OVERVIEW
The purpose of this section is to describe the opening stage of the Galilean ministry. The introductory statement (1:14–15) forms a transition from the ministry of John to that of Jesus. This transition is followed by the account of the calling of the first disciples (vv.16–20), Jesus’ ministry in and around Capernaum (vv.21–34), and a series of conflict stories (2:1–3:6) that reach their climax in a plot to put Jesus to death (3:6). The central theme is the authority of Jesus and the opposition it provokes. Jesus demonstrates his authority as Messiah and Son of God by proclaiming the message of the kingdom, calling disciples, teaching with authority, healing the sick, casting out demons, and forgiving sins. Opposition comes first from demons and then from the religious leaders—thereby emphasizing just where the battle lines are drawn in the spiritual struggle ahead.
14After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. 15“The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!”
COMMENTARY
14 The opening of Jesus’ public ministry is related to that of John the Baptist. Not until “after John was put in prison” (v.14) did Jesus begin his ministry. Mark will later describe the imprisonment and subsequent execution of John in a narrative flashback (6:14–29). His interest here is to show that John, the forerunner, completed his God-appointed task before Jesus began his ministry. There is both continuity and discontinuity between Jesus and John. While John is the forerunner, Jesus is the Messiah. Their messages are also similar, yet distinct. John proclaims the need to repent in the light of the soon arrival of eschatological judgment. Jesus also calls for repentance, but he announces the arrival of God’s presence and kingdom through his own words and actions. What for John is still future comes to fulfillment in Jesus. This continuity/discontinuity between Jesus and John is reflected elsewhere in the Gospels. In Luke Jesus announces, “The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached” (Lk 16:16). John has one foot in both ages—the age of promise and the age of fulfillment. He is the last and greatest of the OT prophets (Mt 11:9–11; Lk 7:26–28) and the herald of the messianic age of salvation.
Although Mark gives neither the exact place nor the precise time of the beginning of Jesus’ ministry (he shows little interest in such details), he says that the content of Jesus’ preaching is “the good news of God.” God is both its source (subjective genitive) and object (objective genitive); it is from God and about God. The gospel is good news, the very best news ever to come to the hearing of humanity, because it contains the message of forgiveness, restoration, and new life in Christ Jesus (cf. 2Co 5:17).
15 Jesus witnesses to God’s action for human salvation by saying, “The time has come.” Time here is not simply a chronological reference—it refers to the eschatological time of salvation (cf. Gal 4:4). Redemptive history has been building to this climactic moment. “[Jesus] marks the fulfillment of the special salvation-time which is distinguished from all other time” (Schweizer, 45).
The concept of the kingdom of God is basic to the teaching of Jesus. Although the term “kingdom of God” does not occur in either the OT or the Apocrypha, the idea is abundantly present in both. The OT is full of such statements as “the LORD will reign for ever and ever” (Ex 15:18); “the LORD is enthroned as King forever” (Ps 29:10); and “I am the LORD, your Holy One, Israel’s Creator, your King” (Isa 43:15).
An examination of such passages reveals that the Lord’s kingship is both a present reality (God is exercising his authority now) and a future hope (God will reign in the eschaton—the end—when he finally puts down all opposition to his reign). His kingship can refer to a dynamic reign, God’s spiritual authority in the lives of his people, or a static realm, a messianic kingdom centered in Jerusalem. In short, the kingdom could be conceived as present and future, a reign and a realm. The apocalyptic Judaism of Jesus’ day acknowledged the present reality of God’s sovereign authority but placed greatest emphasis on the future and eschatological dimensions of the kingdom. The persecuted people of God longed for the day when God would intervene in human history to actualize his reign and establish his kingdom on earth.
The same tension between the kingdom of God as both present and future exists in the teaching of Jesus in Mark. Jesus speaks of “receiving” the kingdom of God like a little child (10:15) and the difficulty of entering for those who are rich (10:23–25; cf. 9:47). The parable of the growing seed describes the kingdom as the slow growth from seed to plant until the day of harvest (4:26–29). Similarly, the parable of the mustard seed represents the kingdom as a tiny seed that grows into a great tree (4:30–32). In both parables the kingdom is something that begins with Jesus’ ministry and is consummated at his return. After driving out the demons from a possessed man and being accused of being in league with Beelzebul, Jesus replied, “But if I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you” (Mt 12:28; cf. Lk 11:20). In Jesus’ actions, God’s rule has invaded this world. It is present with people.
But in other sayings the kingdom is spoken of as still future. Jesus speaks of those who in the future will see the kingdom of God come with power (Mk 9:1) and refers to a future time when he will drink wine again in the kingdom of God (14:25). Joseph of Arimathea is longing for the kingdom of God (15:43), and at the triumphal entry the people express their hope in “the coming kingdom of our father David!” (11:10). While this latter passage could reflect a misapprehension on the part of the people, the future establishment of the kingdom is implied in Jesus’ teaching concerning the coming of the Son of Man “with great power and glory . . . to gather the elect” (13:26–32; cf. 8:38; 13:33–34; 14:62). This teaching of the future establishment of God’s reign is in line with the expectations of apocalyptic Judaism.
Jesus’ central message here, “the kingdom of God is near,” itself suggests this ambiguity between present and future aspects of the kingdom. The Greek verb ēngiken (perfect tense of engizō, GK 1581) could be translated as either “has arrived” or “has come near.” It could denote presence either now or in the future and may be intentionally ambiguous.
The solution to the dilemma of both a present and a future kingdom is not to be found in rejecting one or the other (as, e.g., in realized eschatology’s rejection of a future kingdom and consistent eschatology’s rejection of a present kingdom). The ambiguity is best explained by seeing the kingdom as intimately related to the person of Jesus. The kingdom has come near because the king is present. It has drawn near spatially (in Jesus’ person) and temporally (since it ushers in the events of the end). God’s reign is evident in Jesus’ healings, exorcisms, and nature miracles. His disciples experience the power of the kingdom—driving out demons and healing the sick—through his authority (5:7, 13). If the kingdom is directly related to the person of Jesus, then it is ultimately achieved through his death on the cross, the ransom for sins. The kingdom is realized not through conquest but through sacrifice. It will be consummated when he returns in power and glory.
The appropriate response is repentance and faith. There is an urgency about the nearness of God’s kingdom. Since it ushers in the end, it speaks of judgment. Jesus proclaims God’s kingdom so that people will repent and believe the gospel.
NOTES
14 The words translated “was put in prison” represent the Greek word παραδοθῆναι (paradothēnai, GK 4140, “to be delivered over”). The NIV assumes the delivering over was to prison. It is possible, however, especially if Mark is more interested in theology than historical sequence, that the delivering over is to death (see comments at 6:14–29). By this means, Mark wants to heighten the similarity between John’s and Jesus’ ministries. They both end in death. Thus the shadow of the cross falls over the ministry of Jesus at its very outset.
On “the good news of God,” see comments at 1:1. Dan Wallace (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics [Grand Rapids: Zondervan], 119) calls the combination of subjective and objective genitives a “plenary genitive.”
15 The verb πιστεύω (pisteuō, “believe”) is followed by the preposition ἐν (en, “in”)—the only occurrence of this combination in the NT. It probably means simply “believe the gospel” (the “in” being an example of “translation Greek”; i.e., the Greek carries over the Hebrew idiom).
OVERVIEW
Jesus has begun to preach his message. Now he must gather around him disciples whom he can teach so that they may become sharers in that message. God’s reign does not operate in a void. It assumes a people—a people subject to that rule. It involves the formation of a community. Verses 16–20 contain two “call narratives,” analogous in many respects to Elijah’s call of Elisha in 1 Kings 19:21.
After the dramatic announcement of the kingdom of God (the climax and turning point of redemptive history!), the recipients of Jesus’ call are surprisingly unexceptional—a few common fishermen going about their daily lives. Already in Mark’s gospel the fulfillment of the promise is taking a surprising turn. R. T. France, 94, writes, “The kingdom of God comes not with fanfare but through the gradual gathering of a group of socially insignificant people in an unnoticed corner of provincial Galilee.”
Three of these four men—Simon, James, and John—will form in Mark’s gospel the core of Jesus’ disciples, sometimes referred to as the “inner circle” (5:37; 9:2; 14:33; with Andrew in 13:3). Simon will not be identified as “Peter”—the name Jesus gave him—until 3:16, where Mark lists the twelve disciples.
16As Jesus walked beside the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and his brother Andrew casting a net into the lake, for they were fishermen. 17“Come, follow me,” Jesus said, “and I will make you fishers of men.” 18At once they left their nets and followed him.
19When he had gone a little farther, he saw James son of Zebedee and his brother John in a boat, preparing their nets. 20Without delay he called them, and they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired men and followed him.
COMMENTARY
16 Jesus found Simon and his brother Andrew along the shore of the Sea of Galilee. This beautiful body of water—682 feet below sea level, fourteen miles long, and six miles wide—is an inland lake. (Luke calls it the “Lake [limnē] of Gennesaret” [5:1]; another designation was “Sea of Tiberias.”) Much of Jesus’ ministry took place near this lake. In NT times there were numerous towns along its shores, especially the northern and western ones. Since its waters abounded with fish, the local fishing industry flourished. Simon and Andrew were “casting a net” (amphiballontas) into the sea—probably from shore, but possibly from a boat—when Jesus called them. They were probably using a round throw net, a common way of fishing around Galilee. The net would be about fifteen feet across and weighted around the edges. When thrown, it would sink to the bottom, trapping the fish. It could then be gathered in and the fish removed.
17–18 Mark says nothing of a previous encounter of these two disciples with Jesus (cf. Jn 1:35–42). Even if he was aware of such a tradition, it is doubtful whether he would have used it. Mark wants to show the urgency of the situation, as consistent with the eschatological significance of Jesus’ mission.
