Mark 2:1

And again he entered into Capernaum, after some days; and it was noised that he was in the house.

EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

II.

(1) And again he entered into Capernaum.—See Notes on Matthew 9:1-8. St. Mark alone names Capernaum, St. Matthew describing it as “His own city.” The house may have been Peter’s, as before in Mark 1:29.

MacLaren's Expositions

Mark

CHRIST’S AUTHORITY TO FORGIVE

Mark 2:1 - Mark 2:12.

Mark alone gives Capernaum as the scene of this miracle. The excitement which had induced our Lord to leave that place had been allowed ‘some days’ to quiet down, ‘after’ which He ventures to return, but does not seem to have sought publicity, but to have remained in ‘the house’-probably Peter’s. There would be at least one woman’s heart there, which would love to lavish grateful service on Him. But ‘He could not be hid,’ and, however little genuine or deep the eagerness might be, He will not refuse to meet it. Mark paints vividly the crowd flocking to the humble home, overflowing its modest capacity, blocking the doorway, and clustering round it outside as far as they could hear Christ’s voice. ‘He was speaking the word to them,’ proclaiming His mission, as He had done in their synagogue, when He was interrupted by the events which follow, no doubt to the gratification of some of His hearers, who wanted something more exciting than ‘teaching.’

I. We note the eager group of interrupters.

Mark gives one of the minute touches which betray an eye-witness and a close observer when he tells us that the palsied man was carried by four friends-no doubt one at each corner of the bed, which would be some light framework, or even a mere quilt or mattress. The incident is told from the point of view of one sitting beside Jesus; they ‘come to Him,’ but ‘cannot come near.’ The accurate specification of the process of removing the roof, which Matthew omits altogether, and Luke tells much more vaguely, seems also to point to an eye-witness as the source of the narrative, who would, of course, be Peter, who well remembered all the steps of the unceremonious treatment of his property. His house was, probably, one of no great pretensions or size, but like hundreds of poor men’s houses in Palestine still-a one-storied building with a low, flat roof, mostly earthen, and easily reached from the ground by an outside stair. It would be somewhat difficult to get a sick man and his bed up there, however low, and somewhat free-and-easy dealing with another man’s house to burrow through the roof a hole wide enough for the purpose; but there is no impossibility, and the difficulty is part of the lesson of the incident, and is recognised expressly in the narrative by Christ’s notice of their ‘faith.’ We can fancy the blank looks of the four bearers, and the disappointment on the sick man’s thin face and weary eyes, as they got to the edge of the crowd, and saw that there was no hope of forcing a passage. Had they been less certain of a cure, and less eager, they would have shouldered their burden and carried him home again. They could well have pleaded sufficient reason for giving up the attempt. But ‘we cannot’ is the coward’s word. ‘We must’ is the earnest man’s. If we have any real consciousness of our need to get to Christ, and any real wish to do so, it is not a crowd round the door that will keep us back. Difficulties test, and therefore increase, faith. They develop a sanctified ingenuity in getting over them, and bring a rich harvest of satisfaction when at last conquered. These four eager faces looked down through the broken roof, when they had succeeded in dropping the bed right at Christ’s feet, with a far keener pleasure than if they had just carried him in by the door. No doubt their act was inconvenient; for, however light the roofing, some rubbish must have come down on the heads of some of the notabilities below. And, no doubt, it was interfering with property as well as with propriety. But here was a sick man, and there was his Healer; and it was their business to get the two together somehow. It was worth risking a good deal to accomplish. The rabbis sitting there might frown at rude intrusiveness; Peter might object to the damage to his roof; some of the listeners might dislike the interruption to His teaching; but Jesus read the action of the bearers and the consent of the motionless figure on the couch as the indication of ‘their faith,’ and His love and power responded to its call.

