Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadInternational Critical Commentary NT - Mark 2:1 - 2:99
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
THE CHARGE OF BLASPHEMY
2:1-12. Jesus’ return to Capernaum. Healing of a paralytic. Jesus announces the cure as a forgiveness of the sins which have produced the disease. The Scribes protest against this blasphemy. Jesus defends his claim to forgive sins, and proves it in this case by the cure.
Immediately after the return of Jesus to Capernaum, the crowd gathers again in such numbers as to prevent access to him. But four men bringing to him a paralytic, not to be turned back, gain access to the roof of the house in which he was, tear up the roof, and let the paralytic down. In healing him Jesus says, Thy sins are forgiven, meaning the sins that have produced the disease. The Scribes, who make their first appearance here, protest against this as blasphemy. Jesus meets their charge by showing that forgiveness is here only another name for cure. But he asserts his right to forgive sins, and proves it by the cure.
1. Κὶεσλὼ πλν…ἠοσηAnd having entered again …it was heard.
εσλώ, instead of εσλε, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBDgr L 28, 33, 124, mss. of Lat. Vet. Memph. etc. Omit κὶbefore ἠοσηTisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBL 28, 33, 124, mss. of Lat. Vet. Memph. etc.
πλνagain. See 1:21. It is a peculiarity of Mk. that he notes the recurrence of scenes and places in his narrative. Lk. uses this word only twice, and Mt. uses it almost entirely to denote the different parts of discourse, not the recurrence of the same, or similar occasions. δʼἡεῶ—after (some) days.1 ἐ οκ—in the house, or at home.2
ἐ οκ, instead of εςοκν Tisch. Treg. WH. אBDL 33, 67, most mss. of Lat. Vet. Vulg.
2. κὶσνχηα πλο—and many were gathered together.
Omit εθω Tisch. (Treg.) WH. RV. אBL 33, mss. of Lat. Vet. Vulg. Memph. Pesh.
ὥτ μκτ χρῖ μδ τ πὸ τνθρνso that not even the parts towards the door (on the outside) would hold them any longer. Not only was the house too small for the crowd, but not even outside, near the door, was there room for them.1 κὶἐάε—and he was speaking. The imperf. denotes what he was doing when the bearers of the paralytic came. AV. preached. RV. spake. τνλγνthe word. The word of the Gospel, or glad tidings of the kingdom of God, with the accompanying call to repentance. See 1:14, 15.2
3. πρλτκνa paralytic.3
4. Κὶμ δνμνιποεέκιAnd as (they saw that) they were unable to bring him to him. μ shows that their inability is not viewed simply as a fact, but in their view of it, as it influenced their minds.4
ποεέκι instead of ποεγσι Tisch. Treg. marg. WH. RV.marg. אBL 33, 63, 72 marg. 253, two mss. Lat. Vet. Vulg. Memph. Harcl. etc.
ἀετγσντνσέη—they unroofed the roof. Uncovered, EV., does not render the paronomasia of the Greek.5 ἐούατςhaving dug it out. This describes the process of unroofing. It would imply probably some sort of thatched roof. χλσ τνκάατνthey let down the pallet. The noun denotes any slight bed, such as might be used to carry the sick about the streets, a stretcher.6 ὅο—where (on).
ὅο, instead of ἐʼᾦTisch. Treg. WH. אBDL two mss. Lat. Vet.
The roofs of Eastern houses were flat. Access to the roof would be easy by an outside stairway or ladder. The description, moreover, implies that this house had only one story, according with what we know of the humble position and means of Jesus and his followers.
5. τνπσι ατνtheir faith. That is, the faith of the paralytic and his friends. That it was their faith, and not simply his faith, would show several things. First, that faith is not the psychological explanation of the cure, through the reaction of the mind on the body, in which case, the faith of the others would have nothing to do with it,—but the spiritual condition of the miracle. This is also shown by the cure of demoniacs. Secondly, that Jesus meant here by the forgiveness of the man’s sins only this removal of the physical consequences of some sin affecting the nervous organization. The removal of the spiritual penalty would be conditioned on the faith of the man himself. However, this is simply the reflection of the writer on the facts. And it is in the narration of facts, that the value of contemporaneous witness appears. In the historical judgment of the Gospels, this distinction between facts and reflections has frequently to be remembered. Τκο, ἀίνα συα ἁατα—Child (EV. Son.), thy sins are forgiven.
ἀίνα, instead of ἀένα, Tisch. Treg. WH. אB 28, mss. of Lat. Vet. Vulg. Pesh. Harcl.
6. τνγαμτω—of the Scribes.1 This is the first encounter of Jesus with the formalists and dogmatists of his time. So also in Mt. and Lk. And the matter in controversy, the extraordinary claims of Jesus, was sure to become an issue between them. The opposition to Jesus is easily explained. δαοιόεο ἐ τῖ κρίι—debating in their hearts. κρί, in the N.T., does not denote, like our word heart, the seat of the affections, but the inner man generally, and more specifically, the mind. This corresponds to the Homeric use, the common Greek use being like ours.
