Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Mark 2:6
But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts,
6. certain of the scribes ] During our Lord’s absence from Capernaum it would seem there had arrived not only from Galilee, but even from Juda and Jerusalem (Luk 5:17), Pharisees and lawyers, who were insidiously watching all that He did. Emissaries from the hostile party at Jerusalem, where the Lord’s death had already been decreed (Joh 5:18), they proceeded to carry out a settled plan of collecting charges against Him and thwarting His work of mercy.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Mar 2:6
But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts.
Reasons in reserve
All true religion is located in the heart. Where the human heart goes the human life will go. The New Testament is a revelation addressed to the heart. Our Lord Jesus Christ was set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel, and for a sign to be spoken against, that the thoughts of many hearts may he revealed. This story is remarkable for the exhibition it makes:
(1) Of enterprise in bringing a helpless soul to the Saviour: how many ingenuities-there are for reaching men when only the friends around them are in earnest;
(2) of the intimate connection existing between sin and suffering: our Lords action in bestowing pardon with the cure was strictly logical;
(3) of the great advantage it is to any man to have Christians for companions to become friends in his need: this palsied creature was healed because of the faith other people had;
(4) of the force of mean motives in driving men to reject Christ: these scribes were moved by arguments which they cherished, but concealed from sight. Upon this last point it seems worth while to dwell for a little while just by itself. Let us group the illustrations of the narrative around two simple propositions in turn.
I. The worst opposition which Christians have to meet in offering the gospel to men is found in the mental reservations of its rejectors, and the sullen silence of their hearts.
1. To begin with, there are unspoken objections which influence, if they do not control, ones intellectual views. Men insist that there are discrepancies in the records of the Old and New Testaments which vitiate their truth, and, if generally known, would mock their claim to exact inspiration. Other men make great parade in private over difficulties in doctrine, and challenge attention to the fact that theologians differ in relation to almost all the cardinal points of what is called the evangelical system. Still others cavil at the inconsistencies of Church members, and rail out against them for hypocrisy, if only they can manage to secure a safe and credulous audience that dares not contradict them. Hints and innuendoes are the usual signs of this disturbed and unwholesome state of mind. Where do the young men of the present day obtain so much sceptical information? It is thrust in upon them by the public press. Doubts drop down like loose feathers wherever croaking ravens are wont to fly. But why is it that these reasons are so often held in reserve? Why does the man preserve his sullen demeanour without a word?
(1) Because he is not exactly certain he can state them: it is not everybody who can say clearly what he does not believe;
(2) because he feels a misgiving that they may not stand when someone a little more scholarly gets hold of them;
(3) and because he suspects that if he goes so far in his small infidelity, he really would have to go farther or give it up.
2. There are unconscious prejudices which arouse ones temper. Some persons conceive a violent spite at what they assert is a continuous rebuke whenever Christian life is praised or commended. This is not a new thing in history. Classic annals tell us that an unlettered countryman gave his vote against Aristides at the ostracism because, as he frankly said, he was tired of hearing him called The Just. Other persons cherish implacable memories of indiscreet zeal practised upon them by those who supposed they were dutifully obeying the command, Go, speak to that young man. They recite the grievance of revival extravagances, which they deemed offensive and never to be forgotten. They rehearse the biographies of preachers who bullied the patient congregations, and then ran into immorality and deplorable scandal. They plead rashness as an excuse for reserve.
3. There are unacknowledged sins which sway ones career. Come back to the story here in Marks narrative. Hear the comments of these scribes accusing Jesus of blasphemy! Violent clamours for moral and theological perfectness are raised by many whose sole aim is to divert attention from some secret indulgences of their own. These people reason in their hearts. Sometimes in modern life a very showy conflict with Satan is kept up before the public in order to conceal the fact of ones friendship with him. It reminds us of plays in which the actors personate the devil fencing with some good antagonist behind the footlights, a knight, perhaps, the pink of virtue, battling fiercely with the demon clad in robe of fire. No one engaged for his soul could appear more bravely in earnest. But we are struck with a certain kind of wariness, which they both show in their hitting. Sparks fly from the weapons, but blood does not seem to be drawn. And if afterwards we were to go behind the scenes, there we should find those high-tempered combatants in a most surprising state of reconciliation; honourable knight and fiery devil seated in a friendly way at the table.
