Марко 2:25 Коментар

In this chapter, we have, I. Christ's healing a man that was sick of a palsy (Mar 2:1-12). II. His calling of Matthew from the receipt of custom, and his eating, upon that occasion, with publicans and sinners, and justifying himself in so doing (Mar 2:13-17). III. His justifying his disciples in not fasting so much as those plucking the ears of corn on the sabbath day (Mar 2:23-28). All which passages we had before, Mt. 9 and 12.

And again he entered into Capernaum after some days,.... After he had been preaching in the synagogues throughout Galilee, and after he had spent some days in prayer, and private retirement in desert places: and it was noised that he was in, the house; a report was spread throughout the city that he was in the house of Simon and Andrew, where he was before, and where he used to be when in Capernaum. And again he entered into Capernaum after some days,.... After he had been preaching in the synagogues throughout Galilee, and after he had spent some days in prayer, and private retirement in desert places: and it was noised that he was in, the house; a report was spread throughout the city that he was in the house of Simon and Andrew, where he was before, and where he used to be when in Capernaum. Mark 2:2 mar 2:2 mar 2:2 mar 2:2And straightway many were gathered together,.... From all parts of the city, insomuch that there was no room to receive them; in the house: by which it should seem to be a large one, though not large enough to hold such a numerous company as were got together: no, not so much as about the door; or the places before the door, the porch, the court, or courtyard. The crowd was so great, that neither the house, nor the out places before, could hold them, nor could they come even near the door; and he preached the word unto them. The Ethiopic version renders it, "he spake his own word to them that came to him"; he preached the Gospel, the word of grace and truth, of life and salvation, to as many as could come near him, and were within the hearing of him. To me it seems, that our Lord went up into an upper room, and out of the window preached to the people, that were, in great numbers, without doors; and the following narrative seems to confirm this conjecture.