7. Τ οτςοτ λλῖ βαφμῖ—Why does this one speak thus? he blasphemes.
βαφμῖ instead of βαφμα, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBDL mss. of Lat. Vet. Vulg. Memph.
βαφμῖ is used of any speech derogatory to the Divine majesty. The generic sense of the word is injurious speech, among men, slander. In this case, the supposed blasphemy consists in the assumption of the Divine prerogative. ε μ εςὁΘό; except one, God? This is a good example of the ill usage that good principles receive at the hands of men who deal only with rules and formulas. As a general proposition, this statement of the Scribes is undeniable. The difficulty is, that they ignored the possibility of a man’s speaking for God, and the fact that they had before them one in whom this power was lodged preë
8. τ πεμτ ατῦin his spirit. This is contrasted with the knowledge acquired through the senses, e.g. in this case, by hearing what was said. Without their saying anything, he knew inwardly, intuitively, what was going on in their minds. Jesus knew generally their intellectual attitude, and their position towards any attempt to live according to the spirit, instead of the letter of things, and the mere look of their faces would put him on the track of their thoughts. λγιατῖ—says to them.
λγι instead of επν Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBL 33, mss. of Lat. Vet. Vulg.
9. Τ ἐτνεκπτρν Which is easier?1 Jesus does not make the contrast here between healing and forgiving, but between saying be forgiven and be healed. The two things would be themselves coincident, and the difference therefore would be only between two ways of saying the same thing. The disease being a consequence of the man’s sin, the cure would be a remission of penalty. Ἀίνα συα ἁατα—Thy sins are forgiven.
Ἀίνα, instead of Ἀένα, Tisch. Treg. WH. אB 28, mss. of Lat. Vet. Vulg. Pesh. Harcl. συinstead of σι Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBEFGHKL, etc. ὕαε instead of πρπτι Tisch. אLWc Δ and ὕαεεςτνοκνσυ D 33, mss. of Lat. Vet. A difficult case to decide, as πρπτιmay be taken from Mt. and Lk., and ὕαεfrom v. 11.
10. ἵαδ εδτ—but that ye may know. Here was an opportunity to put his power to a practical test. As a general thing, the power to forgive sins admits of no such test, but only of those finer inward tests by which a change of spiritual condition and relation becomes known. But here the forgiveness was manifested in an outward change, making itself known in cure, as the sin had discovered itself in disease. ἐοσα—authority, or right. This is the proper meaning, rather than power, and it evidently fits this case.
ὁυὸ τῦἀθώο—the Son of Man. This is a Messianic title, the use of which is to be traced to the Messianic interpretation of Dan_7:13-27. In the post-canonical Jewish literature, it appears several times in the Book of Enoch.2 It is the favorite title applied by Jesus to himself in the Synoptical Gospels, Son of God being used by Jesus himself only in the fourth Gospel.3 In the passage in Dan., the prophet sees in vision a fifth power succeeding the four great world-powers, only this is in his vision like a son of man, while the preceding powers have been represented as beasts. And in the interpretation that follows (see especially v. 18, 22, 27) this power is said to be the kingdom of the saints of the Most High. But later, when the hopes of the people were concentrated finally on a Messianic king, this passage was given Messianic interpretation, and Son of Man came to be a Messianic title, though not so distinctive, not so commonly accepted, as the name Messiah. The choice of it by Jesus was partly for this reason. To have called himself plainly the Messiah would have precipitated a crisis, forcing the people to decide prematurely on his claim. And it is evident from the doubt of the people, not only about what he was, but in regard to this very point, what he himself claimed to be, that the title used by him familiarly was indecisive. However, there can be little doubt, that the reason for the choice of the name Son of Man lay deeper than this, and is to be found in the significance of the name itself, aside from its historic sense. Everywhere, Jesus uses the Messianic phraseology of his time, but rarely limits himself to its current meaning. This name, Son of Man, was to the Jews a Messianic title, only that and nothing more. But Jesus fastens upon it because it identified him with humanity, and owing to the generic use of the word Man in it, with the whole of humanity. His chosen title, as well as his life, showed that his great desire was to impress on us his brotherhood with man.
ἐὶτςγςupon the earth. Contrasted with the power of God to forgive sins in heaven. Of course, the power to forgive sins, involved in the mere cure of diseases resulting from them, is in itself small. But the significance of these words lies in the unity of our Lord’s work implied in them. As the redeemer and deliverer of mankind, he is appointed to cope with the whole power of evil among men, to strike at its roots, as well as its twigs and branches, and at its effects, as well as its causes. And the whole is so far the one power trusted to him, that one part becomes the sign of the other.
11. σὶλγ—This is to be connected with ἵαεδτ, the clause λγιτ πρλτκ being parenthetical. This is what he says in order to put his power to forgive sins to a test. ἔερ, ἄο—arise, take up.1
Omit κίbefore ἄο Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. א L 13, 28, 33, mss. of Lat. Vet. Memph. Pesh.
12. Κὶἠέθ, κὶεθςἄα …ἐῆθνἔποθνAnd he arose, and immediately having taken …went out before.
