MARK CHAPTER 2
Introductory remarks:
Chapter two is a continuation of chapter one. Christ had been out in the villages surrounding Capernaum because of his notoriety among the religious element, after His healing of the leper, upon leaving the synagogue where He had been ministering; He had to leave the city and go into villages after the leper noised abroad the news of how Jesus had healed him. In this chapter and the first six verses of chapter three, we will study how that His popularity among the scribes and Pharisees will not be enhanced; as a matter of fact, they will become so annoyed that they will want Him exterminated (Mark 3:6). This chapter is outlined as follows: the healing of a paralytic vv. 1-12; the calling of Levi vv. 13-17; the question about fasting vv. 18-22; plucking grain on the Sabbath vv. 23-28.
The Healing of a Paralytic
(Matt. 9:1-8; Luke 5:17-26)
Verse 1, "And again he entered into Capernaum after some days; and it was noised that he was in the house."
LGT "And again He entered into Capernaum after [some] days it was heard that He was in the house."
"And again he entered into Capernaum after some days;"
After His first tour of the city, He spent some days in the villages; He is now back in what will become His headquarters.
Barnes notes:
"The number of days is not known. Probably he remained long enough in the desert to heal the sick that were brought to him, and give instructions to the multitudes that attended his preaching."
"And it was noised that he was in the house."
This no doubt was Peter's house where he had healed Peter's mother-in-law. It was soon learned that He was there and the multitudes began to gather. Jesus had tried to avoid the stigma of being a Wonder-Worker; His main objective was to preach Salvation through Him and the forgiveness of sins through His cross; Jesus came to die, and certainly not to feed the hungry and heal the sick; He came to die that we all might live.
On the fact of this being Peter's house, McGee gives us all a lesson in proper exegesis:
"When He came back, it says it was noised that He was in the house. The little Greek word the is really an adjective in the Greek and it is so declined [conjugated]. It is a modifier to the word house and refers to a very definite, particular house. So the question is: which house is mentioned in the first chapter of this gospel? In the first chapter we are told that after He had been in the synagogue that morning, He entered into the house of Simon and Andrew."
Verse 2, "And straightway many were gathered together, insomuch that there was no room to receive them, no, not so much as about the door: and he preached the word unto them."
LGT "And many were gathered together so that there was no longer any room, not even at the door, and He spoke to them the Word."
"After Jesus had completed his tour of the synagogues, he returned to Capernaum. The news of his coming immediately spread abroad. Life in Palestine was very public. In the morning the door of the house was opened and anyone who wished might come out and in. The door was never shut unless someone deliberately wished for privacy; an open door meant an open invitation for all to come in. In the humbler houses, such as this must have been, there was no entrance hall; the door opened directly on to the street. So, in no time, a crowd had filled the house to capacity and jammed the pavement round the door; and they were all eagerly listening to what Jesus had to say" (William Barclay).
Verse 3, "And they come unto him, bringing one sick of the palsy, which was borne of four."
LGT "And they come to Him bringing a paralytic, carried by four."
The sick man was brought in on a couch carried by four men, possibly his servants.
Verse 4, "And they could not come nigh unto him for the press, they uncovered the roof where he was: and when they had broken it up, they let down the bed wherein the sick of the palsy lay."
LGT "And not being able to come near to Him, because of the crowd, they uncovered the roof where he was, and dug through it, they let down the couch where the paralytic was lying."
Mark presents the details of how they dug through the tiles and plaster on the roof to let the sick man down to Jesus to be healed, is possible evidence that it was Peter's house, because it was Peter who related this Gospel to Mark, his traveling companion.
