Mark 2.18-22

WHY DON’T YOU FAST? (18-22)

 

(The disciples of John and the Pharisees were fasting.) And they came and asked Jesus, “Why is it that the disciples of John and the disciples[1] of the Pharisees are fasting, but your disciples are not fasting?” And Jesus said to them, “Are the groomsmen able to fast while the bridegroom is with them? As long as they have the bridegroom with them they are unable to fast. But the days will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them, and then, in that day, they will fast.

 

No one sews an unshrunk patch on an old garment. If they do, the new piece will pull away from the old, making the tear worse.

 

No one casts new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the wine will burst the wineskins and the wine and the wineskins will be ruined. But new wine for new wineskins.

 

As we have already noted, 2.1-3.6 is a collection of controversy narratives; 2.18-22 is the center story with 3.1-6 being the climax of the five accounts. It seems that, for Mark (or at least his source[s]), the context of the story is irrelevant. Indeed, the only genuine connection to the preceding is that they are both food-related, feasting and fasting.  But, as would should expect by now, Mark has placed this story here for a reason/s. The most obvious reason is to identify the source/reason of/for the controversy in the stories: Jesus is doing something new and the old ways of thinking/doing must align with it.

 

Mark graciously includes for us a background to the story, “the disciples of John and the Pharisees were fasting.” This is similar to the introduction given in 3.1, “One Sabbath Jesus was…” These introductory sentences provide the point of division between Jesus and the religious leaders. The point of intrigue is the identity of “they” in v. 18. Who are “they”? If we take 2.1-3.6 to be a complete source, then it would be the scribes. This is confirmed by the use of the third person.

 

The scribes put a question to Jesus, “Why is it that the disciples of John and the disciples of the Pharisees are fasting, but your disciples are not fasting?” Fasting was a staple in the piety of the Jewish people.[2] It was practiced in a variety of ways, including as a prayer to God for rain to fall (m. Taanit 1). In Lev 16.29 the Israelites were commanded to observe an annual fast on Yom Kippur; by the time of Zechariah, there were four fasts to be annually observed (Zech 8.19). Other fasts in the OT and other sources in Judaism were performed as a sign of mourning over the deceased (1 Sam 31.13), preparation for divine revelation (Ex 34.28), and as a plea to God to remove calamities (m. Taanit). Later in Jewish thought, fasting was viewed as meritorious, as an act that brought favor upon one’s life.[3] Fasting quickly became the most important element in Pharisaic piety. Some of the Pharisees incorporated a twice-weekly fast (Mon & Thu) in addition to the others (Didache 8.1[4]) to express devotion to God. It was probably this type of fast that is being referenced here.[5]

 

An interesting point is to be made about the motivations for the two groups to fast. The disciples of John were probably a part of a community similar to the Qumran sect, waiting by the Jordan River for Messiah to come. Their fast was probably primarily eschatological, awaiting the coming of their Redeemer. The Pharisees saw their fast as another aspect of the ascetic holiness that they believed would dawn the eschatological age. This brings a sense of irony into our text, for Jesus is the one who has brought the eschatological Kingdom of God that the Jews have longed for. Or, in the words of Guelich, “What John’s disciples were fasting with view toward, Jesus and his disciples were celebrating, namely, God’s acceptance and forgiveness characteristic of the day of salvation. Joy and celebration rather than grief and mourning marked their lifestyle (cf. Matt 6:16–18; Matt 11:18–19//Luke 7:33–34).”^[6]

 

 

Jesus’ response is centered upon the analogy of wedding. “Are the groomsmen able to fast while the bridegroom is with them? As long as they have the bridegroom with them they are unable to fast.” The analogy is veiled yet meaningful. First, it is an analogy to which any audience can relate. There is an obvious answer to the question: No! People do not fast while attending weddings. This is even more so the case in Jewish culture.

 

Awedding celebration in a Jewish village normally lasted seven days for a virgin bride or three days for a remarried widow. Friends and guests had no responsibility but to enjoy the festivities. There was an abundance of food and wine, as well as song, dance, and fun both in the house and on the street. Even rabbis were expected to desist from Torah instruction and join the celebration with their students. “The guests of the bridegroom” (Gk. hoi huioi tou nymphōnos, “sons of the bridegroom,” a literal Semitism) pictures the gathering of the wedding party, waiting impatiently to eat. Any thought of fasting at such a moment is out of the question!^[7]

 

What is more interesting, however, is not the sociological meaning of Jesus’ response, but the theological meaning. What does it mean for Jesus to be the bridegroom? Not surprisingly, the bridegroom metaphor is never connected with the messianic figure; instead, it is a common metaphor used for Yahweh.

 

The images of the groom and wedding express God’s relationship to his people and are often used to allude to messianic times (Isa. 54:5–6; 62:4–5; Jer. 2:2; Ezek. 16; Hos. 2:14–23 [2:16–25 MT]). This end-time association existed in Judaism, and the image was also used by John the Baptist (John 3:29). Interestingly enough, Jesus’ questioners make reference to John’s disciples. Jesus is alluding to the nature of the times and to his own role by this picture. The end has begun to draw near.^[8]

 

The OT prophets, especially Hosea, speak of Yahweh as Israel’s husband, or bridegroom. Most of the time Israel is depicted as the unfaithful wife (e.g., Jer 3.20; 31.22; Ez 16) whereas Yahweh is depicted as having been faithful to the covenant (Is 25.1; 49.7; Jer 3.12; Hos 2.20). Although Yahweh has grounds for divorce his steadfast love endures forever.