κὶεθς instead of εθω, κὶTisch. Treg. WH. RV. א 33, Memph. ἔποθν instead of ἐάτο, Tisch. Treg. marg. WH. אBL 187 marg.
The ἔποθνπνω, before all, is introduced to show the publicity attending Jesus’ proof of his power. There was a great crowd of people, Jesus had performed his miracle in distinct answer to a challenge of his authority, and the cure was therefore purposely public. It contrasts therefore with Jesus’ ordinary reserve in the performance of his miracles, and with his depreciation of their testimony to his mission. And one significance of the event lies in this indication of his varying method, and of his power to include all the facts in the broad range of his action. ἐίτσα—were amazed.1 δξζι τνΘό—glorified God.2 εδμνwe saw.3
εδμν instead of εδμν Tisch. Treg. WH. CD. The unusual form determines the probability of this reading.
CONSORTING WITH SINNERS
13-17. The call of Levi the tax-gatherer. Jesus answers the charge of consorting with this and other obnoxious classes, many of whom had eaten with him.
This is the second cause of offence. The scene changes from the house to the shore of the lake, where Jesus finds Levi, a tax-gatherer, at the customs station. He calls this representative of a despised class into the inner circle of his disciples, and follows this up by entertaining at his house many of the same, and of the class of open sinners generally. Again it is the scribes who, attack him for this open association with outcasts. Jesus answers that he is a physician, and his business is with the sick.
13. πρ τνθλσα—to the side of the sea. This differs from πρπτῖ πρ, which denotes motion by the side of, whereas this is motion to the side of. πλνagain.4 The only previous event at the lakeside had been the call of the four disciples, 1:16 sq. The week following, Jesus had gone on a tour through Galilee; and now, on his return, he resorts to his usual place again. Capernaum and the shore of the lake were the scenes of his ministry. ἤχτ πὸ ατν κὶἐίακνresorted to him, and he was teaching them. The impfts. here denote the acts in their progress, the gradual gathering of the crowd, and Jesus’ discourse as they came and went.5
14. Λυὶ τντῦἈφίυLevi, the son of Alphœ So Luk_5:27. In Mat_9:9, however, where the same event is told in almost identical language, Μθαο, Matthew, is substituted for Levi. The two are to be identified, therefore, as different names of the same person.
Alphæ is also the name of the father of James the less. But as Matthew and James are not associated in any list of the apostles, there is no sufficient reason for identifying this Alphæ with the other.
ἐὶτ τλνο, not in the toll-house, but near it. See Thay.-Grm. Lex. τλνο denotes the place in which the customs were collected. It is a late Greek word.1 Ἀοοθιμιfollow me. This is the common language of Jesus in summoning disciples to personal attendance on himself, which is evidently the meaning here. The apparent abruptness of the call, and the immediateness with which it is answered, are relieved of their strangeness by the fact that Jesus had now been teaching long enough to call the attention of men to himself, so that the summons probably brought to a crisis and decision thoughts already in Levi’s mind.
15. ΚὶγντικτκῖθιAnd it comes to pass that he is reclining (at table).2
γντιinstead of ἐέεο Tisch. Treg. WH. אBL 33. Omit ἐ τ before κτκῖθιTisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBL 13, 33, 69, 102, 124, Memph.
Κτκῖθιατνἐ τ οκᾳατῦhe was reclining at table in his house. Meyer, Holtzmann, and others say that this was the house of Jesus. This is contrary to the statement of Lk., who says expressly that Levi made him a great feast at his house. But the recurrence of the pronoun ατν…ατῦmakes it reasonably certain that they refer to the same person. Mt. does not insert any pronoun after τ οκᾳ and that makes his language point in the same direction. And the fact that Mt. and Mk. use different language, which nevertheless points to the same conclusion, makes that conclusion doubly certain. The connection between this event and the call of Levi is thus simply that both show Jesus’ revolutionary attitude towards the despised classes of his time.
τλνιtax-gatherers. The name publicans, given them in our English Bible, comes from the Latin publicani, but in English it has become practically obsolete in that sense. Moreover, the Latin publicani does not apply to the whole class of tax-gatherers, but only to the Roman knights to whom the taxes were farmed out in the first instance.
ἁατλὶsinners; i.e. here, those guilty of crimes against society and law, the degraded and vicious class.1
σννκιτ—were reclining at table with.2
μθτῖ—disciples. The common word used to describe the followers of Jesus, corresponding to the title δδσαο applied to him. It is significant, that the names teacher and pupil are chosen by Jesus and the disciples to describe the relations between them. It is probable, according to the best text, that the last two clauses of this verse are to be separated, so that the verse ends with πλο.3 The statement is, that there were many of this class of open sinners. It does not denote the number present, which would be superfluous, but the number of the class. Holtzmann calls attention to the situation of Capernaum on the borders of the territory of Herod as the cause of the number of tax-gatherers, as this made it an important customs station. ο γα. τνΦρς—the Scribes of the Pharisees. The Pharisees were the sect that adhered not only to the Law, but to the rabbinical interpretation of the Law, which gradually formed a traditional code by the side of the written Law. Their scribes, therefore, would be the rabbis of the party that specially believed in the rabbis. Morison is right in calling them the arch-inquisitors, the genus inquisitor being the Pharisees.