In its Markan context, “Come, follow me” is a call to discipleship, a relationship of loyalty to a master teacher. Jesus’ call is different from the common pattern of Jewish rabbis, whose students would seek out and attach themselves to a particular teacher to learn the Law and pass on the traditions of the fathers. In contrast, Jesus—the teacher—seeks out and authoritatively calls particular disciples to himself. He expects their immediate response and full devotion to his person and to the message of the kingdom of God (cf. Hengel, Charismatic Leader and His Followers, 51).
The wordplay in English between being “fishermen” and “fishers of men” is not present in the Greek, since the Greek word “fishers” (halieis) does not have “men” as a component part. The striking contrast to which Jesus calls these men is between catching fish and catching people (anthrōpoi). The image of fishing for people appears in the OT, always in the context of judgment (e.g., Jer 16:16; Eze 29:4–5; 38:4; Am 4:2; Hab 1:14–17). This connotation may be present here in the light of the eschatological implications of Jesus’ kingdom proclamation. If so, however, Jesus reverses the image, and the fish are caught for salvation rather than judgment. Jesus calls Simon and Andrew to the urgent task of rescuing people from the impending judgment that the coming of the kingdom entails. The urgency demands an immediate response. “At once” (euthys) the two fishermen left their nets and followed him (v.18). Though Mark’s favorite term euthys does not always carry the sense of immediacy (cf. 1:21), here that is precisely the point. Jesus’ authoritative call provokes immediate obedience.
19–20 The same call is now extended to James and John, sons of Zebedee. The phrase sometimes translated “mending their nets” (KJV, NKJV, NASB) does not necessarily mean “repair” but carries the sense of “putting in order.” This would entail washing, folding, and mending the nets in preparation for the night’s fishing (cf. Cranfield, 71). The NIV and TNIV accurately render it as “preparing their nets.”
Like Peter and Andrew, James and John respond without any hesitation to Jesus’ call (euthys, v.20). In their case something of the price of discipleship is indicated by the breaking of family ties—the leaving of their father’s business. The mention of the hired men may imply that Zebedee was a man of wealth. It may also be included to indicate that by leaving their father to follow Jesus, James and John were not leaving him entirely alone to run his fishing business. The OT and Judaism strongly affirm the need for children to respect and honor their parents (cf. 7:10–12; 10:19). Yet Jesus also calls for a radical reorientation of family ties (3:34–35; 10:28–29). The main emphasis in this call, as in that of Simon and Andrew, is the authority of Jesus and the immediate response it provokes.
NOTES
18 The verb ἀκολουθέω (akoloutheō, GK 199, “follow”) is frequently used in the Gospels “to describe attachment to the person of Jesus, personal surrender to his summons, and acceptance of his leadership” (Taylor, 169). For an excellent statement of the concept of discipleship in Mark’s gospel, see Schweizer, 49.
OVERVIEW
In vv.21–34 Mark records what seems to have occurred on one memorable Sabbath day. The first incident occurred in the synagogue in Capernaum. “Synagogue” can refer either to the local congregation or to the building in which the congregation met. The synagogue apparently originated in the Babylonian exile as the result of Jews’ meeting together for prayer and the study of the Torah. In NT times synagogues were found all over the Hellenistic world wherever there were sufficient numbers of Jews to maintain one. The synagogue became Judaism’s most enduring institution.
21They went to Capernaum, and when the Sabbath came, Jesus went into the synagogue and began to teach. 22The people were amazed at his teaching, because he taught them as one who had authority, not as the teachers of the law. 23Just then a man in their synagogue who was possessed by an evil spirit cried out, 24“What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!”
25“Be quiet!” said Jesus sternly. “Come out of him!” 26The evil spirit shook the man violently and came out of him with a shriek.
27The people were all so amazed that they asked each other, “What is this? A new teaching—and with authority! He even gives orders to evil spirits and they obey him.” 28News about him spread quickly over the whole region of Galilee.
COMMENTARY
21 Capernaum was the home of Simon Peter and became a kind of base of operations for Jesus’ Galilean ministry. Tell Hum, located on the northwestern corner of the Sea of Galilee, almost certainly marks the site of Capernaum. The remains of a fourth-century synagogue are present today and may well sit atop the synagogue of Jesus’ day. On the Sabbath Jesus enters the synagogue with his disciples (who then disappear from the narrative until v.29) and “began to teach” (edidasken, inceptive or ingressive imperfect). Jesus, like Paul (cf. Ac 13:15), uses the “freedom of the synagogue”—a Jewish custom that permitted recognized visiting teachers to preach in the synagogue by invitation of its leaders. The sermon or homily would normally be exposition on the daily readings from the Law and the Prophets (cf. Lk 4:15–30, where Jesus exposits Isa 61:1–2).
22 Characteristically, Mark does not provide the content of Jesus’ preaching (it would certainly have concerned the good news of the kingdom; see 1:15). Mark often identifies Jesus as a teacher yet provides fewer examples of the content of this teaching than the other synoptic writers. Mark’s interest is rather on the authority with which Jesus speaks and the amazed reaction of the people. The verb rendered “were amazed” is exeplēssonto (cf. 6:2; 7:37; 10:26; 11:18), a compound from plēssō (GK 4448, “strike, smite”). It has a very strong meaning. People were astonished at Jesus’ teaching “because he taught them as one who had authority, and not as the teachers of the law.”
The NIV and TNIV regularly translate grammateis as “teachers of the law.” Most readers of the Bible know them as “scribes.” Sometimes called “lawyers” (nomikoi; see Lk 7:30; 10:25; 11:45) or “law teachers” (nomodidaskaloi; see Lk 5:17), they were experts in the interpretation and application of the law of Moses. Many were Pharisees (Mk 2:16; Ac 23:9), though there were also Sadducees and priests among them (cf. Mt 2:45; 21:15). The scribes traced their origin back to the priest Ezra, who established postexilic Judaism based on the law (Ezr 7:6–26; Ne 8:1–9). Jesus often came into conflict with them, especially over the issue of the authority of his words and actions. The scribes generally taught by citing the “traditions of the fathers,” the authoritative traditions of those who had come before them (“Rabbi so-and-so says such-and-such”). Jesus spoke instead with authority directly from God.
23 Suddenly the synagogue service was disrupted by the cry of a man “possessed by an evil spirit.” The word translated “evil” in the NIV (akathartos, GK 176) normally carries the sense of “unclean” or “defiled.” An “unclean spirit” is a Jewish way of referring to a demon, a spirit-being in opposition to God. Mark uses “unclean spirit” (eleven times) and “demon” (fourteen times) synonymously. For the second time in Mark, Jesus comes in conflict with the power of Satan (cf. 1:13), thus emphasizing again the spiritual nature of this struggle.
Although the belief that sickness or deviant behavior can be attributed to demon-possession has often been relegated in modern times to superstition or obscurantism, recent developments in the study of the occult and demonism have tended to leave the question more open. Reports of demon-possession now come not only from distant and remote mission fields but also from the most sophisticated of our urban centers. A postmodern worldview and the recognition that science cannot explain every experience of phenomena in the world have also produced greater openness to the reality of the spirit world. In this context the NT accounts of demonism do not seem so bizarre after all.
24 Although v.23 states that the man cried out, it was really the controlling demon who shouted. Notice that Jesus speaks directly to the demon in v.25. The phrase rendered in the NIV “What do you want with us?” (lit., “What to us and to you?”) is a Hebrew idiom that can carry the sense “What do you have against us?” (cf. Jdg 11:12; 1Ki 17:18) or “What relationship do we have with you?” (cf. 2Ki 3:13; Hos 14:8; see Marcus, 187). Both carry the implication “Leave us alone!” (cf. France, 103). The “us” shows that the demon speaks for his fellow demons too, thus reiterating the spiritual nature and eschatological significance of Jesus’ coming. Not just one demon but the whole demonic realm quakes in fear at the recognition that Jesus has come to conquer their realm and to rescue those enslaved by Satan. The inbreaking power of the kingdom of God will overwhelm the ramparts of Satan. The question “Have you come to destroy us?” could just as well be a statement of fact (since punctuation marks were added later to the MSS): “You have come to destroy us!” Whether a question or a statement, the demons recognize the eschatological significance of Jesus’ arrival and the judgment against them that it entails. In the same eschatological vein, John writes that “the Son of God appeared . . . to destroy the devil’s work” (1Jn 3:8).
The utterance of the name of Jesus and his title “the Holy One of God” may have been an attempt by the demon to get control over Jesus. In the ancient world, knowledge of the name of a spirit-being was widely considered a way of gaining power over it. In the pseudepigraphic Jewish-Christian work Testament of Solomon, Solomon uses a magic seal ring given to him by Michael the archangel to learn the names of various demons and then coerce their help in building the temple (T. Sol. 1:7). Though this work postdates the NT, its traditions probably come from much earlier (cf. Josephus, Ant. 8.2.5 §§42–49, where Solomon’s gifts of exorcism are described).
The title “Holy One of God” is not used of the Messiah in the OT, though it is appropriate for the one set apart to accomplish God’s salvific purposes. It is used of Aaron in Psalm 106:16 and Elisha in 2 Kings 4:9. The title may be used here in contrast to the “unclean” spirit, since in Hebrew thought hagios (GK 41, “holy”) is roughly synonymous with katharos (GK 2754, “clean”). While the demon is “unclean” or defiled, Jesus is “holy,” in unity with the purpose of God.
25–26 Unlike other exorcists of his day, Jesus needed no secret formulas, incantations, or magical objects to exorcise the demon. He accomplished the task through his own authority. After ordering it to “Be quiet!” (v.25), Jesus simply spoke a word of power, and the evil spirit convulsed the man “and came out of him with a shriek” (v.26).
Why did Jesus command silence, since the demon was correctly identifying Jesus as the Holy One of God, whose mission was to destroy Satan’s agents? The command should be seen first of all as evidence of Jesus’ authority and complete mastery over the forces of Satan. It may also be Jesus’ attempt to avoid “bad press,” since the demons would inevitably distort his message. Jesus seeks to define his messiahship and mission on his own terms rather than through demonic recognition or the popular expectations of the people. The command to silence is unlikely to be part of a “messianic secret” invented by Mark (see Introduction, p. 674, and comments at 9:9). Jesus’ fame will spread soon enough in Mark’s narrative (see 1:28).
