Mark · Chapter 2

V. 1. And again-After having been in desert places for some time, he returned privately to the city.

In the house-In Peter's house.

Verse 1. In the house.] The house of Peter, with whom Christ lodged when at Capernaum. See the notes on Matthew 4:13; 8:13.

Verses 1, 2. And again — After having been in desert places for same time, he returned privately to Capernaum. It was noised that he was in the house — The rumour immediately spread, that he was come to the city, and was in Peter’s house. And straightway many were gathered together — His arrival was no sooner known than such a multitude was gathered together that the house could not contain them; nor even the court before the door. Hitherto the general impression on their hearts continued. Hitherto, even at Capernaum, most of those who heard, received the word with joy. And he preached the word unto them — He preached to as many as could hear him; and among the rest, as we learn, Luke 5:17, to many Pharisees and teachers of the law, who on the report of his miracles were come from all quarters to see his works, and judge of his pretensions.

§ 30. — CURING OF THE PALSIED MAN, 1-12.

(See notes on Matthew 9:2-8.)

1. Again he entered into Capernaum — After leaving Capernaum, as mentioned in the last chapter, on account of the crowds.

1 Christ healeth one sick of the palsy, 14 calleth Matthew from the receipt of custom, 15 eateth with publicans and sinners, 18 excuseth his disciples for not fasting, 23 and for plucking the ears of corn on the Sabbath day. CHAPTER 2. Verses 1, 2. It was noised that he was in the house, &c. — He had entered privately, to avoid observation; and the eager people no sooner heard of his arrival, than they so crowded to the house, that it overflowed, so that there was no room to receive them, no, not so much as about the door, that is, in the porch or vestibule. And he preached the word to them, placing himself so as to be heard both by those within and without. The word ton logon is here the same as “the Gospel of the kingdom,” Matthew 4:23. This Gospel, in its various principles, bearings, and developements, doctrinal, practical, and hortatory, was the great subject of our Lord’s preaching; and it came afterward to be termed among the disciples emphatically THE WORD; which was probably its common and familiar designation among Christians when St. Mark wrote his gospel.

V. 2. And immediately many were gathered together-Hitherto continued the general impression on their hearts. Hitherto, even at Capernaum, all who heard received the word with joy.

Verse 2. So much as about the door] Meaning the yard or court before the house.

Preached THE WORD] ton logon. The doctrine of the kingdom of God; for so o logov is repeatedly used.

Verses 1, 2. And again — After having been in desert places for same time, he returned privately to Capernaum. It was noised that he was in the house — The rumour immediately spread, that he was come to the city, and was in Peter’s house. And straightway many were gathered together — His arrival was no sooner known than such a multitude was gathered together that the house could not contain them; nor even the court before the door. Hitherto the general impression on their hearts continued. Hitherto, even at Capernaum, most of those who heard, received the word with joy. And he preached the word unto them — He preached to as many as could hear him; and among the rest, as we learn, Luke 5:17, to many Pharisees and teachers of the law, who on the report of his miracles were come from all quarters to see his works, and judge of his pretensions.

2. Many were gathered together — Luke informs us that there were Pharisees and doctors of the law from every town in Galilee, Judea, and from Jerusalem. It is not probable that they came so far for the purpose of hearing him, but there may have been some convocation which drew them to that locality, and the fame of Jesus drew them to hear him. Not so much as about the door — So great was the crowd that access could not be obtained to the door. This might intimate that the paralytic was taken up through a neighbour’s house to the roof over Jesus. The word — The Gospel word or doctrine.

V. 3. Matthew 9:2; Luke 5:18.

Verse 3. One sick of the palsy] A paralytic person. See Clarke on “Matthew 9:2”, &c.

Borne of four.] Four men, one at each corner of the sofa or couch on which he lay: this sick man appears to have been too feeble to come himself, and too weak to be carried in any other way.

Verses 3-4. And they come, bringing one sick of the palsy — See on Matthew 9:2, &c. Which was borne of four — One at each corner of the sofa or couch. And when they could not come nigh unto him for the press — The great crowd of people collected together, and feared a delay might lose so precious an opportunity, they uncovered the roof — Of the apartment where he was — Which was a room that had no chamber over it, the houses in the East being low, having generally a ground floor only, or one upper story. This house also, like other houses in that country, had doubtless a flat roof with a battlement round it, (Deuteronomy 22:8,) and a kind of trap-door, by which persons within could come out upon it to walk and take the air, or perform their devotions. (See 2 Kings 23:12; Acts 10:9.) This door, when shut, lying even with the roof, made a part of it, and was probably well fastened to secure the house against thieves. The bearers therefore of the paralytic, prevented from bringing him in at the door by the crowd, bear him up by some other stair to the roof of this room, and finding this trap-door fastened below, were obliged to break it open before they could get entrance; and probably also, in order to let down the sick man and his couch, to make the opening wider, which they might do, either by removing the frame of the trap-door, or some of the tiles adjoining to it, with the laths supporting them; all which Mark fitly expresses by the words: apeste gadan thn steghn opou hn, kai, exoruxantev calwsi ton krabbaton, they took up the covering, and having broken, or pulled up, namely, as much of the frame or adjoining tiles as was necessary, they let down the couch, which they held by the corners, or by ropes fastened to the corners of it, and so placed him before Jesus while he was preaching to the people who were within, and to as many of those who stood without in the court as could hear. Some think a more satisfactory interpretation of this passage may be given by referring to Dr. Shaw’s account of the houses in the East. “They are built,” he says, “round a paved court, into which the entrance from the street is through a gateway, or passage-room, furnished with benches, and sufficiently large to be used in receiving visits, or transacting business. The stairs, which lead to the roof, are never placed on the outside of the house in the street, but usually in the gateway or passage-room to the court, and sometimes at the entrance within the court. This court is called in Arabic, the middle of the house, and answers to the midst, in Luke. It is customary to fix cords from the parapet-walls (Deuteronomy 22:8) of the flat roofs across this court, and upon them to expand a veil or covering, as a shelter from the heat. In this area, probably, our Saviour taught. The paralytic was brought upon the roof by making a way through the crowd to the stairs in the gateway, or by the terraces of the adjoining houses. They rolled back the veil, and let the sick man down over the parapet-wall of the roof into the area or court of the house before Jesus.” This interpretation, however, seems hardly consistent with the original expressions used by Mark and Luke: particularly the latter, who says, Luke 5:19, Dia twn keramwn kaqhkan auton sun tw klinidiw, They let him down

through the tiling with his couch.

3. Borne of four — Each holding him by a limb. Or more probably, each holding a corner of the litter.

Verse 3. One sick of the palsy, &c. — For observations on this miracle which is very remarkable for the dispute with the scribes connected with it, see the notes on Matthew 9:2, &c. The only additional circumstance in this place which needs remark, is the uncovering the roof by the friends of the paralytic, in order to get the man into the presence of Christ; because they could not approach him on account of the crowd, who filled the vestibule as well as the house. Some elaborate expositions have been offered of this transaction, the object of which appears to have been to evade the difficulty of supposing that the roof was literally uncovered, and the sick man let down through the opening. Yet this is the declaration of the text; and there is in it nothing particularly strange, if we consider that the house where Jesus was, was built in the usual style of domestic architecture in those countries; and that it was the place of his own residence, and a house therefore of the humbler description. Like other buildings, it had a flat roof, and a flight of outward stairs leading to the roof; by these the people bearing the paralytic man might easily ascend; and then the roof, being laid with light materials, as reeds or canes, covered with lime, might easily be opened without any danger to those in the room below, or any damage which might not be soon repaired and at trifling expense. Thus we do no violence to the expressions. They uncovered the roof where he was, and when they had broken it up, which are utterly unconnected with letting the couch down through an awning, which some suppose to have covered the courtyard, or the bringing it down the interior staircase. Besides, this house was of too common a class to have a quadrangle with the luxury of an awning as a defence against the sun; and being only of one story high, as the account intimates, it had no interior staircase down which the descent could be made. That they had been at some particular pains to accomplish their object, more indeed than would be implied in letting a man down into a court from a low building, or bringing him down a pair of stairs, is evident from their faith being commended by our Lord: and when he saw their faith, as expressed by their laborious and determined efforts, even to force their way into his presence. The notion that Christ was sitting in an upper room, is contrary to the history; from which it appears that he was teaching in the house, so that those before the door might also hear. The house, in fact, appears to have been Peter’s, or his wife’s mother’s, where Jesus was an inmate, and was such as fishermen generally occupied.

V. 4. They uncovered the roof-Or, took up the covering, the lattice or trap door, which was on all their houses, (being flat roofed.) And finding it not wide enough, broke the passage wider, to let down the couch.