"An architectural feature of private homes of Roman times is still observable at some sites which have escaped the hands of greedy stone-robbers. At Avdat and Shivta in the Negev, in Petra and Hauran region of Syria, houses still stand with walls and roofs intact. Being far from a supply of timbers, these houses were roofed by means of arches springing from the walls at intervals of three feet . Thin slabs of limestone about three feet long were laid on the arches, and a lime cement covered the exterior. Ceilings and walls were plastered. This arch and slab technique gave a high-ceilinged, thick-walled house providing escape from the fierce summer sun and from the raw winter winds . These houses appear to be exceptionally sturdy . It is entirely possible that the houses in Palestine were built with this technique. One gospel story suggests the type of roof described here. When the paralytic's four friends tore off the roof of the house in which Jesus was teaching (Mark 2:1-5), their action would have meant a major destruction of a house with a roof constructed of poles, brush and mud. Even if one follows Luke's account, which describes the roof being made of tiles Luke 5:18-19, mutilation of the roof, while not so great as in a mud-roofed house, would still be so extensive as to wreak havoc with the property. If however, the story reports accurately, a house with and arch-and-slab roof would fit the condition described in the gospels. Slabs could be removed and replaced with no appreciable damage to the house. Without such an understanding the story becomes sheer hyperbole [exaggeration]" (H. Keith Beebe, Domestic Architecture of the New Testament-quoted by Pentecost).
Verse 5, "When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee."
LGT "And Jesus seeing their faith, says to the paralytic, Child, your sins are forgiven."
Christ saw the faith of these men and the sick man and He healed him, saying, "Child, thy sins be forgiven thee." I have no idea if the one paralyzed was in that condition because of sin in his life or not; this I do know, all sickness is the result of original sin; therefore, for the Lord to say, your sins be forgiven in the process of the healing is completely justified. The faith of the men that brought the sick man in was the basis of their salvation; they knew Christ would heal him, so they acted.
Verses 6, 7, "But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts. Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God?"
LGT "But there were some of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts, why this [man] does thus speak? He blasphemes. Who is able to forgive sins, unless one [is] the God?"
The Greek word for 'reasoning' is dialogizomenoi a present participle meaning to reason, ponder, or to deliberate; we get our English word dialogue from this Greek word; so it means that they had a discussion with themselves as to what they would say to Him. This is one of the accusations they will use against Christ when they bring Him to an illegal trial and then crucify him; He says thy sins be forgiven thee, so the Jews reason that He is claiming to be God.
This verse is a wonderful picture of the Deity of Christ. The scribes were their nit-picking every move Christ made. "Another of Mark's pictures through Peter's eyes. These scribes (and Pharisees, Luke 5:21) were there to cause trouble, to pick flaws in the teaching and conduct of Jesus. His popularity and power had aroused their jealousy. There is no evidence that they spoke aloud the murmur in their hearts, within themselves (Matt. 9:3). It was not necessary, for their looks gave them away and Jesus knew their thoughts (Matt. 9:4) and perceived their reasoning (Luke 5:22)" (Robertson).
"The Pharisees and teachers of the law then accused Jesus of blasphemy. Rabbinical theology taught that all physical infirmity was a sign of divine displeasure and came as a punishment from God for specific sin. Since God was the One displeased with sin, and the One who, according to the Rabbis, had punished this paralytic because of sin, only God could forgive sin. Christ was, then, claiming prerogatives that belong to God" (Pentecost).
Verse 8, "And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts?"
LGT "And immediately Jesus, fully aware in His Spirit, that thus they are reasoning among themselves, He says to them, Why are you reasoning these things in your hearts?"
The Greek word for 'perceived' is epignous, which is, epi=fully plus nous=mind, awareness, so we have Jesus being fully aware of what the scribes and Pharisees were thinking. Jesus read their minds completely through His Spirit; He didn't need to hear them with His ears.
Verse 9, "Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk?"
LGT "Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, The sins have been forgiven you, or to say, Arise, take up your couch and walk?"
Jesus answers the experts, after reading their minds, with this terrific logic; any charlatan could say take up your bed and walk; but with Him saying it, He will also prove that He is the true One, when the paralytic will arise and walk; you see, if Christ can make the paralytic whole, He must be God, and if He is God, then He is able to forgive sins; only God can perform miracles of healing, and only God can forgive sins; Jesus proves to do both.
Verses 10, 11, "But that ye know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,) I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house."
LGT "But, in order that you might know that the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins upon the earth - He says to the paralytic, To you I say, Arise, and take up your couch and go into your house."
Here in this verse Jesus gives the reason that He said your sins are forgiven is that they all might know that He was the Messiah; He could have said either with the same success, but He said what He said to prove He was the Son of God.