4. There results an unsubdued will sullenly closing ones lips. Many men live a double life; they mean to be courteous, but on religious matters they cultivate a cool, proud reserve. It often surprises us to find our Christian endeavours so ineffective with apparently kind, open, intelligent people. What is the real reason? Because the heart is what governs, and logic is not addressed to the heart. Arguments are made and meant for the intellect, and lose weight in the tenuous atmosphere of the feelings. It shows no difference whether we drop down feathers or dollars through the vacuum of an air pump.
II. Thus we reach our second proposition: all these reasons in reserve avail nothing to men the moment the contest is seen to be, as it always is, a contest with god and not man.
1. Look at the facts here; first, see verse 8. Jesus understood those scribes
(1) divinely-He perceived in His spirit. He understood them
(2) thoroughly-He saw what was within themselves. He understood them
(3) at once; note that old word immediately. God knows all our surmises and suspicions.
Jesus peremptorily challenged those scribes in their logic.
(1) He announced His discovery. They were amazed; literally, thunderstruck.
(2) He accepted their condition. They looked on while He healed the man by miracle.
(3) He defeated them utterly. We read that they all glorified God.
2. Now let us draw a few final inferences from the whole story. This scene is repeated every day in the full sight of a patient God. Human nature is always the same along the ages.
(1) There cannot possibly be any reasoning in ones heart which our omniscient Judge is not able instantly to perceive and to answer. Once a French soldier fell asleep on his post, and was brought up for trial by court martial. The first witness called was the Emperor Napoleon. I was visiting the sentinels outposts, he said; I saw this soldier myself.
(2) True prudence consists in outspoken candour. Come, let us reason together. Sometimes objections vanish with the statement; for they seem so insignificant when expressed. Mere articulation of difficulties often clears them of confusion.
(3) Sullen reserve surely runs to swift ruin. The difference between an ignorant prejudice and a wilful conceit is shown in this: ignorance stands with its back to the sun, and so if it advances moves on in the line of its own shadow only a step deeper; but churlish conceit walks straight away into a forest of doubts, till its own shadow is darkened with other shadows gloomier still. Hence, a confessed ignorance is altogether more hopeful for good because all it has to do is to turn to the light. Sullen obstinacy has to retrace its path, and so journey clear back to where it started. It was considerations of this sort which forced the bright remark that an ingenuous intellect is often better than an ingenious one.
(4) Reasons in reserve have really nothing to do with actual life or eternal prospects. (C. S. Robinson, D. D.)
I. An important aspect of human power. Secrecy and mental reservations.
II. A startling instance of Divine insight. Our silence is as loud as thunder to God! Our heart talk is overheard!
III. A splendid manifestation of Christs fearlessness Be need not have answered more than was spoken.
IV. A solemn example of the confusion which will fall upon all Christs objectors. Enquiry: What is your unspoken objection? Doctrinal? Disciplinary? Philosophical? Ethical? Grammatical? (J. Parker, D. D.)
Human reasonings about Divine forgiveness
I. That human reasonings are busy with the fact of the Divine forgiveness. Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God only?
1. Some men question the ability of Christ to forgive sin.
2. Some men seek to understand the process by which sin is forgiven. They wish to understand the mental philosophy of forgiveness, and because they cannot they deride it as a delusion. Is it to be expected that men shall be able to trace the Divine action in its method of forgiveness upon the human soul? Can men infallibly submit the subtle influences of heaven to their rude and vulgar tests, as they would the thoughts and mental actions of men? No! Who, by searching, can find out God? And certainly in His forgiving influence upon the human soul He is an unsearchable mystery.
3. Some men repudiate the evidences of the Divine forgiveness. They ask, how do we know that a man is forgiven; and what is the difference between him and any unforgiven individual? The evidence of it is in the hatred of sin, and in the purity of life which it inspires. And this witness is true. The world should receive it as such.