Verse 4. They uncovered the roof] The houses in the east are generally made flat-roofed, that the inhabitants may have the benefit of taking the air on them; they are also furnished with battlements round about, Deuteronomy 22:8; Judges 16:27; and 2 Samuel 11:2, to prevent persons from falling off; and have a trap door by which they descend into the house. This door, it appears, was too narrow to let down the sick man and his couch; so they uncovered the roof, removed a part of the tiles; and having broken it up, taken away the laths or timber, to which the tiles had been attached, they then had room to let down the afflicted man. See Luke 5:19, and on Matthew 10:27; 24:17.

Verses 3-4. And they come, bringing one sick of the palsy — See on Matthew 9:2, &c. Which was borne of four — One at each corner of the sofa or couch. And when they could not come nigh unto him for the press — The great crowd of people collected together, and feared a delay might lose so precious an opportunity, they uncovered the roof — Of the apartment where he was — Which was a room that had no chamber over it, the houses in the East being low, having generally a ground floor only, or one upper story. This house also, like other houses in that country, had doubtless a flat roof with a battlement round it, (Deuteronomy 22:8,) and a kind of trap-door, by which persons within could come out upon it to walk and take the air, or perform their devotions. (See 2 Kings 23:12; Acts 10:9.) This door, when shut, lying even with the roof, made a part of it, and was probably well fastened to secure the house against thieves. The bearers therefore of the paralytic, prevented from bringing him in at the door by the crowd, bear him up by some other stair to the roof of this room, and finding this trap-door fastened below, were obliged to break it open before they could get entrance; and probably also, in order to let down the sick man and his couch, to make the opening wider, which they might do, either by removing the frame of the trap-door, or some of the tiles adjoining to it, with the laths supporting them; all which Mark fitly expresses by the words: apeste gadan thn steghn opou hn, kai, exoruxantev calwsi ton krabbaton, they took up the covering, and having broken, or pulled up, namely, as much of the frame or adjoining tiles as was necessary, they let down the couch, which they held by the corners, or by ropes fastened to the corners of it, and so placed him before Jesus while he was preaching to the people who were within, and to as many of those who stood without in the court as could hear. Some think a more satisfactory interpretation of this passage may be given by referring to Dr. Shaw’s account of the houses in the East. “They are built,” he says, “round a paved court, into which the entrance from the street is through a gateway, or passage-room, furnished with benches, and sufficiently large to be used in receiving visits, or transacting business. The stairs, which lead to the roof, are never placed on the outside of the house in the street, but usually in the gateway or passage-room to the court, and sometimes at the entrance within the court. This court is called in Arabic, the middle of the house, and answers to the midst, in Luke. It is customary to fix cords from the parapet-walls (Deuteronomy 22:8) of the flat roofs across this court, and upon them to expand a veil or covering, as a shelter from the heat. In this area, probably, our Saviour taught. The paralytic was brought upon the roof by making a way through the crowd to the stairs in the gateway, or by the terraces of the adjoining houses. They rolled back the veil, and let the sick man down over the parapet-wall of the roof into the area or court of the house before Jesus.” This interpretation, however, seems hardly consistent with the original expressions used by Mark and Luke: particularly the latter, who says, Luke 5:19, Dia twn keramwn kaqhkan auton sun tw klinidiw, They let him down

through the tiling with his couch.

Verse 4. They uncovered the roof. Houses in the east have mostly flat roofs on which they walk for the benefit of the air. They have but a narrow door, and seldom a window to the street. All their lower windows are toward the gardens.

§ 30. — CURING OF THE PALSIED MAN, 1-12.

(See notes on Matthew 9:2-8.)

1. Again he entered into Capernaum — After leaving Capernaum, as mentioned in the last chapter, on account of the crowds.

Verses 5-12. When Jesus saw their faith — The faith of the bearers of the paralytic, as well as of the paralytic himself, manifested by their making these extraordinary efforts to bring him to Jesus, he had compassion on the afflicted person, and, previously to his cure, declared publicly that his sins were forgiven. But there were certain of the scribes, &c. — See whence the first offence cometh! — As yet not one of the plain, unlettered people, were offended. They all rejoiced in the light, till these men of learning came, to put darkness for light, and light for darkness. We to all such blind guides! Good had it been for these if they had never been born. O God, let me never offend one of thy simple ones! Sooner let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth! These scribes, hearing what Christ said, were exceedingly provoked. And though they did not openly find fault, they said in their own minds, or, perhaps, whispered to one another, Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? — “The word blasfhmia, blasphemy, in profane writings, signifies slander, calumny, or any kind of opprobrious language. But in Scripture it denotes opprobrious speeches against God’s being, attributes, or operations, such as when we ascribe to God the infirmities of men, or to men the perfections and operations of God; it signifies also irreverent speeches, addressed immediately to God, such as when we curse God, as Job’s wife desired him to do.” — Macknight. The meaning of the word here is, Why doth this fellow arrogantly assume to himself what belongs to God? a sense which it has Matthew 16:65, and in other passages. These Pharisees and teachers of the law, being ignorant of our Lord’s divinity, thought he was guilty of blasphemy in pretending to forgive the man his sins, because it was an assuming of what God had declared to be his incommunicable prerogative, Isaiah 43:25. Whereupon Jesus, knowing all that passed, immediately reasoned with them on the subject of their thoughts, by which he gave them to understand that it was impossible for any thought to come into their minds without his knowledge, and consequently proved himself to be endued with the omniscient Spirit of God. He next demonstrated, by what he said to them, that the power he claimed did really belong to him, demanding, Whether is it easier to say — Namely, with authority, so as to effect what is said; Thy sins be forgiven thee, or to say, (to command, as the word eipein often signifies,) Arise and walk — That is, whether is easier, to forgive sins, or to remove that which is inflicted as their punishment? The Pharisees could not but be sensible that these things were one and the same, and therefore they ought to have acknowledged that the power which did the one could really do the other also. If it be objected to this, that the prophets of old wrought miraculous cures of diseases, but never claimed the power of forgiving sins, neither could claim it; the answer is, that the cases are widely different; none of the prophets ever pretended to work miracles by his own power, as Jesus did. The Pharisees making no answer, Jesus, without troubling himself any further, (except to tell them, that what he was about to do would demonstrate his power on earth to forgive sins,) turned to the paralytic, and bade him rise up and carry away his bed. And the words were no sooner pronounced, than the cure was accomplished: the man was made active and strong in an instant. He arose, took up his bed with surprising vigour, and went off, astonished in himself, and raising astonishment in all who beheld him. The Pharisees indeed, it seems, were only confounded; but the rest of the people were not only struck with amazement, but affected with a high degree of reverence for God, and admiration of his power and goodness, glorifying him, and saying, We never saw it on this fashion!

§ 30. — CURING OF THE PALSIED MAN, 1-12.

(See notes on Matthew 9:2-8.)

1. Again he entered into Capernaum — After leaving Capernaum, as mentioned in the last chapter, on account of the crowds.

V. 6. But certain of the scribes-See whence the first offence cometh! As yet not one of the plain unlettered people were offended. They all rejoiced in the light, till these men of learning came, to put darkness for light, and light for darkness. Wo to all such blind guides! Good had it been for these if they had never been born. O God, let me never offend one of thy simple ones! Sooner let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth!

Verses 5-12. When Jesus saw their faith — The faith of the bearers of the paralytic, as well as of the paralytic himself, manifested by their making these extraordinary efforts to bring him to Jesus, he had compassion on the afflicted person, and, previously to his cure, declared publicly that his sins were forgiven. But there were certain of the scribes, &c. — See whence the first offence cometh! — As yet not one of the plain, unlettered people, were offended. They all rejoiced in the light, till these men of learning came, to put darkness for light, and light for darkness. We to all such blind guides! Good had it been for these if they had never been born. O God, let me never offend one of thy simple ones! Sooner let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth! These scribes, hearing what Christ said, were exceedingly provoked. And though they did not openly find fault, they said in their own minds, or, perhaps, whispered to one another, Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? — “The word blasfhmia, blasphemy, in profane writings, signifies slander, calumny, or any kind of opprobrious language. But in Scripture it denotes opprobrious speeches against God’s being, attributes, or operations, such as when we ascribe to God the infirmities of men, or to men the perfections and operations of God; it signifies also irreverent speeches, addressed immediately to God, such as when we curse God, as Job’s wife desired him to do.” — Macknight. The meaning of the word here is, Why doth this fellow arrogantly assume to himself what belongs to God? a sense which it has Matthew 16:65, and in other passages. These Pharisees and teachers of the law, being ignorant of our Lord’s divinity, thought he was guilty of blasphemy in pretending to forgive the man his sins, because it was an assuming of what God had declared to be his incommunicable prerogative, Isaiah 43:25. Whereupon Jesus, knowing all that passed, immediately reasoned with them on the subject of their thoughts, by which he gave them to understand that it was impossible for any thought to come into their minds without his knowledge, and consequently proved himself to be endued with the omniscient Spirit of God. He next demonstrated, by what he said to them, that the power he claimed did really belong to him, demanding, Whether is it easier to say — Namely, with authority, so as to effect what is said; Thy sins be forgiven thee, or to say, (to command, as the word eipein often signifies,) Arise and walk — That is, whether is easier, to forgive sins, or to remove that which is inflicted as their punishment? The Pharisees could not but be sensible that these things were one and the same, and therefore they ought to have acknowledged that the power which did the one could really do the other also. If it be objected to this, that the prophets of old wrought miraculous cures of diseases, but never claimed the power of forgiving sins, neither could claim it; the answer is, that the cases are widely different; none of the prophets ever pretended to work miracles by his own power, as Jesus did. The Pharisees making no answer, Jesus, without troubling himself any further, (except to tell them, that what he was about to do would demonstrate his power on earth to forgive sins,) turned to the paralytic, and bade him rise up and carry away his bed. And the words were no sooner pronounced, than the cure was accomplished: the man was made active and strong in an instant. He arose, took up his bed with surprising vigour, and went off, astonished in himself, and raising astonishment in all who beheld him. The Pharisees indeed, it seems, were only confounded; but the rest of the people were not only struck with amazement, but affected with a high degree of reverence for God, and admiration of his power and goodness, glorifying him, and saying, We never saw it on this fashion!