27–28 Mark again reports the reaction of the people. Their amazement, which also reveals some alarm, prompted them to ask one another, “What is this?” The answer stresses both the newness of Jesus’ teaching and its authority. They had had no previous experience with this kind of teaching. Jesus’ authority was inherent within himself and therefore did not have to appeal to spells or incantations to exorcise the demon. One command accomplished it. The inevitable result was that Jesus’ fame was spread “over the whole region of Galilee” (v.28). The amazement of the crowds coupled with the popularity that results is an important theme throughout Mark’s gospel (see Dwyer, Motif of Wonder).
NOTES
24 See Hull, Hellenistic Magic, 67–69, for the use of a name to gain mastery over a demonic presence.
25 Guelich, 58, suggests that commands for silence were standard procedure for an exorcism.
OVERVIEW
Mark indicates that this healing occurred immediately after the synagogue service and so was part of the long day of ministry in Capernaum described in vv.21–34. It is still the Sabbath, so the passage confirms that Jesus has no qualms about healing on that day (cf. 3:1–6). The eyewitness details suggest the account may have come from Peter’s own recollection.
29As soon as they left the synagogue, they went with James and John to the home of Simon and Andrew. 30Simon’s mother-in-law was in bed with a fever, and they told Jesus about her. 31So he went to her, took her hand and helped her up. The fever left her and she began to wait on them.
COMMENTARY
29–31 Jesus leaves the synagogue and enters the house of Simon and Andrew, which appears to have been close by. The fact that Peter was married is also attested by Paul (1Co 9:5). Peter’s mother-in-law is described as sick with a “fever” (vv.30–31), a general description that may refer to a symptom or to the disease itself. In the light of Jesus’ growing reputation as a miracle worker, the statement “they told Jesus about her” is probably not just a point of information but actually an indirect request for healing. The healing is described simply: “He went to her, took her hand and helped her up” (v.31). Whereas Jesus performed the previous exorcism with a command (v.25), here he heals with a touch—a common pattern in Mark (1:41; 5:41; 6:5; 7:32–33; 8:23–25; cf. 3:10; 5:27; 6:56). Touching is a sign of compassion and identification with the sufferer.
The narrator notes that as the fever left her, she got out of bed and began to serve the needs of her guests (probably by preparing food for them). The statement about her service likely has two purposes: to show that the cure was instantaneous and complete and to demonstrate her restoration to spiritual service. The purpose of healing is to empower for service. There is no negative or demeaning sense in her actions. Even the Son of Man came to serve, not to be served (10:45). The statement also recalls the ministry of the angels to Jesus in the desert (1:13).
NOTES
29 Archaeologists have discovered an ancient house in Capernaum that may have been the home of Peter and Andrew. It is located just south of the synagogue, and inscriptions in the ruins suggest it was venerated by early Christians. An octagonal church was built over the site in the fifth century.
31 The term translated “left” (ἀφίημι, aphiēmi, GK 918) is a strong one for this context (“forsook”) and indicates once again Jesus’ authority.
32That evening after sunset the people brought to Jesus all the sick and demon-possessed. 33The whole town gathered at the door, 34and Jesus healed many who had various diseases. He also drove out many demons, but he would not let the demons speak because they knew who he was.
COMMENTARY
32–34 “That evening after sunset” would be, according to Jewish reckoning, the following day, since the Sabbath ends at sundown. The Sabbath having ended, people could now bring, without breaking the Jewish law, their sick and demon-possessed to Jesus.
Mark has provided individual examples of an exorcism (v.26) and a healing (v.31); now he gives a summary of Jesus’ healing and exorcism ministry in Galilee. The previous events were not isolated cases: “Jesus healed many” and “drove out many demons” (v.34). The reference to “many” is not exclusive. Mark is not saying that some were not healed (though that case is possible; see 6:5–6), but that Jesus healed many, not just one or a few. The reference to “the whole town” gathered at the door (v.33) is no doubt hyperbole meant to show the extraordinary popularity Jesus’ miracles are generating.
Mark distinguishes between diseases of various kinds and demonic possession. While the gospel writers sometimes attribute illnesses to demonic influence, there is no indication here or elsewhere in the Gospels that all illness is demonic, as some in the ancient world believed.
Again, Jesus muzzles the demons, “because they knew who he was” (v.34). Luke is more specific: “because they knew he was the Christ” (Lk 4:41). This reluctance by Jesus to have the demons name him is probably both a demonstration of his authority over them and a reflection of his desire to reveal through his own words and deeds what kind of Messiah he was (one quite different from the popular conception). Jesus may also be seeking to avoid the accusation—which will shortly come (3:22)—that such demonic recognition means he is in league with Satan.
35Very early in the morning, while it was still dark, Jesus got up, left the house and went off to a solitary place, where he prayed. 36Simon and his companions went to look for him, 37and when they found him, they exclaimed: “Everyone is looking for you!”
38Jesus replied, “Let us go somewhere else—to the nearby villages—so I can preach there also. That is why I have come.” 39So he traveled throughout Galilee, preaching in their synagogues and driving out demons.
COMMENTARY
35 Although Mark makes no explicit connection between v.35 and the preceding paragraph, he seems to be giving a sequence of events. Jesus, after a busy and no doubt exhausting evening of healings and exorcisms, got up very early the next morning and sought a quiet place to pray. The description of this as a “desert” (erēmos) place does not mean the wilderness, since there is no such place around Capernaum, but rather a place of solitude where Jesus can rejuvenate in the presence of his Father. There could, however, be a distant echo to Jesus’ wilderness temptation, since that, too, was a time of solitude and preparation (the same word erēmos is used). Garland, 74, notes that here Jesus will again face temptation, as the disciples seek to lure him back “to the scene of so many personal triumphs and to where he has such a tremendous following.”
In the other two places in Mark’s gospel where Jesus prays, he is faced with a crisis (6:46; 14:32–41). Here, too, there is a crisis: the temptation to stay in a place of security and success rather than to fulfill the mission God has given to him. They are only interested in what he can do to heal their physical afflictions. So Jesus seeks the strength that only communion and fellowship with the Father can provide.
36–37 The disciples (here called “Simon and his companions”—not mathētai, perhaps because they are not acting like disciples) do not understand Jesus or his need for communion with the Father. So they go to look for him. Mark uses the strong verb katadiōkō (“track down,” “hunt,” usually in a hostile sense). The people are eager to find Jesus in order to see more miracles, and the disciples enthusiastically join in the search. Apparently, they think Jesus will be pleased to know that everyone is looking for him (v.37). They do not understand that this popular acclaim is not what Jesus desires.
38–39 Jesus’ reply shows that his healings and exorcisms could be hindrances to understanding who he really was. The people of Capernaum were interested in him as a popular miracle worker only. So Jesus suggests that he and the disciples move on to other villages so that he might “preach there also” (v.38). His coming into the world was to proclaim God’s good news and all that was involved in discipleship and suffering.
This purpose is not to diminish the importance of the healings and exorcisms. Both carried eschatological significance and were closely linked to Jesus’ preaching of the kingdom of God. The exorcisms are evidence that the reign of God is overwhelming and is defeating the powers of sin and Satan. The healings confirm that the eschatological restoration of creation predicted by Isaiah and the prophets is taking place through Jesus’ words and deeds (cf. Mt 11:5; Lk 7:22). While healings and exorcisms thus had a critically important place in Jesus’ Galilean ministry (v.39), they were meant to confirm and support, rather than to usurp, the primary purpose for which he had come: to proclaim the good news of the kingdom of God. These verses are evidence that Mark wrote—at least in part—to counter those who placed too much emphasis on Jesus as a miracle worker and not enough on his salvation-bringing task of suffering as an atoning sacrifice for sins (Mk 10:45).
NOTES
35 The redundant and somewhat awkward Greek expression πρωῒ ἔννυχα λίαν (prōi ennucha lian) means something like “early in the morning, while it was still exceedingly dark.” It emphasizes Jesus’ need to carve out time alone with God in the midst of a hectic ministry.
OVERVIEW
The pericope of the healing of a leper (1:40–45) serves as a connecting link between the sections before and after (1:21–39; 2:1–3:6). Like the episodes of healing and exorcism in 1:21–39, the miracle demonstrates Jesus’ kingdom authority and his power to allay human suffering. It also results in increased popularity and the crush of the crowds (v.45). The episode links to the section that follows (2:1–3:6) because it concerns ritual purity, uncleanness, and the OT law, the issues that will provoke conflicts between Jesus and the scribes and Pharisees. Curiously, Jesus—who will be criticized in the following episodes for laxity toward the law—instructs the man to follow the procedure for ritual cleanness set out in the law of Moses (1:45).
40A man with leprosy came to him and begged him on his knees, “If you are willing, you can make me clean.”
41Filled with compassion, Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!” 42Immediately the leprosy left him and he was cured.
43Jesus sent him away at once with a strong warning: 44“See that you don’t tell this to anyone. But go, show yourself to the priest and offer the sacrifices that Moses commanded for your cleansing, as a testimony to them.” 45Instead he went out and began to talk freely, spreading the news. As a result, Jesus could no longer enter a town openly but stayed outside in lonely places. Yet the people still came to him from everywhere.
COMMENTARY
40 The word “leprosy” (lepra) was used in biblical times to designate a wide variety of skin diseases. It was not limited to modern-day leprosy, or Hansen’s disease. The descriptions given in Leviticus 13–14 suggest a variety of skin disorders, including psoriasis, lupus, ringworm, and others. Because of the uncertainties of diagnosis and the difficulties in distinguishing highly contagious diseases from relatively harmless ones, the OT set out strict guidelines for the examination and isolation of these skin disorders (Lev 13–14). If found to be “leprous” after examination by the priest, the diseased individual would be isolated from the rest of the congregation and was required to wear torn clothes, cover the lower part of the face, and cry out “Unclean! Unclean!” whenever approached. As long as the disease remained, the person had to live alone outside the camp of the Israelites (Lev 13:45–46). Whatever variety of skin disorder this man had, it had been identified as “leprous” and so resulted in uncleanness and separation. His suffering was therefore social and religious as well as physical.