II. That Christ refutes the mental reasonings of men in reference to the fiat of Divine forgiveness. The reasonings of these men were refuted:
1. By the test of consciousness. The palsied man knew that his sins were forgiven in response to the Divine voice.
2. By the miracle of healing. Forgiveness heals the life.
Lessons:
1. Not to cavil at the method of the Divine forgiveness.
2. To receive it with adoring gratitude.
3. To attest it by a holy life.
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
6. But there were certain of thescribes“and the Pharisees” (Lu5:21)
sitting therethoseJewish ecclesiastics who, as Luke told us (Lu5:17), “were come out of every village of Galilee, andJudea, and Jerusalem,” to make their observations upon thiswonderful Person, in anything but a teachable spirit, though as yettheir venomous and murderous feeling had not showed itself.
and reasoning in theirhearts.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
But there were certain of the Scribes sitting there,…. In the upper room where Jesus was, to watch and observe what he said:, and did:
and reasoning in their hearts; upon the above words of Christ, in the following manner.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts ( ). Another of Mark’s pictures through Peter’s eyes. These scribes (and Pharisees, Lu 5:21) were there to cause trouble, to pick flaws in the teaching and conduct of Jesus. His popularity and power had aroused their jealousy. There is no evidence that they spoke aloud the murmur in their hearts, “within themselves” (Mt 9:3). It was not necessary, for their looks gave them away and Jesus knew their thoughts (Mt 9:4) and perceived their reasoning (Lu 5:22).
Instantly Jesus recognized it in his own spirit ( , Mr 2:8). The Master at once recognizes the hostile atmosphere in the house. The debate () in their hearts was written on their faces. No sound had come, but feeling did.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Reasoning [] . The word dialogue is derived from this, and the meaning literally is, that they held a dialogue with themselves.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “But there were certain of the scribes sitting there,” (esan de tines ton grammateon ekei kathemenoi) “Then there were some of the scribes sitting there,” eyeballing the whole matter. Luke states that sitting there were Pharisees and lawyers from all quarters of Galilee, Judea, and Jerusalem, Luk 5:17.
2) “And reasoning in their hearts,” (kai dialogizomenoi en tais kardiais auton) “And reasoning or questioning in their hearts,” what Jesus had said about forgiveness of sins. Their shocked disapproval showed on their faces. Their countenance betrayed what was in their hearts, Isa 3:9. These scribes had come from the hostile party at Jerusalem, from a band of religious Jews that had already conspired to put Jesus to death, Joh 5:18.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
(6) Certain of the scribes.These are described by St. Luke (Luk. 5:17) as having come from every village of Galilee, and Juda, and Jerusalem.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
‘But there were certain of the scribes sitting their and reasoning in their hearts. “Why does this man speak like this? He is blaspheming. Who can forgive sins but one, even God?”.’
In the crowd gathered around the house were some Scribes (teachers and interpreters of the Law). As important people they appear to have been given a place at the front, for they heard what Jesus said to the man. These were the local Scribes, doctors and teachers of the Law (see Luk 5:17), rather than those who later came down from Jerusalem. Being local they were almost certainly Pharisees. (Some Scribes in Jerusalem were Sadducees). They were looked to by the people to interpret the Law and did so on the basis of oral tradition passed down among them, much of which was the result of scribal decisions in the past. There would appear to have been three types of such oral tradition: (a) some oral laws which were claimed as having come from Moses as given by the great lawgiver in addition to the written laws; (b) decisions of various judges which became precedents in judicial matters; and (c) interpretations of great teachers (rabbis) which came to be prized with the same reverence accorded to the Old Testament Scriptures. In order to become Scribes they had to become learned in these oral traditions. They were called ‘the tradition of the Elders’. They looked on themselves, and were generally looked on by the people, as the guardians of the Law. They had almost certainly come to sound out this new teacher so as to make a judgment on Him.
‘Reasoning in their hearts.’ They were weighing up His words and coming to their ‘considered’ judgment on them. They had not come to learn but to act as critics. Thus when they heard His words to the paralysed man their ears pricked up, and they probably whispered quietly among themselves. ‘How dare He speak like this?’ In their eyes it was pure blasphemy. For surely only God could forgive sins. Had they listened more reasonably they might have recognised that He had not quite said what they were insinuating. Like Nathan of old He had only assured the man of God’s forgiveness (2Sa 12:13). But they were not thinking sympathetically.
‘He is blaspheming.’ That is, He is taking over God’s prerogative and therefore acting against God. Indeed almost making Himself out to be the equal of God. Their words remind us how easy it is to be so set in our thoughts that we can only think in one way. They had not come there in order to think fairly about what Jesus was saying, or what He was doing. They had come to measure it by their yardstick. And in that light there could be only one conclusion. (And by that yardstick even a Messiah coming in terms of their own expectations would have been a blasphemer. The theory of a Messiah was fine, but the actuality was not, and never would be, acceptable to them unless He handed over all religious aspects to them. A free thinking Messiah would not have been allowable).
