Marcos 2
R.C.H. Lenski · Citado em PreceptAustin
Marcos 2
Lenski - Finally the irrefutable proof for their indictment: “Who is able to dismiss sins except one, God?” The self-evident answer is true beyond question. This they had learned well from their Old Testament. Their blind mistake was that they considered Jesus a mere man in spite of all the evidence they had received to the contrary. To be sure, for a mere man to pretend to remit sins would be one of the worst forms of blasphemy.(ISMG) Who can forgive (aphiemi) sins (hamartia) but God alone? - A good question which is a good start that soon deteriorates into great grumbling. Who has the power or ability to forgive sins? Only can (has the inherent power) to send away one's sins. Indeed remission of sins was a divine prerogative as taught repeatedly in the Old Testament (Ex. 34:6-9; Ps. 103:12; Ps 130:4, Isa 43:25; Isa 44:22; Isa 55:6, 7; Jer. 31:34; Da 9:9, Mic. 7:18-19).So this was an excellent question and was like throwing Jesus a softball pitch. This is surely why He said be forgiven rather than be healed. THOUGHT - While ultimately God alone can forgive sins against Himself, remove the guilt caused by those sins and declare that the guilt is actually removed, we a On the other hand there is a sense in which we can forgive others and in fact we are commanded to do so when we earnestly resolve not to take revenge but instead to love the one who has injured us, to promote his welfare, and never again to bring up the past (Matt. 6:12, 15; 18:21; Luke 6:37; Eph. 4:32; Can (1410)(dunamai) means to be able or capable of doing something, in this case speaking of the continual (present tense) ability to forgive sins. Mark 2:8 Immediately Jesus, aware in His spirit that they were reasoning that way within themselves, said to them, "Why are you reasoning about these things in your hearts NET Mark 2:8 Now immediately, when Jesus realized in his spirit that they were contemplating such thoughts, he said to them, "Why are you thinking such things in your hearts? GNT Mark 2:8 καὶ εὐθὺς ἐπιγνοὺς ὁ Ἰησοῦς τῷ πνεύματι αὐτοῦ ὅτι οὕτως διαλογίζονται ἐν ἑαυτοῖς λέγει αὐτοῖς, Τί ταῦτα διαλογίζεσθε ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν; NLT Mark 2:8 Jesus knew immediately what they were thinking, so he asked them, "Why do you question this in your hearts? KJV Mark 2:8 And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts? ESV Mark 2:8 And immediately Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they thus questioned within themselves, said to them, "Why do you question these things in your hearts? NIV Mark 2:8 Immediately 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? ASV Mark 2:8 And straightway Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, saith unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts? CSB Mark 2:8 Right away Jesus understood in His spirit that they were thinking like this within themselves and said to them, "Why are you thinking these things in your hearts? when: 1Ch 29:17 Mt 9:4 Lu 5:22 6:8 7:39,40 Joh 2:24,25 6:64 21:17 Heb 4:13 Rev 2:23 Why: Mk 7:21 Ps 139:2 Pr 15:26 24:9 Isa 55:7 Eze 38:10 Lu 24:38 Ac 5:3 Ac 8:22 HOSTILITY HIDDEN IN THEIR HEARTS Related Passages: Mt. 9:4+ And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, “Why are you thinking evil in your hearts? Lk 5:22+ But Jesus, aware of their reasonings, answered and said to them, “Why are you reasoning in your hearts? Immediately Jesus, aware in His spirit that they were reasoning that way within themselves - Jesus immediately perceived that there had just occurred a monumental clash between the Kingdom of darkness (the scribes being sons of darkness) and the Kingdom of light (Jesus being the Light - Jn 8:12) regarding the deity of Jesus. Jesus knew full well that He had exercised the prerogative of God in forgiving the paralytic's sins and so He now proceeds to justify His action and His indirect claim of Deity by healing the man. Aware in His Spirit - this implies "superhuman" awareness! (see Mk 8:12+, Jn 2:25+) Immediately (2117)(euthus) as adverb to mean immediately, right away, at once. Euthus is a key word in the Gospel of Mark - Mk. 1:3; Mk. 1:10; Mk. 1:12; Mk. 1:18; Mk. 1:20; Mk. 1:21; Mk. 1:23; Mk. 1:28; Mk. 1:29; Mk. 1:30; Mk. 1:42; Mk. 1:43; Mk. 2:8; Mk. 2:12; Mk. 3:6; Mk. 4:5; Mk. 4:15; Mk. 4:16; Mk. 4:17; Mk. 4:29; Mk. 5:2; Mk. 5:29; Mk. 5:30; Mk. 5:42; Mk. 6:25; Mk. 6:27; Mk. 6:45; Mk. 6:50; Mk. 6:54; Mk. 7:25; Mk. 8:10; Mk. 9:15; Mk. 9:20; Mk. 9:24; Mk. 10:52; Mk. 11:2; Mk. 11:3; Mk. 14:43; Mk. 14:45; Mk. 14:72; Mk. 15:1 Aware (recognizing, understanding) (1921)(epiginosko from epí = upon intensifies + ginosko = to know) means that Jesus knew fully, with certainty. He had definite information about their reasoning in their hearts. R C H Lenski - Jesus used his omniscience in this case; see John 2:24, 25+. As his office and work required Jesus used his divine attributes; but not beyond that. Thus with stunning directness Jesus confronts these Jews with their own thoughts. He thus gave them evidence that he was not a mere man who was arrogating divine prerogatives to himself in a blasphemous manner. Mark uses “these things” to indicate their reasonings, but Matthew writes “wicked things,” (Mt. 9:4+ = evil) which characterizes their moral character. “These things” were the blind product of their hatred and the desire to destroy Jesus in any way that might prove feasible. We must look well to our inner motives, for these are the vicious factors and not merely what they produce. Edwards - Jesus not only knows the sins of the paralytic, but he also knows the hearts of the scribes. The scribes have nothing to say to the man’s physical or spiritual condition. Jesus has something to say to both, but what he says causes the scribes the gravest possible offense. (PNTC-Mk) Said to them, "Why are you reasoning (see dialogizomai) about these things in your hearts (see kardia) - Jesus confronts His adversaries with a pointed counterquestion, which was a well-known rhetorical device in Rabbinic debates (cf Mk 3:4, Mk 11:30, Mk 12:37) Matthew 9:4+ adds ""Why are you thinking evil in your hearts?" where the Greek word for evil (poneros) speaks of active evil with a desire to harm. With this question Jesus rebukes them for their evil and false allegations. Jesus frequently taught by asking questions. Ponder this one -- the scribes (and Pharisees) knew that they had not verbalized their thoughts (reasoning) and yet this Man knew their thoughts perfectly! This was like a "preview" of coming attractions. The fact that Jesus had "read their reasoning" should have been a major clue that He was not a mere Man! Sadly, when hearts are hard, truth cannot penetrate. How often have I shared the Truth of Jesus with folks and they in essence say "Don't confuse me with the facts! What about all the folks who call themselves Jesus followers on Sunday and live like the devil the other 6 days of the week?" Mark 2:9 "Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven'; or to say, 'Get up, and pick up your pallet and walk' NET Mark 2:9 Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Stand up, take your stretcher, and walk'? GNT Mark 2:9 τί ἐστιν εὐκοπώτερον, εἰπεῖν τῷ παραλυτικῷ, Ἀφίενταί σου αἱ ἁμαρτίαι, ἢ εἰπεῖν, Ἔγειρε καὶ ἆρον τὸν κράβαττόν σου καὶ περιπάτει; NLT Mark 2:9 Is it easier to say to the paralyzed man 'Your sins are forgiven,' or 'Stand up, pick up your mat, and walk'? KJV Mark 2:9 Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk? ESV Mark 2:9 Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Rise, take up your bed and walk'? NIV Mark 2:9 Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up, take your mat and walk'? ASV Mark 2:9 Which is easier, to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins are forgiven; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk? CSB Mark 2:9 Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up, pick up your mat, and walk'? Which is easier Mt 9:5 Lu 5:22-25 Your sins are forgiven: Mk 2:5 CHRIST CHALLENGES HIS CRITICS Related Passages: Mt. 9:5+ “Which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up, and walk’? Lk 5:23+ “Which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins have been forgiven you,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? Which is easier - It is obviously easier to say, `Your sins (see hamartia) are forgiven (see aphiemi) sins,' since the validity of that statement cannot be tested -- No human can prove that such a thing actually occurred since it is invisible. Commanding a paralytic to walk would be far more difficult, because the actions of the paralytic would immediately verify the effect of the command. R C H Lenski - Both words evidently require the identical power of God. No other answer is possible. As God alone can remit sins, so he alone can restore a paralytic on the instant. To say to the paralytic (see paralutikos), 'Your sins are forgiven' or to say, 'Get up, and pick up your pallet and walk - The answer is so self-evident that from this text it appears Jesus did not even give them a chance to voice an answer! He immediately moved on to answer His question not with words but with works! Walk is in the present imperative = keeping on walking. It the religious leaders were honest (which they were not), this would have addressed their concerns. Mark 2:10 "But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"--He said to the paralytic NET Mark 2:10 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins,"– he said to the paralytic– GNT Mark 2:10 ἵνα δὲ εἰδῆτε ὅτι ἐξουσίαν ἔχει ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἀφιέναι ἁμαρτίας ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς- λέγει τῷ παραλυτικῷ, NLT Mark 2:10 So I will prove to you that the Son of Man has the authority on earth to forgive sins." Then Jesus turned to the paralyzed man and said, KJV Mark 2:10 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,) ESV Mark 2:10 But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"-- he said to the paralytic-- NIV Mark 2:10 But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins..." He said to the paralytic, ASV Mark 2:10 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath authority on earth to forgive sins (he saith to the sick of the palsy), CSB Mark 2:10 But so you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins," He told the paralytic, Da 7:13,14 Mt 9:6-8 16:13 Joh 5:20-27 Ac 5:31 1Ti 1:13-16 Related Passages: Mt. 9:5-6+ “Which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up, and walk’? 