In the N.T., the use of μθτίis confined to the Gospels and Acts. In the Gospels, it is applied to the twelve, who formed the inner circle of disciples, as well as the larger group outside. In the Acts, it is the general name for Christians, the official title apostles being given to the twelve.
ἠοοθυ instead of ἠοοθσν Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBL mss. of Lat. Vet. Vulg.
16. Κὶἠοοθυ ατ κὶ(ο) γαμτῖ τνΦρσίν κὶἰότςὅιἐθε (ἦθε) μτ τνἁατλνκὶτλνν ἕεο τῖ μθτῖ ατῦ Ὅιμτ τντλννκὶἁατλνἐθε; (κὶπνι—And there followed him also (the) Scribes of the Pharisees, and having seen that he eats with the sinners and tax-gatherers, they said to his disciples, Why does he eat (and drink) with the tax-gatherers and sinners?
κὶγαμτῖ τνΦρσίν κὶἰότςinstead of κὶο γαμτῖ κὶο Φρσῖι ἰότς Tisch. אL Δ33. τνΦρσίνis the reading also of Treg. WH. RV. txt. Insert κὶbefore ἰότςalso Treg. ὅιἐθε, instead of ατνἐθοτ, WH. RV. B 33, mss. of Lat. Vet. Pesh. Memph. some edd. ὅιἤθε Tisch. Treg. אDL mss. of Lat. Vet. Memph. edd. Harcl. ἁατλνκὶτλνν instead of the reverse order, Treg. WH. RV. BDL 33, mss. of Lat. Vet. and of Vulg., Memph. edd. Omit τ before ὅιTisch. Treg. WH. RV. BL 33, 108, 246. * Omit κὶπνι(Treg. marg.) WH. RV.marg. אBD mss. of Lat. Vet. etc.
ὅι…ἐθε (κὶπνι—why does he eat (and drink) …?1 This charge of eating with tax-gatherers and sinners was fitted to discredit Jesus’ claim to be a rabbi, or teacher. For the Scribes and their followers would not even associate with the common people for fear of ceremonial defilement; much less with the vicious class, to eat with whom was an especial abomination. The tax-gatherers were classed with sinners, that is, with the vile and degraded, not only by the Jews, but all over the Roman Empire. The secret of this was, that the taxes were collected, not by the paid agents of the government, but by officers who themselves paid the government for the privilege, and then reimbursed themselves by extortion and fraud. They let it out to others, and these to still a third class, who were selected generally from the inhabitants of the province, because their knowledge of the people would expedite the work. This last is the class called τλνιin N.T., and the unpatriotic nature of their employment was added to its extortionate methods, placing them under a double ban.
17. ο ἰχοτςthey that are strong. EV. whole. The contrast expressed figuratively by strong and sick is given literally in the latter part of the verse in the terms righteous and sinners. Jesus justifies his conduct in associating with sinners, from the point of view of the Pharisees themselves. Admitting them to be righteous and the publicans to be sinners, his office of physician put him under obligation to the sick rather than the strong. But he shows elsewhere that he does not admit this distinction. The Pharisees were extortionate as well as the publicans; they devoured widows’ houses; but they added to their wickedness by assuming a cloak of respectability, and thanking God that they were not as other men. The publicans, on the other hand, had the grace of honesty, and by their acknowledgment of sin, fulfilled the first condition of cure.
ἀλ ἁατλύ—but sinners.
Omit εςμτνιν unto repentance, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אABDKL mss. of Lat. Vet. Vulg. Memph. Pesh. Harcl. etc.
This omission leaves κλσιto be explained. It means to invite or summon; but to what? The answer is to be found by following out the terms of the figure. As a physician, Jesus summons sick souls to be cured. Or, dropping this figure, as a Saviour, he summons sinners to be saved. Owing to the blindness of men, the ordinary relation between them is reversed. Instead of the sick summoning the physician, it is here the physician who has to call the sick.
NONCONFORMITY IN MATTER OF FASTING
18-22. Jesus answers the complaint of the Pharisees and of the disciples of John that his disciples do not fast.
The third ground of complaint is the failure of the disciples, under the influence of the free spirit of Jesus, to observe the frequent fasts prescribed by the Pharisees as a part of their formalism, and by the disciples of John as a part of their asceticism. Jesus’ answer is divided into two parts. The first shows the incongruousness of fasting at a time when joy, and not sorrow, was the ruling feeling of the disciples, v. 18-20. The second shows the incongruousness of such observances as fasting with the new dispensation set up by our Lord. It is the incongruity of new and old.
18. ο μθτὶτῦἸάνυκὶο Φρσῖιthe disciples of John and the Pharisees.
ο Φρσῖι instead of τνΦρσίν Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אABCD mss. of Lat. Vet. Vulg. Memph. Harcl. txt. etc.