 

During our study, interest has been invested in Isaianic parallels. This is also the case here. Isaiah 54 speaks of Yahweh is the bridegroom of Israel, coming to bring “redemption” (vv. 5, 8), a metaphor for eschatological salvation reminiscent of the exodus (cf. Ex 15.13).  Israel and her husband Yahweh were separated due to her sins (Is 59.2) but now Yahweh will bring her back forever, never to reject her again (54.9).

 

Jesus has applied this imagery to himself (or, better, Mark has applied this to Jesus) to suggest that he is the bridegroom of Israel who has come to inaugurate the Age to Come. The bridegroom imagery in the NT is attributed to Jesus (e.g. Eph 5.25ff), but is probably not in view here.

 

The disciples are called “groomsmen” (lit., “sons of the bridegroom”). It is possible that from this title we should see the disciples as those who now make preparation for the messianic wedding. For now, however, they are to feast with Jesus (2.13-17). For now, fasting is inappropriate, but one day, when Jesus is taken away, fasting will be appropriate. How so?

 

Fasting is inappropriate for two reasons. (1) It accompanies solemn and distressing circumstances of repentance and confession (1 Kgs 21:27–29; Neh 1:4; Dan 9:30). That is not the mood of [Matt] 8–9. Joyous celebration to honor God’s action is more appropriate (Isa 12:6; 25:9; 29:19). (2) Fasting is inappropriate because that which it seeks—forgiveness and atonement for sin (Dan 9:3; Pss. Sol. 3:6–8; Apoc. El. 1:21), healing, and exorcism (Apoc. El. 1:21)—is now available in Jesus’ ministry. He has evidenced forgiveness, healing, and exorcism in the events of [Matt] 8–9.

Is fasting ever appropriate? The rhetorical question and the statement anticipate a time when the bridegroom is taken away. This is the time for fasting. Jesus will be taken away in his crucifixion. The time between his resurrection and parousia or return in triumph (24:3), the “now” of the gospel’s audience, is a difficult time of bold discipleship (cf. 5:3–12, 13–16, 21–48; 6:1–18, 19–34; 7:1–6, 7–11, 12, 13–23, 24–27). The phrase the days will come signals a time of judgment and distress (Isa 39:6; Jer 7:32; Amos 4:2) in which God’s purposes are established through the line of David (Amos 9:13–15; Jer 23:5; Matt 1:1, 17). In this “in-between” time, fasting is necessary. As a spiritual discipline, it sustains disciples (6:16–18) in an appropriate way of life. God’s chosen fast is to loose the bonds of injustice, to break every yoke, to let the oppressed go free, and to feed the hungry, house the homeless, clothe the naked (Isa 58:6–14; Matt 5:3–12; 25:31–46).^[9]

 

It is inappropriate to fast while the marriage is commencing, but once the separation occurs, fasting is necessary in order to await the final salvation which Jesus has begun.

 

Jesus, the bridegroom, will be taken away from the disciples, the groomsmen, on “the coming days.” This will lead to the disciples’ practice of fasting “in that day.” Some scholars see an eschatological formula in the two phrases “the days will come” and “in that day.” I tend to agree, but my agreement is primary theological than exegetical. The death and resurrection of Christ is a cosmic, eschatological event that begins the age of salvation. Therefore, I take “taken away” as a reference to the resurrection of Christ.[10] In the eschatological tension (already/not yet).[11]

 

While the disciples will not fast while Jesus is present with them, they will begin to fast when Jesus is resurrected. Though it is true that fasting could be equated with mourning in NT days, it is doubtful that that is the case here.[12] Instead, the fasting would be centered upon devotion to Christ and his mission, waiting for his return. The Kingdom had come in Jesus, but it will be consummated at his parousia.

 

Jesus finishes his response with two parables. The first is using the image of clothing. In order to patch an old garment with a hole, one must use a preshrunk cloth which has been processed and combed through. If not, the unshrunk cloth will make the hole worse than it was originally. The second parable uses the image of wine. Wine-skins were leather bottle-type containers that were pliable and soft, but after time would become old, shriveled, and brittle. If one were to pour (or “cast”) new wine into an old, brittle wineskin, the wine would burst the skin, ruining both the wine and the skin.

 

The parables are placed together to emphasize the contrast of Jesus’ new work with the old systems in place. In relation to John the Baptist, it is clear from the prologue that his ministry and focus would be soon overshadowed by the ministry of Jesus, for John was just a forerunner, the second appearance of Elijah (Mal 4.5-6). The wait for the Messiah was over; the eschatological age had dawned in Jesus. In relation to the Pharisees, Jesus is at times seemingly antithetical to the sect in theology and practice. Jesus does not “fit” into the messianic and eschatological presuppositional framework of the Pharisees. To fit him into the mold would be to pour new wine in old skins.

 

Both of these parables speak of the destructive consequences of trying to mix old and new…Similarly, the eschatological newness of Jesus’ mission cannot be contained within the old structures of Judaism; if one tries to do so, the consequences will be disastrous for both.

 

This basic point about the incompatibility between the new and the old orders and the necessity of preserving, undiluted by comprise with the structures of the old age, the eschatological power that has broken into the world in Jesus’ advent, is summed up by the battle cry that ends the passage: “New wine into new wineskins!” This slogan was probably especially important to the Markan community, which was conscious of the singularity of its claim that, despite consisting largely of Gentiles, it was the true Israel.[13]

 

Indeed, Jesus was doing a new thing; he was creating a new people marked out by a new covenant centered upon the cross and resurrection.