Instead of keeping his distance from Jesus, as the law demanded, the leprous man came directly to him and fell down on his knees to make his plea. He had no doubt that Jesus could heal him. He only wondered whether Jesus was willing. It is sometimes easier to believe in God’s power than in his mercy.
41–42 On the assumption that the correct reading of v.41 is “being angered” (“Jesus was indignant,” TNIV) and not “filled with compassion” (NIV; see Notes), the question arises, Why? Many answers have been suggested (see Cranfield, 92). Jesus cannot be angry with the leper, for the Lord immediately shows compassion on the man by touching him. Perhaps Jesus is deeply grieved at the ravaging effect of disease on the human condition, the result of a fallen creation (cf. Jn 11:35). Or perhaps Jesus recognizes this particular disease as demonic, so that his anger was focused neither on the man nor on the disease but on Satan, whose work he came to destroy. Understood in this way, the incident becomes another example of the fierce conflict between Jesus and Satan that plays such an important part in this gospel. Like Jesus’ exorcisms and other healings, this one has eschatological significance, evidence of the power of the kingdom of God at work in Jesus (cf. Mt 11:5; Lk 7:22; Marcus, 210).
Jesus also expressed compassion. He reached out and touched the unclean leper—an act that, according to the Mosaic law, incurred defilement. Calvin, 1:374, says: “By his word alone he might have healed the leper; but he applied, at the same time, the touch of his hand, to express the feeling of compassion. Nor ought this to excite our wonder, since he chose to take upon him our flesh, that he might cleanse us from our sins.”
Jesus’ touching of the leper not only resulted in the man’s being cured (v.42) but also revealed Jesus’ attitude toward the ceremonial law. He boldly placed love and compassion over ritual and regulation. Instead of being defiled by the leprosy, Jesus brings purification to the man. In the new age of salvation, the movement of uncleanness will be reversed. The command to Israel to come out and be separate will become the command to go into the world as salt and light, to become agents of transformation. Believers are not defiled by the world but bring healing and sanctification to it (cf. 1Co 7:14).
43–44 As Jesus silences the demons who recognize him, so now he commands the healed man to keep quiet. Both verbs in v.43, like the statement of anger in v.41, appear to be unusually harsh. “Sent him away” is from ekballō (see Notes, 1:12), which often is used of driving out demons; and embrimaomai (GK 1839, “with a strong warning”) is a word that originally meant “to snort like a horse.” While the command is clearly forceful, the words do not necessarily convey anger (cf. Gundry, 96–97). Jesus is not rebuking the man in anger but is warning him forcefully: “Now listen, and listen good. Get to the priest immediately, and don’t tell anyone about this!”
The reason for the command is likely similar to the muting of demons. Jesus wants to define his messiahship on his own terms rather than through the expectations of others. Jesus also recognizes that widespread acclaim for his miracles will create a level of popularity that will hinder the essential purpose of his ministry, namely, to proclaim the kingdom of God. In fact, however, Jesus’ widespread popularity is exactly what develops (see v.45).
Jesus also instructs the leper to show himself to the priest and to offer sacrifices that were required by the Mosaic law. These procedures are given in detail in the laws of leprosy in Leviticus 14:2–31. Mark’s purpose may be to show that Jesus did not oppose the law per se, but only the hypocritical and casuistic way in which it was applied by the Pharisees. More likely, Jesus has societal and personal concerns in mind. The man needed to perform these rituals to be accepted back into the Jewish community.
The last phrase—“as a testimony to them”—could be understood in at least four different ways: (1) evidence for the priests and the people of Jesus’ faithfulness to the law; (2) evidence for their benefit of Jesus’ messianic authority in the healing (for the phrase used positively, see 13:9); (3) evidence against them to be used at the final judgment, assuming they will reject Jesus despite the healing (for the phrase used in this negative sense, see 6:11 and possibly also 13:9); or simply (4) evidence that the man was truly clean, and so restored to society. The first probably places too much emphasis on legalistic questions, which are not Jesus’ primary concern. The second and third are even less likely, since they would contradict Jesus’ command to silence. The fourth is the most natural reading, namely, that the appearance and sacrifices before the priest are testimonies of the man’s ritual cleanness and so his restoration to the community.
45 Despite Jesus’ command, the leper could not contain himself and proclaimed far and wide what Jesus had done for him. The results were both positive and negative. On the one hand, more and more people heard about Jesus. On the other, the growing masses curtailed his public ministry. He avoided going into the towns and chose rather to stay in more isolated places. But even in his isolation people managed to find him and “came to him from everywhere.”
NOTES
41 The translators of the NIV may have been correct in following the reading σπλαγχνισθείς (splanchnistheis, GK 5072, “filled with compassion”), since the MS evidence strongly favors it. However, it is difficult to explain how the alternate reading ὀργισθείς (orgistheis, “being angry”) came into existence. It is much easier to explain the scribal origin of σπλαγχνισθείς, splanchnistheis, as the result of embarrassment over the ascription of anger to Jesus. Metzger, 65, counters that copyists did not remove references to Jesus’ anger elsewhere (3:5; 10:14), but in those cases the anger is understandable from the context. Here it is much more difficult. It is especially significant that Matthew and Mark do not have σπλαγχνισθείς, splanchnistheis, in their parallels (though they use the term elsewhere). Why would they eliminate a reference to Jesus’ compassion? Their omission of Mark’s ὀργισθείς, orgistheis, is easily explainable. Opting for the rendering ὀργισθείς, orgistheis, here is also consistent with the use of ἐμβριμάομαι (embrimaomai, “speak harshly to”) in v.43, which has an element of indignation or anger in it. The TNIV accurately renders, “Jesus was indignant.”
A demonic explanation for the leprosy is possible, since scale disease is ascribed to an evil spirit in b. Ketubim 61b and perhaps already in the Qumran scrolls (4Q272; see Marcus, 209, citing J. Baumgarten, “The 4Q Zadokite Fragments on Skin Disease,” Journal of Jewish Studies 41 [1990]:153–65).
43 The use of the same verb ἐμβριμάομαι (embrimaomai, GK 1839) in 14:5 is sometimes said to indicate that anger is intended, but even in that context the verb could mean that they spoke forcefully and with strong emotion rather than with actual anger. In human emotions, the line between forcefulness and indignation can be very thin.
OVERVIEW
The five episodes recounted in 2:1–3:6 represent a distinct section in Mark’s gospel, a section that focuses on Jesus’ controversies with the religious leaders. It concludes with the plot of the Pharisees and Herodians to kill Jesus (3:6) and is framed at the beginning and end by statements of Jesus’ growing popularity and the crush of the crowds (1:45; 3:7). The previous account of the healing of the leper hinted at controversy as Jesus touched a man with leprosy in apparent violation of the laws of purity. Now Jesus comes into open conflict with the teachers of the law.
OVERVIEW
The account of the healing of the paralytic is an appropriate transition from the healing stories of ch. 1, for it involves elements of both healing and controversy. The story also continues the theme of Jesus’ authority so prominent throughout his Galilean ministry. In the first miracle of the gospel, the exorcism in the Capernaum synagogue, Jesus’ authority in teaching was contrasted with that of the scribes (1:22). Now—again in Capernaum—the scribes challenge his authority to forgive sins.
It has been suggested (e.g., Bultmann, Schweizer, Taylor) that vv.1–12 are the conflation of two stories. The first (vv.1–5a, 10b–12) is a miracle story, and the other (vv.5b–10a) is a separate story about the forgiveness of sins. This kind of conclusion was typical of form-critical analysis, which assumed oral stories always moved from the simple to the complex. Such a conclusion, however, represents an overly simplistic analysis of oral tradition by assuming too much standardization for oral forms and hard-and-fast “rules” of transmission. In fact, oral traditions sometimes move from complex to simple, and oral “forms” are not as fixed as is sometimes assumed. Dissecting the present passage fails to recognize the internal consistency of the narrative and the close relationship between the healing of the body and the forgiveness of sins. Whatever its possible origins, it clearly represents a unity in Mark’s gospel.
1A few days later, when Jesus again entered Capernaum, the people heard that he had come home. 2So many gathered that there was no room left, not even outside the door, and he preached the word to them. 3Some men came, bringing to him a paralytic, carried by four of them. 4Since they could not get him to Jesus because of the crowd, they made an opening in the roof above Jesus and, after digging through it, lowered the mat the paralyzed man was lying on. 5When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.”
6Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, 7“Why does this fellow talk like that? He’s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?”
8Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this was what they were thinking in their hearts, and he said to them, “Why are you thinking these things? 9Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up, take your mat and walk’? 10But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins . . .” He said to the paralytic, 11“I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.” 12He got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all. This amazed everyone and they praised God, saying, “We have never seen anything like this!”
COMMENTARY
1 Jesus had been away from Capernaum for several days while traveling throughout Galilee. He now returns to the town that has served as his base of operations in the northern part of the country. While Jesus’ popularity prevented him from “openly” entering a town (1:45), he is able to slip back into Capernaum on this occasion. The Greek phrase en oikō could mean “in a house” but often carries the idiomatic sense “home.” It may refer here to the home of Peter and Andrew, which appears to have been Jesus’ temporary residence while in Capernaum (1:29). Little can be kept secret in a village community, and the report soon goes out that Jesus is back in town.
2 The house quickly filled with people, and the overflow was so great that the space outside the door was blocked. They no doubt flocked to him because they wanted to see him perform more miracles. But Jesus was not working miracles inside the house. He was doing what he came to do: preaching the gospel to the people (1:38).
3–4 In order to understand the action these verses describe, it is necessary to visualize the layout of a typical peasant’s house in first-century Palestine. It was usually a small, one-room structure with a flat roof. Middle Eastern roofs were often used for storage, drying fruit, and for sleeping on warm summer nights. Access was by means of an outside stairway or ladder built against an outside wall of the house (cf. modern escape ladders on the outsides of multistoried apartment complexes). The roof itself was usually made of wooden beams with thatched and compacted earth in order to shed the rain.