6 “But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”–then He *said to the paralytic, “Get up, pick up your bed and go home.” Lk 5:24+ “But, so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins,”–He said to the paralytic–“I say to you, get up, and pick up your stretcher and go home.” But so that you may know that - NLT has "So I will prove to you." Jesus gave the challenge and apparently does not give His opponents time to answer, but presents the purpose for the question. He wanted them to know (eido) this truth beyond a shadow of doubt. Normally "seeing is believing" but that would not prove true in the case of these hard-hearted religious leaders! R C H Lenski - Jesus has done the one act, forgiven the paralytic’s sins. The effect of this act is invisible—no one saw the sins piled up on the man’s soul, and no man saw that mass of sin vanish into nothingness from his soul. Jesus now follows with the second act, he heals the paralytic. The effect is instantly visible to all—they see the man rise, take up his pallet, and walk away, not only free of paralysis but restored to perfect health and strength, all this in an instant. The act which the eyes are able to see verifies the other act which no eyes can see. As the one is wrought by the ἐξουσία, “the authority,” “the right and might” of him who is God, so is the other. For both are done by Jesus, not in and by the name of another, but in his own person, by the divine ἐξουσία that resides in himself. “In order that you may see” in an actual ocular demonstration is thus fulfilled to the very letter. (ISMG) TECHNICAL COMMENT - The first half of v. 10—"But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"—is usually understood to be addressed to the scribes. In that case 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. The change of addressee seems awkward; but, if this is the correct interpretation, presumably Jesus indicated his change by some sort of gesture. Another possibility is to take the entire verse as addressed to Mark's readers. This would not only solve the problem of awkwardness stated above but also the theological one of so early a public use of the title "Son of Man" (for a discussion of "Son of Man," cf. remarks at Mk 8:31). In Mark's Gospel the use of this title seems to be reserved until after the crucial incident of Mk 8:29. (Walter W Wessel - Expositor's Bible Commentary) The Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive (see aphiemi) sins (see hamartia) - Only twice in Mark is Jesus accused of blasphemy, and both times Jesus identifies himself as the Son of Man (cf Mk 14:61, 62, 63, 64). Son of Man had been used once in the OT as a prophecy of the Messiah “I kept looking in the night visions,and behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man (GOD THE SON) was coming, and He came up to the Ancient of Days (GOD THE FATHER) and was presented before Him. (Da 7:13+) Assuming that the title "Son of Man" was spoken to the religious leaders (BUT SEE TECHNICAL NOTE ABOVE), these Jewish leaders would have (or at least should have) understood the Messianic claim that Jesus was making in using this title. The miracle would in turn authenticate His claim, because healing the lame was known to be associated with the time of the Messiah (see examples of passages below). As alluded to above in the "TECHNICAL NOTE" apart from the uses of Son of Man in Mk 2:10 and Mk 2:28, this title is not used again in until Peter's confession of Jesus as "the Christ" in Mk 8:29. After that Son of Man occurs much more frequently (Mk. 8:31; Mk. 8:38; Mk. 9:9; Mk. 9:12; Mk. 9:31; Mk. 10:33; Mk. 10:45; Mk. 13:26; Mk. 14:21; Mk. 14:41; Mk. 14:62) Edwards - It is noteworthy that Jesus chooses “Son of Man” to designate his offices as God’s Son. He does not speak of his vocation in the first person, that is, “That is the way I do things,” but in the third person, which thereby designates his humiliation, suffering, and exaltation as God’s ordained way. (PNTC-Mk) Son of Man was Jesus' favorite description of Himself and is used in 84 verses, the majority referring to Jesus. By using the phrase Son of Man Jesus demonstrates His compassionate willingness to identify with fallen mankind as He specifically declared in Mark 10:45 stating that "even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many," in Luke adding "the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost." (Luke 19:10+) By using this unusual title for himself, Jesus made people think carefully about who he was and what his mission involved (John 12:34; John 13:31-32). Occasionally Jesus used the title “Son of God” (Mt. 27:43; Lk 22:70; Jn 5:25; 9:35; 10:36; 11:4) Authority (1849)(exousia) in simple terms means Jesus has both the right to do this and the might to send sins away! Luke uses exousia to refer to Jesus' message (Lk 4:32, not like the scribes - Mt 7:29), to His authority over the world of the demons (Lk 4:36), to Jesus' delegation of His authority to the 12 disciples (Lk 9:1, cf Lk 10:19), to Jesus' authority to cast into hell (Lk 12:5, cf Mt 25:41), to Jesus' promise to believers to have authority over cities (Lk 19:17) (probably during the Millennium - MacArthur agrees noting this refers to "believers’ responsibility and rule under Christ in His future kingdom - cf. 2 Ti 2:12; Rev 1:6+; Rev 5:10+; Rev 20:4, 6+). He said to the paralytic (see paralutikos) - If the scribes and Pharisees had really understood and believed their own OT Scriptures, this miracle was a giant finger pointing to Jesus as their long expected Messiah. For example Isaiah 35:5; 6+ Then the eyes of the blind will be opened And the ears of the deaf will be unstopped. 6 Then the lame will leap like a deer, And the tongue of the mute will shout for joy. For waters will break forth in the wilderness And streams in the Arabah. Isaiah 61:1+ The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, Because the LORD has anointed me To bring good news to the afflicted; He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to captives And freedom to prisoners; Evans - The link between sin and sickness, forgiveness and restoration of health, is well illustrated in a later rabbinic saying: “A sick man does not recover from his sickness until all his sins are forgiven him, as it is written, ‘Who forgives all your iniquities; who heals all your diseases’ [Ps. 103:3]” (b. Ned. 41a = " I.17 A. R. Alexandri in the name of R. Hiyya bar Abba, “A sick person does not recover from his ailment before all of his sins are forgiven: ‘Who forgives all your sins, who heals all your diseases’ (Ps. 103:3).”). It is also worth noting that in the Aramaic paraphrase of Isaiah (i.e., the Targum) the Suffering Servant of Isa. 52:13–53:12 is understood in messianic terms and is understood as one through whom Israel’s sins can be forgiven. A few phrases are instructive: “… in that we attach ourselves to his words our sins will be forgiven us … before the Lord it was a pleasure to forgive the sins of us all for his sake … he shall beseech concerning their sins … yet he will beseech concerning the sins of many, and to the rebels it shall be forgiven for him” (Tg. Isa. 53:5, 6, 11, 12)....The Roman emperor was also understood to have the power to forgive sins: “Thine age, O Caesar, has brought back fertile crops to the fields … has wiped away our sins and revived the ancient virtues … and the fame and majesty of our empire were spread from the sun’s bed in the west to the east. As long as Caesar is the guardian of the state, neither civil dissension nor violence shall banish peace” (Horace, Odes 4.15, emphasis added). (Ibid) The Cure Read: Mark 2:1-12 The Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins. —Mark 2:10 A man with a nagging cough tried all the over-the-counter remedies he could find, but none worked. Finally he went to a doctor, who quickly discovered that he was suffering from pneumonia. The man was trying to ease the symptoms when what he needed was a cure. The doctor treated the deeper, more serious problem and in a short time the cough was gone. When Jesus was in Capernaum, a large crowd came to the home where He was staying (Mk. 2:1-2). As He was teaching, some men made an opening in the roof and lowered a paralyzed man on a mat. Jesus initially responded not by healing the man but by saying, “Son, your sins are forgiven” (v.5). The deepest need of the man was not physical but spiritual. Then, to show His authority to forgive, Jesus healed the man and sent him on his way—not only with legs that moved but with a heart that was forgiven (v.12). The Great Physician holds the cure That kills the virus of our sin; It's by His own atoning blood That we're made whole and pure within. —DJD Sin is the disease, Christ is the cure. Mark 2:11 "I say to you, get up, pick up your pallet and go home." NET Mark 2:11 "I tell you, stand up, take your stretcher, and go home." GNT Mark 2:11 Σοὶ λέγω, ἔγειρε ἆρον τὸν κράβαττόν σου καὶ ὕπαγε εἰς τὸν οἶκόν σου. NLT Mark 2:11 "Stand up, pick up your mat, and go home!" KJV Mark 2:11 I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house. ESV Mark 2:11 "I say to you, rise, pick up your bed, and go home." NIV Mark 2:11 "I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home." ASV Mark 2:11 I say unto thee, Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thy house. CSB Mark 2:11 "I tell you: get up, pick up your mat, and go home." Mk 1:41 Joh 5:8-10 6:63 THE MORE DIFFICULT COMMAND TO OBEY Related Passages: Mt. 9:6+ “But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”–then He said to the paralytic, “Get up, pick up your bed and go home.” Lk 5:25+ Immediately he got up before them, and picked up what he had been lying on, and went home glorifying God. 26 They were all struck with astonishment and began glorifying God; and they were filled with fear, saying, “We have seen remarkable things today.” I say to you, get up (egeiro), pick up (airo) your pallet and go (hupago) home - Jesus gives 3 commands Get up and go both in the present imperative and pick up in the aorist imperative (Just do it!). Notice that Jesus does not ask him to struggle to arise or to grab a hand by which he would be helped to arise and limp out on his way, but simply to arise, carry the pallet that he himself had been carried in on and move out, nothing short of a miracle! THOUGHT - How could he obey? Only by the power of the Spirit Who enabled him. See discussion of the Need for the Holy Spirit to obey NT commands (or "How to Keep All 1642 Commandments in the New Testament!") Pallet (2895)(krabattos) means a mattress, pallet, a light bed used as a poor man's bed, cot for one person, which was relatively small and portable. It could refer to a cot or stretcher on which a sick person might be carried. Krabattos is not used in the New Testament to describe the couches on which guests would recline at a dinner. Zodhiates says "It denotes a simple kind of bed such as the ancients used to rest on at noon." (Ibid) In a secular use BDAG records "‘Midas himself took up the pallet on which he had been carried, made his departure, and went back to the field." Krabattos - 11x in 11v - bedridden*(1), pallet(8), pallets(2). - Mk. 2:4; Mk. 2:9; Mk. 2:11; Mk. 2:12; Mk. 6:55; Jn. 5:8; Jn. 5:9; Jn. 5:10; Jn. 5:11; Acts 5:15; Acts 9:33. Not found in the Septuagint.