ἦα νσεοτςwere fasting.1 Fasting, as a religious observance, was prescribed in the Law only once in the year, on the great day of atonement. But the traditional code of the rabbis had multiplied this indefinitely. Twice in the week was the boast of the Pharisee. And the importance attached to this empty piece of religiosity made it a part of the formal religion of the period. κὶἔχνα—and they come, viz. the disciples of John and the Pharisees.
Mat_9:14 names only the former. Luk_5:33 makes this a part of the preceding controversy with the Pharisees and Scribes, in which they call attention to the practice of the disciples of John and of the Pharisees.
ο μθτὶτνΦρσίνthe disciples of the Pharisees.
Insert μθτὶbefore τνΦρσίνTisch. Treg. marg. WH. RV. אBC* L 33, mss. of Lat. Vet. Harcl. marg.
The disciples of the Pharisees is a singular expression, much as if one should speak of the disciples of the Platonists. The Pharisees were themselves disciples of the Scribes, or Rabbis. The disciples of John and of the Pharisees were at one in regard to the act of fasting, but not in the spirit of the act. The Pharisees fasted in a formal, self-righteous spirit, and the teaching of John was directed against this spirit. So far as the fasting of his disciples reflected the teaching of John and his spirit, it would be a part of the asceticism, the mortification of the body, characteristic of him.
19. υο τ νμῶο1—sons of the bridechamber. A Hebraistic form of expression by which υό, with the genitive of a thing, denotes a person who stands in intimate relation of some kind to that thing. The sons of the bridechamber were friends of the bridegroom, whose duty it was to provide for the nuptials whatever was necessary. The principle contained in this analogy is that fasting is not a matter of prescription, but of fitness. If you set times for fasting, the circumstances of the set time may be such as to produce joy, instead of sorrow, and so make your fasting out of place. Fasting, i.e., is an expression of feeling, and is out of place unless the feeling is there which it is intended to express. But it is a matter, not only of feeling, but of fitness. If the circumstances of the time are such as to make sorrow the fit feeling, then it is a fit time for fasting also. ο δννα νσεενthey cannot fast. This is said, of course, not of the outward act, which is possible at any time; but of fasting in the only sense in which it becomes a religious act, or the expression of the feeling to which it is appropriated. It is as much as to say, in a time of gladness it is impossible to mourn.
20. ἀαθ ἀʼατνὁνμίςIt is evident here that Jesus, still keeping to the figure, points forward to the time when he shall be taken away from the disciples, and then, he declares, will be the time for them to fast. This is the first time that he has prophesied of his taking away, but we can see that even as a premonition it is not premature, because of the revolutionary character of his teaching. He had already brought on himself the charge of blasphemy, consorted with publicans, one of whom he had introduced into the immediate circle of his disciples, and shown his indifference to the strict law of fasting. And he knew that there was much more of the same kind in reserve. ὅα—whenever. The expression leaves the time of the taking away indefinite. ἐ ἐεν τ ἡέᾳin that day. Days and that day in this verse are simply a case of oratio variata, both denoting in a general way a period of time.
ἐ ἐεν τ ἡέᾳinstead of the plural, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אABCDKL mss. of Lat. Vet. Pesh. Harcl. etc.
21. οδὶ ἐίλμ πάοςἀνφυἐιάτιἐὶἱάινπλινε δ μ, αριτ πήωαἀʼατῦτ͂κιὸ τῦπλιῦno one sews a patch of undressed cloth on an old garment; otherwise the new filling of the old takes from it.
Omit κὶbefore οδὶ Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אABCKLS D 1. 13, 33, 69, mss. of Lat. Vet. Memph. Vulg. Pesh. Harcl. etc. ἱάινπλιν instead of dat., Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBCDL 33. ἀʼατῦ instead of ατῦ Tisch. WH. RV. אBL, also A 33.
The RV. translates else that which should fill it up taketh from it, the new from the old. But this seems to require a repetition of the prep. ἀὸbefore τῦπλιῦ τ κιὸ τῦπλιῦis in apposition with τ πήωα so that it would read literally, the filling takes from it, the new of the old. The substitution of unfulled for new is necessary to make the parable an exact fit. It is the shrinking of the undressed cloth that strains and tears the old cloth to which it is sewed.
22. κὶοδὶ βλε ονννὸ εςἀκὺ πλιύ ε δ μ, πήε ὁονςτὺ ἀκύ, κὶὁονςἀόλτικὶο ἀκίand no one puts new wine into old skins; else the wine will burst the skins, and the wine is destroyed, and the skins.
ῥξιinstead of ῥσε, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBCDL 33, mss. of Lat. Vet. Vulg. Omit ὁνὸ after ὁονς Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBC* DL 13, 69, 242, 258, 301, mss. Lat. Vet. Vulg. Memph. Pesh. etc. ἀόλτικὶο ἀκί instead of ἐχῖα, κὶο ἀκίἀοονα, after ὁονς Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BL. Memph. Omit the clause ἀλ …βηένTisch. (Treg. WH.) D mss. of Lat. Vet. Omit βηένonly (Treg.) WH. RV. א B. The omission is more in Mk.’s manner, and it looks as if the clause was borrowed from Lk., where it is undoubted.
