the shearing of sheep to the actual sewing of garments. These are followed by 7 steps in preparing the carcass of a deer for use as food or for leather. The remaining items listed have to do with writing, building, the kindling and extinguishing of fires, and the transportation of articles from one place to another.

These general regulations were further explained in minute detail. In addition to these major regulations there were countless other provisions concerning the observance of the Sabbath. Most commonly known, perhaps, is the so-called “sabbath day’s journey” of 2,000 cu.— somewhat less than 2/3 mi. (see on p. 50). It was also counted as Sabbathbreaking to look in a mirror fixed to the wall (Shabbath 149a, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, p. 759), or even to light a candle. Yet the same regulations permitted an egg laid on the Sabbath to be sold to a Gentile, and a Gentile to be hired to light a candle or a fire. It was counted unlawful to expectorate upon the ground, lest thereby a blade of grass be irrigated. It was not permissible to carry a handkerchief on the Sabbath, unless one end of it be sewed to one’s garment—in which case it was no longer technically a handkerchief but part of the garment. Similarly the regulation concerning the distance one might walk on the Sabbath day could be circumvented by hiding portions of food at appropriate intervals along the way one expected to take. Technically, then, the place where one’s food reposed could be considered as another “home” of the owner. From each such cache of food it was then possible to take another Sabbath day’s journey, on to the next similar cache. Such were but a few of the “heavy burdens and grievous to be borne” (Matt. 23:4) that had been placed upon the pious Jews of Christ’s day.

By thus straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel the Pharisees were continually employing the letter of man-made laws to destroy the spirit of the law of God. The Sabbath, designed originally to afford man an opportunity to know his Maker through a study of the things He had made, and to reflect upon His love and goodness, became, instead, a reminder of the selfish and arbitrary character of Pharisee and scribe. It effectively misrepresented the character of God, by picturing Him as a tyrant.

Nature declares the wisdom, power, and love of God, and it was to these things that the Sabbath was designed in the beginning to direct man’s attention, lest man become so absorbed in his own activities that he forget the One who gave him his being and who constantly exerted divine power for his happiness and welfare. The problem some modern Christians find in determining what may or may not be appropriate as a Sabbath activity is readily solved once the purpose of the Sabbath is clearly in mind. Whatever draws us closer to God, helps us to understand better His will for us and His ways of dealing with us, and leads us to cooperate more effectively with Him in our own lives and in contributing to the happiness and well-being of others—this is true Sabbath observance (see on Isa. 58:13; Mark 2:27, 28).

25. Have ye never read? Jesus implies that in their study of the Scriptures they missed the lesson implicit in the incident He is about to relate.

When he had need. The sacred laws and things pertaining to the sanctuary had been ordained for the good of man, and if ever these should conflict with his best interests, with that which was most needful for him, they must be subordinated.

26. House of God. At the time of the incident here referred to the Temple had not yet been built. The “house of God” still consisted only of the tabernacle, at that time at Nob.

Abiathar. Abiathar was the son of Ahimelech, who was titular high priest at the time this incident occurred (see 1 Sam. 21:1, 6). The words of Jesus seem to suggest that Abiathar was deputy to his aging father and so actually performing at least some of the functions of the high priestly office even during the latter’s lifetime, and under his supervision. When Ahimelech was slain Abiathar fled to David, carrying with him the sacred ephod, symbol of the high priestly office (see 1 Sam. 22:20). An analogous situation prevailed in Christ’s day, when Caiaphas was high priest, but Annas was recognized by all as being a kind of high priest emeritus (see Acts 4:6; see on Luke 3:2).

Shewbread. See on Ex. 25:30. Elaborate rules for the preparation and use of the “bread of the Presence” set it apart as holy. The old bread, removed from the table of shewbread in the holy place, was to be eaten by the priests within the sacred precincts of the sanctuary (see on Lev. 24:5–8).

Not lawful to eat. None but the priests might eat the consecrated bread (see Lev. 24:9).

27. Sabbath. See on Gen. 2:1–3; Ex. 20:8–11.

For. Literally, “for the sake of.”