Marcos 2
Lenski - What did David do in his need? He went into “the House of God,” which, however, does not mean into the Holy Place or Sanctuary of the Tabernacle but into the courts, where he might freely go; compare Ps. 122. The ἄρτοι τῆς προθέσεως, “the breads of the setting forth” or the showbread, were twelve loaves, each made of about 6¼ pounds of flour and set forth in two rows on a gold-covered table in the Holy Place every Sabbath Day; and when they were removed they were to be eaten only by the priests, Lev. 24:5–9. The bread that David received was not that which was at the time lying in the Holy Place but some that had been removed after having served its sacred purpose. It was God’s own law that made it “unlawful” for any persons but priests to eat this bread; it was not merely a rabbinical dictum such as the Pharisees brought against Jesus to condemn the plucking of a few ears of grain. Jesus overtops the charge of the Pharisees. He proves by David’s own example that even the divine ceremonial law was not intended to be absolute in its application. The rabbinical refinements are disregarded as being unworthy of notice. God cares more for the right spiritual condition of the heart than for the outward observance of his own ceremonial regulations. The argument is overwhelming. David’s hunger sets aside even a divine regulation—shall not the hunger of the disciples set aside mere rabbinical notions? (See The Interpretation of St. Mark's Gospel) how he entered the house of God in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the consecrated (prothesis) bread which is not lawful for anyone to eat except the priests And he also gave it to those who were with him - This bread was in the Holy Place (the room that led through the veil into the Holy of holies, where the Shekinah Glory was abiding indicating God's presence) and the priests were allowed to eat the bread when they replaced it with new bread each Sabbath. Consecrated (shewbread, showbread) (4286)(prothesis from protithemai = set before oneself to be looked at) is literally placing before and so it describes the setting forth of something in view, in this context obviously referring to the bread to be placed in the Holy Place. And so it refers to the shewbread ("loaves of presentation") in the Tabernacle and later the Temple which is as it were "exposed before God". The bread before the Presence of the Lord consisted of twelve loaves of wheat bread offered every Sabbath (12 = number of the tribes of Israel) and arranged in two rows on the table before the Holy of Holies and to remain there for seven days. This bread was changed for fresh loaves every sabbath. The old loaves were eaten by the priests (Ex 25:30; 1 Sa 21:6). Simon Kistemaker adds that the Bread of the Presence "symbolized the constant fellowship of the people with their God, receiving their bread from Him, eating with Him, being consecrated to Him, and gratefully acknowledging their indebtedness to Him by means of this offering." (See BNTC-Mt) (Related: What was the bread of the Presence) Lawful (1832)(exesti from from ek = out + eimí = to be) is an impersonal verb, signifying "it is permitted, it is lawful" (or interrogatively, "is it lawful?"). Exesti occurs most frequently in the synoptic Gospels and the Acts, especially in Jesus' conflicts with the Pharisees over His actions (and those of His disciples) on the Sabbath (Matt. 12:2; 12:4; 12:10; 12:12, etc). Walter Kaiser - go to page 374 in Hard Sayings of the Bible - Mark 2:26, 1 Samuel 21:1-6+ Who Was the High Priest? ABIATHAR OR AHIMELECH? In Mark we read that Jesus said that Abiathar was priest when David received and ate some of the bread of the Presence from the tabernacle. In terms of the point that Jesus is making it really does not matter who was priest, for the issue is the breaking of the rule about a layperson eating consecrated bread and its application to Jesus’ disciples breaking the sabbath regulations. However, when we look up the incident in 1 Samuel 21:1–6, the text reads “Ahimelech” rather than “Abiathar.” Was Jesus mistaken? Surely the Pharisees would have caught the error? The first point to note is that Abiathar and Ahimelech are son and father. The son, Abiathar, first appears in 1 Samuel 22:20 as the one son of Ahimelech who escaped when Saul slaughtered the priests of Nob and their families for having helped David. Abiathar then remains with David and later serves as high priest during his reign. It looks like the son has been switched with the father. The second thing we should look at is the textual tradition. There is no evidence that this switch is a textual error. It is true that the Western text does omit the priest’s name, but none of the other textual traditions do, and the Western text does sometimes correct or add to the text in various books. When the Western text’s reading remains unsupported by other textual traditions, it is not taken as very weighty. In fact, the Western text actually follows the other Synoptics, for Matthew 12:4 and Luke 6:4 both drop this offending name. Thus there appears to be solid evidence that Mark wrote “Abiathar.” There have been attempts to solve the problem by arguing that “in the days of Abiathar the high priest” should be understood to mean “In the section [of Samuel] entitled ‘Abiathar,’” since this section explains how Abiathar joined David (and there were no chapter and verse numbers for citing Scripture in Jesus’ day). However, if that is what it means, Mark found a most awkward way of expressing it. To mean this, the Greek phrase with “Abiathar” in it should have been placed in Mark 2:25 right after “Have you never read?” Likewise some argue that the phrase means “when Abiathar who became high priest was alive.” However, if this was what were intended (if Jesus had forgotten the name of Abiathar’s father or thought his listeners would not recognize it), a phrase like “in the days of the father of Abiathar the high priest” or “in the childhood of Abiathar the high priest” would have expressed the thought clearly. The phrase as it stands would express such an idea so unclearly and awkwardly that it is unlikely that it means this. What, then, are the possibilities? First, we can be fairly certain that Mark is not covering up the Pharisaic response to an error Jesus made. If Mark had been aware of such a problem, he would have omitted the whole story or changed the name rather than simply omitted the Pharisaic response. Mark probably did not see any other problem with this passage than the issue of Jesus’ defending his disciples’ breaking the sabbath regulations. Second, if Mark did not see the problem, he did not see it for one of three reasons: (1) he actually wrote Ahimelech and the more familiar name crept into the text at a very early stage, perhaps as an error in the first copying (often texts were read aloud to scribes making copies, so an oral substitution of the more familiar name for the less familiar would be quite possible), or (2) he received the story as it is and did not himself realize that there was a problem with it (in the latter case, we do not know if Jesus actually said “Abiathar” or if he said “Ahimelech” and the more familiar Abiathar was substituted in the course of oral transmission), or (3) his view of historical accuracy was not bothered by such an issue, since the main point is not affected by it. Whatever the case, Mark apparently did not realize that there was a problem. The truth is that this is one of the problems in Scripture for which we do not have a fully satisfactory solution. We do not have Mark’s original edition to check which name was in it, nor do we have Mark here to question about his state of mind. We do not have a tape recording of the preaching of Peter (thought by many to be the source of Mark) to see if he was using the right or the wrong name. While many ancient historians would not have been bothered by such an innocuous slip, it did seem to bother Matthew and Luke, so we cannot be sure that it would not have bothered Mark. Thus we can either arbitrarily select one of the speculative solutions mentioned in the previous paragraph, perhaps choosing the one which pleases us the best, or we can say, “We honestly don’t know what the answer is to this problem, nor are we likely to ever know.” In that case, this verse makes plain that our knowledge is always partial so that our trust remains in God rather than in what we know. Gleason Archer - go to page 367 in Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties - Who was high priest when David ate the showbread—Abiather or Ahimelech? Mark 2:26 quotes Jesus as asking His hearers whether they had never read what David did, when he and his men were hungry and entered the sanctuary at Nob to beg for food, in the time of Abiathar the high priest (1 Sam. 21:1–6). As a matter of fact, however, it was with Abiathar’s father, Ahimelech, that David had dealings; for Ahimelech was really the high priest at the time of that episode. Did