‘Who can forgive sins but One. Even God?’ They were, of course, correct. From the point of view of being forgiven in the sight of God (which was what Jesus had meant) it was only God Who could do it. But Jesus had actually spoken ambiguously. They could have seen it as meaning simply, ‘God has forgiven you’ as a word of comfort and assurance, but they saw it as meaning ‘I have bestowed on you God’s forgiveness’. In their view that went along with His outrageous religious attitude. It was, however, open to men either to see Him as a declarer of forgiveness (as with Nathan in 2Sa 12:13) or as One Who shared the prerogative of God. The Scribes, in fact, actually came to the right conclusion but because of their prejudice were not willing to yield to the truth.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Christ’s defense against the scribes:
v. 6. But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts,
v. 7. Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God only!’
v. 8. And immediately when Jesus perceived in His spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, He said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts!’
v.. Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee, or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk!’
v. 10. But that ye may know that the Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (He saith to the sick of the palsy,)
v. 11. I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house.
v. 12. And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all, insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion. The leaders of the Jews had watched developments in Galilee with apprehension for some time. The simple assurance of this new teacher did not meet with their approval, especially since He had not asked for their sanction. And so they had men watching Jesus all the time. In this case there was a large delegation of scribes present, Luk 5:17. As soon as they heard the word out of the mouth of Jesus concerning forgiveness, their pharisaic suspicions were aroused, and their pharisaic condemnation followed. For fear of the multitude they dared not voice their sentiments, but in their heart they passed judgment unhesitatingly, condemning Jesus for a blasphemer. Their argument sounds reasonable: Who can forgive sins but God only? Every sin is, in the last analysis, a transgression of God’s holy commandment and therefore against Him. From God, therefore, we ask forgiveness of our sins, Psa 25:18; Psa 32:5. But two points should be noted: Christ, as the Son of God, as His equal in all divine attributes, can and may forgive sins in His own power; and the announcement of forgiveness implies the redemption, and may now be made by any man. Though the objection was not spoken, yet Jesus, who searches mind and heart, Psa 139:2, knew their thoughts perfectly which they had concerning Him. And He replies to the challenge. He puts a question to them which is intended to show them the foolishness of their position: Which is the easier of the two, to heal the spiritual or the bodily infirmity? Mat 9:4-5, to say: Thy sins be forgiven thee, or to say: Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk off? The scribes, according to their position, now should have said: The forgiving of sins is the easier, for that cannot be controlled, since its action was strictly in the spiritual plane. But Jesus does not wait for their answer. He wants to give them a practical, indubitable proof and demonstration of the power which He possesses in His position as Son of Man, in His office as the divine-human Messiah. He forgave the sins of the paralytic in His own power, by His own right and might. And He now, by a simple command, restored the sick man to perfect health and full strength, enabling him not only to get up from his couch with some unsteadiness, but to take up his couch before them all and to depart. It was such a wonderful manifestation that all those present, with the exception of the scribes, were astonished almost to stupefaction, and gave praise to God in the words: In this way we never saw it yet. This miracle and all it implied and presupposed was something new to them. It argued for a power greater than any that they had ever come into contact with.
There is much comfort in these words to this day. The Son of God became man, and by His life, Passion, and death earned perfect forgiveness for the sins of all men. The debt is not simply canceled, but is paid through the merits of Christ. For that reason God no longer has a remembrance of our sins. And therefore the Son of Man may distribute the great treasure, which He has earned, among the children of men. What is more, God has, through Christ, given to men the power on earth to forgive sins. Christ has given to all His disciples, to the entire Christian Church on earth, the peculiar power to forgive the sins of the penitent sinners unto them. Thus we know where and how we may find forgiveness of sins. “Not in heaven, as the Pharisees here suppose. Guard against that and say: God has placed forgiveness of sins into Holy Baptism, into the Lord’s Supper, and into the Word; yea, He has given it into the mouth of every Christian; if he consoles thee and promises thee God’s grace through the merit of Christ Jesus, thou shalt receive and believe it, in no other way but as though Christ with His own mouth had given thee the promise, as here to the paralytic.”