§ 30. — CURING OF THE PALSIED MAN, 1-12.

(See notes on Matthew 9:2-8.)

1. Again he entered into Capernaum — After leaving Capernaum, as mentioned in the last chapter, on account of the crowds.

Verse 7. Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies?] See this explained Matthew 9:3, &c.

Verses 5-12. When Jesus saw their faith — The faith of the bearers of the paralytic, as well as of the paralytic himself, manifested by their making these extraordinary efforts to bring him to Jesus, he had compassion on the afflicted person, and, previously to his cure, declared publicly that his sins were forgiven. But there were certain of the scribes, &c. — See whence the first offence cometh! — As yet not one of the plain, unlettered people, were offended. They all rejoiced in the light, till these men of learning came, to put darkness for light, and light for darkness. We to all such blind guides! Good had it been for these if they had never been born. O God, let me never offend one of thy simple ones! Sooner let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth! These scribes, hearing what Christ said, were exceedingly provoked. And though they did not openly find fault, they said in their own minds, or, perhaps, whispered to one another, Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? — “The word blasfhmia, blasphemy, in profane writings, signifies slander, calumny, or any kind of opprobrious language. But in Scripture it denotes opprobrious speeches against God’s being, attributes, or operations, such as when we ascribe to God the infirmities of men, or to men the perfections and operations of God; it signifies also irreverent speeches, addressed immediately to God, such as when we curse God, as Job’s wife desired him to do.” — Macknight. The meaning of the word here is, Why doth this fellow arrogantly assume to himself what belongs to God? a sense which it has Matthew 16:65, and in other passages. These Pharisees and teachers of the law, being ignorant of our Lord’s divinity, thought he was guilty of blasphemy in pretending to forgive the man his sins, because it was an assuming of what God had declared to be his incommunicable prerogative, Isaiah 43:25. Whereupon Jesus, knowing all that passed, immediately reasoned with them on the subject of their thoughts, by which he gave them to understand that it was impossible for any thought to come into their minds without his knowledge, and consequently proved himself to be endued with the omniscient Spirit of God. He next demonstrated, by what he said to them, that the power he claimed did really belong to him, demanding, Whether is it easier to say — Namely, with authority, so as to effect what is said; Thy sins be forgiven thee, or to say, (to command, as the word eipein often signifies,) Arise and walk — That is, whether is easier, to forgive sins, or to remove that which is inflicted as their punishment? The Pharisees could not but be sensible that these things were one and the same, and therefore they ought to have acknowledged that the power which did the one could really do the other also. If it be objected to this, that the prophets of old wrought miraculous cures of diseases, but never claimed the power of forgiving sins, neither could claim it; the answer is, that the cases are widely different; none of the prophets ever pretended to work miracles by his own power, as Jesus did. The Pharisees making no answer, Jesus, without troubling himself any further, (except to tell them, that what he was about to do would demonstrate his power on earth to forgive sins,) turned to the paralytic, and bade him rise up and carry away his bed. And the words were no sooner pronounced, than the cure was accomplished: the man was made active and strong in an instant. He arose, took up his bed with surprising vigour, and went off, astonished in himself, and raising astonishment in all who beheld him. The Pharisees indeed, it seems, were only confounded; but the rest of the people were not only struck with amazement, but affected with a high degree of reverence for God, and admiration of his power and goodness, glorifying him, and saying, We never saw it on this fashion!

Ver. 7. Who can forgive sins but God only. When Nathan came to David he said, “The Lord hath put away thy sin, thou shalt not die.” The pharisees on hearing Christ, being learned in the law, said, “this man blasphemeth.” What would they have said to modern priests enthroned in the temples or confessionals, and blotting out the people’s sins as a cloud, among which are thousands of private murders in Ireland! None but God can judge of the preparation of heart for remission, none besides has authority to remit the penalty of his law: “against thee, and thee only have I sinned,” said David. Then God alone can forgive.

§ 30. — CURING OF THE PALSIED MAN, 1-12.

(See notes on Matthew 9:2-8.)

1. Again he entered into Capernaum — After leaving Capernaum, as mentioned in the last chapter, on account of the crowds.

Verses 5-12. When Jesus saw their faith — The faith of the bearers of the paralytic, as well as of the paralytic himself, manifested by their making these extraordinary efforts to bring him to Jesus, he had compassion on the afflicted person, and, previously to his cure, declared publicly that his sins were forgiven. But there were certain of the scribes, &c. — See whence the first offence cometh! — As yet not one of the plain, unlettered people, were offended. They all rejoiced in the light, till these men of learning came, to put darkness for light, and light for darkness. We to all such blind guides! Good had it been for these if they had never been born. O God, let me never offend one of thy simple ones! Sooner let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth! These scribes, hearing what Christ said, were exceedingly provoked. And though they did not openly find fault, they said in their own minds, or, perhaps, whispered to one another, Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? — “The word blasfhmia, blasphemy, in profane writings, signifies slander, calumny, or any kind of opprobrious language. But in Scripture it denotes opprobrious speeches against God’s being, attributes, or operations, such as when we ascribe to God the infirmities of men, or to men the perfections and operations of God; it signifies also irreverent speeches, addressed immediately to God, such as when we curse God, as Job’s wife desired him to do.” — Macknight. The meaning of the word here is, Why doth this fellow arrogantly assume to himself what belongs to God? a sense which it has Matthew 16:65, and in other passages. These Pharisees and teachers of the law, being ignorant of our Lord’s divinity, thought he was guilty of blasphemy in pretending to forgive the man his sins, because it was an assuming of what God had declared to be his incommunicable prerogative, Isaiah 43:25. Whereupon Jesus, knowing all that passed, immediately reasoned with them on the subject of their thoughts, by which he gave them to understand that it was impossible for any thought to come into their minds without his knowledge, and consequently proved himself to be endued with the omniscient Spirit of God. He next demonstrated, by what he said to them, that the power he claimed did really belong to him, demanding, Whether is it easier to say — Namely, with authority, so as to effect what is said; Thy sins be forgiven thee, or to say, (to command, as the word eipein often signifies,) Arise and walk — That is, whether is easier, to forgive sins, or to remove that which is inflicted as their punishment? The Pharisees could not but be sensible that these things were one and the same, and therefore they ought to have acknowledged that the power which did the one could really do the other also. If it be objected to this, that the prophets of old wrought miraculous cures of diseases, but never claimed the power of forgiving sins, neither could claim it; the answer is, that the cases are widely different; none of the prophets ever pretended to work miracles by his own power, as Jesus did. The Pharisees making no answer, Jesus, without troubling himself any further, (except to tell them, that what he was about to do would demonstrate his power on earth to forgive sins,) turned to the paralytic, and bade him rise up and carry away his bed. And the words were no sooner pronounced, than the cure was accomplished: the man was made active and strong in an instant. He arose, took up his bed with surprising vigour, and went off, astonished in himself, and raising astonishment in all who beheld him. The Pharisees indeed, it seems, were only confounded; but the rest of the people were not only struck with amazement, but affected with a high degree of reverence for God, and admiration of his power and goodness, glorifying him, and saying, We never saw it on this fashion!