The substitution of skins for bottles, AV., is necessary to make the parable tell its story. The skins rot with age, and the new wine, as it ferments, bursts them.
These analogies, among the homeliest and aptest used by our Lord, are a further answer to the question why his disciples do not fast. For this is evidently the part of the question which it is intended that he should answer, not why the disciples of John do fast.1 Nor is it simply a repetition of the preceding, showing the incongruity of fasting at this time under another figure.2 But it generalizes, showing the incongruity of the class of things with which fasting belongs with the new life of Christianity. The general teaching is that the new teachings and the old forms do not belong together. But this is expressed in the two parables in different ways. In the first, it is the unfitness of piecing out the old religion with the new, like a new patch on an old garment. In the second, it is the unwisdom of putting the new religion into the old forms. The whole is an anticipation of St. Paul’s teaching that Christianity is not a mere extension of Judaism, and that Jewish laws are not binding upon Christians. Dr. Morison sees in the figures employed by Jesus only an expression of the incongruity of fasting at a time better adapted to feasting. But this would be simply a repetition of the preceding teaching contained in the figure of the wedding, and not so apt an expression of it either. The principle of this interpretation is a good one, that it is well to seek in each parable the single point of comparison, and there stop. Here the single idea is that of incongruity. But surely the figure of the wedding has brought out not simply the idea of incongruity, but the special unfitness of this particular act. And it is no violation, therefore, of the rule of interpretation to make these other comparisons not merely suggest the general idea of incongruity, but show also the special incongruity involved. In the figure of the wedding, it is the incongruity of fasting and joy that is pointed out; in these figures, it is the incongruity of new and old. The old religion attempted to regulate conduct by rules and forms, the new by principles and motives, and these are foreign, the one to the other. It is not fasting to which objection is taken, but fasting according to rule, instead of its inherent principle. As a piece of legalism, or asceticism, in which fasting per se becomes of moral obligation, it is incongruous with the free spirit of Christianity.
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE SABBATH
23-28. Jesus defends his disciples for plucking ears of grain on the Sabbath.
The fourth ground of complaint is the violation of the law of the Sabbath. Jesus and his disciples are going through the grain-fields on the Sabbath, and the disciples, careless of the strict Sabbatism of the Pharisees, pluck the ears of grain and eat them. Evidently there was the usual crowd following him, and the Pharisees attack this act as unlawful. In the first part of his reply, Jesus argues from an analogous case the admissibility of infringing the law to satisfy hunger. In the second part, he shows the nature of the law itself, that it is the servant of man, and not man the servant of the law, involving the lordship of the Son of Man over the law.
23. σοίω—sown fields. ἤξνοὁὸ πιῖ τλοτςbegan, as they went, to pluck, EV. This is the translation naturally suggested by the context, as it prepares the way for Jesus’ explanation of their conduct by the parallel case of David. But the phrase ὁὸ πιῖ does not mean to make way in the sense of merely going along or advancing, but to make a road. The middle, however, has the former sense. Moreover, this translation makes the participle, instead of the verb, express the principal thought. On the other hand, the translation, to make a road by plucking the ears, besides making Jesus’ answer quite unintelligible, presents an absurd way of making a road. You can make a path by plucking the stalks of grain, but you would make little headway, if you picked only the ears or heads of the grain. There are two ways of explaining this. We can take ὁὸ πιῖ in its proper sense, but make the participle denote merely concomitant action, not the means or method. They began to break a path (by treading down or plucking up the stalks of grain that obstructed their path), meanwhile plucking and eating the ears that grew on them. Or we can minimize the difficulties in the way of the ordinary interpretation, without doing much violence to the laws of speech. Surely, in a language so careless of nice distinctions as the N.T. Greek, it is not difficult to suppose that an active may be substituted for the middle. And there seems to be no doubt that the active is used in this sense in Jdg_17:8. And as for making the principal and subordinate clauses exchange places, in this case the peculiarity is not so great. They began to go along, plucking the ears is not so very different from they began, going along, to pluck.
24. ὃοκἔετ—what is not lawful. The Sabbath law is meant, which forbids work on that day. The casuistry of the rabbinical interpreter found here its most fruitful field in drawing the line between work and not-work, and managed to get in its most ingenious and absurd refinements. But the great difficulty, as with all their work, is that they managed so to miss the very spirit and object of the law, that they made its observance largely a burden, instead of a privilege. Whenever they speak of that which is lawful, or unlawful, their standard is not simply the written law, but this traditional interpretation of it. In the same way, we can conceive of men now accepting the Bible as their standard, and yet admitting to an equal authority an interpretation of it contained in creed or confession, and really referring to this when they use the terms, Biblical or unbiblical.
25. ΚὶλγιAnd he says.
Omit ατςTisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBCL 33, 69, mss. of Lat. Vet. Vulg. Memph. etc. λγι says, instead of ἔεε, said, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אCL 33, 69, mss. of Lat. Vet. Memph. etc.