Jesus err when He referred to the wrong high priest? A careful examination of Mark 2:26 reveals that Christ did not actually imply that Abiathar was already high priest at the time of David’s visit. He simply said, “Epi Abiathar archiereōs,” which means “in the time of Abiathar the high priest.” As things turned out, bloody King Saul soon had Ahimelech and the entire priestly community of Nob massacred by Doeg the Edomite (1 Sam. 22:18–19); and Abiathar the son of Ahimelech was the only one fortunate enough to escape. He fled to join David (v. 20) and served as his priest all through David’s years of wandering and exile. Naturally he was appointed high priest by David after David became king, and he shared the high priesthood with Zadok, Saul’s appointee, until David’s death. Under these circumstances it was perfectly proper to refer to Abiathar as the high priest—even though his appointment as such came somewhat later, after the incident at Nob—just as it would be proper to introduce an anecdote by saying, “Now when King David was a shepherd boy,” even though David was not actually a king at the time he was a shepherd boy. According to W.F. Arndt and F.W. Gingrich (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament [Chicago: University of Chicago, 1957], p. 286), epi with the genitive simply means “in the time of”; and that is the meaning that applies in Mark 2:26 (the same construction as Acts 11:28 [“in the time of Claudius”] and Heb. 1:2 [“in the time of the last of these days” (epʾ eschatou tōn hēmerōn toutōn)]). The episode did happen “in the time of” Abiathar; he was not only alive but actually present when the event took place, and he very shortly afterward became high priest as a result of Saul’s murdering his father, Ahimelech. If Jesus’ words are interpreted in the way he meant them, there is absolutely no variance with historical fact. Related Resource: What was the bread of the Presence (Exodus 25:30)? | GotQuestions.org Mark 2:27 Jesus said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. NET Mark 2:27 Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for people, not people for the Sabbath. GNT Mark 2:27 καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς, Τὸ σάββατον διὰ τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἐγένετο καὶ οὐχ ὁ ἄνθρωπος διὰ τὸ σάββατον· NLT Mark 2:27 Then Jesus said to them, "The Sabbath was made to meet the needs of people, and not people to meet the requirements of the Sabbath. KJV Mark 2:27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: ESV Mark 2:27 And he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. NIV Mark 2:27 Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. ASV Mark 2:27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: CSB Mark 2:27 Then He told them, "The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath. Ex 23:12 De 5:14 Ne 9:13,14 Isa 58:13 Eze 20:12,20 Lu 6:9 Joh 7:23 1Co 3:21,22 2Co 4:15 Col 2:16 Parallel Passages - Matthew and Luke do not have a parallel for this passage. A DAY MEANT FOR BLESSING BECAME A BURDEN Jesus said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath - This statement is found only in Mark's version. What is Jesus saying? He is saying that God made the Sabbath to give men a time to rest. By the addition of all their minute rules and regulations (see here), the Jewish "sages" had in effect made the Sabbath the "master" over men. The Jews instead of enjoying the Sabbath as a day of rest, now had to work even harder than ever to make sure they did not break any of the many Sabbath regulations. They had to be cautious about what the did, where they went, how far they went, and on and on. It must have been a heavy mental burden on all who tried to comply with the non-Biblical regulations. In short Jesus is saying the Sabbath was made to be a blessing for man, but the plethora of non-Biblical rules had turned the day into an onerous burden. It is interesting that in our modern culture many often dread Monday, but given the burden of the Sabbath, one cannot help but believe most of Jews would say "T.G.I.M" (Thank God it's Monday!) Lenski has an excellent comment - The principle back of all that God ordered in his law regarding the Sabbath was that it might be a blessing for man. This day afforded man physical rest and, still more important, time to attend to his spiritual needs. But the Jews had inverted this. They treated man as if he had been created for the purpose of keeping the Sabbath laws. The Sabbath had to be kept, no matter how man fared, whereas God intended that man should be blessed—by the Sabbath, of course, but, if necessary, even at the expense of the Sabbath. (ISMG) Kistemaker adds that "The sabbath was instituted to be a blessing for man: to keep him healthy, to make him happy, and to render him holy. Man was not created to be the sabbath’s slave." (BNTC) The Jews themselves recognized the burden of the Sabbath writing “the rules about the Sabbath...are as mountains hanging by a hair, for [teaching of] Scripture [thereon] is scanty and the rules many” (m. Ḥag. 1:8)." Mark 2:28 "So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath." NET Mark 2:28 For this reason the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath." GNT Mark 2:28 ὥστε κύριός ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ τοῦ σαββάτου. NLT Mark 2:28 So the Son of Man is Lord, even over the Sabbath!" KJV Mark 2:28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath. ESV Mark 2:28 So the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath." NIV Mark 2:28 So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath." ASV Mark 2:28 so that the Son of man is lord even of the sabbath. CSB Mark 2:28 Therefore, the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath." Mk 3:4 Mt 12:8 Lu 6:5 13:15,16 Joh 5:9-11,17 9:5-11,14,16 Eph 1:22 Rev 1:10 Parallel Passages Mk 2:23–28—Mt. 12:1–8; Lk 6:1–5 Matthew 12:8+ “For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.” Luke 6:5+ And He was saying to them, “The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.” JESUS LORD OF THE SABBATH Why is Jesus making this statement which is found in each synoptic account? Remember He is still addressing the accusation of the Pharisees that His disciples broke the Sabbath law. Since Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath, He alone has the authority to interpret the law. He is saying that He is sovereign ruler or master over the Sabbath day. He is the master of this day for He as Creator made it (Ge 2:1-3, cf Col 1:16+). His Lordship trumps the man-made rules of the Jews! We do not have to guess whether the Pharisees "caught" Jesus' allusion to the fact that He was God! Their violent response and desire to destroy Him (Lk 6:11+, cf Mt 12:14+, Mark 3:6+) So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath - Notice that the word Lord is placed at the beginning of the Greek sentence to give strong emphasis to His Lordship. Son of Man is clearly a Messianic title. He had used this same Name in Mark 2:10+ where He had first forgiven the lame man's sins and then authenticated His authority to forgive sins by healing him declaring "But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”–He *said to the paralytic, “I say to you, get up, pick up your pallet and go home.” (Mk 2:10-11+, cf Mt 9:6+). In that passage He left no doubt that He was not just claiming to be God, but that He was in fact God, for no mere man could heal a lame man. So the Pharisees were aware of the significance of His use of the term Son of Man in this passage. He was saying in essence "I am God and I am the Lord of the Sabbath!" And because of Who Jesus is He could determine what the rules for Sabbath observance should be! The implication also is that as the One Who instituted the Sabbath, He knows the correct meaning of the Sabbath. To reiterate, it would have been impossible for the Pharisees to miss Jesus' clear declaration of divinity and the One having authority over the Sabbath! The hearts of the Pharisees are enraged by now and it will soon come to a head in Mark 3:6+ where they conspire over "how they might destroy Him.' Son of Man - this name is used of Jesus in Daniel 7:13+ and is used repeatedly by Mark - Mk. 2:10; Mk. 2:28; Mk. 8:31; Mk. 8:38; Mk. 9:9; Mk. 9:12; Mk. 9:31; Mk. 10:33; Mk. 10:45; Mk. 13:26; Mk. 14:21; Mk. 14:41; Mk. 14:62 (Related: What does it mean that Jesus is the Son of Man?, What does it mean that Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath?) Lord (master, owner)(2962)(kurios from kuros = might or power, related to kuroo = to give authority) primarily means the possessor, owner, master, the supreme one, the one who is sovereign over the Sabbath, so revered by the religious Jews. The tragic irony is that the Jews venerated the Day and violated the "Day Star" (2 Pe 1:19KJV+) the very One Who at His return will be recognized even by those who pierced Him (Rev 1:7+) as the "bright and morning star" (Rev 2:28+; Rev 22:16+)!