Robertson wrote:
"The scribes could have said either of the alternatives in verse 9 with equal futility. Jesus could say either with equal effectiveness. In fact Jesus chose the harder first, the forgiveness, which they could not see. So He now performs the miracle of healing which all could see, that all could know that (the Son of Man, Christ's favorite designation of Himself, a claim to be the Messiah in terms that could not be easily attacked) He really had the authority and power (exousian) to forgive sins. He has the right and power here on earth to forgive sins, here and now without waiting for the Day of Judgment."
Verse 12, "And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion."
LGT "And he immediately arose and having taken up the couch, and went away before all, so that all were amazed, and glorified the God, saying, that never did we see [it] thus."
When the man picked up his couch and went home, it was unnecessary for Christ to say anything more. If our modern day so-called faith healers could perform such miracles, they wouldn't need to set-up their schemes with stage actors; they all know that they themselves are phonies, however, the audiences deliberately let themselves get emotionally charged, in order to allow themselves to be deceived and be duped.
The people were so thrilled at what they saw they praised God, saying, we have never seen the likes of this, with the exception of the scribes and Pharisees, who were amazed but stopped short of praise, however, Jesus, by this act, did shut their mouths.
The Calling of Levi
(Matt. 9:9-13; Luke 5:27-32)
Verse 13, "And he went forth again by the sea side; and all the multitude resorted unto him, and he taught them."
LGT "And He went away again by the side of the sea; and all the crowd came to Him, and He taught them."
The crowds kept coming to Him, and He kept teaching them (Vincent). Jesus did not leave to get away from the crowd, or else they would not have been able to find Him. What Christ did was to get away just for refreshment; anyone who has walked by the side of the sea along the sand at twilight knows exactly how refreshing and peaceful it can be.
"He was walking by the seaside and teaching. That was one of the commonest ways for a Rabbi to teach. As the Jewish Rabbis walked the roads from one place to another, or as they strolled in the open air, their disciples grouped themselves around and walked with them and listened as they talked. Jesus was doing what any Rabbi might have done" (Barclay).
Verse 14, "And as he passed by, he saw Levi the son of Alpheus sitting at the receipt of customs, and said unto him, Follow me. And he arose and followed him."
LGT "And passing by, He saw Levi, the son of Alpheus, sitting at the tax office, and He says to him, Follow Me. And having arisen, he followed Him."
How different was Matthews response to Christ that those who gave every excuse from 'burying their father' to 'taking care of family business first.' Matthew left his lucrative trade and immediately followed Christ. Levi was his given name; Matthew his apostolic name.
McGee wrote:
"This is the call of Levi, or Matthew. Matthew, by the way, belonged to the tribe of Levi. Imagine that1 He belonged to the priestly tribe and here he has become a publican, of all things. And, by the way, this should answer the question about the ten lost tribes. This is one of the many places where we find an individual who belongs to another tribe besides Judah. When anyone tries say there are ten lost tribes today, they must be on an Easter-egg hunt. Friend, those tribes were not lost. Here is one of them right here, a man of the tribe of Levi becoming one of the disciples of our Lord. Our Lord is calling him here in this remarkable incident. You may remember that Matthew, in his Gospel record, told us nothing about the fact that he gave a great dinner and invited some of his friends - the only kind of friends he had were sinners."
Verse 15, "And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him."
LGT "And it came to be as He reclined at the table, in his house, and many tax-gatherers and sinners were reclining together with Jesus and His disciples: for there were many, and they followed Him."
Jesus came into the world to 'seek and to save that which was lost' and what better way to start then with Levi the tax collector. How different from the Pharisees was Jesus' plan. Levi chose a profession that literally cut him off from respectable Jewish people. He was an outcast, and his friends were of the same ilk. How could Jesus, accept an invitation to sit down to eat with publicans and sinners?
Pentecost notes;
"Because of his position, Levi was considered unclean and unfit to fellowship in Jewish society. Yet Christ commanded him, Follow me. Levi was under great financial obligation to Rome; yet he considered the authority of Christ greater than that of Rome and he left everything and followed Him. Levi made his identification with Christ public by holding a great banquet in Jesus' honor at his house. The righteous Jews of the community would not have responded to an invitation to come to the house of a tax collector; so the banquet was filled with fellow tax collectors and others who fell into the category of sinners. Jesus did not draw back from association with such people."
Verse 16, "And when the scribes and Pharisees saw him eat with publicans and sinners, they said unto his disciples, How is it that he eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners?"