Ver. 8. When Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves. Not his human soul, in which he sighed deeply when the jews demanded a sign from him, Mark 8:12; nor yet the Holy Spirit by which the prophets were inspired; but spiritus personæ ejus (Dei Creatoris) Christus Dominus. The Spirit of his Person, the Christ, the Lord. By consequence, Spirit in this place is equivalent to the Word of God. See in Poole’s Synopsis of the critics, many testimonies from the fathers, that, to use St. Paul’s word, Hebrews 1:3, the hypostasis or person of the Son is the same with the hypostasis or person of the Father. What other spirit could know the evil reasoning of these doctors? What other proof could the apostles ask of the omniscience of their Lord and master? “He knew all men, and needed not that any should testify of man, for he knew what was in man.” John 2:23, 24.

Of the method of pardoning sins in Ireland, an interesting memoir has just appeared by Thomas… sergeant in the forty third regiment. Having served at Copenhagen, and nearly in all the campaigns of Spain and Portugal, on returning home he was advised to go to the priest. He had misgivings as to the value of those services, but the importunity of his friends prevailed. “On arriving at the chapel,” he says, “which was a barn, I found a crowd of persons, all waiting to be relieved of their moral burdens. His reverence at length appeared: a haughtier figure I do not remember to have seen. On commencing the service, the latin was to me an intolerable jargon. A fierce rush was made by those without for admission. The reason for this haste did not consist in any special desire first to catch the benedictions, but because we had been told, it was a deadly sin to eat before confession. After a tremendous row, which had nearly ended in a fight, I was ushered into the presence of the priest. ‘Tell out your sins,’ said he; a terrific commencement, but there was no retreat. I related the particulars of my life, not forgetting occurrences in the campaigns abroad. He then prescribed me a course of penance, promising me the eucharist on a future occasion.

I was then advised to apply to father K… at the parish chapel, a deep old file. On approaching, he sung out for money due to the church. After such an opening I felt no desire either for his advice or pardon. In a few weeks I was induced to apply again; but in this instance I fared, if possible, still worse. He had taken his station at an alehouse. Some of the auditory were augmenting existing sins by excessive drinking; others were confessing, and a few receiving pardons. — I left the scene with unmingled disgust:” p.

204. Published by J. Mason, 66, Paternoster Row. This occurred in a rude part of the country; no doubt greater decency is observed in the large towns.

8. Perceived in his spirit — Not by the Divine Spirit, but by his own spirit in a supernatural clearness.

Verse 8. Perceived in his spirit. — This, by the ancient commentators, was thought to signify by his Divine nature; Rosenmuller, Campbell, and others, explain epignouv tw pneumati autou, having perceived in himself; but some think it redundant; others, with Campbell, think it intimates that our Lord did not derive his knowledge by the ordinary modes, but from powers peculiar to himself. This is true; but is a circuitous way of expressing a very plain truth. The evangelist clearly meant to say that our Lord knew the thoughts and secret reasonings of the scribes; but that he knew it not from information, but from the intimations of his own mind; he knew it, in fact, by an attribute which proves him to be God, the attribute of omniscience.

Verses 5-12. When Jesus saw their faith — The faith of the bearers of the paralytic, as well as of the paralytic himself, manifested by their making these extraordinary efforts to bring him to Jesus, he had compassion on the afflicted person, and, previously to his cure, declared publicly that his sins were forgiven. But there were certain of the scribes, &c. — See whence the first offence cometh! — As yet not one of the plain, unlettered people, were offended. They all rejoiced in the light, till these men of learning came, to put darkness for light, and light for darkness. We to all such blind guides! Good had it been for these if they had never been born. O God, let me never offend one of thy simple ones! Sooner let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth! These scribes, hearing what Christ said, were exceedingly provoked. And though they did not openly find fault, they said in their own minds, or, perhaps, whispered to one another, Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? — “The word blasfhmia, blasphemy, in profane writings, signifies slander, calumny, or any kind of opprobrious language. But in Scripture it denotes opprobrious speeches against God’s being, attributes, or operations, such as when we ascribe to God the infirmities of men, or to men the perfections and operations of God; it signifies also irreverent speeches, addressed immediately to God, such as when we curse God, as Job’s wife desired him to do.” — Macknight. The meaning of the word here is, Why doth this fellow arrogantly assume to himself what belongs to God? a sense which it has Matthew 16:65, and in other passages. These Pharisees and teachers of the law, being ignorant of our Lord’s divinity, thought he was guilty of blasphemy in pretending to forgive the man his sins, because it was an assuming of what God had declared to be his incommunicable prerogative, Isaiah 43:25. Whereupon Jesus, knowing all that passed, immediately reasoned with them on the subject of their thoughts, by which he gave them to understand that it was impossible for any thought to come into their minds without his knowledge, and consequently proved himself to be endued with the omniscient Spirit of God. He next demonstrated, by what he said to them, that the power he claimed did really belong to him, demanding, Whether is it easier to say — Namely, with authority, so as to effect what is said; Thy sins be forgiven thee, or to say, (to command, as the word eipein often signifies,) Arise and walk — That is, whether is easier, to forgive sins, or to remove that which is inflicted as their punishment? The Pharisees could not but be sensible that these things were one and the same, and therefore they ought to have acknowledged that the power which did the one could really do the other also. If it be objected to this, that the prophets of old wrought miraculous cures of diseases, but never claimed the power of forgiving sins, neither could claim it; the answer is, that the cases are widely different; none of the prophets ever pretended to work miracles by his own power, as Jesus did. The Pharisees making no answer, Jesus, without troubling himself any further, (except to tell them, that what he was about to do would demonstrate his power on earth to forgive sins,) turned to the paralytic, and bade him rise up and carry away his bed. And the words were no sooner pronounced, than the cure was accomplished: the man was made active and strong in an instant. He arose, took up his bed with surprising vigour, and went off, astonished in himself, and raising astonishment in all who beheld him. The Pharisees indeed, it seems, were only confounded; but the rest of the people were not only struck with amazement, but affected with a high degree of reverence for God, and admiration of his power and goodness, glorifying him, and saying, We never saw it on this fashion!

§ 30. — CURING OF THE PALSIED MAN, 1-12.

(See notes on Matthew 9:2-8.)

1. Again he entered into Capernaum — After leaving Capernaum, as mentioned in the last chapter, on account of the crowds.

Verses 5-12. When Jesus saw their faith — The faith of the bearers of the paralytic, as well as of the paralytic himself, manifested by their making these extraordinary efforts to bring him to Jesus, he had compassion on the afflicted person, and, previously to his cure, declared publicly that his sins were forgiven. But there were certain of the scribes, &c. — See whence the first offence cometh! — As yet not one of the plain, unlettered people, were offended. They all rejoiced in the light, till these men of learning came, to put darkness for light, and light for darkness. We to all such blind guides! Good had it been for these if they had never been born. O God, let me never offend one of thy simple ones! Sooner let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth! These scribes, hearing what Christ said, were exceedingly provoked. And though they did not openly find fault, they said in their own minds, or, perhaps, whispered to one another, Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? — “The word blasfhmia, blasphemy, in profane writings, signifies slander, calumny, or any kind of opprobrious language. But in Scripture it denotes opprobrious speeches against God’s being, attributes, or operations, such as when we ascribe to God the infirmities of men, or to men the perfections and operations of God; it signifies also irreverent speeches, addressed immediately to God, such as when we curse God, as Job’s wife desired him to do.” — Macknight. The meaning of the word here is, Why doth this fellow arrogantly assume to himself what belongs to God? a sense which it has Matthew 16:65, and in other passages. These Pharisees and teachers of the law, being ignorant of our Lord’s divinity, thought he was guilty of blasphemy in pretending to forgive the man his sins, because it was an assuming of what God had declared to be his incommunicable prerogative, Isaiah 43:25. Whereupon Jesus, knowing all that passed, immediately reasoned with them on the subject of their thoughts, by which he gave them to understand that it was impossible for any thought to come into their minds without his knowledge, and consequently proved himself to be endued with the omniscient Spirit of God. He next demonstrated, by what he said to them, that the power he claimed did really belong to him, demanding, Whether is it easier to say — Namely, with authority, so as to effect what is said; Thy sins be forgiven thee, or to say, (to command, as the word eipein often signifies,) Arise and walk — That is, whether is easier, to forgive sins, or to remove that which is inflicted as their punishment? The Pharisees could not but be sensible that these things were one and the same, and therefore they ought to have acknowledged that the power which did the one could really do the other also. If it be objected to this, that the prophets of old wrought miraculous cures of diseases, but never claimed the power of forgiving sins, neither could claim it; the answer is, that the cases are widely different; none of the prophets ever pretended to work miracles by his own power, as Jesus did. The Pharisees making no answer, Jesus, without troubling himself any further, (except to tell them, that what he was about to do would demonstrate his power on earth to forgive sins,) turned to the paralytic, and bade him rise up and carry away his bed. And the words were no sooner pronounced, than the cure was accomplished: the man was made active and strong in an instant. He arose, took up his bed with surprising vigour, and went off, astonished in himself, and raising astonishment in all who beheld him. The Pharisees indeed, it seems, were only confounded; but the rest of the people were not only struck with amazement, but affected with a high degree of reverence for God, and admiration of his power and goodness, glorifying him, and saying, We never saw it on this fashion!

