Opposition Rises

The section that begins here (Mark 2:1–3:6) contains five accounts that reveal who Jesus is and the nature of his authority (Mark 2:10, 1:22). At the same time, it becomes evident that opposition toward Jesus was rising.

All five stories involve a controversial discussion, although in the first story Jesus' opponents only think and do not express their thoughts aloud (Mark 2:6), and in the fifth they remain silent in the face of Jesus' question (Mark 3:4).

The Faith of the Bearers Bears Fruit – Mark 2:1–12

After Jesus returned to his new hometown of Capernaum, the people came to him with the same enthusiasm as before (Mark 1:37) to hear him and probably hoped to see and experience the miracles that Jesus performed (verses 1-2). The house where Jesus was staying was evidently the home of Simon and Andrew (Mark 1:29).

The crowd prevented the four men carrying the paralyzed man from reaching Jesus (verses 3–4). They did not give up, but instead climbed the stairs on the outside of the house to reach the roof (verse 4). The roofs of Jewish houses at that time were made of clay, straw, and brushwood, so it was easy to make an opening in them.

We might wonder what people were thinking—in a house that typically consisted of only a single room—when pieces of clay began to fall from the ceiling onto those listening to Jesus. But Mark is not interested in the listeners or their thoughts; rather, he focuses on the encounter between Jesus and the paralyzed man.

The roofs of the houses were flat, and people spent time on them; in a sense, they served as balconies. It has been suggested that the nighttime conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus took place on the roof of a house in Jerusalem (John 3:1–21).

In verse 5, it is important to note the phrase “their faith”—that is, it refers to the faith of those carrying the man. We might well assume that “their” includes the paralyzed man himself, but what is certain is that it encompasses those who carried him. The faith these men had in Jesus was demonstrated by the fact that they brought the paralyzed man before Him. Naturally, the man himself must also have had faith in Jesus; otherwise, he would not have wanted to be carried before Him.

We, too, are called to bring people before Jesus—through prayer, by inviting them to spiritual gatherings, and so on. The persistent efforts of the men in this story bring us to a question: in your opinion, what is worth doing to help and save a single person?

Infant baptism also requires those who bring the child to have faith in the saving power of Jesus.

We might expect Jesus to have focused first on the man’s illness (verse 5). However, Jesus perceived that the issue of sin was, in fact, more significant than the issue of sickness and health.

Verse 5 marks the only instance in the Gospel of Mark where Jesus explicitly pronounces the forgiveness of sins. He often did so through his actions—by welcoming sinners into his company.

"And the scribes of the Pharisees, when they saw that he was eating with sinners and tax collectors, said to his disciples, “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?”
And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”
(Mark 2:16-17, ESV)

What particularly irritated Jesus’ opponents about his actions was that he forgave sins (verses 6–7). Now the first confrontation between Jesus and the teachers of the law took place. The teachers of the law were “religious professionals”—professional theologians—who interpreted the writings of the Old Testament, above all the Law of Moses. They also served as advisors on many secular matters, since in Judaism, religion governs many aspects of everyday life as well. Most of the teachers of the law were Pharisees (Mark 2:16).

The teachers of the law taught that sickness was a consequence of sin (John 9:2; Romans 5:12). And indeed, it is true that without the Fall, there would be no sickness or death. However, the teachers of the law believed that a specific sin lay behind every instance of sickness. To be healed from an illness, one had to deal with the sin first; only then could healing take place.

Judaism did not expect the Messiah to forgive sins. John the Baptist had proclaimed the forgiveness of sins (Mark 1:5), but he was, after all, a prophet sent by God. However, the Pharisees did not accept the actions of John the Baptist either (Matt 3:7–10; Luke 7:29–30).

The view held by the teachers of the law in verse 7 is, on one hand, a distortion of Jesus’ words, yet on the other, it hits the mark precisely.

'“Why does this man speak like that? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?”
(Mark 2:7, ESV)

To be exact, Jesus did not here forgive sins “on his own”; rather, he spoke of God forgiving sins (verse 5, passive voice = an act of God). Yet, even acknowledging this, a problem remains: by what authority was Jesus able to promise the forgiveness of sins on God’s behalf? Jewish priests were able to do this on the basis of their position and the sacrifices that had been performed — once the requirements prescribed by the Law had been fulfilled, the priest was permitted to declare sins forgiven. But in their eyes, Jesus was not a priest, nor had any sacrifices been performed.