LGT "And the Scribes [and] Pharisees, having seen that He was eating with the sinners and the tax collectors, said to His disciples, Why [is it] that He eats with tax collectors and sinners?"
Being too good to enter the house of a publican or a sinner, the religious rogues, probably stood outside with their self-righteous heads together pointing their fingers at Christ saying to His disciples; What in the world is matter with your Christ, sitting there amongst that rabble.
"The Pharisees and the teachers of the law found Jesus' conduct most objectionable and challenged the disciples to explain why Jesus would fellowship with tax collectors and sinners. The inference was that if Jesus were what He claimed to be, He would have sought their company rather than the company of those with whom He was then eating" (Pentecost).
Verse 17, "When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."
LGT "And having heard [it], Jesus says to them, They have not need of a physician who are strong, but the ones who are ill: I came not to call the righteous but sinners."
The Pharisees only thought they were righteous, but the truth of the matter is there were only sinners there, except Him. What a beautiful answer Christ gives; we don't call the doctor if we are well, only if we get sick; and the inference is that they were all sin-sick.
The Question about Fasting
(Matt. 9:14-17; Luke 5:33-39)
Verse 18, "And the disciples of John and of the Pharisees used to fast: and they come and say unto him, Why do the disciples of John and of the Pharisees fast, but thy disciples fast not?"
LGT "And the disciples of John and the Pharisees were fasting; and they come and say to Him, Why the disciples of John and the Pharisees fast, but Your disciples fast not?"
The disciples of John the Baptist sided with the Pharisees in their religious custom of fasting, and the disciples of John are asking Jesus why He and His disciples are not. There was nothing in the Law of Moses that required men to fast; there were seven Feats days, but no fast days.
Pentecost notes:
"That John's disciples continued as an entity is evident from the fact that they approached Jesus with a question about fasting (Matt. 9;14). John had demanded repentance in connection with his baptism, and fasting coupled with prayer was a sign of that repentance. With this practice the Pharisees were in full agreement. Neither the Pharisees nor the disciples of John could understand why the disciples of Jesus did not practice fasting with prayer since Jesus like John had called for repentance. The question was addressed to Jesus as to why His disciples did not conform to common Jewish practice in this matter. Christ had frequently repudiated Pharisaic tradition, but this well-established tradition was practiced by John. Therefore, why did not Christ conform to this tradition? Christ answered in figurative language (which we will see in the verses following)."
Verse 19, "And Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the bride chamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast."
LGT "And Jesus said to them, Can the sons of the bride chamber, while the bridegroom is with them fast? As long as the bridegroom is with them, they cannot fast."
"Can the children of the bride chamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them?"
The phrase, 'children of the bridegroom' is literally sons of the bridegroom. This statement is different from the statement in John 'the friends of the bridegroom', in that, in the parable in John, the groomsmen are meant, while here the sons of the bridegroom refers to the guest at the wedding. Mark, Matthew, and Luke all give the three parables (bridegroom, unfurled cloth, new wineskins) illustrating and defending the conduct of Jesus in feasting with Levi on a Jewish feast-day. Luke 5:36 calls these parables. Jesus here seems iconoclastic [a breaker of idols] to the ecclesiastics and revolutionary in emphasis on the spiritual instead of the ritualistic and ceremonial" (Robertson). The sons of the bridegroom, the guest awaited the arrival of the Bridegroom, and then festivities began.
"As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast."
Jesus spoke of His friends, His disciples, as the guests of the bridegroom. "Jesus used a vivid picture to tell the Pharisees why his disciples did not fast. After a Jewish wedding, the couple did not go away for a honeymoon; they stayed at home. For a week or so, open house was kept and there was continual feasting and rejoicing. In lives that were hard [poor], a wedding week was the happiest time. To that week of happiness were invited the closest friends of the bride and the bridegroom, and they were called by the name children of the bride chamber. Jesus likened His little company to men who were children of the bride chamber, chosen guests at a wedding feast. There was actually a Rabbinic ruling which said, 'All in attendance on the bridegroom are relieved of all religious observances which would lessen their joy.' The wedding guests were actually exempt from all fasting" (Barclay).
Verse 20, "But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then shall they fast in those days."
LGT "But a day will come when the bridegroom will be taken away from them, and then, in that day they will fast."