Mark 2.13-17

CALLING LEVI AND EATING WITH SINNERS (13-17)

 

And [Jesus] came out again along the sea. And the entire crowd came to him, and he was teaching them. And moving along he saw Levi of Alphaeus sitting at the tax collector’s booth. And he said to him, “Follow me.” And standing up he followed him.

 

And Jesus was dining in Levi’s house and many tax collectors and sinners were dining with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. And the scribes of the Pharisees saw that he was eating with the sinners and tax collectors and they asked his disciples, “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?!” And on hearing this Jesus said to them, “Those who are well do not have need for a doctor, but the sickly ones have need. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

 

Many scholars see this section as a composite story of a calling narrative (13-14) and a controversy narrative (15-17).[1] Mark has probably edited his material to fit into the current theme of progressing animosity toward Jesus (see notes on 2.1-12) and included the calling story of Levi to bridge the gap between the two.

 

Jesus is said to “come out of/from” (εξηλθεν) to the sea, bringing back images of new exodus. This language is combined with the image of “sea.” The combination of terms is explicit new exodus language. One example can be seen in Isaiah 42.10-13, a passage which speaks of the victory of Yahweh over his enemies in the context of messianic redemption and liberation (vv. 6-7):

 

    ¹⁰ Sing to the LORD a new song, 
       his praise from the ends of the earth, 
       you who go down to the sea, and all that is in it, 
       you islands, and all who live in them.

    ¹¹ Let the wilderness and its towns raise their voices; 
       let the settlements where Kedar lives rejoice. 
       Let the people of Sela sing for joy; 
       let them shout from the mountaintops.

    ¹² Let them give glory to the LORD 
       and proclaim his praise in the islands.

    ¹³ The LORD will march out like a champion, 
       like a warrior he will stir up his zeal; 
       with a shout he will raise the battle cry 
       and will triumph over his enemies.

 

Jesus has come out to deliver his people from exile. The kind of people he has come to call out of their sins is the subject of this section and reveals much about the nature of Jesus’ ministry and the true nature of the Pharisees and scribes.  The adverb παλιν echoes back to the call story of 1.16-20, where Jesus calls the original four disciples. This seems to imply that Jesus has come to the sea to initiate the new exodus, which one can join, no matter their status, by following (ακολουθεω appears twice in this passage) Jesus.

 

Again we see the crowds following after Jesus, the Healer. It is his healing ministry which has attracted so many people, sometimes creating problems for Jesus’ teaching ministry (1. 35-39). This is not the case in our passage, however. The “entire crowd” comes to Jesus and he taught them. The content of his teaching is again neglected as Mark has no intention of discussing the subject. Instead, Mark is focused on the effects of Jesus’ actions. Even so, we can speculate that the message of Jesus’ teaching was the in-breaking of the Kingdom of God, repentance, and faith (see 1.14-15, Mark’s summary of Jesus’ kerygma).

 

V. 13 functions primarily as a transitional sentence, transitioning to another controversy passage within 2.1-3.6.

 

Jesus moves along (from his position of teaching) to see Levi, the son of Alphaeus. Here we have a textual issue. It is usually assumed that Levi=Matthew in Matthew’s account of this story (9.9-13). But in a couple of manuscripts Levi (Λευι) is changed to Jacob/James (Ιακωβον). This is due to the fact in 3.18, James the son of Alphaeus appears in the list of the Twelve, not Levi the son of Alphaeus, although a Matthew is listed.[2] The problem is easily solved with three observations: 1) to be called to “follow” Jesus does not necessarily mean it was to be a part of the Twelve; 2) it was common for people to have two names, one being a sort of nickname (e.g. Matthew=Levi,[3] Peter=Cephas [Rock], Thomas=Didymus [Twin]); and, most importantly, 3) Mark does not seem to be concerned with the identity of Levi at all, but rather, what type of person Levi is, namely, a tax collector.[4]

 

Levi is seen by Jesus at his tax collector’s booth, or more accurately, toll booth (τελωνιον).

 

A crucial point to mention is that a τελωνιον is not a “publican” – he did not collect income tax or poll taxes, nor was he likely involved in census activities. Rather, he was some sort of customs official placed at bridges, canals, and on state roads, or a tax farmer collecting farms in the region. Such persons were Jews, and were especially despised and considered traitors by their fellow Jews, because not merely were they associated with Gentiles but in fact often worked for them – helping to collect funds for the Roman oppressors. In the Talmud such tax collectors were lumped together with murderers and thieves.[5]

 

The impact of Jesus’ call of Levi is heightened by viewing tax collectors in their historical context. During the intertestamental period relations between Jews and gentiles were at the height of tension. The story of the Maccabean Revolt (2^nd century BCE) (and the later Jewish War [at the time of Mark’s writing – 66-73 CE]) would still be fresh among the Jewish people’s minds (and Mark’s readers), particularly sectarian and “zealous” sects, like the Pharisees. A clear example of this type of behavior is the Apostle Paul, who considered himself a zealot and a Pharisee.[6] Zealots, like Paul, would judge not only gentiles, but also fellow Jews who were not as “zealous” about the Law and sectarian tradition. Therefore, though Levi was a Jew by birth, he was counted as a gentile sinner.