Only God can forgive sins. Jesus did so, and in doing so, demonstrated that He is God (Ps 103:3, Isa 43:25, Dan 9:9).

"Bless the Lord, O my soul,
and forget not all his benefits,
who forgives all your iniquity,
who heals all your diseases"...
(Psalm 103:2-3, ESV)

The peculiar question in verse 9 can be understood in three ways:
1. Declaring the forgiveness of sins is easier, because no one can verify whether it actually took place or not. In contrast, the healing of a sick person could be confirmed by anyone.
2. Forgiving sins is more difficult, because it is the cause, whereas sickness is merely the consequence.
3. Both are impossible for a human being.

The fact that Jesus healed a paralyzed man demonstrated that He had authority over sickness (verse 10). Yet, at the same time—according to the teachers of the law’s own teaching—He forgave the man’s sins. And this, in turn, was evidence that Jesus was God. The premise of the teachers of the law (verse 7) was correct, but their conclusion ("He is blaspheming!") was wrong.

In verse 10, Jesus uses the term "Son of Man" to refer to himself—the first occurrence of this expression in the Gospel of Mark. The term originates in the prophecy in Daniel 7:13.

“I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed."
(Daniel 7:13-14)

In the New Testament, this term is used by someone other than Jesus on only two occasions: by the Jews in John 12:34, and by Stephen in Acts 7:56. It is the most common messianic title in the New Testament; it appears 14 times in the Gospel of Mark and 81 times throughout the entire New Testament.

Only sinners need forgiveness – Mark 1:13-17

Levi’s tax station (verse 14) was likely located on the “Way of the Sea” (Isaiah 8:23) that passed by Capernaum, a route leading from Damascus to Egypt. Another possibility is the harbor of Capernaum (cf. verse 13). The border between Galilee and the territory of Trachonitis lay near Capernaum.

The Roman system for collecting taxes and customs duties was efficient, but prone to abuse. The right to collect taxes and duties in a given region was sold at auction—the highest bidder won. Rome always received its due; it was left to the purchasers of these regional rights to recover their investment. They would resell the collection rights in smaller portions, which were, in turn, subdivided further. Ultimately, there were several layers in the chain, and each level expected to take its own profit (cf. Luke 19:2). This created a temptation to charge an excessive price.

The Jews drove the tax collectors out of the synagogues. They were not even considered fit to serve as witnesses in court. They were outcasts, for many reasons:
1. They were traitors, as they collected taxes for Herod Antipas—a "puppet ruler" installed by Rome. In Judea, taxes went directly into Rome’s coffers.
2. They were dishonest; they were accused of extortion.
3. In the course of their work, they came into contact with things and people considered unclean.

Matthew (Matt 9:9, 10:3) refers to the tax collector as Matthew. Since Levi is not mentioned in the lists of the disciples, it is likely that Levi and Matthew are the same person (cf. Mark 3:18).

The fact that Jesus spent time in the company of tax collectors was difficult for the Jews to grasp. The Messiah was supposed to come to liberate the people of Israel from the oppression of the occupying power, not to befriend its representatives.

Pharisaism emerged during the Maccabean period, in the 2nd century BC. The name means "one who separates oneself," and that is precisely what they did: they had to separate themselves from all sin and impurity. The Jewish historian Josephus relates that there were only about 6,000 of them at that time; in reality, however, they were the strongest group within Judaism and determined its direction. Pharisaism was a "revival movement," not a professional guild. A large proportion of the teachers of the Law belonged to their ranks.

The Pharisees and Jesus had opposite approaches to sin and sinners. The Pharisees sought to avoid or flee from sin, and to isolate themselves from sinners, in order to remain pure. Jesus, however, sought to cleanse sinners, and therefore he had to be in their company. The Old Covenant had to flee from sin; the New Covenant overcomes sin.

Verse 17 is very important. Only those in need of salvation require a Savior. We would consider it strange for a doctor to refuse to have any dealings with the sick. Therefore, the church must be open to sinners. One enters the kingdom of God through the gate of the forgiveness of sins (verse 17).

Now Jesus’ opponents were already criticizing Him openly (verse 16; cf. verses 6–8)—though, in this instance, they did so to the disciples rather than directly to Jesus.

Wedding guests do not fast – Mark 2:18–22

The Law prescribed only one day of fasting: the Day of Atonement in the autumn (Leviticus 16:29–31, 23:27–32; Numbers 29:7). After the exile, the Jews also fasted on four other days (Zechariah 7:5, 8:19).