§ 30. — CURING OF THE PALSIED MAN, 1-12.

(See notes on Matthew 9:2-8.)

1. Again he entered into Capernaum — After leaving Capernaum, as mentioned in the last chapter, on account of the crowds.

Verses 5-12. When Jesus saw their faith — The faith of the bearers of the paralytic, as well as of the paralytic himself, manifested by their making these extraordinary efforts to bring him to Jesus, he had compassion on the afflicted person, and, previously to his cure, declared publicly that his sins were forgiven. But there were certain of the scribes, &c. — See whence the first offence cometh! — As yet not one of the plain, unlettered people, were offended. They all rejoiced in the light, till these men of learning came, to put darkness for light, and light for darkness. We to all such blind guides! Good had it been for these if they had never been born. O God, let me never offend one of thy simple ones! Sooner let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth! These scribes, hearing what Christ said, were exceedingly provoked. And though they did not openly find fault, they said in their own minds, or, perhaps, whispered to one another, Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? — “The word blasfhmia, blasphemy, in profane writings, signifies slander, calumny, or any kind of opprobrious language. But in Scripture it denotes opprobrious speeches against God’s being, attributes, or operations, such as when we ascribe to God the infirmities of men, or to men the perfections and operations of God; it signifies also irreverent speeches, addressed immediately to God, such as when we curse God, as Job’s wife desired him to do.” — Macknight. The meaning of the word here is, Why doth this fellow arrogantly assume to himself what belongs to God? a sense which it has Matthew 16:65, and in other passages. These Pharisees and teachers of the law, being ignorant of our Lord’s divinity, thought he was guilty of blasphemy in pretending to forgive the man his sins, because it was an assuming of what God had declared to be his incommunicable prerogative, Isaiah 43:25. Whereupon Jesus, knowing all that passed, immediately reasoned with them on the subject of their thoughts, by which he gave them to understand that it was impossible for any thought to come into their minds without his knowledge, and consequently proved himself to be endued with the omniscient Spirit of God. He next demonstrated, by what he said to them, that the power he claimed did really belong to him, demanding, Whether is it easier to say — Namely, with authority, so as to effect what is said; Thy sins be forgiven thee, or to say, (to command, as the word eipein often signifies,) Arise and walk — That is, whether is easier, to forgive sins, or to remove that which is inflicted as their punishment? The Pharisees could not but be sensible that these things were one and the same, and therefore they ought to have acknowledged that the power which did the one could really do the other also. If it be objected to this, that the prophets of old wrought miraculous cures of diseases, but never claimed the power of forgiving sins, neither could claim it; the answer is, that the cases are widely different; none of the prophets ever pretended to work miracles by his own power, as Jesus did. The Pharisees making no answer, Jesus, without troubling himself any further, (except to tell them, that what he was about to do would demonstrate his power on earth to forgive sins,) turned to the paralytic, and bade him rise up and carry away his bed. And the words were no sooner pronounced, than the cure was accomplished: the man was made active and strong in an instant. He arose, took up his bed with surprising vigour, and went off, astonished in himself, and raising astonishment in all who beheld him. The Pharisees indeed, it seems, were only confounded; but the rest of the people were not only struck with amazement, but affected with a high degree of reverence for God, and admiration of his power and goodness, glorifying him, and saying, We never saw it on this fashion!

§ 30. — CURING OF THE PALSIED MAN, 1-12.

(See notes on Matthew 9:2-8.)

1. Again he entered into Capernaum — After leaving Capernaum, as mentioned in the last chapter, on account of the crowds.

V. 12. They were all amazed-Even the scribes themselves for a time.

Verse 12. He-took up the bed] The words of PROSPER, on this place, are worthy of notice:-

“What is sin but a deplorable fall, a grovelling on the earth, a repose in the creature, often followed by a universal palsy of the soul; namely, an utter inability to help itself, to break off its evil habits, to walk in the ways of God, to rise or to take one good step towards him? Grace can repair all in a moment: because it is nothing but the almighty will of God, who commands and does whatever he commands.”

Verses 5-12. When Jesus saw their faith — The faith of the bearers of the paralytic, as well as of the paralytic himself, manifested by their making these extraordinary efforts to bring him to Jesus, he had compassion on the afflicted person, and, previously to his cure, declared publicly that his sins were forgiven. But there were certain of the scribes, &c. — See whence the first offence cometh! — As yet not one of the plain, unlettered people, were offended. They all rejoiced in the light, till these men of learning came, to put darkness for light, and light for darkness. We to all such blind guides! Good had it been for these if they had never been born. O God, let me never offend one of thy simple ones! Sooner let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth! These scribes, hearing what Christ said, were exceedingly provoked. And though they did not openly find fault, they said in their own minds, or, perhaps, whispered to one another, Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? — “The word blasfhmia, blasphemy, in profane writings, signifies slander, calumny, or any kind of opprobrious language. But in Scripture it denotes opprobrious speeches against God’s being, attributes, or operations, such as when we ascribe to God the infirmities of men, or to men the perfections and operations of God; it signifies also irreverent speeches, addressed immediately to God, such as when we curse God, as Job’s wife desired him to do.” — Macknight. The meaning of the word here is, Why doth this fellow arrogantly assume to himself what belongs to God? a sense which it has Matthew 16:65, and in other passages. These Pharisees and teachers of the law, being ignorant of our Lord’s divinity, thought he was guilty of blasphemy in pretending to forgive the man his sins, because it was an assuming of what God had declared to be his incommunicable prerogative, Isaiah 43:25. Whereupon Jesus, knowing all that passed, immediately reasoned with them on the subject of their thoughts, by which he gave them to understand that it was impossible for any thought to come into their minds without his knowledge, and consequently proved himself to be endued with the omniscient Spirit of God. He next demonstrated, by what he said to them, that the power he claimed did really belong to him, demanding, Whether is it easier to say — Namely, with authority, so as to effect what is said; Thy sins be forgiven thee, or to say, (to command, as the word eipein often signifies,) Arise and walk — That is, whether is easier, to forgive sins, or to remove that which is inflicted as their punishment? The Pharisees could not but be sensible that these things were one and the same, and therefore they ought to have acknowledged that the power which did the one could really do the other also. If it be objected to this, that the prophets of old wrought miraculous cures of diseases, but never claimed the power of forgiving sins, neither could claim it; the answer is, that the cases are widely different; none of the prophets ever pretended to work miracles by his own power, as Jesus did. The Pharisees making no answer, Jesus, without troubling himself any further, (except to tell them, that what he was about to do would demonstrate his power on earth to forgive sins,) turned to the paralytic, and bade him rise up and carry away his bed. And the words were no sooner pronounced, than the cure was accomplished: the man was made active and strong in an instant. He arose, took up his bed with surprising vigour, and went off, astonished in himself, and raising astonishment in all who beheld him. The Pharisees indeed, it seems, were only confounded; but the rest of the people were not only struck with amazement, but affected with a high degree of reverence for God, and admiration of his power and goodness, glorifying him, and saying, We never saw it on this fashion!

§ 30. — CURING OF THE PALSIED MAN, 1-12.

(See notes on Matthew 9:2-8.)

1. Again he entered into Capernaum — After leaving Capernaum, as mentioned in the last chapter, on account of the crowds.

V. 13. All the multitude came to him-Namely, by the sea side. And he as readily taught them there as if they had been in a synagogue.

Verses 13-17. And all the multitude resorted unto him — Namely, by the sea-side. And he taught them — As readily there as if he had been in a synagogue. And as he passed by he saw Levi, that is, Matthew, sitting, &c. — See on Matthew 9:9-13. Many publicans and sinners sat with Jesus — Some of them, doubtless, invited by Matthew, moved with compassion for his old companions in sin. But the next words, For they were many, and they followed him, seem to imply that the greater part, encouraged by his gracious words and the tenderness of his behaviour, and impatient to hear more, stayed for no invitation, but pressed in after him, and kept as close to him as they could. And the scribes and the Pharisees said — So now the wise men, being joined by the saints of the world, went a little further in raising prejudices against our Lord. In his answer he uses, as yet, no harshness, but only calm, dispassionate reasoning. I came not to call the righteous — Therefore if these were righteous, I should not call them. But now they are the very persons I came to save.

§ 31. — MATTHEW CALLED, 13-14.

(See comment on Matthew 9:9.)

14. Levi the son of Alpheus — We learn from the parallel passage in Matthew that this Levi was Matthew himself. If the Alpheus here mentioned was the same Alpheus as in Matthew 10:3, then Matthew was the cousin of Jesus, being brother of James the Less.