Man. Gr. anthroµpos, literally, “a person,” a generic term including men, women, and children (see on ch. 6:44). “Mankind” would reflect the meaning of anthroµpos more accurately. The Sabbath was designed and ordained by a loving Creator for the welfare of humanity. It is only by the wildest stretch of reasoning that a person could consider the Sabbath “against” man in any respect (see on Col. 2:14).

Not man for the sabbath. God did not create man because He had a Sabbath and needed someone to keep it. Rather, an Allwise Creator knew that man, the creature of His hand, needed opportunity for moral and spiritual growth, for character development. He needed time in which his own interests and pursuits should be subordinated to a study of the character and will of God as revealed in nature, and later, in revelation. The seventh-day Sabbath was ordained of God to meet this need. To tamper in any way with the Creator’s specifications as to when and how the day should be observed is tantamount to denying that God knows what is best for the creatures of His hand.

God ordained that the Sabbath should be a blessing, not a burden, and it is to man’s interest and not his injury to observe it. It was designed to increase his happiness, not to work a hardship on him. Sabbath-keeping does not consist essentially in the petty observance of certain formalities and in abstention from certain pursuits; to think of it in this light is to miss completely the true spirit and objectives of Sabbath observance and to engage in the pursuit of righteousness based on works. We refrain from certain tasks, from certain pursuits, from certain topics of thought and conversation, not because that by so doing we think to win favor with God. We refrain from these things in order that we may devote our time, our energies, and our thought to other pursuits that will increase our understanding of God, our appreciation of His goodness, our capacity to cooperate with Him, and our ability to serve Him and our fellow men more effectively. Sabbathkeeping that consists only, or primarily, in the negative aspect of not doing certain things is not Sabbathkeeping at all; it is only when the positive aspect of Sabbathkeeping is practiced that we may hope to derive from Sabbath observance the benefit ordained by a wise and loving Creator. See on Isa. 58:13.

The legion requirements of the rabbis pertaining to the meticulous observance of the Sabbath were based on the concept that the Sabbath was of more importance in the sight of God than man himself. According to the apparent reasoning of these blind exponents of the divine law, man was made for the Sabbath—made to keep it mechanically. The rabbis reduced the Sabbath to an absurdity by their rigid and meaningless distinction between what might and what might not be done on that day (see on v. 24). They emphasized the negative aspect of Sabbath observance—of refraining from certain things. The forms of religion were set forth as the substance of it.

28. Therefore. After pointing to the purpose of the Sabbath (v. 27) Christ directs attention to its Author, and thus to His own right to determine how that purpose shall best be realized.

Son of man. See on Matt. 1:1; Mark 2:20; see Additional Note on John 1.

Lord. The Saviour Himself has the right to determine what is appropriate to that day; consequently, the Pharisees were exceeding their prerogatives (see v. 24). The church has no right to load the Sabbath with oppressive restrictions—as did the Jews—or to attempt the transfer of its sacredness from one day to another. Both are devices of the evil one designed to lure men away from the true spirit of Sabbath observance. Man has no right to tamper with the day of God’s choosing, whether he be Pharisee or Christian ecclesiastic.

Also. Or, “even.” The complete line of reasoning Christ set before the caviling Pharisees is more clearly presented in the account given by Matthew, as follows: (1) Human need is of more importance than ritual requirements or human traditions (see Matt. 12:3, 4). (2) The labor performed in connection with the Temple service is in keeping with the requirements of the Sabbath day (see v. 5). (3) Christ is greater than either the Temple (see v. 6) or the Sabbath day (see v. 8).

Ellen G. White comments

1–12DA 262–271

3–53T 168

5     COL 125; MH 174; 6T 232

5–116T 234

6     8T 202

7     DA 269; MH 76

10   DA 270

12   DA 269; MH 77

14–22DA 272–280

17   COL 58; FE 252; TM 230, 351; 2T 74; 3T 49; 4T 42; 5T 219

20   DA 277

27   1T 533; 2T 582; 4T 247

27, 28  DA 285, 288

28        GC 447