II. Note the unexpected gift with which Christ answers this faith.

Neither the bearers nor the paralytic speak a word throughout the whole incident. Their act and his condition spoke loudly enough. Obviously, all five must have had, at all events, so much ‘faith’ as went to the conviction that He could and would heal; and this faith is the occasion of Christ’s gift. The bearers had it, as is shown by their work. It was a visible faith, manifest by conduct. He can see the hidden heart; but here He looks upon conduct, and thence infers disposition. Faith, if worth anything, comes to the surface in act. Was it the faith of the bearers, or of the sick man, which Christ rewarded? Both. As Abraham’s intercession delivered Lot, as Paul in the shipwreck was the occasion of safety to all the crew, so one man’s faith may bring blessings on another. But if the sick man too had not had faith, he would not have let himself be brought at all, and would certainly not have consented to reach Christ’s presence by so strange and, to him, dangerous a way-being painfully hoisted up some narrow stair, and then perilously let down, at the risk of cords snapping, or hands letting go, or bed giving way. His faith, apparently, was deeper than theirs; for Christ’s answer, though it went far beyond his or their expectations, must have been moulded to meet his deepest sense of need. His heart speaks in the tender greeting ‘son,’ or, as the margin has it, ‘child’-possibly pointing to the man’s youth, but more probably an appellation revealing the mingled love and dignity of Jesus, and taking this man into the arms of His sympathy. The palsy may have been the consequence of ‘fast’ living; but, whether it were so or no, Christ saw that, in the dreary hours of solitary inaction to which it had condemned the sufferer, remorse had been busy gnawing at his heart, and that pain had done its best work by leading to penitence. Therefore He spoke to the conscience before He touched the bodily ailment, and met the sufferer’s deepest and most deeply felt disease first. He goes to the bottom of the malady with His cure. These great words are not only closely adapted to the one case before Him, but contain a general truth, worthy to be pondered by all philanthropists. It is of little use to cure symptoms unless you cure diseases. The tap-root of all misery is sin; and, until it is grubbed up, hacking at the branches is sad waste of time. Cure sin, and you make the heart a temple and the world a paradise. We Christians should hail all efforts of every sort for making men nobler, happier, better physically, morally, intellectually; but let us not forget that there is but one effectual cure for the world’s misery, and that it is wrought by Him who has borne the world’s sins.

III. Note the snarl of the scribes.

‘Certain of the scribes,’ says Mark-not being much impressed by their dignity, which, as Luke tells us, was considerable. He says that they were ‘Pharisees and doctors of the law . . . out of every village of Galilee and Judaea and Jerusalem itself, who had come on a formal errand of investigation. Their tempers would not be improved by the tearing up of the roof, nor sweetened by seeing the ‘popularity’ of this doubtful young Teacher, who showed that He had the secret, which they had not, of winning men’s hearts. Nobody came crowding to them, nor hung on their lips. Professional jealousy has often a great deal to do in helping zeal for truth to sniff out heresy. The whispered cavillings are graphically represented. The scribes would not speak out, like men, and call on Jesus to defend His words. If they had been sure of their ground, they should have boldly charged Him with blasphemy; but perhaps they were half suspicious that He could show good cause for His speech. Perhaps they were afraid to oppose the tide of enthusiasm for Him. So they content themselves with comparing notes among themselves, and wait for Him to entangle Himself a little more in their nets. They affect to despise Him, ‘This man’ is spoken in contempt. If He were so poor a creature, why were they there, all the way from Jerusalem, some of them? They overdo their part. The short, snarling sentences of their muttered objections, as given in the Revised Version, may be taken as shared among three speakers, each bringing his quota of bitterness. One says, ‘Why doth He thus speak?’ Another curtly answers, ‘He blasphemeth’; while a third formally states the great truth on which they rest their indictment. Their principle is impregnable. Forgiveness is a divine prerogative, to be shared by none, to be grasped by none, without, in the act, diminishing God’s glory. But it is not enough to have one premise of your syllogism right. Only God forgives sins; and if this man says that He does, He, no doubt, claims to be, in some sense, God. But whether He ‘blasphemeth’ or no depends on what the scribes do not stay to ask; namely, whether He has the right so to claim: and, if He has, it is they, not He, who are the blasphemers. We need not wonder that they recoiled from the right conclusion, which is-the divinity of Jesus. Their fault was not their jealousy for the divine honour, but their inattention to Christ’s evidence in support of His claims, which inattention had its roots in their moral condition, their self-sufficiency and absorption in trivialities of externalism. But we have to thank them for clearly discerning and bluntly stating what was involved in our Lord’s claims, and for thus bringing up the sharp issue-blasphemer, or ‘God manifest in the flesh.’