Marcos 2
Lenski - The faith that Jesus saw manifested itself plainly enough. It was more than the ordinary faith which sought help of Jesus; it was a faith that was strong, persistent, inventive enough to discover the most unusual way of placing the sick man before Jesus. Why “their faith” should exclude faith on the part of the paralytic, as some assert, is hard to see. Surely, his friends did not bring him against his will, and, surely, he must have consented to be lowered through the roof. It is true, Jesus healed some who had no faith at the moment and waited for faith to follow the healing. But it is strange to find that commentators deny this man faith and yet let Jesus remit his sins. Where in all the Scriptures is remission ever obtained without faith? Moreover, some commentators voice the claim that faith must precede healing. But they contradict themselves in this instance: this man is healed without first having faith. Instead of ruling out the faith of the paralytic we must really place his faith ahead of that of his friends. They may have had faith only in the power of Jesus to heal miraculously because they had seen him do this. But this paralytic felt that he suffered from a greater ailment than paralysis and thus came to Jesus with the burden of his sins. Not a word is uttered by the paralytic or by his friends. More eloquent than words is the prostrate form lowered through the ceiling to the feet of Jesus and interrupting his teaching in the packed house. James Edwards - The first mention of faith (2:5) in Mark significantly links it with acting rather than with knowing or feeling. We know nothing of the beliefs of the four friends of the paralytic except that they take action, including circumventing crowds and removing roofs to ensure that their charge is brought to Jesus. Faith is first and foremost not knowledge about Jesus but active trust that Jesus is sufficient for one’s deepest and most heartfelt needs. The question whether “their faith” includes the paralytic’s faith is not addressed in the relevant Gospel texts (Matt 9:2//Mark 2:5//Luke 5:20). On the one hand, it is difficult to imagine the four porters bringing the paralytic to Jesus against his will; surely, as Lagrange notes, it would be a rare case that a person with paralysis would not hope to be healed of the malady. Nevertheless, the plural pronoun (“their faith”) includes the faith of the porters, and this should not wholly surprise us. (PNTC) R T France - Here we have no record of a verbal expression of faith, but the action of the man’s friends is sufficient to indicate their confidence in Jesus’ healing power (based already on ample evidence, 1:32–34), and their determination to draw on it for their friend’s benefit. (NIGTC) Robert Stein - The faith of the paralytic and the men was manifested by their “works,” i.e., their removal of the tiles to lower the paralytic. A favorite expression of Luke was “your faith has ‘saved’ you” (cf. Lk 7:50; 8:48; 17:19; 18:42). For the tie between faith and miracles, cf. Lk 7:9, 50; 8:25, 40, 50; 17:5, 6, 19; 18:42. G Campbell
Marcos 2
Lenski on forgiveness - This is the great aphesis, “dismissal” or “remission,” of which the Scriptures speak so constantly. In the entire Bible no sweeter word meets the sinner’s eye. The sins are sent away from the sinner so completely that they shall never be found again, to the depth of the sea (Micah 7:10+), are blotted out so as to be removed from the record (Isa. 43:25); are removed from the sinner as far as the east is from the west (Ps. 103:12+). This is what we usually call “forgiveness,” and stronger descriptions of it cannot be found. Only God is able to send our sins away in this manner... The healing that follows furnishes the clearest evidence for the deity of Jesus: as God he forgives sins and proves it by the miracle. (ISMG)
Marcos 2
Lenski - The call to attach himself permanently to Jesus involved no small financial loss, yet it made good that loss with infinite spiritual gain. Levi was perhaps the last of the Twelve to be called. The fact that one of them should be selected from the despised class of the publicans is highly significant. Jesus gives the command in the present active imperative which calls for Levi to continually make the choice to follow Him. Below are most of the calls by Jesus for men to follow Him, the verbs in red being in the present imperative calling for discipleship to be their lifestyle. Follow in Mt 4:19 and Mk 1:17 is aorist imperative meaning something like do this now, do not delay.... Matthew 4:19 And He said to them, "Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men." Matthew 8:22 But Jesus said to him, "Follow Me, and allow the dead to bury their own dead." Matthew 9:9 As Jesus went on from there, He saw a man called Matthew, sitting in the tax collector's booth; and He said to him, "Follow Me!" And he got up and followed Him. Matthew 16:24 Then Jesus said to His disciples, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me. Matthew 19:21 Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, Follow Me." Mark 1:17 And Jesus said to them, "Follow Me, and I will make you become fishers of men." Mark 2:14 As He passed by, He saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting in the tax booth, and He said to him, "Follow Me!" And he got up and followed Him. Mark 8:34 And He summoned the crowd with His disciples, and said to them, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and Follow Me. Mark 10:21 Looking at him, Jesus felt a love for him and said to him, "One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come,Follow Me." Luke 5:27 After that He went out and noticed a tax collector named Levi sitting in the tax booth, and He said to him, "Follow Me." Luke 5:10-11 and so also were James and John, sons of Zebedee, who were partners with Simon. And Jesus said to Simon, “Do not fear, from now on you will be catching men.” 11 When they had brought their boats to land, they left everything and followed Him. Luke 9:23 And He was saying to them all, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me. Luke 9:59 And He said to another, "Follow Me." But he said, "Lord, permit me first to go and bury my father." Luke 18:22 When Jesus heard this, He said to him, "One thing you still lack; sell all that you possess and distribute it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, Follow Me." John 1:43 The next day He purposed to go into Galilee, and He found Philip. And Jesus said to him, "Follow Me." John 10:27 "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; John 12:26 "If anyone serves Me, he must Follow Me; and where I am, there My servant will be also; if anyone serves Me, the Father will honor him. John 13:36 Simon Peter said to Him, "Lord, where are You going?" Jesus answered, "Where I go, you cannot follow Me now; but you will follow later." John 21:19 Now this He said, signifying by what kind of death he would glorify God. And when He had spoken this, He said to him, "Follow Me!" John 21:22 Jesus said to him, "If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow Me!" THOUGHT - Beloved, don't miss this! Whatever your sin or shame, Jesus is calling you to come to Him and follow Him, today and into eternity! may you join with Chris Tomlin and say (sing) "I will follow you, Jesus!" Where you go, I’ll go Where you stay, I’ll stay When you move, I’ll move I will follow… All your ways are good All your ways are sure I will trust in you alone Higher than my side High above my life I will trust in you alone Where you go, I’ll go Where you stay, I’ll stay When you move, I’ll move I will follow you Who you love, I’ll love How you serve I’ll serve If this life I lose, I will follow you I will follow you Light unto the world Light unto my life I will live for you alone You’re the one I seek Knowing I will find All I need in you alone, in you alone In you there’s life everlasting In you there’s freedom for my soul In you there joy, unending joy and I will follow And he got up and followed Him - Jesus gave a personal call and it called for a personal response which Levi gave. If Jesus is calling you, you need to respond personally and without procrastination. What if Matthew had delayed his response or placed "qualifiers" on the call. Others did answer Jesus with an "asterisk" attached (a qualification, or "small print" so to speak), Matthew recording "Another of the disciples said to Him, “Lord, permit me first to go and bury my father.”(Mt 8:21) To which Jesus responded "to him, “Follow Me, and allow the dead to bury their own dead.” (Mt 8:22). If Jesus calls, our response should be immediate. No hesitation. No procrastination. Mark loves immediate action and it is clear here that Matthew responded immediately to Jesus' call, giving all of us an example to follow when Jesus calls. Not only did he respond immediately but he responded wholeheartedly, Luke recording "he left everything behind (HOW MUCH?), and got up and began to follow Him." (Lk 5:28+) THOUGHT - For some of you this may be the first call, the call to salvation by grace through faith, but for others who have known Him for a while it may be a call to follow Him down a path that you did not expect He would be calling you to traverse. When the sheep hear His voice, the sheep must Follow the leader, just like we did when we played that game as little children, but of course now the game is not child's play but is the serious game of life with significant consequences in this life and the one to come! Father by your Spirit give us ears to hear when Jesus calls. Amen Matthew's theme song could have been the old Amy Grant song (one of the first songs I heard after I began to follow Jesus in 1984) I Have Decided... I have decided I'm gonna live like a believer Turn my back on the deceiver I'm gonna live what I believe I have decided Being good is just a fable I just can't, cause I'm not able I'm gonna leave it to the Lord There's a wealth of things that I profess I said that I believed But deep inside, I never changed I guess I'd been deceived Cause a voice inside kept telling me That I'd change by and by but the Spirit made it clear to me That kind of life's a lie So forget the game of being good And your self-righteous pain Cause the only good inside your heart Is the good that Jesus brings When the world begins to see you change Don't expect them to applaud Just keep your eyes on Him and tell yourself I've become the work of God Alfred Edersheim - DOCTRINE OF FORGIVENESS IN CONTRAST TO THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST—THE CALL OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES (Matt. 9:9–13; Mark 2:13–17; Luke 5:27–32; Matt. 10:2–4; Mark 3:13–19; Luke 6:12–19.) IN two things chiefly does the fundamental difference appear between Christianity and all other religious systems, notably Rabbinism. And in these two things, therefore, lies the main characteristic of Christ’s work; or, taking a wider view, the fundamental idea of all