The four men brought a paralyzed man to the house where Jesus was preaching (v.3); but when they saw the size of the crowd, they realized it was impossible to enter by the door. So they carried him up the outside stairway to the roof (v.4). There they dug up the compacted thatch and earth (no doubt dirt showered down on those inside the house below) and lowered the man through the now-exposed beams to the floor below.
5 Jesus recognized the ingenuity and persistence of the men as evidence of faith. “Their faith” is primarily the faith of the friends, though it could also include that of the paralyzed man. Jesus often heals in response to faith in Mark (5:34, 36; 9:23–24; 10:52; cf. Mt 15:28), and that is what the crowd—and the implied reader—is expecting. Jesus’ words are meant to be surprising and even shocking: “Son, your sins are forgiven.”
It is possible that the man’s disease resulted from his sinful behavior, but Jesus does not say so. Scripture affirms that disease may result from individual sins (Dt 28:27; Ps 107:17–18; Jn 5:14; Ac 5:1–11; 1Co 11:30; 1Jn 5:16), but it certainly has other causes too (Job 1:8; Lk 13:1–5; Jn 9:2–3). Yet all disease and suffering is ultimately related to the fallen state of humanity, so that the dawn of eschatological salvation brings both forgiveness and healing (Isa 29:18, 23; 32:3; 33:34; Jer 31:34; 33:8; 36:3). Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom of God means that the time of healing and forgiveness has arrived.
6 Mark has already mentioned the teachers of the law in 1:22, where their teaching is contrasted with Jesus’ authoritative teaching. Here they become directly involved with Jesus. Luke 5:17 says that they had come from “every village of Galilee and from Judea and Jerusalem.” Presumably, at this early stage in Jesus’ ministry they were present more from curiosity than animosity. That will soon change.
7 Jesus’ statement in v.5 that “your sins are forgiven” could be taken as a divine passive meaning “God has forgiven you,” with Jesus functioning as God’s spokesperson. The OT priests pronounced God’s forgiveness of repentant sinners who brought sacrificial offerings to the temple, and a prophet such as Nathan could pronounce David forgiven on the basis of his repentance (2Sa 12:13). But Jesus’ functioning as God’s spokesperson is clearly not how Mark intended his readers to hear Jesus’ words, since the teachers of the law immediately accuse Jesus of blasphemy, and since in v.9 Jesus explicitly declares his own authority to forgive sins.
The Mishnah defines blasphemy narrowly as the act of pronouncing the divine name (m. Sanh. 7:5); but Bock (Blasphemy and Exaltation, ch. 2) and others have shown that the term could be used for a much wider range of offenses against God. To lay claim to God’s sole prerogative to forgive sins would certainly have qualified. If the scribes are correct about who Jesus is, their reasoning is flawless. In Jewish teaching even the Messiah could not forgive sins. The manner in which the accusation is expressed, “Who can forgive sins except One—God” (with Greek heis, “one,” instead of monos, “only,” “alone”), may indicate an allusion to the Shema, the classic Jewish statement of monotheism from Deuteronomy 6:4: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.” Jesus is accused of usurping God’s unique position.
8–9 The teachers of the law had not openly expressed their misgivings about Jesus’ actions. They were “thinking in their hearts” that he had blasphemed. There is irony here. Just as they are inwardly castigating Jesus for claiming a prerogative of God, Jesus is reading their minds—demonstrating the divine attribute of omniscience!
Jesus challenges them with the question, “Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up, take your mat and walk’?” (v.9). Of course, as Jesus meant the words, neither of the two was easier. Effecting both was equally impossible for human beings and equally possible for God. To the teachers of the law, it was easier to make the statement about forgiveness, for who could verify its fulfillment? But to say, “Get up . . . and walk”—the authority to issue that command could indeed be verified by an actual, observable healing. Jesus’ question takes the form of a rabbinic-style “lesser-to-greater” (qal waḥomer) argument. If someone can do the “harder” (in this case, physically heal someone), it will prove the “easier” (here the forgiving of sins) has also been accomplished.
10–11 Some commentators have taken the first part of v.10—“But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—to be a narrative aside addressed to Mark’s readers rather than a statement to the scribes. This view is meant to solve the problem of the awkwardness of the parenthetic remark, “he said to the paralytic,” in the second half of the verse, and also to reserve Jesus’ public use of the title “Son of Man” until after the crucial incident of 8:29. The title “Son of Man” occurs only two times before 8:31 (here and in 2:28) but twelve times from then onward as Jesus’ title for self-disclosure to his disciples (cf. G. H. Boobyer, “Mark 2:10a and the Interpretation of the Healing of the Paralytic,” HTR 47 [1954]: 115–20; Lane, 96–98; Cranfield, 100).
While this interpretation is possible, nothing in the context suggests a change of addressees. The “you” of v.10 is most naturally taken as the scribes addressed in vv.8–9. A narrative aside would lose much of the dramatic effect of the episode, where Jesus claims the very authority the scribes deny him in v.7. Jesus’ pronouncement is the critical point of the episode. Most telling against this view is the fact that the gospel writers never use the title “Son of Man” in their editorial comments (with a possible exception being Mk 2:28, which is also disputed).
“Son of Man” is Jesus’ most common self-designation in the Gospels. In the OT the Hebrew designation ben ʾ ādām (“son of man”) means “a human being” (see Ps 8:4), and Jesus’ use of the title certainly points to his humanity. Yet there is further significance to the title. The OT book of Daniel speaks of “one like a son of man,” an exalted messianic figure who comes with the clouds of heaven and receives authority, glory, and sovereign power from God, setting up an eternal kingdom that will never be destroyed (Da 7:13–14; cf. 1 En. 34–53). On several occasions in Mark, Jesus identifies himself with this messianic figure (8:38; 13:26–27; 14:62). Historically, Jesus probably preferred the title because it expressed his identity without the political and military connotations that titles such as “Christ” and “son of David” carried in first-century Judaism. He could use it to define his messiahship on his own terms. In Mark’s narrative Jesus uses the title to demonstrate his messianic authority (2:10, 28), affirm his mission of service and suffering (8:31; 9:9, 12; 10:33–34), and predict his return in glory to save and to judge (8:38; 13:26–27; 14:62).
What does it mean that the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins “on earth”? There are three main possibilities for the meaning of the phrase: (1) a sphere of influence, in contrast to the Father’s authority in heaven; (2) “here and now” (i.e., during Jesus’ earthly ministry, perhaps in contrast to the Son of Man’s future authority in heaven); (3) as qualifying “sins,” and so meaning “earthly sins” (i.e., those committed by human beings). The first is most likely, not in the sense of limiting Jesus’ authority, but rather to show that divine authority to forgive sins is not the exclusive right of the Father in heaven—it is now rightfully exercised by the Son of Man on earth (cf. France, 129).
The words “he said to the paralytic” constitute a parenthesis to explain that the following words are addressed not to the teachers of the law but to the paralytic. Presumably, Jesus indicated his change by some sort of gesture.
12 The healing verified the claim to grant forgiveness. As surely as actual healing followed Jesus’ statement “Get up” (v.11), so actual forgiveness resulted from his saying “your sins are forgiven.” Hunter, 38, writes, “He did the miracle which they could see that they might know that he had done the other one that they could not see.”
The man responded immediately (euthys; not translated in NIV). “In full view of them all” (i.e., the entire crowd and especially the teachers of the law, who had challenged Jesus’ authority to forgive sins), the ex-paralytic walked out. Again, the response of the crowd (presumably the “all” includes the teachers of the law) was one of amazement, and Mark records the added response of their giving praise to God for what had happened. Never before had they witnessed anything like this event.
The significance of this story is not to be understood primarily in terms of the compassion that moves Jesus to heal the man’s paralyzed body. The emphasis is on the forgiveness of sins, the root cause of all sickness and disease. In this act of forgiveness Jesus was declaring the presence of God’s kingdom.
NOTES
2 “He preached the word to them” translates ἐλάλει αὐτοῖς τὸν λόγον (elalei autois ton logon). The word λόγον, logon (GK 3364), is here used of the “message of salvation,” the “good news” (BDAG, 599).
4 Theissen (Miracle Stories, 52–53) notes that it is a common theme in healing accounts that an obstacle blocks the suppliant from approaching Jesus (5:27–28, 35; 10:46–48; cf. Lk 19:3). Overcoming the obstacle is a sign of faith and is rewarded with healing.
5 See Marcus, 221, for more on the scriptural connection between sin and disease.
7 Some have claimed that a fragmentary text from Qumran, The Prayer of Nabonidus (4Q242), presents a Jewish exorcist as claiming to forgive the sins of Nabonidus. But the text is fragmentary and its meaning is disputed. See Marcus, 217, for details. Even if the text makes this claim, it would represent one very small exception to the rule.
OVERVIEW
This episode is the second in the series of five conflicts with the religious leaders. Each controversy is highlighted by an authoritative pronouncement by Jesus. The call of Levi introduces another key Markan motif: the humble recipients of God’s salvific blessings. Forgiveness of sins and healing come not to the self-righteous religious leaders but to sinners and outcasts who respond with faith and repentance to Jesus’ kingdom proclamation. Jesus has just announced his authority to forgive sins (2:10); he now calls a notorious sinner in need of forgiveness.
Two short incidents make up this scene. The first is a call narrative in which Jesus beckons the tax collector Levi to come and follow him in discipleship. The second is a pronouncement story that climaxes in an authoritative statement by Jesus. The narrative is intended to set up this climactic pronouncement.
13Once again Jesus went out beside the lake. A large crowd came to him, and he began to teach them. 14As he walked along, he saw Levi son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax collector’s booth. “Follow me,” Jesus told him, and Levi got up and followed him.
15While Jesus was having dinner at Levi’s house, many tax collectors and “sinners” were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. 16When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the “sinners” and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: “Why does he eat with tax collectors and ‘sinners’?”