Jesus here is referring to the Friday before His passion when He is arrested and then crucified. The friends of the bridegroom rejoice while Christ is with them, and then when He is taken away from them, all will go away sickened and saddened.
Verse 21, "No man also seweth a piece of new cloth on an old garment: else the new piece that filled it up taketh away from the old, and the rent is made worse. And no man putteth new wine into old bottles: else the new wine doth burst the bottles, and the wine is spilled, and the bottles will be marred: but new wine must be put into new bottles."
LGT "No one sews a new piece of cloth upon an old garment: or else the new piece, that fills it up takes away from the old, and a worse rent takes place. And no one puts new wine into old skins: or else the new wine bursts the skins, and the wine is destroyed and the skins: but new wine into new skins [is to be put]."
Jesus uses the illustration of sewing a new piece of cloth onto an old piece; when the clothing gets wet, the new piece shrinks and pulls away from the old garment. "Wine was kept in wine skins. There was no such thing as a bottle in our sense of the term. When these skins were new they had a certain elasticity; as they grew old they became hard and unyielding. New wine is still fermenting; it gives off gases; these gases cause pressure; if the skin is new it will yield to the pressure, but if it is old and hard and dry it will explode, and wine and skin alike will be lost" (Barclay).
"The parables clearly indicate that Christ did not come to reform and old and worn out system but to introduce something new (cf. Heb. 8:13).
To the Pharisees He said one cannot make an old garment acceptable by superimposing something new on it. And to John's disciples He said that what He was offering could not be superimposed on Pharisaism so as to reform it. What He offered also could not be contained in the old system. Rather, what He was introducing had to be entirely separated from the old. The incident closed with Christ's words that if men would taste His wine, that is, if they would accept what He was offering them, they would not want the old. However, the Pharisees, having tasted the old, were satisfied with it; they had no desire for what He was offering" (Pentecost).
Plucking Grain on the Sabbath
(Matt. 12:1-8; Luke 6:1-5)
Verse 23, "And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the Sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn."
LGT "And it came about, on the Sabbath, He went through a corn field, and His disciples began to make [their] way, plucking the ears."
"The corn is the Greek sporima, meaning sown fields of grain. It may have been barley, or it could have been wheat. The disciples were plucking the grain and eating, which the Pharisees interpreted as harvesting grain and threshing it on the Sabbath. The Law permitted people to pull the grain. We read in Deuteronomy 23:24-25: When thou comest into thy neighbor's vineyard, then thou mayest eat grapes thy fill at thine own pleasure: but thou shalt not put any in thy vessel. When thou comest into the standing corn of thy neighbor, then thou mayest pluck the ears with thine hand; but thou shalt not move a sickle unto thy neighbor's corn. Actually, they were following the Law. If they had put in a sickle, they would have been harvesting. But the Pharisees had put their own interpretation to it and would, therefore, interpret the action as breaking the Law" (McGee).
Verse 24, "And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the Sabbath day that which is not lawful?"
LGT "And the Pharisees said to Him, Behold, why do they on the Sabbath that which is not lawful?"
The Pharisees go directly to Christ charging His disciples with threshing and winnowing the wheat; but they are indirectly charging Christ with the offence. Actually it was only according to the Pharisee's improper interpretation of the Law that they were able to Charge Christ with breaking the Sabbath.
Verse 25, "And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was hungered, he, and they that were with him?"
LGT "And He said to them, Did you never read what David did, when he had need and was hungry, he and those with him?"
The Lord gives an example from their own King David. He doesn't admit to breaking the Sabbath, but proceeds to show them how ridiculous were their charges.
Shepherd writes:
"He ironically chides the Pharisees for their ignorance of these historical Scriptures. Did you never read, He said sarcastically, what David did when he had need and was hungry, he and they that were with him. How he entered into the house of God (at Nob) and ate the shew-bread. This was the principle of Necessity. It was perhaps the Sabbath when David committed the double offense of entering - being a mere layman - the house of God, and ate the shew-bread consecrated for priests only. Saul was in pursuit. David and his soldiers were hungry. The priest Abimelech had only the loaves of presentation - a dozen loaves placed on the table in the Sanctuary and at the end of the week substituted by fresh ones, the stale being used by the priests. Jesus wisely made use of this example first, which had justification in the precepts of the Rabbis, that danger to life superseded the Sabbath law and all other obligations (cf. Lev. 18:5)."