 

Tax collectors were well known for their unethical behavior. For starters, men would bid to become a tax collector for imported goods in their area. Then, to make profit, the collectors would exact more than the common person would owe for their taxes. The Roman government overlooked this malpractice as long as they got their due share. Therefore, collectors were often very wealthy persons, sacrificing integrity and character for cash. One example of the wealth of the collectors is from Josephus, the famous Jewish historian:

 

Josephus (War 2.285-88) records a story in which the Jews of Caesarea called on a tax collector named John to intercede for them with Florus, prefect of Judea from AD 64 to 66. John was able to produce a bribe for Florus amounting to some eight talents of silver (= over $40,000), which illustrates the power and wealth some tax collectors possessed.[7]

 

Because of the extortion and other immorality associate with tax collectors, a home was considered ceremonially unclean if a tax collector entered. The loathing of tax collectors is sure to enhance our interpretation of this story. Jesus’ choice of disciples is not based upon the following of the Law, but on his grace.

 

Jesus’ call to Levi is simple (“Follow me”), yet effective (and…he followed him). Mark is painting a portrait of discipleship as an instantaneous abandonment of one’s lifestyle (repentance?), including occupation and family, to the point that the only thing that gives meaning to a person’s life is following Jesus.  

 

After the call of Levi, we are transported to the house of Levi, where he is hosting a party. Why a party? Why invite Jesus? It was common for people to throw parties/dinners for major events in one’s life, like the decision to become a disciple of a teacher like Jesus. Mark describes Jesus κατακεισθαι (reclining/dining) with “him” in “his” house.[8]  Though translated “dining” in our translation above, the verb is literally, “reclining at table” or something to that effect. Though this was common eating practice at the time, that Levi had lounge chairs (assumedly) would be a testimony to his wealth.

 

Jesus and Levi were not alone at this party (obviously). They were accompanied by other tax collectors and sinners, probably Levi’s friends and associates. The phrase “tax collectors and sinners” is interesting. According to their unethical business tactics, weren’t tax collectors also sinners? Yes. Explanation of the term is that it was probably a fixed term used to describe a particular type of person. It could also be a hendiadys,[9] though this is doubtful because of the context. In agreement with Joel Marcus, I see the phrase as speaking of tax collectors and other sinners.[10]

 

The word “sinners” must also be qualified. Sinners were probably those who were constant violators of Torah. Jesus was not only associating with tax collectors, essentially Jewish traitors, but also with those who cared nothing of the sacred Law of God. Some scholars connect “sinners” with the “wicked” of the Psalms, because LXX translates the Hebrew word as “sinners.” An example of the “wicked” can be found in Ps 10. This Psalm is an imprecation for the “wicked” to be judged by Yahweh. Indeed, the “wicked” are oppressing the people of God and will be judged by him. The imprecation climaxes in v. 15: “Break the arms of the wicked and the evildoers; call them into account for their wickedness would not otherwise be found out.” The early Jewish portrait of the “wicked/sinners” is extremely negative. Therefore, Jesus’ association with these sinners would be shocking to the Pharisees, for, according to the Psalms, the sinners were the object of divine wrath.

 

The presence of Jesus at such a party would simply be astonishing in the eyes of the Pharisees, who were famously sectarian. This is compounded by the fact that not only was Jesus present at the party, but he was sharing the table with them. “As was true normally in the ancient Near East, to have a fellowship meal with people, to recline at table with them, implied that you accepted them in your company.”[11]

 

In the Dead Sea Scrolls, there is a fragment that describes a liturgical communal meal referred to as the Messianic Banquet.[12] At this meal the Qumran sect would share in a loaf of bread and wine. The priest would break the bread in hopes that one day the Messiah would meet with them to partake in the meal. An interesting departure from the character of our story is that people like “tax collectors and sinners” were forbidden to partake in the communal meal. Those who were sick, blind, etc. were not allowed to participate. Only “men of reputation” (1 QSa 2.11), those who were well known and respected in the community, were able to attend.[13]

 

At the feast celebrating Levi’s discipleship, the sinners were not excluded but accepted as they were. The Messiah had come to dine with his people, but unfortunately for the Pharisees, they were not his people. It is clear that Jesus was not a sectarian, but had come to fulfill his role as Yahweh’s Servant (Is 42.6-7):

 

I, the LORD, have called you in righteousness; 
I will take hold of your hand. 
I will keep you and will make you 
to be a covenant for the people 
and a light for the Gentiles,

to open eyes that are blind, 
to free captives from prison 
and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness.

 

The phrase “for there were many who followed him” suggests that other sinners like Levi had decided to follow Jesus. These were probably those invited to celebrate at Levi’s home. πολλοι (many) also re-emphasizes the new exodus/eschatological nature of Jesus’ ministry.

 

The “scribes[14] of the Pharisees” saw Jesus eating with the sinners. These were highly educated in Torah and zealous for the keeping of boundary markers such as Sabbath, purity laws, circumcision, festivals, etc. Their main objective was holiness manifested through separation. As it relates to communal meals, “the stricter Pharisees, or haberim, especially seem to have seen very strict table fellowship rules as essential to renewed holiness among God’s people.”[15]

 

With this in mind, again, we should see the actions of Jesus as shocking to the onlooking Pharisees. This is shown by the question posed to Jesus’ disciples, “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?” The syntax of the question is difficult, but probably has a sense of exclamation to it.[16]

 

Jesus heard the question from the scribes and answered with a common proverb and a direct explanation of the nature of his ministry. “Those who are well do not have need for a doctor, but the sickly ones have need” was a common phrase in Greek thought.