V. 14. Matthew 9:9; Luke 5:27.

Verse 14. Levi] The same as Matthew; he appears to have been a Jew, though employed in the odious office of a tax-gatherer. For an account of his call, see his Gospel, Matthew 9:9, &c.

Verses 13-17. And all the multitude resorted unto him — Namely, by the sea-side. And he taught them — As readily there as if he had been in a synagogue. And as he passed by he saw Levi, that is, Matthew, sitting, &c. — See on Matthew 9:9-13. Many publicans and sinners sat with Jesus — Some of them, doubtless, invited by Matthew, moved with compassion for his old companions in sin. But the next words, For they were many, and they followed him, seem to imply that the greater part, encouraged by his gracious words and the tenderness of his behaviour, and impatient to hear more, stayed for no invitation, but pressed in after him, and kept as close to him as they could. And the scribes and the Pharisees said — So now the wise men, being joined by the saints of the world, went a little further in raising prejudices against our Lord. In his answer he uses, as yet, no harshness, but only calm, dispassionate reasoning. I came not to call the righteous — Therefore if these were righteous, I should not call them. But now they are the very persons I came to save.

Ver. 14. He saw Levi — sitting at the receipt of custom, and taking toll of passengers and traders as they passed the bridge over the Jordan, a little below the sea of Galilee. Dr. Lightfoot quotes a law of the pharisees to expel from their communion any man who entered on the profession of a publican, because they regarded them as robbers. The poor complain of all taxes as oppressive, because they neither see nor feel the wants and dangers of the state; but a nation without defence becomes a prey to every invading foe.

§ 31. — MATTHEW CALLED, 13-14.

(See comment on Matthew 9:9.)

14. Levi the son of Alpheus — We learn from the parallel passage in Matthew that this Levi was Matthew himself. If the Alpheus here mentioned was the same Alpheus as in Matthew 10:3, then Matthew was the cousin of Jesus, being brother of James the Less.

Verse 14. He saw Levi, &c. — See notes on Matthew 9:9-13.

V. 15. Many publicans and notorious sinners sat with Jesus-Some of them doubtless invited by Matthew, moved with compassion for his old companions in sin. But the next words,

For there were many, and they followed him, seem to imply, that the greater part, encouraged by his gracious words and the tenderness of his behaviour, and impatient to hear more, stayed for no invitation, but pressed in after him, and kept as close to him as they could.

Verses 13-17. And all the multitude resorted unto him — Namely, by the sea-side. And he taught them — As readily there as if he had been in a synagogue. And as he passed by he saw Levi, that is, Matthew, sitting, &c. — See on Matthew 9:9-13. Many publicans and sinners sat with Jesus — Some of them, doubtless, invited by Matthew, moved with compassion for his old companions in sin. But the next words, For they were many, and they followed him, seem to imply that the greater part, encouraged by his gracious words and the tenderness of his behaviour, and impatient to hear more, stayed for no invitation, but pressed in after him, and kept as close to him as they could. And the scribes and the Pharisees said — So now the wise men, being joined by the saints of the world, went a little further in raising prejudices against our Lord. In his answer he uses, as yet, no harshness, but only calm, dispassionate reasoning. I came not to call the righteous — Therefore if these were righteous, I should not call them. But now they are the very persons I came to save.

§ 52. — LEVI’S FEAST; DISCOURSE OF JESUS, 15-22.

This narrative of the feast given by Levi is furnished here, previous to its proper time, to connect it with his call. The account is different in points that show independence, yet the essential agreement is very complete.

15. His house — Matthew’s house. See our Life of Matthew, prefacing his Gospel.

§ 33. — PLUCKING EARS OF CORN, 23-28.

(See notes on Matthew 12:1-8.)

V. 16. And the scribes and Pharisees said-So now the wise men being joined by the saints of the world, went a little farther in raising prejudices against our Lord. In his answer he uses as yet no harshness, but only calm, dispassionate reasoning.

Verse 16. Sinners] By amartwloi, the Gentiles or heathens are generally to be understood in the Gospels, for this was a term the Jews never applied to any of themselves, See Clarke’s note on “Matthew 9:10”. How is it that he eateth] Some very good MSS., several versions, with Chrysostom and Augustin, read, Why doth YOUR MASTER eat?

Verses 13-17. And all the multitude resorted unto him — Namely, by the sea-side. And he taught them — As readily there as if he had been in a synagogue. And as he passed by he saw Levi, that is, Matthew, sitting, &c. — See on Matthew 9:9-13. Many publicans and sinners sat with Jesus — Some of them, doubtless, invited by Matthew, moved with compassion for his old companions in sin. But the next words, For they were many, and they followed him, seem to imply that the greater part, encouraged by his gracious words and the tenderness of his behaviour, and impatient to hear more, stayed for no invitation, but pressed in after him, and kept as close to him as they could. And the scribes and the Pharisees said — So now the wise men, being joined by the saints of the world, went a little further in raising prejudices against our Lord. In his answer he uses, as yet, no harshness, but only calm, dispassionate reasoning. I came not to call the righteous — Therefore if these were righteous, I should not call them. But now they are the very persons I came to save.

§ 52. — LEVI’S FEAST; DISCOURSE OF JESUS, 15-22.

This narrative of the feast given by Levi is furnished here, previous to its proper time, to connect it with his call. The account is different in points that show independence, yet the essential agreement is very complete.

15. His house — Matthew’s house. See our Life of Matthew, prefacing his Gospel.

§ 33. — PLUCKING EARS OF CORN, 23-28.

(See notes on Matthew 12:1-8.)

V. 17. I came not to call the righteous-Therefore if these were righteous I should not call them. But now, they are the very persons I came to save.

Verse 17. To repentance.] This is omitted by ABDKL, twenty-seven others; both the Syriac, Persic, Coptic, Æthiopic, Armenian, Gothic, Vulgate; six copies of the Itala; Euthymius and Augustin. Griesbach has left it out of the text; Grotius, Mill, and Bengel approve of the omission. See Clarke on “Matthew 9:13”. I leave it as in the parallel place above quoted. Properly speaking, the righteous cannot be called to repentance. They have already forsaken sin, mourned for it, and turned to God. In the other parallel place, Luke 5:32, all the MSS. and versions retain metanoian, repentance.

Verses 13-17. And all the multitude resorted unto him — Namely, by the sea-side. And he taught them — As readily there as if he had been in a synagogue. And as he passed by he saw Levi, that is, Matthew, sitting, &c. — See on Matthew 9:9-13. Many publicans and sinners sat with Jesus — Some of them, doubtless, invited by Matthew, moved with compassion for his old companions in sin. But the next words, For they were many, and they followed him, seem to imply that the greater part, encouraged by his gracious words and the tenderness of his behaviour, and impatient to hear more, stayed for no invitation, but pressed in after him, and kept as close to him as they could. And the scribes and the Pharisees said — So now the wise men, being joined by the saints of the world, went a little further in raising prejudices against our Lord. In his answer he uses, as yet, no harshness, but only calm, dispassionate reasoning. I came not to call the righteous — Therefore if these were righteous, I should not call them. But now they are the very persons I came to save.

Ver. 17. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance, such as the publicans just named. There is a sentence in the prayer of Manasseh which seems to apply here. “Oh Lord, that art the God of the just; thou hast not appointed repentance to the just, as to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, which have not sinned against thee; but thou hast appointed repentance unto me, who am a sinner; for I have sinned above the number of the sands of the sea.” Then it follows that Christ came not to call the righteous to repentance, such as Nathaniel, but to gather them by faith into the fold of the sheep. Others turn the text to the self righteous, who were called indeed, “but they would not come.”

§ 52. — LEVI’S FEAST; DISCOURSE OF JESUS, 15-22.

This narrative of the feast given by Levi is furnished here, previous to its proper time, to connect it with his call. The account is different in points that show independence, yet the essential agreement is very complete.

15. His house — Matthew’s house. See our Life of Matthew, prefacing his Gospel.

§ 33. — PLUCKING EARS OF CORN, 23-28.

(See notes on Matthew 12:1-8.)

V. 18. Matthew 9:14; Luke 5:33.

Verse 18. Why do the disciples of John and of the Pharisees fast] See this largely explained on Matthew 9:14, &c. The following vices are very common to Pharisees.

1. They are more busied in censuring the conduct of others than in rectifying their own.

2. They desire that every one should regulate his piety by theirs; and embrace their particular customs and forms of devotion.

3. They speak of and compare themselves with other people, only that they may have an opportunity of distinguishing and exalting themselves. On the nature, times, and duration of fasting, see Matthew 6:16; 9:15.

Verses 18-22. The disciples of John and of the Pharisees used to fast — The evangelist here relates another occurrence, which happened while Jesus was in Levi’s house, and bore some resemblance to the former. But of this see the notes on Matthew 9:14-17, where the whole passage occurs.