Verse 26, "How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?"
LGT "How he entered into the house of God when Abiathar was high priest, and did eat the loaves of proposition, which it is not lawful to eat except for the priests, and, and gave even to the ones who were with him?"
"How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiather the high priest,'
David went into the tabernacle at Nob, not the temple in Jerusalem built by his son Solomon.
"And did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?"
"The shewbread (Tous artous tas protheseos), lit. The loaves of proposition, i.e., the loaves which were set forth before the Lord. The Jews called them the loaves of the face, i.e., of the presence of God. The bread was made of the finest wheaten flour that had been passed through eleven sieves. There were twelve loaves, or cakes, according to the number of tribes, ranged in two piles of six each. Each cake was made of about five pints of wheat. They were anointed in the middle with oil, in the form of a cross. According to tradition, each cake was five hand-breadths broad and ten long, but turned up at either end, two hand-breadths on each side, to resemble in outline the Ark of the Covenant. The shewbread was prepared on Friday, unless that day happened to be a feast-day that required sabbatical rest; in which case it was prepared on Thursday afternoon. The renewal of the shewbread was the first of the priestly functions on the commencement of the Sabbath. The bread which was taken off was deposited on the golden table in the porch of the sanctuary, and distributed among the outgoing and incoming courses of priests (compare save for the priest). It was eaten during the Sabbath, and in the temple itself, but only by such priests as were Levitically pure. This old bread, removed on the Sabbath morning, was that which David ate" (Vincent).
On the reason David ate the shewbread is explained by Edersheim:
"In truth, the reason why David was blameless in eating the shewbread was the same as that which made the Sabbath-labor of the priests lawful. The Sabbath was not one merely of rest, but of rest for worship. The Service of the Lord was the object in view. The priests worked on the Sabbath, because this was the object of the Sabbath; and David was allowed to eat of the shew-bread, not because there was danger to life from starvation, but because he pleaded that he was in the service of the Lord, and needed this provision. The disciples, when following the Lord, were similarly in the service of the Lord; ministering to Him was more than ministering in the Temple, for He was greater than the Temple. If the Pharisees had believed this, they would not have questioned their conduct, nor in so doing have themselves infringed that higher Law which enjoined mercy, not sacrifice."
Verse 27, "And he said unto them, The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath;"
LGT "And He said to them, The Sabbath for the sake of man was made, and not man for the sake of the Sabbath:"
God created the Sabbath for the sake of man, that is, rest from his labors, and for the service of man, that is, for his opportunity to fellowship with other believers for worshipping around the Word of God; in the Old Testament, they would gather to hear the priests read from the Torah; in the New Testament we are to gather together to fellowship as a family in the study of God's complete Word.
Shepherd writes:
"The fourth point in the defense was based on the original idea of God in making the Sabbath and on the superiority of man to that institution. God made man and adapted the Sabbath to His use. It is a human necessity met by divine mercy. Man is more than any institution, whatever it may be. The state was made to serve man. Every institution of the church divinely found is for the proper service of mankind. The Sabbath should serve man's body, mind, and spirit. It should not be a day of pain, sorrow, and burdensome fear; but one of refreshment, peace, and joy."
Verse 28, "Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath."
LGT "So that the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath."
"Mark, Matthew (12:8), and Luke (6:5) all give this as a climax in the five reasons given by Christ on the occasion for the conduct of the disciples, but Mark has the little word even (kai) not in the others, showing that Jesus knew that He was making a great claim as the Son of Man, the representative Man, the Messiah looked at from His human interest, to lordship (kurios) even of the Sabbath. He was not the slave of the Sabbath, but the Master of it. Even of the Sabbath, so invaluable in your eyes. Lord, not to abolish, but to interpret and keep in its own place, and give it a new name" (Bruce - quoted by Robertson).
"During His ministry Jesus defended Himself only when His deity was attacked and His authority questioned. Since Israel's salvation depended on faith in His person as the Son of God, it was only on these occasions that He sought to defend Himself against His adversaries" (Pentecost)
Jesus will continue to defend His actions regarding the Sabbath in chapter three; there should not be a chapter break here, for chapter three is a continuation of chapter two.
Share freely but cite the source: http://bbbiblehelps.epizy.com