 

Plutarch quotes the exiled Spartan king Pausanias as using a similar image to v. 17a when he was asked why he had left Sparta for Tegea despite his good opinion of Spartans: “It is not the custom of doctors to spend their time with the healthy, but where people were ill.[17]

 

Jesus uses this common proverb to explain his controversial association with sinners. It’s clear that Jesus saw the primary problem of humanity was sin and he was the doctor who could heal it.[18] Jesus, unlike the Pharisees, was not fearful of being contaminated (or becoming ceremonially unclean) by sinners. Instead,

 

holiness rather than sin turns out to be contagious…Jesus is not defiled by his contact with impurity but instead vanquishes it through the eschatological power active in him. Our passage, then, ascribes to Jesus the same sort of divine authority that was evident in 2:1-12, for it implies that he is not one who is susceptible to sin’s infection but the doctor who heals it, and in so doing it transfers to him an image used for God in the Old Testament and later Judaism.[19]

 

Marcus is referring specifically to Ex 15.26 where Yahweh explicitly claims to be the healer of Israel. Another passage he cites is from Philo, who describes God as “the only doctor for the sicknesses of the soul.”[20]

 

An immediate question is raised: are the Pharisees not in “need” of Jesus to heal them of their sins? As with all metaphors this one can be pushed to the point of breaking down. The point is not that the Pharisees did not need to experience spiritual healing, but that Jesus’ ministry was focused on the outcasts of Jewish (and Roman) society, not the so-called healthy/righteous.

 

The second half of Jesus’ response is a clarification and addition to the proverb: “I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” Jesus has defined the sickness that plagues humanity as sin. Indeed, people are sinners in need of Jesus’ calling and healing. “Calling” (καλεω) in Paul is soteriological in nature and Mark may be borrowing the language to make a point. Jesus did not come to call those who thought they could achieve righteousness apart from faith in Jesus; he came to save those who were outcast. This reveals the nature of grace. “Jesus’ ministry is not to those who consider themselves to be righteous, not to the healthy, but to the sick, to those who know their unrighteousness and their need for God’s help.”[21]  Marcus also points out a parallel to the Prayer of Manasseh, and early Jewish pietistic passage: “You did not appoint grace for the righteous, but you appoin

Mark 2.1-12

 

HEALING AND FORGIVENESS (2.1-12) 

And he entered again into Capernaum some time later and it was heard that he was at home. And many gathered together so that there was no longer room at the door, and he was speaking to them the Word. And four men came to him, carrying a paralytic.And they were unable to bring him to Jesus because of the crowds, so they unroofed the roof where Jesus was and digging out a hole, lowered the paralytic through the roof on the mat he was lying on. And Jesus saw their faith and said to the paralytic, “Child, your sins are forgiven.”

But there were some scribes sitting there and discussing in their hearts, “Why does he speak like that? He blasphemes! Who is able to forgive sins except the One God?” And immediately when Jesus perceiving by his spirit that they were discussing in themselves, he said to them, “What is this that you are discussing in your hearts? Which is easier to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or ‘Rise, take up your bed, and walk’ – so that you may know that the Son of Man has the authority to forgive sins on the earth” – he said to the paralytic, “I say to you, rise, take up your bed, and go away to your home.” And he rose and immediately took up his bed and went out in front of everyone. For this reason everyone was amazed and they glorified God, saying, “We’ve never seen anything like this!”

Jesus and his disciples (assumedly) return from Galilee to Capernaum, probably back to Simon’s house (see notes on 1.21ff). Word soon began to spread that Jesus was back at Simon’s house and so “many” (πολλοι, polloi) people pressed in. It should be noted that Mark is consistent in using words like “all,” “many,” “everyone,” and the like to bring attention to the theme of New Exodus. Jesus is doing a new thing that will involve all people everywhere. This is emphasized by the phrase, “many gathered together so that there was no longer room at the door.” The crowd that had gathered at Simon’s house was so large that no one else could enter.

Jesus was “speaking the word.” τον λογον (“the Word”) in the NT and early Christianity was a technical term for the Christian message. We can assume from the timing of Jesus’ speaking in Simon’s house that the content of the speech was not the death, burial, and resurrection, as “the Word” would later come to mean (cf. Col 1.5 and Paul’s equivocation of gospel and word); Jesus’ message was concerning the Kingdom of God (1.14-15).

While Jesus is speaking about matters related to the Kingdom, four men bring a friend who is a παραλυτικον, “paralytic.” This word connotes the idea of someone who is unable to walk, a lame person. It seems that the word of Jesus’ healing εξουσια (authority) has reached these men in Capernaum. They have come to Simon’s house believing that Jesus is the only one who can help their friend.

Their faith (πιστις) is expressed in the willingness of the four to open the roof. A typical Capernaum house was covered by a flat roof made of tree trunks, clay (or mud), and leaves. It was used many times for a place to hang out with friends and functioned as a cool place to sleep in the summer. This area was usually accessible by an outside staircase or ladder. 

As you can see from the illustration (found in pdf on Teaching page), it wouldn’t take much for a home to be filled with people. Many house-churches during the times of the NT housed no more than 30 people and these were homes of the wealthy.  If we assume that around 30 people are inside the home and take as accurate the above description of the roofing materials, we could imagine that the “unroofing” was quite an event! It would take ruining Simon’s roof to get to the one person who could heal the men’s friend. But this is how Jesus “sees” (ιδων) their faith. This is a key point to emphasize Mark’s view of faith and discipleship. Faith is risky and an act of desperation; true disciples will do anything to follow after Jesus (cf. the disciples’ abandonment of their careers and families in 1.16-20).

