Mark 2

The faith of the paralytic (v. 1-12)—Jesus was teaching in a house in Capernaum (v. 1). Four men brought a paralytic on a bed to Him, but the house was so crowded that they could not get to Him (v. 4). So the men climbed up on the roof, removed the tiles and “let down the bed on which the paralytic was lying” (v. 5). Jesus was impressed with their faith, and said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven you” (v. 5). The text specifically says that He saw “their” faith, but the blessing seems to have been singular: “Son, your sins are forgiven you.” Jesus could have intended that collectively, but that’s unknown for sure. Regardless, the blessing He bestows is the highest heaven can give: forgiveness. That is far more significant and wonderful than just a healing. However, His claim to forgive sins troubled “some of the scribes” who were there, and they “reason[ed] in their hearts, ‘Why does this Man speak blasphemies like this? Who can forgive sins but God alone?’” (vs. 6-7). Indeed. And this passage indicates clearly to us that Jesus was/is divine, God in the flesh. And in order to prove that He truly did have the authority to forgive sins, “He said to the paralytic, ‘I say to you, arise, take up your bed, and go to your house.’” (v. 11). “Immediately, he arose, took up the bed, and went out in the presence of them all” (v. 12). Note the “immediately”; Jesus’ miracles were public, visible, and did not require months to actuate. But more importantly, the miracles were designed to confirm His message. Only God can suspend natural law in this way, and thus the miraculous wonders Jesus (and His apostles) did authenticated their message. That was their major purpose.

The call of Matthew (vs. 13-17)—Matthew, or Levi, as Mark refers to him, was a tax-collector. The Jews hated such men, mainly because they saw them as traitors—collecting tribute for the despised Romans. But Matthew/Levi became a devoted apostle of Christ and, of course, author of one of the four gospels. To show his appreciation and devotion to Jesus, he prepared a banquet for the Lord at his house (v. 15), and invited other tax collectors and “sinners” to join them. The self-righteous scribes and Pharisees were affronted that Jesus would eat with such people. But Christ’s explanation was simple: “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance” (v. 17). We are all more comfortable being around our friends and closest acquaintances, but there is a whole world of lost people out there who need our help. Breaking out in that world, as Jesus did, seems to be one of the hardest things for us to do.

The new order (vs. 18-22)—Some disciples of John the Baptist and Pharisees asked Him why His disciples did not fast, as they did. Jesus’ answer is a little obscure, but deals with the new system. There will, indeed, come a day when His followers would fast (vs. 19-21), but it wasn’t really necessary. There is a new order coming—one doesn’t put new cloth on an old garment or new wine in old wineskins. Fasting was a vital part of the old law, but not the new. And there is a complete break between the two. Christianity is not just spliced onto Judaism; it is a completely new religion that requires a clean severance—new wine in new wineskins, not new wine in old wineskins. While Christianity obviously acknowledges a link with the Jewish religion, it is not an extension of it. And Jesus and His disciples make that abundantly clear in the New Testament.

David and the showbread (vs. 23-28)—I go into some detail on this story in Matthew 12, and I won’t repeat all the particulars here. It’s not an easy passage, but one that I do think has been misunderstood. The Pharisees condemn Jesus and His disciples for “working” on the Sabbath; in this case, plucking grain on that day. Which was not “work” in the sense meant by the Sabbath. What Jesus does here is point out the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. They censure Jesus for doing something that wasn’t wrong, while justifying David when he did something that was indeed contrary to the Law of Moses. We must not equate Jesus’ action here with David’s, because the latter truly did break the old law while Christ was not doing so. Thus, it is Pharisaic inconsistency that is being exposed here. Jesus’ statements that “the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath” (v. 27), and “therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath” (v. 28) are not excuses to break God’s law. See my discussion of this in Matthew 12; there is no reason for me to repeat the entire discourse here.