26. οκντῦΘο—the house of God is a generic term that would apply either to the tent or tabernacle in which the Jews at first worshipped, or to the later temple. Here, of course, the former. It was called the house of God, because in a sense God dwelt there, manifesting his presence in the inner shrine, the Holy of Holies.
ἐὶἈιθρἀχεέςin the high-priesthood of Abiathar.
Omit τῦbefore ἀχεέςTisch. Treg. marg. WH. RV. אBL Γetc.
In the account of this in 1Sa_21:1, sqq., Abimelech was high-priest, and Abiathar, his son, does not become high-priest until the reign of David. See ch. 22:21. To be sure, other passages in the O.T. make the same confusion of names, making Abimelech, the son of Abiathar, high-priest in David’s time. But this does not explain our difficulty; it only shows that there is the same difficulty in the O.T. account. Nor does it relieve it to suppose that this means simply that the event took place during the lifetime of Abiathar, not during the high-priesthood. For the transaction took place between David and the high-priest; and the object of introducing the name would be to show in whose high-priesthood it took place, not simply in whose lifetime. The impropriety would be the same as if one were to speak of something that took place between the Bishop of Durham and some other person in the time of Bishop Westcott, when, as a matter of fact, Lightfoot was bishop, and it was only during the lifetime of Bishop Westcott. And the phrase itself means strictly, during the high-priesthood of Abiathar. If such disagreement were uncommon, it would be worth while to try somewhat anxiously to remove this difficulty; but, as a matter of fact, discrepancies of this unimportant kind are not at all uncommon in the Scriptures.
τὺ ἄτυ τςποέεςthe bread of setting forth. It is a translation of the Hebrew, לחםהפִָםbread of the face, or presence, given to twelve loaves of bread set in two rows on the table in the holy place of the tabernacle, or temple, and renewed by the priests every Sabbath. S. Lev_24:5-9. The Greek name, taken from the Sept., denotes the bread set forth before God. The Hebrew name, about which there has been naturally much curious writing, seems to mean that the bread, in some way, symbolized God’s presence. τὺ ἱρῖ—the priests.
τὺ ἱρῖ, instead of τῖ ἱρῦι Tisch. Treg. marg. WH. אBL.
τὺ ἱρῖ is the subject of φγῖ. The priests were allowed to eat the bread after it had been replaced by fresh loaves. In this case, there was no other bread, and when David and his hungry men appeared, it became a case of physical need against ritual law. Jesus cites it as a case decided by a competent authority and accepted by the people, showing the superiority of natural law to positive enactment, the same principle involved in the alleged illegal action of his disciples. And he evidently upholds the correctness of the principle, and not simply the authority of this precedent.
27. τ σβαο δὰτνἄθωο—the Sabbath was made on account of man, not man on account of the Sabbath. This is introduced to show the supremacy of man over the Sabbath. The statement that the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath follows directly from this. If the law antedates man, having its seat in God, as the moral law does, it becomes a part of the moral constitution of things, resident in God, to which man is subservient. But if it is something devised by God for the uses of man, then the subserviency belongs to the law, and man can adapt it to his uses, and set it aside, or modify it, whenever it interferes with his good. The law of the Sabbath, if not moral, is either natural or positive. Regarded as natural law, the principle involved is that of rest, and this places it in the same category as the law of day and night. As positive, it is a matter simply of enactment, and not of principle. And in both aspects it is liable to exceptions. It is only moral law which is lord of man, and so inviolable.
28. κρο—the noun is emphatic from its position. κὶτῦσβάο—also of the Sabbath, as well as of other things belonging to the life of man. This lordship, as we have seen, is true of everything else except moral law. Of that he would be administrator and interpreter, but not Lord. He would be ruler under the supreme law, but without the power to modify or set aside, as in the case of that which is made for man.
Weiss, Life of Jesus, contends that Jesus did not here, nor in fact anywhere, assume an attitude of independence towards the Jewish Law, but only towards the current traditional interpretation of it. But surely, the statement that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath, puts the Sabbath law in a separate class, and subordinates it to the moral law. Whereas, the O.T. throughout, not only makes the Sabbath a matter of moral obligation, but of the highest moral obligation. Judaism is a system of rules, Christianity of principles. And so far forth as the Sabbath is a rule, that is, so far as it is Jewish, Jesus does abrogate it in these words. Weiss confuses matters by neglecting this distinction.
This early statement of Jesus’ lordship, and its use of the term Son of Man as his official title, is a good specimen of the way in which he tacitly assumed his Messianic character under this title, while the doubt in which the whole nation stood of his claim shows that he was not understood to make it formally.
