Mark 2
Healing of the Paralytic (Mark 2:1-12)
At some point, after many days, Jesus travels by boat across the Sea of Galilee and returns to Capernaum. The word goes out that Jesus had returned, and soon the house he was staying in was so crowded there was no room within or even nearby outside.
While there, a paralytic man is brought to Jesus by four men. They were unable to get to Jesus because of the crowd, so they went up on the roof, made a hole, and lowered the man on his bed down before Jesus.
Jesus, seeing the faith of the men who bore the bed, told the paralytic that his sins were forgiven. This immediately angered the scribes in the crowd because they knew that you could only forgive those who offended you. God Himself is the only person who can forgive sin because sin is an offense against God. Therefore, the scribes saw Jesus’ statement as blasphemous because it implied he was equal to God. Yet, they did not speak out against Jesus.
Jesus responded with two unquestionable proofs that he had the right to forgive sins; that is, that he was God. First, notice that no one said anything against Jesus verbally, but he responded to their thoughts as if they had spoken aloud. Only God can know the thoughts of a man (Psalms 44:21; 139:2; Jeremiah 17:10; Micah 7:18). Yet, here was Jesus telling them what they were thinking.
Next, Jesus offered another proof. Which is easier, Jesus asks, to forgive sin or to perform a miracle so that a paralyzed man can rise up and walk? From man’s viewpoint, words are easier than altering the course of the world. To prove that Jesus had the authority to forgive sins, he tells the man to rise up, pick up his bed, and go home.
All acknowledge that God's power did the miracles Jesus performed. But Jesus connected that power to the claim that he could forgive sins. If this were false, then God would not allow him to perform a miracle in order to support a lie. Yet, the miracle occurred, implying that God agreed that Jesus had the right to forgive sins. Thus, God Himself is testifying through miracles that Jesus was God (Hebrews 2:3-4).
The crowd marveled at the power granted to Jesus, but they failed to understand the implications. They only saw Jesus as a man to whom God had granted power unheard of in the past. They glorified God.
Matthew is Called (Mark 2:13-17)
As Jesus left town for the shores of the Sea of Galilee. A large crowd followed him, and he was teaching the people. He passed the tax office and saw Levi, the son of Alphaeus, sitting there. Jesus invited him to follow, and he immediately followed the Lord. Levi was also called Matthew. Matthew had likely heard of Jesus in the past, thus explaining his willingness to follow when called.
That evening, Jesus and his disciples dined at Matthew’s home. Matthew likely invited those he knew to the dinner. Other tax collectors and people whom the Jews viewed as sinners came to the dinner.
The Pharisees noted who attended the party and asked Jesus’ disciples why their teacher associated with tax collectors and sinners. Jesus overheard the question and pointed out that sick people, not healthy people, need a doctor. Jesus’ goal was to save people from their sins; to do this, he would have to associate with sinners.
It is a mistake people commonly make in the past and continues through modern times. Because people tend to spend time with people with whom they share things in common, people assume that anyone you associate with must share your beliefs and values.
Disciples Defended (Mark 2:18-22)
The day of Matthew’s feast was a traditional fast for the Pharisees and John’s disciples. As often happens, not liking the point Jesus had made, they sought to turn the tables by pointing out a less-than-stellar example in Jesus’ disciples. “Why,” they asked, “do the disciples of John and the Pharisees fast, but Jesus’ disciples eat and drink?” Since this is being brought up at a dinner party, they imply that the disciples are too frivolous for serious religious life.
Jesus puts the issue back into a proper perspective. Fasting had a purpose in expressing sorrow. There would be a time when he would no longer be around in the upcoming days, and the sorrow of those days would lead to fasting. But at the moment, Jesus, the bridegroom, is with them, and it is a time for joy. Fasting is not a ritual obligation but an expression of feeling. Thus, once again, the Pharisees emphasized the form and not the meaning of the law.
Jesus then illustrated his point:
You don’t repair an old garment with new cloth. New cloth shrinks when washed, and the new patch will tear the old garment when it is washed. Also, cloth fades over time, so you won’t be able to match the material.
Old wineskins harden over time and grape juice ferments (outgasses) as it sours, thus it is foolish to put grape juice in an old wineskin. The skin will end up splitting, leaving you with nothing – no drink and no container.
The religion of the Jews had become old, solidified, and ridged in its implementation. Any deviation, even if it is better, was rejected. Moreover, the existence of the change damaged the old because it is unable to adapt.
The Pharisees had fixed rules regarding fasting that went beyond what God had required, but rules that had existed for so long that they had become ingrained in Jewish society. Any deviation became a point of contention even though nothing that Jesus or his disciples did violated the laws of Moses. It was different, and so it was rejected. What the disciples did showed a better way existed, but in doing so, it exposed the uselessness and frailty of the ridged traditions the Jews were keeping.
The Jews saw the Messiah as a reformer of Judaism, patching up the old system. But Jesus illustrated the folly of using the new laws to patch up the old traditions. To do so would destroy both, and besides, people would tend to stay with the old because it was familiar. Judaism could not be patched. It had to be replaced (Galatians 5:1-4).
Picking on the Sabbath (Mark 2:23-28)
On some later Sabbath day, Jesus and his disciples walked past a grainfield. The disciples plucked some of the heads of grain to eat. There were some Pharisees with them, and they protested that what the disciples did was not lawful to do since it was a Sabbath day. The law did allow people to pluck grain from a field they did not own (Deuteronomy 23:25), but to the Pharisees, this constituted work that could not be performed on the Sabbath.
Jesus directs their attention to an event from David’s life recorded in I Samuel 21:1-6. While fleeing from Saul, David and the men with him stopped at the Tabernacle to ask for food. The only food available was the day-old bread from the table of showbread, which was about to be replaced with fresh loaves. It was only to be eaten by the priests (Leviticus 24:5-9), but the priest was willing to allow David to have the bread if he and his men were clean.
Jesus pointed out that what David did violated Moses’ law, but he implied that the Pharisees did not view it as a sin because he was a hero of their ancestors. They likely excused his actions because he and his men were hungry. Yet, when the disciples, who were also hungry, did what was not against the law, the Pharisees sought to condemn them.
The Pharisees had lost sight of mercy in their eagerness to impose rules to keep people from sinning. Their rules prevented good from being done on the Sabbath. The Sabbath was from God and was designed to benefit man, but their traditions had caused it to be an opportunity where men were harmed.
His final argument was that he was Lord of the Sabbath. By this, Jesus is not claiming the right to rewrite the laws regarding the Sabbath, but that as the author of the Sabbath, he, of all people, would know whether the Sabbath was being broken. He would not have permitted his disciples to break his laws as the Lord. Therefore, plucking grain to satisfy hunger was not "work" in the eyes of the law's author.