After the friends dig a hole in the roof and Jesus sees the faith of the four, Jesus pronounces something unexpected. In keeping with the previous healing stories in Mark’s gospel we would assume that Jesus would heal the man and let him on his way, maybe even giving him a command of silence similar to the one he gave the leper (1.44). Instead Jesus addresses the lame man as “Child.” “τεκνον is not a common form of address…The unexpected degree of familiarity it implies is no doubt designed to provide assurance.” This is a much different response than Jesus’ response to the leper in the previous pericope (“Jesus was indignant,” 1.41).

The next phrase begins the theme of controversy: “Child, your sins are forgiven.” It is no surprise that modern readers of Mark’s gospel are surprised by this response from Jesus. One explanation of Jesus’ response is that in Jewish thought sickness and sin, as well as healing and forgiveness, were closely related.

In many OT texts healing and forgiveness of sin and physical healing were so closely related that it is hard to tell whether the language of healing is meant to be understood of physical illness or metaphorically for restored spiritual health (e.g., Pss. 41.4; 103.3; Is 53.4-6), but sometimes physical healing is clearly related to forgiveness of sin (2 Ch. 7.13-14; Is 38.16-17) just as physical suffering can be attributed to the sin of the sufferer (Nu 12.9-15; 2 Ch 26.16-21) or indeed to sin in the community. That suffering is the result of sin in the general sense that the world’s evils are traced to the Fall would have been generally agreed, but the Book of Job testifies to a strong reaction against the view that the suffering of an individual must necessarily be the result of his or her own sin. A similar balance is maintained in the NT, with some suffering and death being attributed to the specific sin of those concerned (Jn 5.14; Acts 5.1-11; 1 Cor 11.30; 1 Jn 5.16), while in other places such a direct connection is denied (Lk 13.1-5; Jn 9.2-3; 2 Cor 12.7; Gal 4.13-14).

Of interest in the passages cited by France is Psalm 41:

    ¹ Blessed are those who have regard for the weak; 
      Yahweh delivers them in times of trouble.

    ² Yahweh protects and preserves them— 
       they are counted among the blessed in the land— 
       he does not give them over to the desire of their foes.

    ³ Yahweh sustains them on their sickbed 
       and restores them from their bed of illness.

    ⁴ I said, “Have mercy on me, Yahweh; 
       heal me, for I have sinned against you.”

    ⁵ My enemies say of me in malice, 
       “When will he die and his name perish?”

    ⁶ Whenever they come to see me, 
       they speak falsely, while their hearts gather slander; 
       then they go out and spread it abroad.

    ⁷ All my enemies whisper together against me; 
       they imagine the worst for me, saying,

    ⁸ ”A vile disease has beset him; 
       he will never get up from the place where he lies.”

It is verse 4 that is most revealing: “Have mercy on me, Yahweh, heal me, for I have sinned against you.” David seeks Yahweh to heal him for his sins. In this passage, it is clear that there is a connection between sickness and sin. 

Another passage of interest is Isaiah 38, which depicts Hezekiah’s illness and restoration:

    ¹⁶ Lord, by such things people live; 
       and my spirit finds life in them too. 
       You restored me to health 
       and let me live.

    ¹⁷ Surely it was for my benefit 
       that I suffered such anguish. 
       In your love you kept me 
       from the pit of destruction; 
       you have put all my sins 
       behind your back.

Hezekiah received healing from his illness (“I will add fifteen years to your life”) and interprets it as the forgiveness of sins (“you have put all my sins behind your back”).

Rabbinic tradition agrees with this interpretation. The Babylonian Talmud Nedarim states that “a sick person does not arise from his sickness until all his sins are forgiven him” (41a).  It is clear that in Jewish thought there was a connection between sin and sickness, so it is not out of the ordinary for Jesus to think the same.

As France has pointed out in the passage above, there is a balance to be sought after in one’s view of the correlation between sin and sickness. Marcus opines correctly that John 9 gives the best commentary.

Perhaps the best commentary on the issue is provided by John 9.2-3, where Jesus shifts his disciples’ attention away from their cruel preoccupation with the blind man’s presumed responsibility for his affliction and redirects it to the witness that his cure will bear to the advent of God’s eschatological grace: ‘It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be made manifest in him’ (RSV).

The claim of forgiveness by Jesus initiated the scribes’ διαλογιζομενοι εν ταις καρδιαις αυτων (lit. “dialoguing in their hearts”). The scribes were in a serious struggle over Jesus’ words. The question is raised in their hearts, “Why does he speak like that?” And the charge of blasphemy is considered – “Who is able to forgive sins except the One God?” We, as post-Easter Christians, are quick to judge the scribes as stupid or incompetent, but the reverse is true. The scribes are asking the right question, but have, like everyone else, misunderstood the identity of Jesus. Exodus 34.7 says that it is Yahweh who “forgives wickedness, rebellion, and sin.” In Isaiah 43.25, Yahweh claims, “”I, even I, am he who blots out your transgressions, for my own sake, and remembers your sins no more.” The radical monotheism of Judaism had no room for a man who had divine powers that belonged only to Yahweh. As modern Rabbi Shmuley Boteach has said, “It is absolute sacrilege in Judaism to believe that any human being is a deity.”