IV. Note our Lord’s answer to the cavils.

Mark would have us see something supernatural in the swiftness of Christ’s knowledge of the muttered criticisms. He perceived it ‘straightway’ and ‘in His spirit,’ which is tantamount to saying by divine discernment, and not by the medium of sense, as we do. His spirit was a mirror, in which looking He saw externals. In the most literal and deepest sense, He does ‘not judge after the sight of His eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of His ears.’

The absence from our Lord’s answer of any explanation that He was only declaring the divine forgiveness and not Himself exercising a divine prerogative, shuts us up to the conclusion that He desired to be understood as exercising it. Unless His pardon is something quite different from the ministerial announcement of forgiveness, which His servants are empowered to make to penitents, He wilfully led the cavillers into error. His answer starts with a counter-question- another ‘why?’ to meet their’ why?’ It then puts into words what they were thinking; namely, that it was easy to assume a power the reality of which could not be tested. To say, ‘Thy sins be forgiven,’ and to say, ‘Take up thy bed,’ are equally easy. To effect either is equally beyond man’s power; but the one can be verified and the other cannot, and, no doubt, some of the scribes were maliciously saying: ‘It is all very well to pretend to do what cannot be tested. Let Him come out into daylight, and do a miracle which we can see.’ He is quite willing to accept the challenge to test His power in the invisible realm of conscience by His power in the visible region. The remarkable construction of the long sentence in Mark 2:10 - Mark 2:11, which is almost verbally identical in the three Gospels, parenthesis and all, sets before us the suddenness of the turn from the scribes to the patient with dramatic force. Mark that our Lord claims ‘authority’ to forgive, the same word which had been twice in the people’s mouths in reference to His teaching and to His sway over demons. It implies not only power, but rightful power, and that authority which He wields as ‘Son of Man’ and ‘on earth.’ This is the first use of that title in Mark. It is Christ’s own designation of Himself, never found on other lips except the dying Stephen’s. It implies His Messianic office, and points back to Daniel’s great prophecy; but it also asserts His true manhood and His unique relation to humanity, as being Himself its sum and perfection-not a, but the Son of Man. Now the wonder which He would confirm by His miracle is that such a manhood, walking on earth, has lodged in it the divine prerogative. He who is the Son of Man must be something more than man, even the Son of God. His power to forgive is both derived and inherent, but, in either aspect, is entirely different from the human office of announcing God’s forgiveness.

For once, Christ seems to work a miracle in response to unbelief, rather than to faith. But the real occasion of it was not the cavils of the scribes, but the faith and need of the man and His friends; while the silencing of unbelief, and the enlightenment of honest doubt, were but collateral benefits.

V. Note the cure and its effect.

This is another of the miracles in which no vehicle of the healing power is employed. The word is enough; but here the word is spoken, not as if to the disease, but to the sufferer; and in His obedience he receives strength to obey. Tell a palsied man to rise and walk when his disease is that he cannot! But if he believes that Christ has power to heal, he will try to do as he is bid; and, as he tries, the paralysis steals out of the long-unused limbs. Jesus makes us able to do what He bids us do. The condition of healing is faith, and the test of faith is obedience. We do not get strength till we put ourselves into the attitude of obedience. The cure was immediate; and the cured man, who was ‘borne of four’ into the healing presence, walked away, with his bed under his arm, ‘before them all.’ They were ready enough to make way for him then. And what said the wise doctors to it all? We do not hear that any of them were convinced. And what said the people? They were ‘amazed,’ and they ‘glorified God,’ and recognised that they had seen something quite new. That was all. Their glorifying God cannot have been very deep-seated, or they would have better learned the lesson of the miracle. Amazement was but a poor result. No emotion is more transient or less fruitful than gaping astonishment; and that, with a little varnish of acknowledgment of God’s power, which led to nothing, was all the fruit of Christ’s mighty work. Let us hope that the healed man carried his unseen blessing in a faithful and grateful heart, and consecrated his restored strength to the Lord who healed him!

Benson Commentary

Mark 2:1-2. 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.