17On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”
COMMENTARY
13 The scene begins with the call of Levi. The only connecting word Mark uses is palin (“once again”), which makes it clear that what follows is a separate unit of tradition. The setting is the shore of Lake Galilee. Jesus’ popularity with the crowds was still very evident—“a large crowd came to him, and he began to teach them.”
14 There may be a change of scene here, with Jesus finishing his teaching and then walking beside the sea. Or Jesus may have done his teaching on this occasion as rabbis often did theirs—“as he walked along.” In either case, Jesus comes upon Levi the son of Alphaeus at his tax collector’s booth. The parallel text in the first gospel identifies this tax collector as “Matthew” (Mt 9:9) and lists him as one of the twelve disciples (Mt 10:3). Although Mark and Luke also list Matthew as one of the twelve (Mk 3:18; Lk 6:15), neither one explicitly identifies Levi the tax collector with Matthew the disciple. Many commentators believe that the author of the first gospel has merged two stories involving different individuals in order to make this episode a call to discipleship. But the easier and more likely explanation is that “Matthew” and “Levi” are two names for the same person. “Levi” may have been his given name and “Matthew” (“gift of God”) his apostolic name (cf. “Simon Peter”). Or perhaps both names were given at birth. Another one of the twelve is named “James son of Alphaeus,” perhaps Levi’s brother.
Jesus found Levi at the “tax collector’s booth”—probably the tollbooth on the road that ran from Damascus through Capernaum to the Mediterranean coast. Levi was likely employed by Herod Antipas, the tetrarch of Galilee, as a tax collector for goods in transit. A traveler from either Herod Philip’s territory or the Decapolis would naturally pass through Capernaum on entering Galilee. The Jews despised their fellow tax collectors because of their duplicity with the oppressive rulers (both the Romans and their client kings, such as Herod Antipas) and their reputation for dishonesty and corruption. Extortion was common, for tax collectors made their living from the money they could collect over and above taxes owed. The Mishnah prohibits even receiving alms from a tax collector at his office, since the money is presumed to have been gained illegally (m. B. Qam. 10:1). If a tax collector entered a house, all that was in it became unclean (m. Ṭehar. 7:6). The rabbis went so far as to permit lying to tax collectors to protect one’s property (m. Ned. 3:4). It is possible that Levi was a Levite (a descendant of Jacob’s son Levi, whose tribe was charged with serving in the temple; Nu 1:50; 3:12, etc.), since most people named “Levi” in the first century were in fact Levites (see Marcus, 225). If the Levi in Mark was indeed a Levite, he would have been particularly despised by his countrymen for choosing such a contemptible vocation over a religious one.
The parallel call of the four fishermen in 1:16, 18 confirms that Levi’s call is one to discipleship. There was much at stake for Levi in accepting Jesus’ challenge. Fishermen could easily go back to fishing after taking a “leave of absence” (as some of the disciples did after Jesus’ crucifixion), but for Levi there would be little possibility of his returning to his occupation. No doubt his post would have been filled very soon after he left it, for jobs as tax collectors were highly sought after as sure ways to “get rich quick.”
15 The Greek katakeisthai auton (“while he was reclining”) carries the connotation of a formal banquet or dinner party, at which guests would recline on cushions around a low table (cf. Joachim Jeremias, Eucharistic Words of Jesus [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1977], 48–49). The dinner was probably Levi’s farewell party before he left to become one of Jesus’ disciples, or perhaps he simply wanted to gather his friends together so that they, too, could have an opportunity to meet Jesus. While the Greek text refers ambiguously to “his house” and could refer to either Jesus or Levi, the context suggests that Levi’s house is intended. The parallel in Luke explicitly says that Levi made a great feast at his house (Lk 5:29).
The phrase “eating with Jesus [NIV, ‘him’]” (synanekeinto tō Iēsou) suggests that the tax collectors and sinners were having dinner with Jesus. Although at Levi’s home, Jesus assumes the role of the host. Lane, 106, comments, “When this is understood, the interest of the entire pericope centers on the significance of Messiah eating with sinners. The specific reference in v.17 to Jesus’ call of sinners to the Kingdom suggests that the basis of table-fellowship was messianic forgiveness, and the meal itself was an anticipation of the messianic banquet” (emphasis his).
“For there were many who followed him” shows that Jesus’ following included more than the twelve disciples. It also stresses Jesus’ growing popularity among those treated with contempt by the religious establishment. Jesus’ reputation for associating with notorious sinners and offering God’s forgiveness to them clearly piqued the interest of these people. Here was a rabbi who actually welcomed contact with them.
16 Table fellowship carried great significance in the ancient world; to dine with someone meant acceptance of that person. That Jesus would include in his most intimate circle a man associated with such a disreputable profession and would sit at table with tax collectors and sinners was too much for the teachers of the law.
The Pharisees appear here for the first time in Mark’s gospel. The Greek phrase hoi grammateis tōn Pharisaiōn (“the scribes of the Pharisees”) means those teachers of the law who were also Pharisees. Not all Pharisees were scribes, but many were. Little is known of either the origin or the predecessors of the Pharisees. The probability is that they were the successors of the Hasidim, the pious Jews who joined forces with Mattathias and his sons during the Maccabean period. They later split off in opposition to the Hellenizing tendency of the later Hasmoneans (the ruling dynasty that arose from the Maccabees). They first appear under the name “Pharisees” during the reign of the Hasmonean John Hyrcanus (135–104 BC). The most distinctive characteristic of the Pharisees was their strict adherence to Torah—not only the written law but also the oral law, a body of traditions that expanded and elaborated the OT law (the “traditions of the elders,” 7:3). According to some rabbinic traditions, both the written and oral law had been given to Moses on Mount Sinai (m. ʾAbot 1:1–2). Josephus (J.W. 1.5.2 §110) wrote, “The Pharisees [are] a body of Jews with the reputation of excelling the rest of their nation in the observances of religion, and as exact exponents of the laws.”
Although many Pharisees were doubtless pious and godly men, others were characterized by jealousy, hypocrisy, and religious formalism. Jesus did not criticize them for their goals of purity and obedience, but for their hypocrisy. He accused them of saying one thing but doing another, of raising their interpretations (mere “human traditions”) to the level of God’s commandments (7:8), and of becoming obsessed with externals while neglecting the more important matters of the heart—justice, mercy, and faithfulness. For their part, the separatist Pharisees attacked Jesus’ association with tax collectors and sinners and the way he placed himself above Sabbath regulations (2:23–28). Despite these differences Jesus was much closer theologically to the Pharisees than to the Sadducees, for with the Pharisees he shared belief in the authority of Scripture, the resurrection, and the coming of the Messiah. Jesus’ frequent conflicts with the Pharisees arose because he challenged them on their own turf and because they viewed him as a threat to their leadership and influence over the people.
The consorting of Jesus with people who openly refused to keep the requirements of the law prompted the question, “Why does he eat with tax collectors and ‘sinners’?” “Sinners” in this passage could be a technical term for those who failed to maintain the high standards of ritual purity kept by the Pharisees. A scrupulous Pharisee would not eat at the home of a common Israelite (those known as ʿam ha-ʾaretz, “people of the land”), since the Pharisees could not be sure that the commoner’s food was ceremonially clean or that it had been properly tithed (m. Demai 2:2). Yet if “sinners” here designated commoners, Jesus and his disciples would also be so classified. More likely, “sinners” in this context means the truly wicked, those viewed by the general populace as evildoers. Jesus offers God’s forgiveness to those who have transgressed his law.
17 No statement of Jesus in this gospel is more profound than this one. Jesus begins with a proverb and then clarifies it with reference to his ministry. “Only the sick need a doctor” was a common proverb in both Jewish and non-Jewish circles. A doctor ministers not to healthy persons but to the sick. The application is that Jesus came not to call the “righteous” (i.e., the self-righteous) but “sinners” (i.e., not merely people who refuse to carry out the details of the law but those who are alienated from the life of God). Jesus’ call is to salvation; and in order to share in it, a person must first recognize his need of it. A self-righteous person is incapable of recognizing that need, but a sinner can. Hunter, 40–41, writes, “It would be true to say that this word of Jesus strikes the keynote of the gospel. The new thing in Christianity is not the doctrine that God saves sinners. No Jew would have denied that. It is the assertion ‘that God loves and saves them as sinners.’ . . . This is the authentic and glorious doctrine of true Christianity in any age” (emphasis his).
NOTES
13–17 For more, see J. Dewey, Markan Public Debate: Literary Technique, Concentric Structure, and Theology in Mark 2:1–3:6 (SBLDS 48; Chico, Calif.; Scholars Press, 1980); A. Hultgren, Jesus and His Adversaries (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1979).
13 The verb ἐδίδασκεν (edidasken) is probably an inceptive or ingressive imperfect emphasizing the beginning of the action: “he began to teach.”
14 The confusion of Levi’s identity is also evident in a textual variant, with some Western and Caesarean MSS reading “James son of Alphaeus” in this verse. This is no doubt a scribal harmonization under the influence of Mark 3:18, where James is identified as one of the Twelve. A copyist assumed that since James and Levi had the same father, they were the same person (see Hooker, 94; Witherington, 119).
15 For the view that it was Jesus’ house, not Matthew’s, see E. S. Malbon, “TĒ OIKIA AUTOU: Mark 2.15 in Context,” NTS 31 (1985): 282–92.
17 Mekilta to Exodus 15:26 has the following proverb: “If they are not sick, why do they need a physician?” According to Plutarch (Apophthegmata laconica, 230–31), Pausanias said of philosophers that “doctors . . . are not to be found among the well but customarily spend their time among the sick.” See Gundry, 129, for other references.
OVERVIEW
In this third of five controversies involving the religious leaders, Jesus is questioned as to why his disciples do not fast as a sign of their piety. Jesus uses the question to make a profound parabolic statement about the eschatological significance of his mission.
18Now John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting. Some people came and asked Jesus, “How is it that John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees are fasting, but yours are not?”
19Jesus answered, “How can the guests of the bridegroom fast while he is with them? They cannot, so long as they have him with them. 20But the time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them, and on that day they will fast.
