Mark 2 Study Notes

2:1-3:6 This section contains five conflict stories relating to Jesus’s authority. In each, Jesus was accused of blasphemy, challenged about his association with sinners, rebuked for neglecting religious customs, and accused of breaking Sabbath laws.

2:1 He was at home probably refers to Peter’s house (see note at 1:29-31).

2:2 The word (Gk logos, see also 4:33; 8:32) was later used to refer to Christian missionary preaching (Ac 6:4; 8:4; 17:11; Gl 6:6; Col 4:3). Here, it refers to the good news (Mk 1:14-15).

2:3 This is the only time Mark mentioned a paralytic (cp. Mt 8:6).

2:4 Removed the roof. Most houses in Palestine were single-story, flat-roofed structures with an outside staircase. The roof was used for work, drying laundry, sleeping, or prayer. Over the crossbeams small poles or branches were placed and covered with thatch and mud. A mat (vv. 4,9,11-12) was a poor person’s pallet (6:55; Jn 5:8-11; Ac 5:15).

2:5 Their faith refers to those who carried the paralyzed man as well as the paralytic himself. Rather than a word of healing, Jesus spoke forgiveness over the paralytic after addressing him as son. Your sins is plural and possibly specific. Only here did Jesus link sin and infirmity. Possibly there was a direct relationship between this man’s sins and his paralysis.

2:6-7 The scribes supposed Jesus was blaspheming when they heard him declare the man’s sins forgiven. Death by stoning was the prescribed penalty for blasphemy (Lv 24:16; Jn 10:33), and it was the charge on which Jesus was eventually executed (Mk 14:64).

2:8-11 The answer to Jesus’s question which is easier is of course the unverifiable claim to have forgiven the paralytic’s sins. After all, forgiveness of sins is a quality that cannot be checked against visible evidence, and so anyone can claim to forgive sins. Actually having the authority to do it is another thing altogether. To prove his right to forgive sins, Jesus undertook the more verifiable (yet still remarkable) task of healing the man. Son of Man was Jesus’s favorite self-designation. It derives from Dn 7:13-14, where the messianic Son of Man is given authority (see note at 1:21-22).

2:12 This proved that Jesus could forgive sins. They were all astounded recalls 1:27. The scribes accused Jesus of usurping God’s prerogatives (2:7), but the crowd gave glory to God because of Jesus.

2:13-14 Sea refers to the Sea of Galilee. Only Mark identified the tax collector as Levi the son of Alphaeus (cp. Mt 9:9; Lk 5:27, from which we learn that “Levi” was another name for Matthew; Mt 10:3). The toll booth was probably a local customs booth. Tax collectors were regarded as no better than thieves or Gentiles. Follow me recalls 1:17-18. This is the standard term in the Gospels for discipleship. He got up and followed him shows Levi’s response to Jesus’s call was immediate.

2:15-17 Reclining at the floor-level table on an elbow with the feet extended across the floor was the traditional dining posture. Levi invited Jesus and his disciples to a banquet that included notorious figures—sinners and tax collectors (cp. Lk 5:29). “Sinners” refers to those who deliberately violate God’s laws. By dining with such people, Jesus in some sense identified with them. Far from condoning their sins, Jesus dwelt among them because he had come to save sinners. On scribes, see note at 1:21-22. Most scribes were Pharisees. Pharisees (“separated ones”) strictly observed the written and oral law, believed in angels and resurrection, opposed Greek influence, and were esteemed by the people. They were constantly in conflict with Jesus. The righteous whom Jesus says he didn’t come to call is an ironical reference to the self-righteous Pharisees.

2:18 The question about fasting arose because the behavior of Jesus’s disciples contrasted with that of disciples who belonged to John the Baptist and the Pharisees. Fasting was only required on the Day of Atonement (Lv 16:29-30, but see Est 9:31 and Zch 8:19 for fasts originating in the postexilic period). In NT times, the Pharisees fasted on Mondays and Thursdays (Lk 18:12). It was considered an act of piety (Mt 6:16-18).

2:19-20 A wedding typically lasted seven days. Guests (lit “sons of the bridal chamber”) may refer to wedding guests or the groom’s attendants. The groom recalls John the Baptist’s designation of Jesus (Jn 3:29). Will be taken away suggests forcible removal and shifts the focus to Jesus’s coming death. Jesus stated that after he had been violently “taken away” as John the Baptist had been (1:14), his disciples would fast as John’s disciples were doing now.

2:21-22 These are Jesus’s first parables in Mark. Wineskins were made from soft, pliable goatskins. Old wineskins that already had been used to ferment wine lost their elasticity, became brittle, and would burst if used again, resulting in the loss of the containers and the new wine. Both sayings indicate the impossibility of integrating Jesus’s teachings (the new) with the religious structures and practices of traditional Judaism (the old).

2:23-24 What is not lawful does not specify what regulations were broken. The controversy was that they did this on the Sabbath, a day of rest on which no work was permitted (Ex 20:8-11; Dt 5:12-15). Harvesting and threshing grain on the Sabbath was specifically forbidden (Ex 34:21). The ripened grain places this narrative in late spring or early summer. On the Pharisees, see note at vv. 15-17.

2:25-26 Jesus defended his disciples by appealing to David’s flight from King Saul (1Sm 21:1-6). In the time of Abiathar the high priest is peculiar to Mark (cp. Mt 12:3; Lk 6:3) and is debated because the event actually happened when Abiathar’s father Ahimelech was high priest. However, Abiathar was the only high priest to escape Saul’s slaughter of the priests (1Sm 22:19-20), and he was well-known throughout David’s era. Thus Mark’s reference is a fitting approximation. The bread of the Presence refers to twelve loaves of unleavened bread placed in the temple’s holy place to represent Israel’s twelve tribes. These were replaced every Sabbath, and only priests could eat them (Lv 24:5-9). Which is not lawful is a repetition of the Pharisees’ phrase in v. 24, allowing Jesus to declare that while David’s actions were technically a violation of OT law they were not condemned.

2:27-28 Mark alone recorded Jesus’s declaration about God’s priorities regarding the Sabbath and humans. On Son of Man, see note at vv. 8-11. Lord even of the Sabbath turned the issue to Jesus’s authority and affirmed his status.