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

2:1-12 It was this man's misery that he needed to be so carried, and shows the suffering state of human life; it was kind of those who so carried him, and teaches the compassion that should be in men, toward their fellow-creatures in distress. True faith and strong faith may work in various ways; but it shall be accepted and approved by Jesus Christ. Sin is the cause of all our pains and sicknesses. The way to remove the effect, is to take away the cause. Pardon of sin strikes at the root of all diseases. Christ proved his power to forgive sin, by showing his power to cure the man sick of the palsy. And his curing diseases was a figure of his pardoning sin, for sin is the disease of the soul; when it is pardoned, it is healed. When we see what Christ does in healing souls, we must own that we never saw the like. Most men think themselves whole; they feel no need of a physician, therefore despise or neglect Christ and his gospel. But the convinced, humbled sinner, who despairs of all help, excepting from the Saviour, will show his faith by applying to him without delay.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

Into Capernaum - See the notes at Matthew 4:13.

After some days - The number of days is not known. Jesus probably remained long enough in the desert to heal the sick who were brought to him, and to give instructions to the multitudes who attended his preaching. Capernaum was not "the city" mentioned in Mark 1:45, and it is probable that there was no difficulty in his remaining there and preaching.

And it was noised ... - He entered the city, doubtless, privately; but his being there was soon known, and so great had his popularity become that multitudes pressed to hear him.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

CHAPTER 2

Mr 2:1-12. Healing of a Paralytic. ( = Mt 9:1-8; Lu 5:17-26).

This incident, as remarked on [1406]Mt 9:1, appears to follow next in order of time after the cure of the leper (Mr 1:40-45).

1. And again he entered into Capernaum—"His own city" (Mt 9:1).

and it was noised that he was in the house—no doubt of Simon Peter (Mr 1:29).

Matthew Poole's Commentary

Chapter Summary

Mark 2:1-2 Christ, followed by multitudes,

Mark 2:3-12 healeth one sick of the palsy,

Mark 2:13-14 calleth Matthew from the receipt of custom,

Mark 2:15-17 justifieth himself for eating with publicans and sinners,

Mark 2:18-22 excuses his disciples for not fasting,

Mark 2:23-28 and vindicates them for plucking the ears of corn on the

sabbath day.

Ver. 1-12. We read the history of this miracle in Matthew nine. See Poole on "Matthew 9:1", and following verses to Matthew 9:8, having there taken in those passages in this evangelist’s relation which Matthew had not, I shall only take notice of some few things not there touched upon.

He preached the word unto them; the word of God, the gospel. There are other words, but that is the word, Matthew 13:20 Mark 8:32 Mark 16:20 Luke 1:2 Acts 17:11: the most excellent word, and the only word to be preached.

Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God? So as it was on all hands then received, that none but the creditor could discharge the debt, none but God could forgive sins. But how spite cankers things! Our Saviour did not say till afterward that he forgave him his sins. What blasphemy was there in this saying, Thy sins be forgiven thee? But what if none but God could forgive sins? Could also any but God tell unto men their thoughts? 1 Samuel 16:7 1 Chronicles 28:9 2 Chronicles 6:30 Psalm 7:9 Jeremiah 17:10. That Christ could tell their thoughts was matter of demonstration to them, Mark 2:6,8; why might they not also have allowed him a power to forgive sins? But they could not for this charge him with blasphemy, which was their malicious design.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

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.

Geneva Study Bible

And {1} again he entered into Capernaum after some days; and it was noised that he was in the {a} house.

(1) By healing this man who was sick from paralysis Christ shows that men recover all their lost strength in him through faith alone.

(a) In the house where he used to remain: for he chose Capernaum to dwell in and left Nazareth.

EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)

Meyer's NT Commentary

Mark 2:1-12. Comp. on Matthew 9:1-8; Luke 5:17-26. At the foundation of both lies the narrative of Mark, which they follow, however, with freedom (Matthew more by way of epitome), while not only Matthew but Luke also falls short of the vivid directness of Mark.

According to the reading εἰσελθών (see the critical remarks), this participle must be taken as anacoluthic in accordance with the conception of the logical subject of the following: it was heard that He, etc. See Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 256 [E. T. 298].