21“No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment. If he does, the new piece will pull away from the old, making the tear worse. 22And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the wineskins will be ruined. No, he pours new wine into new wineskins.”
COMMENTARY
18 The law required fasting only on the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:29, 31; 23:27–32; Nu 29:7), but after the exile the Jews observed four other annual fasts (Zec 7:5; 8:19). A fifth fast was added in association with the festival of Purim (Est 9:31). In NT times the stricter Pharisees fasted twice a week (Monday and Thursday; cf. Lk 18:12; Did. 8:1; b. Taʿan. 12a). The phrase “the disciples of the Pharisees” is unique in the NT (but cf. Lk 5:33). It presents some difficulty, for the Pharisees were a religious sect, not teachers, and so did not have disciples. However, some Pharisees were also scribes (NIV, “teachers of the law”) and as such did have disciples. “Disciples of the Pharisees” may also be used in a nontechnical sense to refer to people who were influenced by the teachings and practice of the Pharisees.
Mark does not say why these two groups were fasting. A variety of reasons could prompt the practice: sorrow, repentance, humility, self-denial, or preparation for service. The Pharisees’ “disciples” were probably observing one of the biweekly fasts. John’s disciples may have been fasting because he was in prison, or perhaps in anticipation of the messianic age (see Lane, 113). The latter explanation would fit the three parables that follow, which contrast the old age of promise with the new age of fulfillment. Whatever the specific reason for fasting, it was meant to be a sign of true piety. Mark does not specify who asks the question, but it may have been the scribes of the Pharisees referred to in the previous passage. The question is an implicit claim to higher spirituality. Though the question is about Jesus’ disciples, it clearly challenges his own example. If he is so spiritual, why does he not encourage his disciples to live up to the high religious standards set by others?
19–20 Jesus answers in a parable. A Jewish wedding feast was a particularly joyous occasion. The guests joined in celebrations that sometimes lasted a week. To fast during that time of great joy and festivity would be unthinkable. Jesus indicates that he is the bridegroom and his disciples the guests. His presence should be a time of joyful celebration, not of mourning and sorrow. The wedding imagery also likely carries eschatological significance. Although the Messiah is never explicitly described as a bridegroom in the OT (but cf. Isa 62:5), the age of salvation is often portrayed with feasting and wedding imagery—the “messianic banquet” (Isa 25:6–8; 65:13–14; cf. Lk 13:29; Mt 8:11; TDNT 4:1103). The age of promise is giving way to the age of fulfillment, and with it a time of joyful celebration. Jesus’ words here have parallels to the parable of the children in the marketplace in the “Q” passage (Mt 11:16–19; Lk 7:31–35). Jesus there compares John’s ministry to a funeral dirge (indicating sorrow and repentance) and his own ministry to a celebratory dance. John called for fasting and repentance in solemn anticipation of the coming age of salvation. Jesus called for joyful celebration, for the time of salvation had arrived.
Yet Jesus does not reject the spiritual value of fasting. While he remains with them they will rejoice, not fast; but he will not always be with them. When he is taken away (v.20), fasting will be appropriate. The mention of the removal of the bridegroom has sometimes been explained as a later addition, with the church reading the death of Jesus back into his life. Yet there is little warrant for this conclusion. First, the reference to death is veiled. Jesus only speaks of the bridegroom as being “taken from them,” not specifically of death (though see Notes, v.20). More important, there is no reason—even from a merely human perspective—why Jesus could not have foreseen and predicted his death. He faced serious opposition from the religious authorities, who considered him as being in league with Beelzebul (3:22–27), a blasphemer (2:7), a false prophet (14:65), and a Sabbath breaker (2:23–28; 3:1–6). He must have foreseen that this conflict could result in death. Jesus also often spoke of the persecution and murder of the OT prophets and identified himself with them (6:4; 12:1–11; cf. Mt 5:12; 13:57; 23:29–39; Lk 6:23, 26; 11:47–50; 13:33–35).
21–22 The short parables here at first seem an odd change of subject from the marriage analogy. Yet they follow the same theme of inappropriate actions in the light of the dawning age of salvation. Patching an old garment with a new cloth and putting new wine into old wineskins are just as inappropriate as fasting at a wedding feast. The new age of salvation means a new way of life and a new orientation toward God.
The two parables make the same point. A patch of unshrunk cloth sewn on a garment will shrink when washed and thus tear the garment. The new is incompatible with the old. So also is new wine in old wineskins. In ancient times wine was kept in animal skins. New skins were soft and pliable and would stretch when wine that had not yet completed fermentation was put in them. Old wineskins that were already stretched would become brittle and unable to stretch further. The gas from the new wine fermenting in them would burst them, thus destroying both the wine and the wineskin.
Jesus’ point is that the coming of the kingdom represents a new work that God is doing. Jesus is not merely promoting a reform movement within Judaism (i.e., “patching” the old); rather, his coming is the turning point of human history—it marks the transition from the age of promise to the age of fulfillment. Everything has changed.
NOTES
19 The Greek idiom οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ νυμφῶνος (hoi huioi tou nymphōnos, “children of the bridechamber”) could mean either the wedding guests or the attendants of the groom.
20 The verb ἀπαρθᾖ, aparthē (“will be taken away”) is from ἀπαίρω (apairō, GK 554, “take away,” “remove”) and occurs in the NT only here and in the parallels in Matthew and Luke. According to Bratcher and Nida, 92, “the verb as such does not state whether the removal is natural or sudden and violent. The context of the whole saying, however, implies a violent removal that will provoke sorrow (cf. the use of the verb in the LXX Isa 53:8 [where, however, the simple form αἴρω, airō, is used]).”
22 The phrase “new wine in new wineskins” is a verbless clause in Greek and may have been a slogan in the wine industry.
See John 2:1–12 for another episode in which new “choice wine” likely represents the messianic banquet and the dawning age of salvation.
OVERVIEW
The fourth and fifth controversy stories in this series both concern Jesus’ apparent violation of the Sabbath. The first confirms that the Sabbath was made for the benefit of human beings and that Jesus himself is Lord of the Sabbath. The second shows that the meeting of human needs takes precedent over legalistic Sabbath restrictions. Both, like so many episodes in these early chapters of Mark, confirm Jesus’ extraordinary authority as Messiah.
OVERVIEW
The specific time or place of this incident is not given, though the mention of kernels of grain might suggest the season is early summer. The theme of the incident, not its chronological position in the life of Jesus, is what determined its inclusion at this point in Mark’s gospel. The conflict centers on the keeping of the Sabbath—an issue far more important in Judaism than the question of fasting.
23One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. 24The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?”
25He answered, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? 26In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.”
27Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”
COMMENTARY
23–24 The main point of contention was not the act of harvesting the heads of grain. Such activity was explicitly allowed in the law: “If you enter your neighbor’s grainfield, you may pick kernels with your hands, but you must not put a sickle to his standing grain” (Dt 23:25). What the Pharisees objected to was harvesting grain on the Sabbath. In the Mishnah, reaping is one of the thirty-nine acts forbidden to do on the Sabbath (m. Šabb. 7:2).
25–26 Jesus meets the accusation of the Pharisees with a counterquestion. The incident he refers to is recorded in 1 Samuel 21:1–6. David and his companions were hungry and ate the consecrated bread—the twelve loaves baked of fine flour arranged in two rows or piles on the table in the Holy Place. Fresh loaves were brought into the sanctuary each Sabbath to replace the old ones, which were then eaten by the priests (cf. Ex 25:30; 35:13; 39:36; Lev 24:5–9; see Josephus, Ant. 3.10.7 §§255–56). Although the action of David was contrary to the law, he was not condemned in Scripture for it. Jesus does not claim that the Sabbath law has not been technically broken but that such violations under certain conditions are warranted. Human need is a higher law than religious ritual.
Yet there is more to this episode than the meeting of human needs. It is also about authority to overrule the Sabbath. David was the Lord’s anointed (1Sa 16), the future king of Israel, through whose ancestors the Messiah—the “son of David”—would come (2Sa 7:14–17). By pointing to David’s example, Jesus is making an implicit claim to possess authority equivalent to David’s. Later in Mark, Jesus will present a conundrum to the Pharisees by pointing out that David’s “son”—the Messiah—is also David’s “Lord” (12:35–40; cf. Ps 110:1–2). There is an implicit lesser-to-greater argument here: If David did not sin by eating the consecrated bread, how much less did David’s greater son and Lord sin by doing so.
There is a historical difficulty related to the reference to Abiathar in v.26, since it was actually Ahimelech, Abiathar’s father, who gave the consecrated bread to David (1Sa 21:1, 6). The difficulty is revealed by the fact that neither Matthew nor Luke records the phrase in the parallel passages, and it is not found in several MSS. There are several possibilities. Mark could simply have confused the names. The OT itself seems at times to confuse Ahimelech and Abiathar (cf. 1Sa 22:20 with 2Sa 8:17; 1Ch 18:16; 24:6). In defense of Mark’s historicity, however, the text does not actually say that David came to Abiathar, but that these events occurred epi Abiathar archiereōs, “in the [time] of Abiathar, the high priest” (NIV, “in the days of . . . ”). Abiathar is closely linked with David during David’s reign, so his mention could constitute a general reference to that period. A similar reference appears in Luke 3:2, where both Annas and Caiaphas are identified as high priests during Jesus’ ministry. Though Caiaphas was the official high priest, his father-in-law Annas—earlier deposed by the Romans—wielded enormous influence over the priesthood. (Five of his sons and one son-in-law served as high priests after him.) Another possibility is to translate the preposition epi as “in the account of,” as is done in Mark 12:26 (epi tou batou, “in the account of the bush”). First Samuel 21–22 could be called “the account of Abiathar,” since it was he who escaped to David when the priests were massacred at Nob (22:20). Either of these solutions is possible, though neither is entirely satisfactory. We must admit we simply do not know what meaning Mark intended.
27–28 Jesus concludes with a double pronouncement. The first affirms that the Sabbath was not created for its own sake; it was a gift of God to human beings. Its purpose was not to put people in a kind of straitjacket. It was for their good—to provide rest from labor and opportunity for worship (see Ex 23:12; Dt 5:14).