In the time of Jesus, devout Jews fasted twice a week: on Mondays and Thursdays (Luke 18:12). According to tradition, Moses ascended Mount Sinai on a Thursday to receive the tablets of the Law, and he returned 40 days later on a Monday. Thus, this weekly fast was not a requirement of the Law, but it had to be observed if one wished to be considered devout.

Luke indicates that this conversation took place at the house of Levi (Luke 5:33). Jesus was, therefore, at a feast on a day of fasting. The beginning of verse 18 can also be interpreted in the same way: a fast was currently underway.

The Pharisees did not have disciples in the strict sense. The expression in verse 18 should therefore be interpreted more broadly: “supporters of the Pharisees” or simply “the Pharisees.”

John the Baptist’s disciples often fasted (Matt 9:14), but now they had a specific reason for doing so: John was in prison (Mark 6:14–29). Fasting was thought to increase the power of prayers. John the Baptist was known for her ascetic lifestyle (Matt 11:18, Luke 7:33).

Jesus’s answer is, once again, surprising. Judaism recognized a situation in which fasting was not appropriate: a wedding. Weddings were joyous celebrations, incompatible with the sorrow of fasting or repentance for sins. Since a wedding lasted for an entire week, two days of fasting were omitted (verse 19).

Jesus’ answer is clear in that He is the bridegroom. But who is the bride?
Israel is God’s bride (Isaiah 54:4–10, 62:5; Hosea 2:18, 21; the entire Song of Songs).

"For your Maker is your husband,
the Lord of hosts is his name;
and the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer,
the God of the whole earth he is called."
(Isaiah 54:5, ESV)

"John answered, “A person cannot receive even one thing unless it is given him from heaven. You yourselves bear me witness, that I said, ‘I am not the Christ, but I have been sent before him.’
The one who has the bride is the bridegroom. The friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly at the bridegroom’s voice. Therefore this joy of mine is now complete. He must increase, but I must decrease.”
(John 3:28-30, ESV)

If Israel has received a bridegroom, then Jesus must be God! (see also 2 Corinthians 11:2, Ephesians 5:31–32, Revelation 21:2, 9)

"Then came one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues and spoke to me, saying,
“Come, I will show you the Bride, the wife of the Lamb.”
(Rev. 21:9, ESV)

Judaism did not refer to the Messiah as a bridegroom, so it is possible that Jesus’ words were not as easily understood by his original listeners as they are by us.

Verse 20 is the first passage in the Gospel of Mark that speaks of Jesus’ death. It is, therefore, the first prediction of his suffering—though one that is expressed in indirect and somewhat obscure terms.

"The days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast in that day."
(Mark 2:20, ESV)

The expression “is taken away from them” is in the passive voice, which indicates an act of God: God takes Jesus away (compare Isaiah 53:8: “By oppression and judgment he was taken away”). Thus, Jesus knew from the very beginning how his public ministry would end. See also Philippians 2:5–11.

..."And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross." (Phil. 2:8, ESV)

In the early Church, verse 20 was also interpreted as an exhortation to fast on the day of Jesus’ death—that is, on Friday. Consequently, the Church adopted new fasting days: Wednesday and Friday. It was on a Wednesday that Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus (Luke 22:1–5; see also Acts 13:2, 14:23).

Biblical fasting is a process of emptying oneself so that God may grow within us. Therefore, true fasting is always accompanied by prayer and the study of the Bible.

Understanding verses 21 and 22 requires some background knowledge regarding the culture of that time. Fabrics would shrink over time, through repeated washing (verse 21)—much as poor-quality fabrics still do today. If one sewed a patch made of new fabric onto an old garment, the new fabric would shrink, tearing an even larger hole in the old material.

Whole goatskins were used as wineskins (verse 22). However, over time, such a skin would harden and lose its flexibility. New wine would continue to ferment, building up pressure inside the skin. An old wineskin would not be able to withstand this pressure, whereas a new, flexible one would not break.

Jesus’ teaching is clear: his new teaching cannot serve to supplement the old piety based on the Law (cf. Gal 5:1–5). Therefore, one cannot be saved through both the Law and the Gospel; rather, one must choose either the Law or the Gospel.

This time the criticism was directed straight at Jesus, but now it was the disciples who were being criticized—and, of course, their teacher along with them (verse 18).

Reject or Accept?

Jesus’ instruction in verses 21 and 22 does not, of course, mean that all new forms of religiosity are better than the old ones.