διʼ ἡμερῶν] interjectis diebus, after the lapse of intervening days. See on Galatians 2:1.

εἰς οἶκον ἔστι] just our: “He is into the house.” The verb of rest assumes the previous motion; Mark 13:16; John 1:18; Herod, i. 21, al. See Buttmann, p. 286 [E. T. 333]. Comp. even εἰς δόμους μένειν, Soph. Aj. 80, and Lobeck in loc.; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. 537. The house where Jesus dwelt is meant (but not expressly designated, which would have required the use of the article).

Mark 2:2. μηκέτι] from the conception of the increasing crowd.

μηδέ] not even the space at the door, to say nothing of the house. Köstlin, p. 339, arbitrarily finds exaggeration here.

τὸν λόγον] κατʼ ἐξοχήν: the Gospel. Comp. Mark 8:32; Luke 1:2, al.

Mark 2:3-4. Here also Mark has the advantage of special vividness. Jesus is to be conceived of as in the upper chamber, ὑπερῷον (where the Rabbins also frequently taught, Lightfoot in loc.; Vitringa, Synag. p. 145 f.). Now, as the bearers could not bring the sick man near[61] to Him through the interior of the house by reason of the throng, they mounted by the stair, which led directly from the street to the roof, up to the latter, broke up—at the spot under which He was in the ὙΠΕΡῷΟΝ—the material of which the floor of the roof consisted, and let down the sick man through the opening thus made. The conception that Jesus was in the vestibule, and that the sick man was lowered down to Him after breaking off the parapet of the roof (Faber, Jahn, Köster, Imman. p. 166), is at variance with the words (ἈΠΕΣΤΈΓΑΣΑΝ ΤῊΝ ΣΤΈΓΗΝ, comp. Luke 5:19), and is not required by Mark 2:2, where the crowd has filled the fore-court because the house itself, where Jesus is tarrying, is already occupied (see above on μηδέ, Mark 2:2); and a curious crowd is wont, if its closer approach is already precluded, to persevere stedfastly in its waiting, even at a distance, in the hope of some satisfaction. Moreover, the fact of the unroofing is a proof that in that house roof and upper chamber were either not connected by a door (comp. Joseph. Antt. xiv. 15. 12), or that the door was too narrow for the passage of the sick man upon his bed (Hug, Gutacht. II. p. 23); and it is contrary to the simple words to conceive, with Lightfoot and Olshausen, only of a widening of an already existing doorway. Mark is not at variance with Luke (Strauss), but both describe the same proceeding; and the transaction related by both bears in its very peculiarity the stamp of truth, in favour of which in the case of Mark the testimony of Peter is to be presumed, and against which the assertion of the danger to those who were standing below (Woolston, Strauss, Bruno Bauer) is of the less consequence, as the lifting up of the pieces of roofing is conceivable enough without the incurring of that risk, and the whole proceeding, amidst the eager hurry of the people to render possible that which otherwise was unattainable, in spite of all its strangeness has no intrinsic improbability.

As to κράββατος, or ΚΡΆΒΑΤΟς, or ΚΡΆΒΑΤΤΟς (Lachmann and Tischendorf), a couch-bed, a word rejected by the Atticists, see Sturz, Dial. Mac. p. 175 f.; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 62 f.

ἀφέωνται κ.τ.λ.] See on Matthew 9:2.

Mark 2:6. τῶν γραμματ.] So correctly also Matthew. But Luke introduces already here (too early, see in Mark 2:16) the Pharisees as well. As to διαλογιζ. comp. on Matthew 16:7.

Mark 2:7. According to the reading βλασφημεῖ (see the critical remarks), this word answers to the question, What speaketh this man thus? by saying what He speaks.

ΟὟΤΟς ΟὝΤΩ] this man in this manner, an emphatic juxtaposition. The former is contemptuous (Matthew 13:54); the latter designates the special and surprising manner, which is immediately pointed out in what follows.

Mark 2:8. Observe the intentional bringing into prominence of the immediate knowledge of the thoughts.

ΑὐΤΟΊ] is not the unaccented they, but designates with ἐν ἑαυτοῖς, ipsi in semet ipsis, the element of self-origination, the cogitationes sua sponte conceptas.