How he went into the house of God,.... The tabernacle; for the temple was not yet built: thither David went to get bread for himself and his men, being hungry: so in a spiritual sense, where should such go, who are hungering and thirsting after righteousness, but into the house of God? Here is bread enough, and to spare; here is a table furnished with excellent provisions; here the Gospel is dispensed, which is milk for babes, and meat for strong men; here Christ, the bread of life, is set forth, whose flesh is meat indeed, and whose blood is drink indeed; here the ordinances are administered, which are breasts of consolation to the children of God; here is a feast of fat things, all things are ready, and souls are welcome, and therefore it must be right to attend here. And this was on the sabbath day that David went into the house of God: when the showbread loaves were removed, and divided, among the priests, and new ones were placed in their room: and so under the Gospel dispensation, on the Lord's day, the day set apart for public worship, it becomes the saints to go up to the house of the Lord, and feed upon the provisions of it: they are a royal priesthood, they are priests, as well as kings to God; and their business is in the house of the Lord, to offer up spiritual sacrifices to him; and as the goodness and fulness of his house appertains to them, they do well to attend and partake thereof. In the days or Abiathar the high priest: and yet from the history it is clear, that it was in the days of Ahimelech the high priest, the father of Abiathar; wherefore the Jew charges (k) Mark with an error, and Matthew and Luke too: whereas the two last make no mention of the name of any high priest; and it might be observed, that in the Persic version of Mark it is rendered, "under Abimelech the high priest"; and in an ancient copy of Beza's, the whole clause is omitted; though it must be owned, that so it is read in other Greek copies, and in the ancient versions, the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, Arabic, and others: wherefore let it be further observed, that the fact referred to was done in the days of Abiathar, though it was before he was an high priest; and the particle may be so rendered, about, or "before Abiathar was high priest", as it is in Mat 1:11. Besides, Abiathar was the son of an high priest, and succeeded his father in the office: and might be at this time his deputy, who acted for him, or he by has advice; and according to a rule the Jews (l) themselves give, "the son of an high priest, who is deputed by his father in his stead, , "lo! he is called an high priest".'' So that Abiathar might at this time be called the high priest; and is the rather mentioned, because he was the more eminent and famous man; and whom the Jews call (m) Urim and Thummim, because there was much inquiry made by them; in his and his father's days, and very little after: to which may be added, that the names of the father and the son are sometimes changed; Ahimelech is called Abiathar, and this Abiathar is called Ahimelech, the son of Abiathar, Sa2 8:17, and Abimelech the son of Abiathar, Ch1 18:16. And it seems as if both father and son had two names, and were sometimes called by the one, and sometimes by the other: for as the father is sometimes called Abiathar, the son is called Ahimelech, or Abimelech, as in the places mentioned; and which refer to the times when David was king of Israel, and long after the death of Saul, and consequently long after Ahimelech, and the rest of the priests at Nob, were killed by the order of Saul: wherefore Ahimelech, or Abimelech, in the said places, must be the son of Abiathar; and who afterwards was thrust out of the priesthood by Solomon, for joining with Adonijah in his usurpation, Kg1 1:25. And from whence it appears, that his father was called Abiathar also, and which some take to be their family name; and if so, then there is no difficulty, and the evangelist rightly says, that this affair was in the days of Abiathar: but be it that he intends the son, what has been before observed is a sufficient solution of this difficulty; for the evangelist does not say that Abiathar was high priest, when David came and eat the showbread; he only says, "it was in the days of Abiathar the high priest": for certain it is, that this happened in his days; and as certain, that he was an high priest; and Mark might with great propriety call him so, though he was not strictly one, till after this business was over: besides, he was not only the son of an high priest, and it may be his deputy, and some have thought officiated at this time, his father being sick or infirm through old age; but inasmuch as his father was directly killed by the order of Saul, he narrowly escaping, immediately succeeded him in the office of the high priesthood; and therefore his being an high priest so very near the time of this action, without any impropriety and impertinence, and especially without incurring the charge of falsehood, the evangelist might express himself as he does. And did eat the showbread, which is not lawful to eat, but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him? Who not only ate the showbread, which was set before the Lord, and was sacred, and which none but the priests might eat of, after it was removed from the table; but he did this on the sabbath day; and he not only eat of it himself, but the soldiers that were with him: and all this with the knowledge and leave of the high priest: for the Jews (n) have no reason to charge this evangelist and the others with an error, that others besides David ate of the showbread, urging that he came alone to Ahimelech; since it is evident from Sa1 21:2, that David had servants in company with him when he fled, though they did not attend him when he went to the high priest; and that he asked bread, and it was given him, not only for himself, but for the young men that he had appointed to be at such a place: and therefore, if this was allowed to David and his men, when hungry, it ought not to be charged as an evil upon the disciples, for plucking and rubbing a few ears of corn to satisfy their hunger, though on a sabbath day; and especially when he, who was Lord of the sabbath, was present, and admitted of it; See Gill on Mat 12:4. (k) R. Isaac Chizzuk Emuna, par. 9. c. 28. p. 419. (l) Siphra, fol. 17. 2. apud Kidder's Demonstration of the Messiah, par. 2. p. 73. (m) Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 16. 2. (n) R. Isaac Chizzuk Emuna, par. 2. c. 28. p. 420. Jacob Aben Amrara apud Kidder, Demonstr. of the Messiah, par. 3. p. 48.

It is foolish to believe the Evangelist’s account that he ate and not to believe that he was really hungry. Yet it does not follow that everyone who eats is hungry. For we read that even an angel ate, but we do not read that he was hungry. Nor does it follow that everyone who is hungry eats. He may either restrain himself due to some obligation or lack food or the means to eat.… Now, just as the fact that Jesus ate food is unintelligible without a body, so the fact that he felt hunger is impossible without a soul.

(Vict. Ant. e Cat. in Marc.) But our Lord brings forward David, to whom it once happened to eat though it was forbidden by the law, when he touched the Priest's food, that by his example, he might do away with their accusation of the disciples. For there follows, Have ye never read, &c.