religions. Subjectively, they concern sin and the sinner; or, to put it objectively, the forgiveness of sin and the welcome to the sinner. But Rabbinism, and every other system down to modern humanitarianism—if it rises so high in its idea of God as to reach that of sin, which is its shadow—can only generally point to God for the forgiveness of sin. What here is merely an abstraction, has become a concrete reality in Christ. He speaks forgiveness on earth, because He is its embodiment. As regards the second idea, that of the sinner, all other systems know of no welcome to him till, by some means (inward or outward), he have ceased to be a sinner and become a penitent. They would first make him a penitent, and then bid him welcome to God; Christ first welcomes him to God, and so makes him a penitent. The one demands, the other imparts life. And so Christ is the Physician, Whom they that are in health need not, but they that are sick. And so Christ came not to call the righteous but sinners—not to repentance, as our common text erroneously puts it in St. Matthew 9:13, and St. Mark 2:17, but to Himself, to the Kingdom; and this is the beginning of repentance. Thus it is that Jesus, when His teaching becomes distinctive from that of Judaism, puts these two points in the foreground: the one at the cure of the paralytic, the other in the call of Levi-Matthew. And this, also, further explains His miracles of healing as for the higher presentation of Himself as the Great Physician, while it gives some insight into the nexus of these two events, and explains their chronological succession. It was fitting that at the very outset, when Rabbinism followed and challenged Jesus with hostile intent, these two spiritual facts should be brought out, and that, not in a controversial, but in a positive and practical manner. For, as these two questions of sin and of the possible relation of the sinner to God are the great burden of the soul in its upward striving after God, so the answer to them forms the substance of all religions. Indeed, all the cumbrous observances of Rabbinism—its whole law—were only an attempted answer to the question: How can a man be just with God? But, as Rabbinism stood self-confessedly silent and powerless as regarded the forgiveness of sins, so it had emphatically no word of welcome or help for the sinner. The very term ‘Pharisee,’ or ‘separated one,’ implied the exclusion of sinners. With this the whole character of Pharisaism accorded; perhaps, we should have said, that of Rabbinism, since the Sadducean would here agree with the Pharisaic Rabbi. The contempt and avoidance of the unlearned, which was so characteristic of the system, arose not from mere pride of knowledge, but from the thought that, as ‘the Law’ was the glory and privilege of Israel—indeed, the object for which the world was created and preserved—ignorance of it was culpable. Thus, the unlearned blasphemed his Creator, and missed or perverted his own destiny. It was a principle, that ‘the ignorant cannot be pious.’ On the principles of Rabbinism, there was logic in all this, and reason also, though sadly perverted. The yoke of ‘the Kingdom of God’ was the high destiny of every true Israelite. Only, to them it lay in external, not internal conformity to the Law of God: ‘in meat and drink,’ not ‘in righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.’ True, they also perceived, that ‘sins of thought’ and purpose, though uncommitted, were ‘more grievous than even sins of outward deed;’ but only in this sense, that each outward sin was traceable to inward dereliction or denial of the Law—‘no man sinneth, unless the spirit of error has first entered into him.’b On this ground the punishment of infidelity or apostasy in the next world was endless, while that of actual transgressions was limited in duration. 2 As ‘righteousness came by the Law,’ so also return to it on the part of the sinner. Hence, although Rabbinism had no welcome to the sinner, it was unceasing in its call to repentance and in extolling its merits. All the prophets had prophesied only of repentance. The last pages of the Tractate on the Day of Atonement are full of praises of repentance. It not only averted punishment and prolonged life, but brought good, even the final redemption to Israel and the world at large. It surpassed the observance of all the commandments, and was as meritorious as if one had restored the Temple and Altar, and offered all sacrifices.b One hour of penitence and good works outweighed the whole world to come. These are only a few of the extravagant statements by which Rabbinism extolled repentance. But, when more closely examined, we find that this repentance, as preceding the free welcome of invitation to the sinner, was only another form of work-righteousness. This is, at any rate, one meaning of the saying which conjoined the Law and repentance, and represented them as preceding the Creation.c Another would seem derived from a kind of Manichæan view of sin. According to it, God Himself was really the author of the Yetser ha Ra, or evil impulse (‘the law in our members’), for which, indeed, there was an absolute necessity, if the world was to continue.d Hence, ‘the penitent’ was really ‘the great one,’ since his strong nature had more in it of the ‘evil impulse,’ and the conquest of it by the penitent was really of greater merit than abstinence from sin.e Thus it came, that the true penitent really occupied a higher place—‘stood where the perfectly righteous could not stand.’ There is then both work and merit in penitence; and we can understand, how ‘the gate of penitence is open, even when that of prayer is shut,’g and that these two sentences are not only consistent, but almost cover each other—that the Messianic deliverance would come, if all Israel did righteousness, and, again, if all Israel repented for only one day;i or, to put it otherwise—if Israel were all saints, or all sinners. We have already touched the point where, as regards repentance, as formerly in regard to forgiveness, the teaching of Christ is in absolute and fundamental contrariety to that of the Rabbis. According to Jesus Christ, when we have done all, we are to feel that we are but unprofitable servants. According to the Rabbis, as St. Paul puts it, ‘righteousness cometh by the Law;’ and, when it is lost, the Law alone can restore life; while, according to Christian teaching, it only bringeth death. Thus there was, at the very foundation of religious life, absolute contrariety between Jesus and His contemporaries. Whence, if not from heaven, came a doctrine so novel as that which Jesus made the basis of His Kingdom? In one respect, indeed, the Rabbinic view was in some measure derived from the Old Testament, though by an external and, therefore, false interpretation of its teaching. In the Old Testament, also, ‘repentance’ was Teshubhah (תשובה), ‘return;’ while, in the New Testament, it is ‘change of mind’ (μετάνοια). It would not be fair here to argue, that the common expression for repenting was ‘to do penitence’ (עשה תשובה), since by its side we frequently meet that other: ‘to return in penitence’ (שוב בתשובה). Indeed, other terms for repentance also occur. Thus Tohu (תהו) means repentance in the sense of regret; Charatah, perhaps, more in that of a change of mind; while Teyubha or Teshubhah is the return of repentance. Yet, according to the very common Rabbinic expression, there is a ‘gate of repentance’ (תיובא, שער תשובה) through which a man must enter, and, even if Charatah be the sorrowing change of mind, it is at most only that gate. Thus, after all, there is more in the ‘doing of penitence’ than appears at first sight. In point of fact, the full meaning of repentance as Teshubhah, or ‘return,’ is only realised, when a man has returned from dereliction to observance of the Law. Then, sins of purpose are looked upon as if they had been unintentional—nay, they become even virtuous actions. We are not now speaking of the forgiveness of sins. In truth, Rabbinism knew nothing of a forgiveness of sin, free and unconditional, unless in the case of those who had not the power of doing anything for their atonement. Even in the passage which extols most the freeness and the benefits of repentance (the last pages of the Tractate on the Day of Atonement), there is the most painful discussion about sins great and small, about repentance from fear or from love, about sins against commands or against prohibitions; and, in what cases repentance averted, or else only deferred, judgment, leaving final expiation to be wrought by other means. These were personal sufferings, death,c or the Day of Atonement. Besides these, there were always the ‘merits of the fathers;’e or, perhaps, some one good work done; or, at any rate, the brief period of purgatorial pain, which might open the gate of mercy. These are the so-called ‘advocates’ (Peraqlitin, פרקליטין) of the penitent sinner. In a classical passage on the subject, repentance is viewed in its bearing on four different spiritual1 conditions, which are supposed to be respectively referred to in Jer. 3:22; Lev. 16:30; Is. 22:14; and Ps. 89:32. The first of these refers to a breach of a command, with immediate and persistent cry for forgiveness, which is at once granted. The second is that of a breach of a prohibition, when, besides repentance, the Day of Atonement is required. The third is that of purposed sin, on which death or cutting off had been threatened, when, besides repentance and the Day of Atonement, sufferings are required; while in open profanation of the Name of God, only death can make final atonement. But the nature of repentance has yet to be more fully explained. Its gate is sorrow and shame. In that sense repentance may be the work of a moment, ‘as in the twinkling of an eye,’d and a life’s sins may obtain mercy by the tears and prayers of a few minutes’ repentance. 2 To this also refers the beautiful saying, that all which rendered a sacrifice unfit for the altar, such as that it was broken, fitted the penitent for acceptance, since ‘the sacrifices of God were a broken and contrite heart.’ By the side of what may be called contrition, Jewish theology places confession (Viddui, וידוי). This was deemed so integral a part of repentance, that those about to be executed, or to die,h were admonished to it. Achan of old had thus obtained pardon. But in the case of the living all this could only be regarded as repentance in the sense of being its preparation or beginning. Even if it were Charatah, or regret at the past, it would not yet be Teshubhah, or return to God; and even if it changed purposed into unintentional sin, arrested judgment, and stayed or banished its Angel, it would still leave a man without those works which are not only his real destiny and merit heaven, but constitute true repentance. For, as sin is ultimately dereliction of the Law, beginning within, so repentance is ultimately return to the Law. In this sense there is a higher and meritorious confession, which not only owns sin but God, and is therefore an inward return to Him. So Adam, when he saw the penitence of Cain, burst into this Psalm, ‘It is a good thing to confess1 unto the Lord.’ 2 Manasseh, when in trouble, called upon God and was heard, although it is added, that this was only done in order to prove that the door of repentance was open to all. Indeed, the Angels had closed the windows of Heaven against his prayers, but God opened a place for their entrance beneath His throne of glory.d Similarly, even Pharaoh, who, according to Jewish tradition, made in the Red Sea confession of God, was preserved, became king of Nineveh, and so brought the Ninevites to true repentance, which verily consisted not merely in sackcloth and fasting, but in restitution, so that every one who had stolen a beam pulled down his whole palace to restore it.f But, after all, inward repentance only arrested the decrees of justice. That which really put the penitent into right relationship with God was good deeds. The term must here be taken in its widest sense. Fasting is meritorious in a threefold sense: as the expression of humiliation, as an offering to God, similar to, but better than the fat of sacrifices on the altar,i and as preventing further sins by chastening and keeping under the body. A similar view must be taken of self-inflicted penances.m On the other hand, there was restitution to those who had been wronged—as a woman once put it to her husband, to the surrender of one’s ‘girdle.’n Nay, it must be of even more than was due in strict law.o To this must be added public acknowledgment of public sins. If a person had sinned in one direction, he must not only avoid it for the future, but aim at doing all the more in the opposite direction, or of overcoming sin in the same circumstances of temptation.6 Beyond all this were the really good works, whether occupation with the Law or outward deeds, which constituted perfect repentance. Thus we read,b that every time Israel gave alms or did any kindness, they made in this world great peace, and procured great Paracletes between Israel and their Father in Heaven. Still farther, we are told what a sinner must do who would be pardoned. If he had been accustomed daily to read one column in the Bible, let him read two; if to learn one chapter in the Mishnah, let him learn two. But if he be not learned enough to do either, let him become an administrator for the congregation, or a public distributor of alms. Nay, so far was the doctrine of external merit carried, that to be buried in the land of Israel was supposed to ensure forgiveness of sins.d This may, finally, be illustrated by an instance, which also throws some light on the parable of Dives in Hades. Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish had in early life been the associate of two robbers. But he repented, ‘returned to his God with all his heart, with fasting and prayer, was early and late before God, and busied himself with the Torah (Law) and the commandments.’ Then both he and his former companions died, when they saw him in glory, while themselves were in the lowest hell. And when they reminded God, that with Him there was no regard of persons, He pointed to the Rabbi’s penitence and their own impenitence. On this they asked for respite, that they might ‘do great penitence,’ when they were told that there was no space for repentance after death. This is farther enforced by a parable to the effect, that a man, who is going into the wilderness, must provide himself with bread and water while in the inhabited country, if he would not perish in the desert. Thus, in one and another respect, Rabbinic teaching about the need of repentance runs close to that of the Bible. But the vital difference between Rabbinism and the Gospel lies in this: that whereas Jesus Christ freely invited all sinners, whatever their past, assuring them of welcome and grace, the last word of Rabbinism is only despair, and a kind of Pessimism. For, it is expressly and repeatedly declared in the case of certain sins, and, characteristically, of heresy, that, even if a man genuinely and truly repented, he must expect immediately to die—indeed, his death would be the evidence that his repentance was genuine, since, though such a sinner might turn from his evil, it would be impossible for him, if he lived, to lay hold on the good, and to do it. - It is in the light of what we have just learned concerning the Rabbinic views of forgiveness and repentance that the call of Levi-Matthew must be read, if we would perceive its full meaning. Follow Me It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. Mark 2:17 Today's Scripture & Insight: Mark 2:13-17 (cf Lk 5:27-32, Mk 2:13-17, Mt 9:9-13) Health clubs offer many different programs for those who want to lose weight and stay healthy. One fitness center caters only to those who want to lose at least 50 pounds and develop a healthy lifestyle. One member says that she quit her previous fitness club because she felt the slim and fit people were staring at her and judging her out-of-shape body. She now works out 5 days a week and is achieving healthy weight loss in a positive and welcoming environment. Two thousand years ago, Jesus came to call the spiritually unfit to follow Him. Levi was one such person. Jesus saw him sitting in his tax collector’s booth and said, “Follow me” (Mark 2:14). His words captured Levi’s heart, and he followed Jesus. Tax collectors were often greedy and dishonest in their dealings and were considered religiously unclean. When the religious leaders saw Jesus having dinner at Levi’s house with other tax collectors, they asked, “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?” (2:16). Jesus replied, “I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners” (2:17). Reflect & Pray Read Acts 9:10-19 and see how one man obeyed God and welcomed someone who was considered spiritually unfit. What were the results? How can you reach out to those who need the Savior? How can you help your church become a more welcoming place for the spiritually unfit? Jesus’ arms of welcome are always open. Jesus’ Team He . . . saw a tax collector named Levi . . . . And He said to him, “Follow Me.” —Luke 5:27 (cf Lk 5:27-32, Mk 2:13-17, Mt 9:9-13) In 2002 the Oakland Athletics built a winning baseball team in an unorthodox way. They had lost three top players after 2001, and the team didn’t have money to sign any stars. So Oakland’s general manager, Billy Beane, used some often-neglected statistics to assemble a group of lesser-known players either “past their prime” or seen by other teams as not skilled enough. That ragtag team ran off a 20-game winning streak on the way to winning their division and 103 games. This reminds me a little of the way Jesus put together His “team” of disciples. He included rough Galilean fishermen, a zealot, and even a despised tax collector named Levi (Matthew). This reminds me that “God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty” (1 Cor. 1:27). God used those dedicated men (minus Judas) to ignite a movement that affected the world so dramatically it has never been the same. There’s a lesson here for us. Sometimes we seek out the familiar, the influential, and the rich. And we tend to ignore people with less status or those with physical limitations. In Jesus Christ we all are equal, For God’s Spirit makes us one; As we give each other honor, We give glory to His Son. —Fitzhugh There are no unimportant people in the body of Christ. Leader Or Follower? [Jesus] said to him, “Follow Me.” —Luke 5:27 (cf Lk 5:27-32, Mk 2:13-17, Mt 9:9-13) A close friend asked Gandhi, “If you admire Christ so much, why don’t you become a Christian?” It is said that he replied, “When I meet a Christian who is a follower of Christ, I may consider it.” But isn’t that what a Christian is supposed to be—a follower of Christ? Joe Stowell, former president of Moody Bible Institute, wrote in Following Christ: “Many of us live out our faith as though [Christ] exists to follow us. We come to believe that Christ exists to satisfy our demands. . . . This disguised form of self-serving religion sets Christ up as just one more commodity in life that will enhance and empower our dreams.” When Jesus called His disciples to follow Him, He meant that He would do the leading and directing; they would do the following (Luke 5:27). Like the disciples, we must give up our will, obey Him, and choose to “lose” our lives for Him (17:33). Without too much thought, this might sound simple. But in reality, it is impossible to do on our own. Only by choosing each day to let go of our own plans and by trusting the Holy Spirit’s leading can we cooperate with His work in us. Because Christ is the One who holds The key to all our needs, We can release what we hold dear To follow where He leads. —Sper To lead others to Jesus, you must first learn to follow Him. Mark 2:15 And it happened that He was reclining at the table in his house, and many tax collectors and sinners were dining with Jesus and His disciples; for there were many of them, and they were following Him. NET Mark 2:15 As Jesus was having a meal in Levi's home, many tax collectors and sinners were eating with Jesus and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. GNT Mark 2:15 Καὶ γίνεται κατακεῖσθαι αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ αὐτοῦ, καὶ πολλοὶ τελῶναι καὶ ἁμαρτωλοὶ συνανέκειντο τῷ Ἰησοῦ καὶ τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ· ἦσαν γὰρ πολλοὶ καὶ ἠκολούθουν αὐτῷ. NLT Mark 2:15 Later, Levi invited Jesus and his disciples to his home as dinner guests, along with many tax collectors and other disreputable sinners. (There were many people of this kind among Jesus' followers.) KJV Mark 2:15 And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him. ESV Mark 2:15 And as he reclined at table in his house, many tax collectors and sinners were reclining with Jesus and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. NIV Mark 2:15 While 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. ASV Mark 2:15 And it came to pass, that he was sitting at meat in his house, and many publicans and sinners sat down with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him. CSB Mark 2:15 While He was reclining at the table in Levi's house, many tax collectors and sinners were also guests with Jesus and His disciples, because there were many who were following Him. Mt 9:10,11 21:31,32 Lu 5:29,30 6:17 15:1 Parallel Passages Matthew 9:10+ Then it happened that as Jesus was reclining at the table in the house, behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and were dining with Jesus and His disciples. Luke 5:29+ And Levi gave a big reception for Him in his house; and there was a great crowd of tax collectors and other people who were reclining at the table with them. TRANSFORMATION LEADS TO CELEBRATION! And it happened that He was reclining at the table in his house - The words "at the table" are not in Greek but are suggested by the