The second pronouncement, “So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath” (v.28), is sometimes treated as an aside by the narrator rather than a statement by Jesus himself. In this case Mark would be telling his readers that Jesus’ authoritative pronouncement in v.27 confirms that he is indeed Lord of the Sabbath. One reason for this interpretation is that apart from here and in 2:10, Jesus does not speak of himself as the “Son of Man” in Mark’s gospel until after Peter confesses that he is the Messiah (8:29). From that point on Jesus uses the term repeatedly of himself (8:31, 38; 9:9, 12, 31; 10:33; 13:26; 14:21, 41, 62; see comments at 2:10). While this interpretation is possible, against it is the fact that in every other case in the Gospels, “Son of Man” appears as a self-designation by Jesus rather than in an editorial comment of the evangelist. It seems best to view its use here as Jesus’ own pronouncement about his authority.
Another question concerns the original meaning of the pronouncement. “Son of man” in Hebrew (ben ʾ ādām) means “human being,” and this sense would fit the context. Jesus has just said that the Sabbath was created for human beings (v.27). He now concludes that consequently (hōste, “so”) human beings have authority over the Sabbath. The Sabbath was created to be the servant—not the lord—of human beings. While this meaning makes good sense in its first-century context, it cannot be Mark’s primary intent. The readers of the gospel would know that Jesus had assumed “Son of Man” as a messianic title. In the Markan context there is no doubt that Jesus is referring to himself as Lord over the Sabbath. Throughout this section of his gospel, Mark has been demonstrating Jesus’ extraordinary authority in calling disciples, teaching, healing diseases, driving out demons, and forgiving sins. Now he indicates Jesus’ authority even over the Sabbath command.
The second saying may therefore be something of a pun. Following as it does on the first pronouncement (v.27), it could mean that human beings have authority to exercise the spirit of the Sabbath over legalistic obligations to it, since the Sabbath was instituted for their benefit. But as the Davidic Messiah and quintessential human being (“the Son of Man”), who will bring salvation to all humanity, Jesus is the true and ultimate Lord of the Sabbath. The eschatological implications should not be missed. With his kingdom proclamation Jesus is establishing something new (“new wine,” v.22): bringing in a new age—the age of salvation—and giving new significance to the Sabbath rest (cf. Heb 12:9–11).
NOTES
27 Jesus’ pronouncement was not as radical for his day as some would think. Rabbi Simeon ben Menasya (ca. AD 180) said, “The Sabbath has been committed to you and not you to the Sabbath” (Mekilta, Shabbata 1 to Ex 31:14; cf. b. Yoma 85b).
OVERVIEW
This last in a series of five conflict stories (2:1–3:6) comes hot on the heels of the previous Sabbath controversy. This episode serves as an initial climax to escalating hostility against Jesus and concludes with his enemies’ plotting to destroy him (3:6).
1Another time he went into the synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there. 2Some of them were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, so they watched him closely to see if he would heal him on the Sabbath. 3Jesus said to the man with the shriveled hand, “Stand up in front of everyone.”
4Then Jesus asked them, “Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?” But they remained silent.
5He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored. 6Then the Pharisees went out and began to plot with the Herodians how they might kill Jesus.
1 Again Mark gives no details of time or geographical location, except that the episode occurred in a synagogue on the Sabbath. The synagogue in Capernaum may be intended, for it was Jesus’ base of operations in Galilee (see 1:21). A man with a “shriveled hand”—apparently some sort of paralysis—is present in the synagogue.
2 Mark does not specifically identify the opposition here. Though he uses the indefinite “some,” the opposition’s identity is nonetheless clear. (Cf. v.6, where the Pharisees are mentioned, and Luke 6:7, which says that they were the “Pharisees and the teachers of law.”) Since Jesus had already raised suspicions in their mind because of his unorthodox actions, they were present in the synagogue not to worship God but to spy on Jesus (“they watched him closely”). They “were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus.” Their motives were wrong from the start. The statement “to see if he would heal him on the Sabbath” makes it clear that the Pharisees were convinced of Jesus’ power to perform miracles. The issue was not “could he?” but “would he?”
The rabbis of Jesus’ day debated whether providing medical help on the Sabbath violated the Sabbath command. It was generally agreed that doing so was allowed in extreme emergencies or when a life was in danger. The Mishnah says that “whenever there is doubt whether life is in danger this overrides the Sabbath” (m. Yoma 8:6; cf. CD 11:9–10; m. Šabb. 14:3–4). A midwife could also work on the Sabbath since birth could not be delayed. Since here the man’s physical life is not in immediate danger, the scribes and Pharisees would have viewed his healing on the Sabbath as a violation of the law (cf. Lk 13:14). Evidently no objection had been raised when Jesus earlier drove out a demon on the Sabbath (1:21–28), but that infringement may have been overlooked because the demon took the initiative and disrupted the service. Jesus was correcting a chaotic situation rather than initiating an “unnecessary” healing.
3–4 Jesus was fully aware of the designs of the opposition. Once again he is exercising divine prerogative by reading minds (cf. 2:8). Yet instead of acting carefully in the situation, he commanded the man to stand up and take “center stage” so that everyone in the synagogue could see what he was going to do (v.3). By doing so, he is directly and publicly challenging his opponents. Only here in the Gospel of Mark does Jesus himself initiate a healing without being approached, thus further emphasizing the intentionality of his actions. There is no motif of secrecy here!
The religious leaders had not posed a question to Jesus, but he knew what was racing through their minds. So he asked them, “Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?” (v.4). The statement is couched in the typical language of rabbinic legal debate, “Is it lawful . . . ?” The two statements are parallel, with the second specifying the first. The answers to both are obvious: It is clearly better to do good than to do evil and to save a life than to kill. The rabbis themselves allowed the saving of a life on the Sabbath. The problem is not the meaning of the statement but its relevance to the present situation. In this case the man’s life does not seem to be in danger, and so it would seem to be neither evil nor murder to leave the healing of his hand for another day. But Jesus is not simply making a legal ruling. He is using hyperbole to make a more profound point. The callous attitude of the Pharisees toward human suffering was itself evil, and so tantamount to murder. Calvin, 2:54, noted that “there is little difference between manslaughter and the conduct of him who does not concern himself about relieving a person in distress.” The Pharisees are more concerned with the minutiae of the law than its benefit for people. They have missed the heart of God, who gave the law for humanity’s good.
Even worse, the entire reason for their presence is to accuse Jesus of violating the Sabbath. As elsewhere in Mark’s gospel, there is heavy irony here. While Jesus is doing good by alleviating human suffering, the Pharisees are present for an evil purpose and will soon be plotting murder (v.6)—all on the Sabbath!
Furthermore, the whole passage must be placed in the eschatological context of Jesus’ ministry. While healing a paralyzed hand may not appear to be a life-saving action, all of Jesus’ miracles reveal the inbreaking power of the kingdom of God and the restoration of creation. Jesus, in defeating disease and Satan, is redeeming the world. His work of “saving lives” by offering God’s healing and forgiveness is appropriate at any time and in any place. The sacred days and places of Judaism, such as the Sabbath and the temple, will be given new spiritual significance in the dawning age of salvation.
The Pharisees respond with silence—perhaps because they have no answer to give. No one could question Jesus’ point that it is always better to do good than evil and to save life rather than to murder. But from a narrative perspective, their silence also indicates rhetorical defeat. As he will do again in 11:33, Jesus has silenced and thus defeated his opponents.
5 Anger is rarely directly attributed to Jesus. The only other place in the Gospels where he is said to be angry is in the disputed reading in Mark 1:41. While there the anger was difficult to understand, here it is clearly justified. It is “righteous indignation”—what a good person feels in the presence of stark evil. Such anger was particularly appropriate to this situation. But even such justifiable anger was couched in compassion. The tenses of the verbs are important here. The looking “around at them in anger” was momentary (aorist tense), but the being “deeply distressed” was continuous (present tense).
Jesus’ distress was caused by their “stubborn hearts,” i.e., their consistent failure to recognize who he really was. Nineham, 110, writes, “Their opposition rested on a fundamental misunderstanding—an inability, or refusal, to see that Jesus was God’s eschatological agent and that his sovereign freedom with regard to law and custom sprang from that fact.” The “heart” in Hebrew thought was the seat of the mind and will as well as the emotions, and “hardness of heart” is a common OT expression for Israel’s refusal to respond to the message of God’s prophets (Jer 3:17; 7:24; 13:10, etc.; cf. Ro 11:25; 2Co 3:14). Later in the gospel, the disciples will experience a similar lack of spiritual discernment (6:52; 8:17).
When Jesus ordered the man to stretch out his hand, he obeyed; and it was instantly and completely restored. It is significant that Jesus heals with a simple word. France, 151, comments, “If this was ‘work,’ it was of a very nonphysical variety.” Yet in their hostility and jealousy the Pharisees are blind to this point, as well as to the fact that it must be God working through Jesus who has healed the man.
6 H. Van der Loos (Miracles of Jesus, 438) writes, “The consequence of the healing was neither surprise nor acclamation, but increased enmity.” The Pharisees, joined now by the Herodians, began to plot Jesus’ death. The term “Herodian” occurs only here and in 12:13 (par. Mt 22:16) and is not further explained. It probably refers to influential Jews who were friends and backers of the Herodian dynasty. In Galilee they would have supported Herod Antipas, son of Herod the Great and tetrarch of Galilee and Perea. This friendship also meant that these Pharisees backed the rule of Rome, from which the Herods received their authority. The alliance of the Herods with the Pharisees is unusual, since the Pharisees would have viewed any king not descended from the line of David—including the Herods—to be illegitimate (cf. Pss. Sol. 17–18). The odd coalition arose from a common enemy, for both groups viewed Jesus as a threat to their influence and authority in Galilee. Their scheming introduces an ominous tone to the narrative and recalls for Mark’s readers Jesus’ previous reference to the time “when the bridegroom will be taken from them” (2:20).