The matter is complicated more by the fact that in no text, with the exception of one controversial passage in a Qumran fragment (Prayer of Nabonidus), does a human being have the authority to forgive sins. The Messiah is never credited with the ability to forgive sins, though there is some evidence of him doing so as God’s agent, which may give some background to the passage. One of interest is the Testament of Levi 18:

And after their punishment shall have come from the Lord, then will the Lord raise up to the priesthood a new Priest, to whom all the words of the Lord shall be revealed; and He shall execute a judgment of truth upon the earth, in the fullness of days. And His star shall arise in heaven, as a king shedding forth the light of knowledge in the sunshine of day, and He shall be magnified in the world until His ascension. He shall shine forth as the sun in the earth, and shall drive away all darkness from the world under heaven, and there shall be peace in all the earth. The heavens shall rejoice in His days, and the earth shall be glad, and the clouds shall be joyful, and the knowledge of the Lord shall be poured forth upon the earth, as the water of seas; and the angels of the glory of the presence of the Lord shall be glad in Him. The heavens shall be opened, and from the temple of glory shall the sanctification come upon Him with the Father’s voice, as from Abraham the father of Isaac. And the glory of the Most High shall be uttered over Him, and the spirit of understanding and of sanctification shall rest upon Him in the water. He shall give the majesty of the Lord to His sons in truth for evermore; and there shall none succeed Him for all generations, even for ever. And in His priesthood shall all sin come to an end, and the lawless shall rest from evil, and the just shall rest in Him. And He shall open the gates of paradise, and shall remove the threatening sword against Adam; and He shall give to His saints to eat from the tree of life, and the spirit of holiness shall be on them. And Beliar shall be bound by Him, and He shall give power to His children to tread upon the evil spirits. And the Lord shall rejoice in His children, and the Lord shall be well pleased in His beloved for ever. Then shall Abraham and Isaac and Jacob be joyful, and I will be glad, and all the saints shall put on gladness.

Some have interpreted this preChristian writing in a way that makes Messiah a forgiver of sins as the mediator for Yahweh (priestly duty), though it is still heavily debated.

Jesus now does something else that only Yahweh does, judge the secrets of the heart. It is apparent that he is more than a man. A key text on this attribute of Yahweh is Ps 139. In this Psalm, David is depicting the omniscience and omnipresence of Yahweh. David knows that Yahweh alone can know him. This knowledge prompts David to ask him to “Search me, O God, and know my heart” (23). A similar concept is in Prov 24:

      ¹¹ Rescue those being led away to death; 
       hold back those staggering toward slaughter.

    ¹² If you say, “But we knew nothing about this,” 
       does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? 
       Does not he who guards your life know it? 
       Will he not repay everyone according to what they have done?

Jesus is doing things that only Yahweh does. This is due to Mark’s high Christology. He is the one with the εξουσια to overpower demonic forces and heal all diseases and now to forgive sins and know the secrets of the heart. He is the God-man.

One more poignant nuance in the forgiving of sins is that it is a key characteristic in the Isaianic New Exodus theme Mark is following. In Isaiah 43, an important passage for the New Exodus imagery, Yahweh says, “I, even I, am he who blots out your transgressions, for my own sake, and remembers your sins no more” (25). This is in the context of strong exodus imagery:

     ¹⁵ I am the LORD, your Holy One, 
       Israel’s Creator, your King.”

    ¹⁶ This is what the LORD says— 
       he who made a way through the sea, 
       a path through the mighty waters,

    ¹⁷ who drew out the chariots and horses, 
       the army and reinforcements together, 
       and they lay there, never to rise again, 
       extinguished, snuffed out like a wick:

    ¹⁸ ”Forget the former things; 
       do not dwell on the past.

    ¹⁹ See, I am doing a new thing! 
       Now it springs up; do you not perceive it? 
       I am making a way in the wilderness 
       and streams in the wasteland.

    ²⁰ The wild animals honor me, 
       the jackals and the owls, 
       because I provide water in the wilderness 
       and streams in the wasteland, 
       to give drink to my people, my chosen,

    ²¹ the people I formed for myself 
       that they may proclaim my praise.

With the imagery we see that the forgiveness of sins is an eschatological event occurring at the Second Exodus.

The question Jesus asks is poignant: “Which is easier?” Joel Marcus challenges us to take the question seriously:

But which is easier? From the standpoint of systematic theology, it may be simpler to perform a miraculous cure than to forgive a person’s sins, but in terms of external proof, which is what is at stake in our passage, it is easier to declare sins forgiven than to declare a person cured. One may say, “Your sins are forgiven,” but are they? Outside observers have no immediate way of knowing, whereas they can at once verify a miraculous cure. Thus Jesus’ ability to heal is an argument “from the greater to the lesser”: if he can do a hard thing such as healing a paralytic, he can certainly do the “easier” thing of forgiving his sins. The miracle thus confirms the claim to forgive sins, although the logic is, from the systematic point of view, flawed.

The phrase “so that you may know that the Son of Man has the authority to forgive sins on the earth” is highly debated. The question is who is saying this? Is it Jesus or Mark? Witherington goes the way of a Markan parenthetical:

The considerable awkwardness of the grammar at this point suggests that we should take seriously the likelihood that we have a parenthesis inserted by Mark here and directed to his own audience…it seems likely that we have a transition to an editorial comment here where the author addresses the audience as “you.” Parenthetical remarks are not uncommon in Mark (cf. 2.15, 28; 7.3-4, 19; 13.14). The Evangelist in fact had no choice, if he wanted to make an explanatory remark to his own audience, but to put it in the text, since there were no footnotes. This means we should likely see v. 10a as Mark’s own comment and not as a saying of Jesus, which makes it an unusual statement, for the title Son of man is usually recognized as something the early church, especially a church largely populated by gentiles, did not use to speak of Jesus (cf. the phrase’s total absence in Paul’s letters).