As to Mark 2:9-12,[62] see on Matthew 9:5-8; Matthew 9:33.

σοὶ λέγω] σοί prefixed with emphasis, because the speaker now turns to the sick man. Comp. Luke 5:24. According to Hilgenfeld, the “awkward structure of the sentence,” Mark 2:10 f., betrays the dependence on Matthew 9:6. Why, then, not the converse?

καὶ ᾄρας κ.τ.λ.] Thus the assurance of the remission of sins, according to Schenkel, must have stimulated the paralyzed elasticity of the nerves! A fancy substituted for the miracle.

οὕτως … εἴδομεν] not equivalent to τοιοῦτο εἴδ. (see on Matthew 9:33), but: so we have never seen, i.e. a sight in such a fashion we have never met with. Comp. the frequent ὡς ὁρᾶτε. It is not even requisite to supply τί (Fritzsche), to say nothing of mentally adding the manifestation of the kingdom of God, or the like.

[61] Προσεγγίσαι, active (Aquila, 1 Samuel 30:7; Lucian, Amor. 53), hence the reading of Tischendorf, προσενέγκαι, following B L א, min. vss., is a correct interpretation of the word, which only occurs here in the N. T. This view is more in keeping with the vivid description than the usual intransitive accedere.

[62] Respecting the Messianic designation—which presupposes Messianic consciousness—coming from the mouth of Jesus: ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, see on Matthew 8:20, and the critical exposition of the different views by Holtzmann in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1865, p. 212 ff., and Weizsäcker, p. 426 ff. Observe, however, that the passage before us, where Jesus thus early and in the face of His enemies, before the people and before His disciples, and in the exercise of a divine plenary power, characterizes Himself by this Danielic appellation, does not admit of the set purpose of veiling that has been ascribed to His use of it (Ritschl, Weisse, Colani, Holtzmann, and others). For the disciple especially the expression, confirmed as it is, moreover, by John from his own lively recollection (see on John 1:41), could not but be from the outset clear and unambiguous, and the confession of Peter cannot be regarded as the gradually ripened fruit of the insight now for the first time dawning. See on Matthew 16:13; Matthew 16:17. How correctly, moreover, the people knew how to apprehend the Danielic designation of the Messiah, is clearly apparent from John 12:34.

Expositor's Greek Testament

Mark 2:1-12. The palsied man (Matthew 9:1-8; Luke 5:17-26).

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Ch. Mark 2:1-12. The Paralytic and the Power to forgive Sins

1. he entered] after the subsidence of the late excitement.

the house] Either His own house, which He occupied with His mother and His brethren (Mark 3:21), or possibly that of St Peter.

Bengel's Gnomen

Mark 2:1. Πάλιν, again) Comp. ch. Mark 1:21; Mark 1:29.—δἰ ἡμέρων) After some days had intervened. [It is one and the same return into the city of Capernaum, of which Mark makes mention in this place after the healing of the leper; Matthew, after the return from the region of the Gergesenes, in his ch. Mark 9:1 : it is also the same man sick of the palsy, whom Mark and Luke, after Matthew, treat of.—Harm., p. 276].

Pulpit Commentary

Verse 1. - The first sentence of this verse is better rendered thus: And when he entered again (εἰσελθῶν πάλιν) into Capernaum after some days; literally, after days (δι ἡμερῶν). It is probable that a considerable interval had taken place since the events recorded in the former chapter. It was noised that he was in the house (ὅτι εἰς οϊκόν ἐστὶ); or, if the ὅτι be regarded as recitative, it was noised, He is in the house, at home, in his usual place of residence at Capernaum. Mark 2:1

Vincent's Word Studies

It was noised (ἠκούσθη)

Lit., it was heard.

That he was in the house (ὅτι εἰς οἶκόν ἐστιν)

The ὅτι, that, is recitative, introducing the report in the direct form. It was reported - he is in the house! The preposition in is literally into, carrying the idea of the motion preceding the stay in the house. "He has gone into the house, and is there." But the best texts read ἐν οἴκῳ in the house. The account of this rumor is peculiar to Mark.

He preached (ἐλάλει)

Lit., spake, as Rev. Imperfect tense. He was speaking when the occurrence which follows took place.