Ver. 18. Thy disciples fast not. They were full of labour from morning till night, and could not fast. They were rejoicing in the presence and glory of the Bridegroom; but the days would soon come when the Bridegroom should be taken away, and then they should fast and weep in many afflictions. A mild reply to a question asked with no very gracious designs. Heathens as well as jews had days and times of fasting, though unbounded in festivity, as far as money would go. Matthew 6:16. Zechariah 7:3.

§ 52. — LEVI’S FEAST; DISCOURSE OF JESUS, 15-22.

This narrative of the feast given by Levi is furnished here, previous to its proper time, to connect it with his call. The account is different in points that show independence, yet the essential agreement is very complete.

15. His house — Matthew’s house. See our Life of Matthew, prefacing his Gospel.

§ 33. — PLUCKING EARS OF CORN, 23-28.

(See notes on Matthew 12:1-8.)

Verse 18. The disciples of John, &c. — See notes on Matthew 9:14- 17.

Verse 19. Can the children of the bride-chamber fast while the bridegroom is with them?] Among the Hindoos, large parties of friends, belonging both to the bride and bridegroom, attend on both during the wedding day; on the following day, when the bridegroom leaves the house of his father-in-law, the attendants are filled with sorrow, especially the near relations.-WARD’S Customs.

Verses 18-22. The disciples of John and of the Pharisees used to fast — The evangelist here relates another occurrence, which happened while Jesus was in Levi’s house, and bore some resemblance to the former. But of this see the notes on Matthew 9:14-17, where the whole passage occurs.

§ 52. — LEVI’S FEAST; DISCOURSE OF JESUS, 15-22.

This narrative of the feast given by Levi is furnished here, previous to its proper time, to connect it with his call. The account is different in points that show independence, yet the essential agreement is very complete.

15. His house — Matthew’s house. See our Life of Matthew, prefacing his Gospel.

§ 33. — PLUCKING EARS OF CORN, 23-28.

(See notes on Matthew 12:1-8.)

Verse 20. In those days.] But instead of en ekeinaiv taiv hmeraiv, many of the best MSS. and versions read, en ekeinh th hmera, in that day; viz. the day in which Jesus Christ should be delivered up to the Jews and Gentiles. Mill and Bengel approve of this reading, and Griesbach adopts it. The former part of the verse seems to vindicate the common reading.

Verses 18-22. The disciples of John and of the Pharisees used to fast — The evangelist here relates another occurrence, which happened while Jesus was in Levi’s house, and bore some resemblance to the former. But of this see the notes on Matthew 9:14-17, where the whole passage occurs.

§ 52. — LEVI’S FEAST; DISCOURSE OF JESUS, 15-22.

This narrative of the feast given by Levi is furnished here, previous to its proper time, to connect it with his call. The account is different in points that show independence, yet the essential agreement is very complete.

15. His house — Matthew’s house. See our Life of Matthew, prefacing his Gospel.

§ 33. — PLUCKING EARS OF CORN, 23-28.

(See notes on Matthew 12:1-8.)

Verse 21. No man-seweth] See Clarke “Matthew 9:16”. No man seweth a piece of unscoured cloth upon an old garment. In the common editions this verse begins with kai, and, but this is omitted by almost every MS. and version of note. The construction of the whole verse is various in the MSS. The translation given here, and in Matthew 9:16, is intelligible, and speaks for itself.

Verses 18-22. The disciples of John and of the Pharisees used to fast — The evangelist here relates another occurrence, which happened while Jesus was in Levi’s house, and bore some resemblance to the former. But of this see the notes on Matthew 9:14-17, where the whole passage occurs.

§ 52. — LEVI’S FEAST; DISCOURSE OF JESUS, 15-22.

This narrative of the feast given by Levi is furnished here, previous to its proper time, to connect it with his call. The account is different in points that show independence, yet the essential agreement is very complete.

15. His house — Matthew’s house. See our Life of Matthew, prefacing his Gospel.

§ 33. — PLUCKING EARS OF CORN, 23-28.

(See notes on Matthew 12:1-8.)

Verses 18-22. The disciples of John and of the Pharisees used to fast — The evangelist here relates another occurrence, which happened while Jesus was in Levi’s house, and bore some resemblance to the former. But of this see the notes on Matthew 9:14-17, where the whole passage occurs.

§ 52. — LEVI’S FEAST; DISCOURSE OF JESUS, 15-22.

This narrative of the feast given by Levi is furnished here, previous to its proper time, to connect it with his call. The account is different in points that show independence, yet the essential agreement is very complete.

15. His house — Matthew’s house. See our Life of Matthew, prefacing his Gospel.

§ 33. — PLUCKING EARS OF CORN, 23-28.

(See notes on Matthew 12:1-8.)

V. 23. Matthew 12:1; Luke 6:1.

Verse 23. Went through the corn fields] See Clarke on “Matthew 12:1”.

Verse 23. He went through the corn-fields — This passage we had Matthew 12:1-8, where it was largely explained. In the days of Abiathar the high-priest — From the passage in the history referred to, (1 Samuel 21:1-9,) it appears that Abimelech, the father of Abiathar, was then high-priest; Abiathar himself not till some time after. This phrase, therefore, only means, In the time of Abiathar, who was afterward high-priest. The sabbath was made for man — And therefore must give way to man’s necessity. The Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath — Being the supreme Lawgiver, he has power to dispense with his own laws, and with this in particular.

Verses 23-26. He went through the corn fields, &c. — See notes on Matthew 12:1-8. At the time here mentioned, Ahimelech, the father of Abiathar, was high priest. But the difficulty may be solved either by supposing that Ahimelech had the name also of Abiathar, which is supported by comparing 2 Samuel 8:17, with 1 Chronicles 18:16; or that Abiathar was the high priest’s sagan or deputy, and therefore called popularly the high priest himself. Therefore the Jews say that “the son of a high priest, who is deputed by his father in his stead, is called a high priest.” Epi has been variously taken; but either of the above solutions leaves its sense unforced, as it is frequently used for in the time of, and here properly by our translators, in the days of Abiathar, &c.

Verses 23-26. He went through the corn fields, &c. — See notes on Matthew 12:1-8. At the time here mentioned, Ahimelech, the father of Abiathar, was high priest. But the difficulty may be solved either by supposing that Ahimelech had the name also of Abiathar, which is supported by comparing 2 Samuel 8:17, with 1 Chronicles 18:16; or that Abiathar was the high priest’s sagan or deputy, and therefore called popularly the high priest himself. Therefore the Jews say that “the son of a high priest, who is deputed by his father in his stead, is called a high priest.” Epi has been variously taken; but either of the above solutions leaves its sense unforced, as it is frequently used for in the time of, and here properly by our translators, in the days of Abiathar, &c.

Verses 23-26. He went through the corn fields, &c. — See notes on Matthew 12:1-8. At the time here mentioned, Ahimelech, the father of Abiathar, was high priest. But the difficulty may be solved either by supposing that Ahimelech had the name also of Abiathar, which is supported by comparing 2 Samuel 8:17, with 1 Chronicles 18:16; or that Abiathar was the high priest’s sagan or deputy, and therefore called popularly the high priest himself. Therefore the Jews say that “the son of a high priest, who is deputed by his father in his stead, is called a high priest.” Epi has been variously taken; but either of the above solutions leaves its sense unforced, as it is frequently used for in the time of, and here properly by our translators, in the days of Abiathar, &c.

V. 26. In the days of Abiathar the high priest-Abimelech, the father of Abiathar, was high priest then; Abiathar himself not till some time after. This phrase therefore only means, In the time of Abiathar, who was afterward the high priest. 1 Samuel 21:6.

Verse 26. The days of Abiathar the high priest] It appears from 1 Samuel 21:1, which is the place referred to here, that Ahimelech was then high priest at Nob: and from 1 Samuel 22:20; 23:6, and 1 Chronicles 18:16, it appears that Abiathar was the son of Ahimelech. The Persic reads Abimelech instead of Abiathar. Theophylact supposes that Abiathar was the priest, and Ahimelech or Abimelech the high priest, and thus endeavours to reconcile both the sacred historians. Others reconcile the accounts thus: Ahimelech was called Ahimelech Abiathar, ba ab, father, understood; and Abiathar was called Abiathar Ahimelech, בנ ben, son, understood. Probably they both officiated in the high priesthood; and the name of the office was indifferently applied to either. Shew-bread] See Matthew 12:4.

Ver. 26. Abiathar the highpriest. 1 Samuel 21:1, 6. Ahimelech was the highpriest, and Abiathar his son the sagon cohen, the second priest. The jews always had the sagon in readiness, lest accidents should happen to the chief priest. Some think that Mark uses here the antonomasia, which puts the office for a dignity, as when we say, the orator, for Demosthenes. It is more probable that Mark calls Abiathar by that dignity, because from the moment his father was slain, he lawfully succeeded to that office.