And he said to them: Have you never read, etc.? To refute the Pharisees’ accusation, he recalls an old story, when David, fleeing Saul, came to Nob and was received by the priest Abimelech, and asked for food (1 Samuel 21). Since he did not have ordinary bread, he gave him consecrated bread, which only priests and Levites were allowed to eat. He only asked if the young men were pure from women: and when he answered from yesterday and the day before, he did not hesitate to give the bread, considering it better (as the prophet says, I desire mercy, and not sacrifice [Hosea 6]) to free men from the danger of hunger than to offer a sacrifice to God. For the acceptable sacrifice to God is the salvation of men. Therefore, the Lord argues and says: If both David is holy and Abimelech the priest is not blamed by you, but each of them transgressed the commandment of the law with reasonable excuse, and hunger is the cause, why do you not approve the same hunger in the apostles which you approve in others? Although, in this matter, there is much difference. These rub the ears of grain in their hands on the Sabbath, those ate Levitical bread. There, even at the solemnity of the Sabbath, the days of the new moons illuminated it, and in the feasts when he fled from the royal court. Figuratively speaking, when it is said that David and his men received the consecrated bread, it shows that the food of the priesthood would pass into common use, either because we all ought to imitate the priestly life, or because all the children of the Church are priests. For we are anointed into a holy priesthood, offering ourselves as spiritual sacrifices to God. We have spoken more fully about this whole story according to our understanding in the exposition of the book of Kings, and about the table and the bread of the presence, in the book on the exposition of the tabernacle and its vessels. As for why the Lord calls Abimelech the chief of the priests instead of Abiathar, there is no discrepancy. For both were there when David came and asked for and received the bread, namely Abimelech the chief of the priests, and Abiathar his son. After Abimelech was killed by Saul, along with eighty-five priests of his household, Abiathar fled to David and became his companion throughout his exile. Later, when David reigned, he received the office of high priest and remained in the pontificate throughout his reign, surpassing his father in much greater excellence. Therefore, he was worthy of being remembered by the Lord as the high priest even while his father lived. And he said to them, The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. Greater care is due to the health and life of a man than to the observance of the Sabbath. For the Sabbath is commanded to be observed in such a way that if there is necessity, one is not guilty of breaking the Sabbath. Therefore, circumcision on the Sabbath is not prohibited because it is necessary. For Joshua also circled the walls of Jericho with his army for seven days. And the Maccabees fought on the Sabbath out of necessity. Hence, if the disciples were hungry, what was not permitted by the law became permitted out of the necessity of hunger. This is a similar case to that which exists today in legal fasts: where if anyone breaks the fast because of illness, he is by no means guilty. Therefore, the Son of Man is Lord, even of the Sabbath. If, he says, David the king fed with priestly food is excusable, and according to another evangelist’s account the priests violate the Sabbath by temple service and are without blame, how much more is the Son of Man, who is the true king and the true priest, and therefore the Lord of the Sabbath, not guilty of plucking ears of grain on the Sabbath?

The disciples of the Lord plucked the ears of grain, as men accustomed to living no longer under the law. When the Pharisees became indignant at this, Christ silences them by pointing to David, who out of necessity broke the law during the time of the high priest Abiathar. Fleeing from Saul, the prophet David came to this high priest and deceived him, saying that he had been sent by the king on an urgent military matter. There he both ate the showbread and took back the sword of Goliath, which he had once dedicated to God. There were twelve of these loaves; they lay upon the table every day, six on the right and six on the left side of the table. Some ask: why did the evangelist here call the high priest Abiathar, when the Book of Kings names him Ahimelech (1 Sam. 21)? To this one may say that the high priest had two names: Ahimelech and Abiathar. It can also be explained differently, namely: the Book of Kings speaks of Ahimelech, the priest at that time, while the evangelist speaks of Abiathar, the high priest at that time, and therefore their accounts do not contradict one another. The priest on that occasion was Ahimelech, while Abiathar was then the high priest.

For David, when flying from the face of Saul, went to the Chief Priest, and ate the show-bread, and took away the sword of Goliath, which things had been offered to the Lord. (1 Sam. 21.) But a question has been raised how the Evangelist called Abiathar at this time High Priest, when the Book of Kings calls him Abimelech. Or else, because when they hare rest from their passions, then are they made doctors to lead others to virtue, plucking away from them earthly things.

Christ preaches in Capernaum, Mar 2:1, Mar 2:2. A paralytic person is brought to him, whose sins are pronounced forgiven, Mar 2:3-5. The scribes accuse him of blasphemy, Mar 2:6, Mar 2:7. He vindicates himself, and proves his power to forgive sins, by healing the man's disease, Mar 2:8-11. The people are astonished and edified, Mar 2:12. He calls Levi from the receipt of custom, Mar 2:13, Mar 2:14. Eats in his house with publicans and sinners, at which the Pharisees murmur, Mar 2:15, Mar 2:16. He vindicates his conduct, Mar 2:17. Vindicates his disciples, who are accused of not fasting, Mar 2:18-22; and for plucking the ears of corn on the Sabbath day, Mar 2:23-26; and teaches the right use of the Sabbath, Mar 2:27, Mar 2:28.

HEALING OF A PARALYTIC. ( = Mat 9:1-8; Luk 5:17-26). (Mar 2:1-12) And again he entered into Capernaum--"His own city" (Mat 9:1). and it was noised that he was in the house--no doubt of Simon Peter (Mar 1:29).