When can we accept new teachings and practices—and perhaps, at the same time, let go of certain old ideas?
1. They must be rooted in the teachings of Jesus.
2. They must be justifiable based on the Bible.
3. The teaching and experience of the Church offer significant insight into the value of a new doctrine.
4. They must address the genuine needs of people today.
5. Generally, one should not act against one’s conscience; however, the Adversary can sometimes lead our conscience astray.

Lord of the Sabbath – Mark 2:23-28

In Judaism, the Sabbath was an extremely important point of the Law. Some rabbis even taught that the Sabbath regulations carried more weight than all the other commandments combined. The Sabbath was a visible exercise of piety; it showed whether or not a person took God’s Law seriously. The Law of Moses prescribed the death penalty for breaking the Sabbath (Exodus 31:14).

Thirty-nine prohibitions had accumulated around the Sabbath. To put it somewhat starkly, anything not explicitly permitted on the Sabbath was forbidden. In the case of the Sabbath, the principle of "fencing the Law" was applied: not only was the commandment itself protected, but actions bordering on it were also prohibited, ensuring that the commandment could not be broken—even by accident. An illustrative example of this is the prohibition against boiling a lamb in its mother’s milk (Exodus 23:19). This was expanded into a ban on consuming milk and meat during the same meal; an interval of eight hours must elapse between consuming the two.

Some rabbis taught that if the entire nation were to keep a single Sabbath, the Messiah would come. According to their view, by breaking the Sabbath, Jesus therefore prevented the Messiah from coming!

Fasting was not permitted on the Sabbath. Consequently, food had to be prepared in advance, as cooking was also forbidden. Had the disciples failed to prepare for the Sabbath, or why did they end up eating heads of grain from a field on that day?

Eating heads of grain was permitted (Deuteronomy 23:25–26). It served as a form of social welfare at the time. The poor were allowed to gather grain by hand from another person’s field, though they were not permitted to use tools.

On the Sabbath, one was permitted to travel only a "Sabbath day's journey"—2,000 cubits, or approximately 800 meters (Exodus 16:29; Acts 1:12). Jesus could have been accused of violating the restriction on movement; however, the accusation centered on the violation of the prohibitions against harvesting and threshing (Exodus 34:21; Deuteronomy 5:13–14). According to the teachers of the law, plucking heads of grain constituted harvesting (verse 23), and rubbing them in one's hands amounted to threshing (Luke 6:1).

One might have expected Jesus to try to explain that no violation of the Sabbath had actually occurred; yet, in his response, he effectively acknowledges that one had. Jesus pointed to the actions of David—a prototype of the Messiah—who had eaten the consecrated bread intended solely for the priests and had even given some to his men (verse 26). This bread was kept on display in the Temple (Exodus 25:30: "Place the bread of the Presence on the table before me at all times"). The priests would replace these twelve loaves on the Sabbath and then consume the old ones (Leviticus 8:31; 24:5–9). Since this replacement took place on the Sabbath, Jewish tradition associated the event described in verse 26 with the Sabbath day. In this sense, David himself became, in a way, a Sabbath-breaker: on the Sabbath, he did something that was forbidden to him.

Behind verse 27, one can discern a Jewish line of thought: since humanity was created on the sixth day (Genesis 1:27–31), all creation that preceded it was intended to serve humanity—the “crown of creation.” However, because the Sabbath was created only on the seventh day (Genesis 2:1–3), it was thought that man, correspondingly, had been created for the sake of the Sabbath.

Jesus saw it the other way around: the Sabbath was created for the sake of human beings. Therefore, the question of whether one should keep a day of rest is nonsensical. It is a gift from God, not a burden. After all, no one asks whether they should accept birthday gifts, and so on.

The Sabbath was given to the Jews (Exodus 31:12–17; Deuteronomy 5:12–15). Therefore, it is no longer binding upon the Christian church—just as it was not binding upon the Gentiles (though the Jews did require Gentiles to observe the Sabbath in areas inhabited by Jews; Nehemiah 13:15–22). Consequently, the Christian church began to gather for worship on the day of the resurrection—that is, Sunday (Acts 20:7: "On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread"; Revelation 1:10).

Luther was, in fact, surprisingly liberal regarding the question of a day of rest: in his view, it does not matter which day is observed as a day of rest, but for the purpose of organizing a divine service, it is advisable to agree upon a common day for everyone (Large Catechism, explanation of the Third Commandment).

The fact that Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath is a reference to his divinity. If the Sabbath commandment was given by God, it could not be changed by anyone other than the one who gave it—that is, God.