context. If they were reclining, this suggests a fairly prolonged mean, time for considerable conversation between Jesus and the sinners! And remember that in the first century breading bread with someone was a sign of social acceptance and friendship which is why the Pharisees were so outraged! Lk 5:29+ says it was Matthew's house. Also only Luke (see above) tells us Matthew (who was now a disciple of Jesus) "gave a big reception for Him in his house; and there was a great crowd of tax collectors and other people." This would suggest that Matthew had a large house (text says there were "many tax collectors and sinners") and gives us some idea of the significance of the statement in Lk 5:28 that "he left everything behind" when he began to follow Jesus! While most of us have not left everything material behind when we began to follow Jesus, we have left our old life behind, a life we lived in the kingdom of darkness, a life dominated by sin, satan and the fallen world system (read about our "kingdom transfer" in Col 1:13-14+)! You have left that behind haven't you? If not read 2 Cor 13:5+. And of course we are not speaking of perfection but the general direction of your life now as a follower of Jesus in His glorious kingdom of light. It is notable that another tax collector names Zaccheus also threw a big banquet after he was saved. Jesus and the guests would most likely have reclined on their left elbow around a low horseshoe-shaped table such as that shown below with their feet behind them Lenski on and it happened - The introductory formula καὶ ἐγένετο is Hebraistic and comes into the New Testament through the LXX. Mark uses it only twice. It ushers in an important occurrence. THOUGHT - I remember when I was first born again at age 39. I was so excited about Jesus that I told all my relatives about Him. Some became so irritated that they told me if I continued to speak of Jesus they did not want me to come see them again. There is a point of application here -- Levi a tax collector exposed his fellow despised tax collectors to Jesus and not just one or two but the text says "many." When Jesus calls us we should show our gratitude by telling others about Him. Each of us as followers of Jesus has our own unique sphere of influence and for many in that sphere we may be their only significant contact with Jesus! Are you willing to be salty salt (Mt 5:13+, cf Col 4:3-6+)? Are you letting your light shine (Mt 5:14-15+, Mt 5:16+)? Have you opened your home like Matthew to the outcasts of society in order that you might introduce them to Jesus? Or at least are you opening your home to your circle of friends so that you can introduce them to your best Friend? Reclining (2621)(katakeimai from katá = down + keímai = lie outstretched) means to lie down and in this context to recline on a couch at a dinner table and thus to dine or eat a meal (Mk 2:15; 14:3; Lk 5:29; Lk 7:37; 1 Cor 8:10). ESV Study Bible on reclining - In formal dining, guests reclined on a couch that stretched around three sides of a room. The host took the center seat at a U-shaped series of low tables, surrounded by the most honored guests on either side, with the guests’ heads reclining toward the tables and their feet toward the wall. NET Note on reclining - 1st century middle eastern meals were not eaten while sitting at a table, but while reclining on one’s side on the floor with the head closest to the low table and the feet farthest away. Notice that the depiction of the meal is not accurate as it shows Jesus and guests sitting at a table and makes the point that many paintings of Biblical scenes, while beautiful, are not Scripturally accurate. The point is never get your theology from art work (and that includes many modern songs and older hymns which are not always theologically accurate and/or Scripturally sound!) Click picture to enlarge Click here for further explanation And many tax collectors and sinners (NLT - "disreputable sinners") were dining with Jesus and His disciples for there were many of them and they were following Him - We could subtitle this passage "dining with the dregs" of society, the outcasts, the scum (Mk 2:16NLT)! This must have been quite a scene and gives us a vivid illustration of Jesus as a friend of sinners and because they recognized their acceptance by this righteous Man (in contrast to their rejection by the self-righteous Jewish religious leaders!) many were following (akoloutheo and in imperfect tense pictures a continual retinue of riff-raff) Him. While they were following Jesus, it seems unlikely that they were following in the same sense of Matthew who had forsaken everything to follow Jesus. Not everyone who followed Jesus was a true disciple like Matthew. John tells us about many who followed as disciples but in the final analysis proved not to be true followers like Matthew. John writes "As a result of this (What? See the context Jn 6:61, 62, 63, 64, 65) many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore." (John 6:66).
Marcos 2
Lenski - Mark and Luke omit the admonition: “But go and learn what this means, Mercy I want and not sacrifice.” But all three evangelists have recorded: “I did not come to call righteous men but sinners.” For the figurative language about the sick and the physician Jesus now substitutes the literal. He thus continues the argumentum ad hominem. He takes these scribes at their own estimate that they are indeed “righteous men”—then they, of course, do not need him. His business is only with “sinners,” the unrighteous, to give them the true righteousness. But the very way in which the argument is put shatters the supposition that these Pharisaic scribes are really δίκαιοι (righteous), able to stand before God’s judgment bar. In Luke 16:15+ Jesus tells the Pharisees: “You are those who justify yourselves in the sight of men, but God knows your hearts; for that which is highly esteemed among men is detestable in the sight of God.” (ISMG) THOUGHT - Have you come to that place in your life where you knew you were desperately sin sick and in need of soul cleansing that can only be found in Jesus the Great Physician? Jesus is ever calling as in Mt 11:28-30+ Come to Me, all who are weary (OF YOUR SIN) and heavy-laden (WITH THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR SIN), and I will give you rest. 29 Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and YOU WILL FIND REST FOR YOUR SOULS. 30 “For (TERM OF EXPLANATION) My yoke is easy and My burden is light.” Healthy (present tense)(2480)(ischuo) speaks as being in possession of one's physical powers and thus to be in good health or be healthy. Need (5532)(chreia from chraomai = to use, make use of or chreos = a debt) means a necessity, what is needed or the occasion of need. But those who are sick - Jesus is not speaking of literal physical sickness, but spiritual sickness (literally spiritual death - Eph 2:1+) from the "sin" virus (I am an infectious disease specialist) that every man or woman born in Adam has contracted, for Paul writes " just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned." (Ro 5:12+). Those who are sick sense their need for salvation. There is a very important principle here, for unless a person is conscious of the fact that he is under the "bad news" of divine condemnation, he is not likely to hear with ears of faith the "good news" of divine redemption! This is where many so called conversion fall short for they fail to present the dread dilemma and doom of an unsaved sinner and instead say "Just believe in Jesus. He has a wonderful plan for your life." And both of these latter statements are true, but only if a person repents of their sin and believes in Jesus. Otherwise it is only a superficial profession without a genuine profession and without a genuine personal relationship with Jesus Christ (See Jesus' sobering words of warning regarding sham professions - Mt 7:21-23+). The Pharisees saw the notorious sinners at the banquet as untouchable outcasts and not as those who were spiritually sick and in desperate need of a touch from Jesus! Jesus is exposing their calloused hearts devoid of compassion for these "sick" sinners and also underscoring the spiritual blindness of the deceived Pharisees who thought they were spiritually healthy and had no need to seek the Great Physician! Beloved, the Gospel is not "good news" until we understand and accept the "bad news" that we are spiritually sick, spiritual dead (Eph 2:1+), and in Adam (Ro 5:12+) are doomed to suffer eternal punishment! THOUGHT - I am a physician, and when I was still in practice, I knew that it was critical to make the correct diagnosis in order to administer the correct treatment/medicine. Spiritually speaking, if the diagnosis is "bad news" then the treatment which is necessary is the "good news" of the Gospel. Most of humanity although spiritually sick fails to receive the correct "diagnosis" of their eternally fatal sickness ("bad news") and because of that delusion, they see no need for spiritual healing found only in the "good news" (Ro 1:16+) which in turn is found only in the Name of one "Physician," Jesus Christ (Acts 4:12+). They are like the "ninety-nine (SELF) righteous persons who (FELT THEY) need no repentance." (Lk 15:7+) ADDITIONAL THOUGHT - "Jesus did not consider these people “rejects,” even though they had been excommunicated by the religious leaders. Matthew’s friends were patients who needed a physician, and Jesus was that Physician. We have already seen that sin may be compared to sickness and forgiveness to having your health restored. Now we see that our Saviour may be compared to a physician: He comes to us in our need; He makes a perfect diagnosis; He provides a final and complete cure; and He pays the bill! What a physician! But there are three kinds of “patients” whom Jesus cannot heal of their sin sickness: (1) those who do not know about Him; (2) those who know about Him but refuse to trust Him; and (3) those who will not admit that they need Him. The scribes and Pharisees were in that third category, as are all self-righteous sinners today. Unless we admit that we are sinners, deserving of God’s judgment, we cannot be saved. Jesus saves only sinners (Luke 19:10+). In Jesus’ day, as in the days of the prophets, there were those who claimed to bring spiritual healing to the people, but whose remedies were ineffective. Jeremiah rebuked the priests and false prophets of his day because they were worthless physicians who gave only a false hope to the nation. “They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, ‘Peace, peace’; when there is no peace” (Jer. 6:14) "“They heal the brokenness of the daughter of My people superficially, Saying, ‘Peace, peace,’ But there is no peace." (Jer 8:11). They applied their weak medicines to the surface symptoms and did not get down deep into the basic problem—the sinful heart ("The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick" - Jer. 17:9). We must beware of such worthless physicians today." (