Witherington has a solid argument, but it must be rejected. The grammar is awkward, but Mark’s grammar is awkward in other places (cf. “Simon and Andrew, Simon’s brother,” 1.16; n. 2). Also, his last point, namely that the early Christians did not refer to Jesus as the Son of Man, is a good argument against his position, whereas Jesus refers to himself as the Son of Man 14 times in Mark’s gospel.

The idea of “the Son of Man” is one of the most hotly debated topics in NT studies. The title υιος του ανθρωπου (son of man) in the earlier texts of the Hebrew Bible was a synonym for “human being.” This is the emphasis in Ezekiel, where he is called “son of man” over 90 times; the title contrasts the lowly human nature of the prophet compared to the divine nature of the oracles. In later Hebrew texts, specifically Daniel and 1 Enoch, the Son of Man was given much more theological weight. Daniel 7 is the most important text for our passage:

¹³ ”In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. ¹⁴He was given rule, glory, and a kingdom; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His authority is an everlasting authority that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

The “Son of Man” (υιος ανθρωπου) is invited into the presence of Yahweh and given three things: rule (αρχη), glory (τιμη), and a kingdom (βασιλεα), presumably the Kingdom of god, which is the content of Jesus’ preaching in 1.14-15. In those verses, Jesus was shown as bringing the kingdom of God with him in his ministry. (The phrase, “all nations and peoples of every tongue worshiped him” is similar to Paul’s phrase in Phil 2: “at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father,” further evidencing the early Christian interpretation of Dan 7.) The next line is crucial for our passage. The issue here is εξουσια, Jesus’ authority. Jesus’ claim to be the Son of Man is a claim to divine authority, which apparently involves the forgiveness of sins and is a manifestation of the power and incorruptibility of the kingdom. Yahweh, “at the climax of history has delegated his power of absolution to a ‘Son of Man’ who carries out his gracious will in the earthly sphere; therefore, ‘upon the earth the Son of Man has the authority to forgive sins.’” Authority is the reason why Jesus can execute the holistic healing of the paralytic. Yahweh is the one forgiving through his authoritative delegate, Jesus. That the Son of Man forgives sins instead of judging sins is a Markan twist upon the Jewish expectation of the messianic Son of Man. In 1 Enoch he is presented as judge, not forgiver.

The command to the paralytic to “rise, take up your bed, and walk” is stated three times: once to the scribes, once to the man, and once describing the healed condition of the man. The first verb, εγειρω (to rise), is totally unnecessary for Mark to insert. The same idea is in the remainder of the command, “take up your bed and walk.” Mark inserts this for a reason; it is a clear allusion to the resurrection from the dead that is worked in Jesus by God at Easter. Although the scribes misunderstand Jesus’ identity, the hearers of the gospel in the Roman churches will note that this Jesus is the one who has paved the way for forgiven sinners to be raised in the same fashion as his resurrection. “The power by which Jesus heals the man is the same power by which God will raise Jesus himself from the dead.”

As with the leper, the healing was instantaneous. Whatever the condition of the man, it would be an amazing sight to behold to see a lame man’s legs strengthen to the point that he could bend, take up his sleeping mat, and walk out of the house. But there is something more marvelous happening here.  Isaiah 35 spells out the significant of Jesus healing a lame man:

 ¹ The desert and the parched land will be glad; 
       the wilderness will rejoice and blossom. 
       Like the crocus, ² it will burst into bloom; 
       it will rejoice greatly and shout for joy. 
       The glory of Lebanon will be given to it, 
       the splendor of Carmel and Sharon; 
       they will see the glory of the LORD, 
       the splendor of our God.

    ³ Strengthen the feeble hands, 
       steady the knees that give way;

    ⁴ say to those with fearful hearts, 
       “Be strong, do not fear; 
       your God will come, 
       he will come with vengeance; 
       with divine retribution 
       he will come to save you.”

    ⁵ Then will the eyes of the blind be opened 
       and the ears of the deaf unstopped.

    ⁶ Then will the lame leap like a deer, 
       and the mute tongue shout for joy. 
       Water will gush forth in the wilderness 
       and streams in the desert.

    ⁷ The burning sand will become a pool, 
       the thirsty ground bubbling springs. 
       In the haunts where jackals once lay, 
       grass and reeds and papyrus will grow.

    ⁸ And a highway will be there; 
       it will be called the Way of Holiness; 
       it will be for those who walk on that Way. 
       The unclean will not journey on it; 
       wicked fools will not go about on it.

    ⁹ No lion will be there, 
       nor any ravenous beast; 
       they will not be found there. 
       But only the redeemed will walk there,

    ¹⁰ and those the LORD has rescued will return. 
       They will enter Zion with singing; 
       everlasting joy will crown their heads. 
       Gladness and joy will overtake them, 
       and sorrow and sighing will flee away.

The signs of the New Exodus have emerged in this Jesus story.

This interpretation is confirmed by the reaction of the crowds (χωρειν in v. 2). They were amazed (paralleled in 1.22, 27) and glorified God.  The reaction is expected by the object of the praise is subtle. As Marcus points out (224), there is an ambiguity to whether Jesus or Yahweh accomplishes the actually healing and forgiving. This is purposeful in Mark’s Christological framework. Whereas in a modern American context it would be more natural for the crowds to praise Jesus, it is clear that Mark wishes us to see the crowds as viewing Jesus’ actions as inspired by Yahweh.

This interpretation fits nicely with the conclusion to Is 35, that the redeemed will enter Zion with exuberance. This is due to the fact that they “have never seen anything like this!” This is because Yahweh is doing a “new thing” (Is 43.19) in Jesus. He is bringing his people back to Zion, back to perfect communion with him.