26. In the days of Abiathar the high priest — It appears by the account of the transaction here referred to in 1 Samuel 21:1, that Ahimelech, father of Abiathar, was the high priest who supplied David the showbread. His son Abiathar was then priest, and afterward high priest; and as such under David attained a celebrity in Jewish history. Jesus, therefore, specifies the time as being the period of Abiathar’s life and office, who afterward became high priest. It is by no means improbable, though there is no other proof than arises from this passage, that Abiathar may have been high priest with his father, as he was high priest a part of his life conjointly with Zadock. There would be no extraordinary error, however, in saying that the American Constitution was formed in the time of President Washington.

Verses 23-26. He went through the corn fields, &c. — See notes on Matthew 12:1-8. At the time here mentioned, Ahimelech, the father of Abiathar, was high priest. But the difficulty may be solved either by supposing that Ahimelech had the name also of Abiathar, which is supported by comparing 2 Samuel 8:17, with 1 Chronicles 18:16; or that Abiathar was the high priest’s sagan or deputy, and therefore called popularly the high priest himself. Therefore the Jews say that “the son of a high priest, who is deputed by his father in his stead, is called a high priest.” Epi has been variously taken; but either of the above solutions leaves its sense unforced, as it is frequently used for in the time of, and here properly by our translators, in the days of Abiathar, &c.

V. 27. The Sabbath was made for man-And therefore must give way to man's necessity.

Verse 27. The Sabbath was made for man] That he might have the seventh part of his whole time to devote to the purposes of bodily rest and spiritual exercises. And in these respects it is of infinite use to mankind. Where no Sabbath is observed, there disease, poverty, and profligacy, generally prevail. Had we no Sabbath, we should soon have no religion. This whole verse is wanting in the Codex Bezæ, and in five of the Itala.

27. Made for man — Man was first created, and then the Sabbath was given to subserve his highest good — physical, social, spiritual, intellectual, and eternal. That mode of keeping the Sabbath which most conduces to this intention is the true mode.

How beneficent is the Sabbath under this construction of its obligations! It is one of the best of God’s gifts to man. He who would destroy its enjoyment is therein the enemy of his race.

How profound and comprehensive is the maxim which our Lord utters in regard to the relations of the Sabbath to man! It is full of the benevolent wisdom of his Gospel.

And if the Sabbath be made for man it is not made for the Jew alone. It is founded on the necessities of the race, and must be intended for the race. If it be made for man, it is not made for one age or for one generation or one dispensation alone, but for all ages and dispensations of men. Hence the Sabbath is perpetual. Whether it be on the same day of the week or not, is comparatively, in this view, unimportant. That the week is perpetuated under the Christian dispensation may be shown from Rev. 1:10, where the “Lord’s day” is a weekly institution. That the Sabbath of the week is continued appears from the same consideration.

Verse 27. The Sabbath was made for man, &c. — In addition to the notes on this transaction in Matthew 12:1-8, it may be remarked on this passage, that it is impossible to conceive a dictum of wisdom in form of a maxim so finely guarded on “the right hand and on the left,” and yet left so decisively practical. It is beautifully though somewhat enigmatically founded upon the fact, that man was created before the Sabbath was instituted; not the Sabbath set apart, and then man made to observe and honour it. This shows the great end for which the Sabbath was appointed — not its own observance, not that man should give to it for its own sake a hallowed, character, as if man had been created on purpose to show it respect; but man was first made, and then the Sabbath was instituted, THE END of which institution terminated in MAN, in his interest, happiness, and spiritual improvement, to which the Sabbath was therefore to be SUBSERVIENT. Here then the great rule comes in as to sabbatical observance. Whatever is enjoined upon man with reference to the Sabbath, which has not for its end man’s instruction in religion, his intercourse with God in worship, and which superstitiously prevents his being fitted for duty by proper bodily refreshments, or his being relieved as far as possible from bodily pains and miseries, that his heart may be filled with gratitude, and his mouth with praise, is subordinating man to the Sabbath, making MAN the servant of a DAY, to give it ceremonial distinction without moral purpose or effect; whereas by fixing the attention upon the true end of the institution, it is subordinated to its primitive and noble intention, the promotion of piety, peace, and holiness; and so it will appear that the Sabbath was made for man, was appointed by God for his spiritual and eternal benefit. When, however, it is said that the Sabbath was made for man, let it be remarked that no laxity of RELIGIOUS regard to the Sabbath can be justified by this sentiment. Wo to those who thus pervert the words of truth and mercy. The universal obligation of the Sabbath is unequivocally asserted in these words: The Sabbath was made for MAN, — not for Jews only; or for any other class of men, but for MAN; for man even in his innocence and purity, and therefore, for all his descendants; for man considered as a moral and accountable being, who needs to hold special intercourse with his Maker, who ought to be detached from worldly cares, that he may do this with a calm and recollected spirit; and who is under obligation in public assemblies to acknowledge God, and to keep up the knowledge and influence of truth in the world from age to age. And when it is said that it was made for man, the meaning is evident, that it was instituted chiefly, and in its highest reasons, to promote in him the fear and love of God, by giving him leisure for religious exercises, and appointing their observance. This is the meaning of God’s “blessing and sanctifying the day,” consecrating and setting it apart for such hallowed services as should bring man into communion with God, and thus secure his constant “blessing.” Many subordinate ends of human interest and happiness result from sabbatical observance, which indeed prove that duty and felicity are always in the result bound up together; but the grand character and end of this Divine institution is, that it was made for the purpose of promoting the spiritual and eternal interests of the human race; and whatever is inconsistent with these is an obvious violation of the law of the Sabbath, and a grievous sin against our own mercy.

V. 28. Moreover the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath-Being the supreme Lawgiver, he hath power to dispense with his own laws; and with this in particular.

Verse 28. The Son of man is Lord] See on Matthew 12:7, 8. Some have understood this as applying to men in general, and not to Christ. The Son of man, any man is Lord of the Sabbath; i.e. it was made for him, for his ease, comfort, and use, and to these purposes he is to apply it. But this is a very harsh, and at the same time a very lax, mode of interpretation; for it seems to say that a man may make what use he pleases of the Sabbath; and, were this true, the moral obligation of the Sabbath would soon be annihilated.

GOD ordained the Sabbath not only to be a type of that rest which remains for the people of God, but to be also a mean of promoting the welfare of men in general.

The ordinances of religion should be regulated according to their end, which is the honour of God, and the salvation of men. It is the property of the true religion to contain nothing in it but what is beneficial to man. Hereby God plainly shows that it is neither out of indigence or interest that he requires men to worship and obey him; but only out of goodness, and to make them happy. God prohibited work on the Sabbath day, lest servants should be oppressed by their masters, that the labouring beasts might have necessary rest, and that men might have a proper opportunity to attend upon his ordinances, and get their souls saved. To the Sabbath, under God, we owe much of what is requisite and necessary as well for the body as the soul.

ST. MARK

Ver. 28. The Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath. The sabbath was made for man, the BEN ADAM, as in Psalm 8., or the Son of man. He therefore can dispense with the sabbath in cases of need, as in the great question in chap. 3:4. “Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath day, or to do evil?” The enemies were silent. The grand criterion is, whether the thing done be God’s work or our own. If it be the work of God, he who causes the winds to blow, by consequence commands the seaman to steer his ship. How wide then of those gracious laws are the pursuits of trade and labour, and licentious pleasures, fraught with contempt for the worship of God.

Verse 28. The Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath. — Our blessed Lord here asserts his right,

1. To interpret the law of the Sabbath;

2. To alter or modify it as he pleased;

3. To alter the time of its observance, which he afterward did through his apostles, from the seventh to the first day of the week. And if any ask our authority for observing this day, and not the Jewish Sabbath, the answer is, that in the Christian Scriptures it bears the name of “THE LORD’S DAY,” with manifest reference to this text, in which Christ asserts his power over it, as Lawgiver: the Son of man is LORD also of the Sabbath. It is “the Lord’s day,” because he himself appointed it, by his own authority, to be the Sabbath for all succeeding ages. Those who, like Campbell, understand the term Son of man, here, to signify any man, and the sentiment to be, that as the Sabbath was made for man, so man is its lord, fall into this erroneous interpretation through considering the words as the inference from the verse preceding; whereas it is the general conclusion from the whole argument, which is more fully stated by St. Matthew. There our Lord argues that as the priests did servile work in the temple because of the sacredness of the place, he who was “greater than the temple” itself had rights on this subject which no mere man could have; and it is to this his dignity that the words refer, and from which they flow, as the natural conclusion. Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath, See the note on Matthew 12:8.