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
6 But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts,
Ver. 6. But there were certain of the scribes ] Little do preachers know when they preach, what hearers sit before them. Araneo fel est, quod api mel. Some of our hearers carry fel in aure, as it is said of some creatures, they carry their gall in their ears.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Mar 2:6-12 . Thus far of the sick man, how he got to Jesus, and the sympathetic reception he met with. Now the scribes begin to play their part. They find their opportunity in the sympathetic word of Jesus: thy sins be forgiven thee; a word most suitable to the case, and which might have been spoken by any man. . .: Lk. makes of this simple fact a great affair: an assembly of Pharisees and lawyers from all quarters Galilee, Judaea, Jerusalem, hardly suitable to the initial stage of conflict. : sitting there. If the posture is to be pressed they must have been early on the spot, so as to get near to Jesus and hear and see Him distinctly. .: they looked like men shocked and disapproving. The popularity of Jesus prevented free utterance of their thought. But any one could see they were displeased and why. It was that speech about forgiveness.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
in. Greek. en. App-104.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
and reasoning: Mar 8:17, Mat 16:7, Mat 16:8, Luk 5:21, Luk 5:22, 2Co 10:5, *marg.
Reciprocal: 1Ki 12:26 – said in his heart Psa 10:11 – said Psa 35:25 – say Isa 29:20 – and all Mat 9:3 – certain Mar 9:14 – the scribes Luk 7:39 – he spake
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
7
These scribes were reasoning in their hearts but Jesus knew what they were thinking, for he always knew what was in man.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Mar 2:6. Certain of the scribes sitting there. The authorized expounders of the law. Luke defines them more particularly (Mar 5:17). These were of the Pharisaical party. From Lukes account and from the term sitting, we infer that they came early; it is probable they were in the upper room where our Lord was, nearer to Him and in the most conspicuous position.
In their hearts. That they did not speak, seems clear from the various accounts.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Mar 2:6 But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts, Mar 2:7
Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?
Luke mentions that Pharisees and doctors were present while Mark mentions the Scribes. All of the spiritual leaders were represented before the Lord. One must wonder if Paul might have been present at some of these gatherings. It was only a few years between this point and the Lord meeting him on the road to Damascus so it is quite possible.
Imagine this group of scribes sitting in the crowd mulling all they are seeing over in their minds. The brain activity must have been generating humongous telepathic waves in the area. These guys must have been fuming in their minds. The sad part is that they had no clue as to who Christ was. They were totally in the dark. They knew nothing of the nature of this man who they were wondering about – not much different than many lost people we mingle with on a daily basis. They do not know Him because they do not know anything about Him.
From all polls and surveys the American Christian may not even know the one they serve all that well. Many give lip service to Christianity but have failed to make it a personal belief. Many espouse Christianity because that was the way they were raised, but if you dig into their beliefs they know little about the true nature of Christ.
Once man knows who Christ is, we know that anything He says or does is the perfect thing for Him to do because He is God – one that is perfection.
Their question betrays them. They have observed Christ forgiving sins, they know that only Godcan forgive sins, thus they wonder at why He is saying these things – they have automatically rejected the idea that He might be God. Not unlike many lost today. They assume that God does not exist, so they are left with tons of questions about why things are the way they are.
Fuente: Mr. D’s Notes on Selected New Testament Books by Stanley Derickson
2:6 But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and {e} reasoning in their hearts,
(e) In their minds disputing upon the matter, arguing both sides.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Jesus’ claim to possess divine authority upset the teachers of the law who were present. The fact that they were sitting in that crowded house shows the respect the Jews gave them. No Old Testament prophet ever claimed personal authority to forgive sins, though Nathan had announced God’s forgiveness to David (2Sa 12:13). The Jews believed even the Messiah could not forgive sins because the Old Testament never attributed that power to Him. Only God could do that (cf. Exo 34:6-9; Psa 103:3; Psa 130:4; Isa 43:25; Isa 44:22; Isa 48:11; Dan 9:9; Mic 7:18). [Note: Cf. Edwards, p. 222.] Consequently they regarded Jesus’ claim as blasphemous. Later they condemned Jesus to death for what they considered blasphemy (Mar 14:61-64).
"So from the very beginning of the story Jesus walks a tightrope-under constant threat-and must evade incriminating charges until the right time. His narrow escape from such a serious charge early in the story contributes significantly to the tension and suspense in this conflict." [Note: Rhoads and Michie, p. 87.]