THE PERIOD OF CONFLICT CONTINUED
The third chapter continues the account of the Period of Conflict. It contains matter, however, which belongs to the period, but not to the conflict. It shows us Jesus attended by larger crowds than ever, drawn by the report of his deeds from the whole country, as far south as Jerusalem, and as far north as Tyre and Sidon. The growth of hostility against him is thus shown to be accompanied by an access of popularity with the people. The combination of these two features seems to his family to make the situation so dangerous, and his own action so unwise, that they think him distraught and seek to restrain him. In the midst of this is introduced the account of the appointment of the apostles, evidently in the connection, as assistants to him in his increasing work. The occasions of conflict are, first, the healing of a man with a palsied arm on the Sabbath, causing a renewal of the Sabbath controversy, and secondly, the charge of the Scribes that he casts out demons through Beelzebul, and that he himself is possessed by that prince of the demons. He himself brings on the controversy about the Sabbath by his question whether the Sabbath is a day for good or evil deeds, for killing or healing. And the charge of collusion with the devil he meets with the question whether Satan casts out Satan.
Tisch. Tischendorf.
Treg. Tregelles.
WH. Westcott and Hort.
RV. Revised Version.
אCodex Sinaiticus.
B Codex Vaticanus.
D Codex Ephraemi.
L Codex Regius.
28 Codex Regius.
33 Codex Regius.
Lat. Vet. Vetus Latina.
Memph. Memphitic.
1 See Win. 47, I. 64, 5.
2 The prep. with the anarthrous noun constitutes a phrase.
Vulg. Vulgate.
Pesh. Peshito.
1 χρῖ is transitive and has τ πὸ τνθρνfor its subject. On the repetition of the negative, see Win. 55, 9, b. On the construction of ὥτ with μ and the inf.—always so in N.T.—see Win. 55, 2, d.
AV. Authorised Version.
2 For other instances of this use of ὁλγςto denote in a general way the subject of Christian teaching, see 4:14-33, Luk_1:2.
3 This word belongs to Biblical Greek. The Greeks said πρλλμνς
4 See Win. 55, 5, g, β
marg. Revided Version marg.
Harcl. Harclean.
5 This is the only case of the use of this verb in the N.T.
6 χλσ commonly means to slacken, or relax, and to let down, when this involves slackening. κάατνis a late Greek word copied from the Latin grabatus. The Greeks said σίπυ.
1 See on 1:22.
2 In J. 20:23, Jesus extends this power to his disciples.
1 εκπτρνis a late word, and is used in the N.T. only in this phrase, εκπτρνἐτ. The Greek word for which of two is πτρν τ means strictly what, not which.
E Codex Basiliensis.
F Codex Borelli.
G Codex Wolfi A.
H Codex Wolfi B.
K Codex Cyprius.
ΔCodex Sangallensis
2 For passages, see Thay.-Grm. Lex. For a discussion of the date of the allegories in which the Messianic portion of the book occurs, see Schü N.Zg. II. III. 32. 2. Schü on the whole, favors the pre-Christian date.
3 Son alone is used by Jesus in Mat_11:27, Mat_21:37, Mat_28:19, referring to the Divine Sonship in the theocratic sense.
1 ἐερ is transitive, and the active is used here in the sense of the passive or middle. On the meaning of the verb, see on 1:31 footnote. In the passive or middle, in the sense peculiar to the N.T., the meaning is to rise from a reclining position.
C Codex Bezae.
13 Codex Regius.
1 In Greek, ἐίτμ means to displace or alter, and sometimes by itself, but generally with φεῶ, or τῦφοεν to put one beside himself, to derange. In the N.T., it is used always in the sense of amaze, or be amazed, except 3:21, 2Co_5:13, where the stronger meaning, to be distraught, reappears.
2 δξζι means properly to think, to have an opinion. To praise, or glorify, is the only N.T. use.
3 εδμνis sec. aor., with the vowel of the first aor.
4 See note on Mk.’s use of πλν v. 1
5 Note the difference from the aor. ἐῆθ which denotes the momentary past act.
Thay.-Grm. Thayer’s Grimm.
1 The repetition of the somewhat peculiar ἐὶτ τλνο in Mt. and Lk. is a strong sign of the interdependence of the Synoptics.
2 γντικτκῖθι it comes to pass, that, is a periphrase not unknown to the Greek, but its frequent recurrence in the Synoptics is probably due to Hebrew usage.
69 Codex Leicestrensis.
102 Codex Bibliothecae Mediceae.
1 The word ἁατλίis rare in Greek writers.
2 The double compound σννκιτ is found, outside of Biblical Greek, only in Byzantine and ecclesiastical writers. ἀαεμιitself belongs to later Greek, the earlier writers using κῖα and κτκῖα. See Thay.-Grm. Lex.
3 The insertion of κὶbefore ἰότςin v. 16 makes it necessary to connect ἠοοθυ with ἔεο, instead of with ἦα.
1 ὅιis here the indirect interrogative, taking the place of the direct, a usage unknown to earlier Greek, but occurring a few times in the Sept. and N.T.
A Codex Alexandrinus.
1 ἦ with the part is a stronger form of expressing the idea of the impf. than the tense. It is characteristic of Mk., and belongs to the picturesqueness of his style.
1 νμώ is a Biblical word.
S Codex Vaticanus.
1 .Codex Basiliensis
1 So Weiss.
2 So Morison.
ΓCodex Tischendorfianus